I have received advice from the chief government whip, nominating members to be members of certain committees.
by leave—I move:
I move that Ms Price be discharged from the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs, Mr Williams be discharged from the Standing Committee on Tax and Revenue, Mr Taylor be discharged from the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties and Mr Hartsuyker, Ms Price and Mr Williams be appointed members of the committee.
Question agreed to.
Mr Speaker, today I will take the opportunity to give the House a refresher on its rules applying to petitioning—and the practical and quite logical reasons why these rules exist.
During most months the committee will receive completed petitions which do not meet one or more of the House's standing order requirements. These petitions have been prepared with consideration of the subject matter and sometimes many hours of work devoted to the collection of signatures. However, as these petitions have not been prepared to consider the House's petitioning requirements they are unable to be presented in the House.
These petitioners are obviously very disappointed to learn that their petition has not met the House's rules—and on occasion, petitioners have remarked that the rules are pedantic. To the casual observer, these comments may ring true. But the reality is that the rules governing petitioning—which were agreed to following an inquiry process by the Procedure Committee in 2007—exist for very good reasons.
The Procedure Committee concluded that the rules governing petitioning must be fair and relevant—and these principals underpin the current petitioning standing orders. The petitioning rules help to ensure the authenticity of petitions and to protect those who sign them. They are not a new concept to the House—the current rules are surprisingly similar to those used early last century—and in similar parliamentary systems.
I will now outline the main petitioning requirements and the reasons behind them. Petitions to the House must contain the following content. First, they must be addressed to the House and the House only. Standing order 204 requires petitions to be addressed to the House of Representatives. A petition is a one-off document, prepared for the attention of the House's elected representatives. After a petition is tabled, it becomes a House record and therefore cannot be tabled elsewhere—for example, in the Senate. Nor can it be forwarded elsewhere—to, say, the Prime Minister.
Second, the petition must refer to a matter on which the House has the power to act. If the House does not have the authority over the matter raised in a petition, it cannot respond. A petition to the House on a matter falling under local or state governments cannot be dealt with by the House because the federal government does not have the power under the Constitution to take action.
The petition must also clearly state the reasons for petitioning. This not only clarifies the request for action and ensures a thorough response to the matter but also ensures resources are not wasted on frivolous or vexatious petitions.
The petition must contain a specific request for action to be undertaken by the House. Standing order 204 stipulates that the petition must contain a request for action by the House. This cannot merely be a statement, as in 'The time has come.' Nor can it be an aspiration, like 'All Australia's children should be happy.' And it cannot be a threat of petitioner action.
The petition must also meet the following rules. The terms of the petition which are the reasons for the petition and the request must not exceed 250 words. This is to ensure that the matter is able to be concisely conveyed to the House and to provide a standardised approach so that no petition is favoured over another. The terms must be legibly written on the first page of the petition, followed by the full name, address and original handwritten signature of the principal petitioner. Standing order 204 ensures that the principal petitioner is authentic and can be contacted about action on the petition. The language used must be moderate in nature and the terms cannot request something that is illegal or promote illegal acts. The specific request which appears on the first page of the petition must appear as identically worded on subsequent pages, followed by original, handwritten signatures. The rationale for this is that people signing petitions are actually signing to the cause identified, rather than on a blank page which could be used for any number of other petition requests or other invalid purposes. A person should only be bound by a petition which they understand and have actually signed for themselves. A petition must not be amended after signature collection. This is to ensure that the original intent of the petition was not subsequently changed after signatories signed their support. Petitioners cannot retrospectively change words or make additions either by pasting or penning attachments. This rule keeps the process authentic, as does the requirement that a petition must be in English or accompanied by a certified translation. A member of the House of Representatives, per standing order 205(c), is unable to be a principal petitioner. And they cannot sign a petition, either. This ensures that the spirit of petitioning is maintained—that petitioning is undertaken by citizens to their elected representatives. It also maintains the independence of members, who may be asked to assist petitioners with the requirements of petitioning or to deliver a petition to the Petitions Committee.
The petitioning rules have been formulated carefully and thoughtfully, and are designed to protect everyone who participates in the House's petitioning system.
On behalf of the Joint Select Committee on Northern Australia, I present the committee's report entitled Scaling up: inquiry into opportunities for expanding aquaculture in northern Australia, together with the minutes of proceedings.
Scaling up is the report of an in-depth investigation into the aquaculture industry in Northern Australia following on from the committee's earlier report, Pivot north.
Northern Australia has a natural advantage for aquaculture production, including a long coastline, pristine waters, the availability of suitable land, and proximity to Asia.
The tropical climate also encourages high aquaculture growth rates and there are a number of aquaculture species which occur naturally in northern Australia.
Most seafood consumed in Australia is imported and this provides local producers, including aquaculture ventures, with a significant opportunity to increase market share through import replacement.
An obstacle, however, is an exemption from country-of-origin labelling requirements for food prepared for immediate consumption, such as in restaurants, cafes, and clubs.
Interestingly, the Northern Territory does not have this exemption. Consumers in restaurants in other states and territories should also be allowed to make informed choices and the committee has recommended this anomaly be removed.
Northern Australian aquaculture is relatively underdeveloped compared to other Australian jurisdictions, but barramundi and prawn aquaculture is poised to expand.
Across the Top End and the Torres Strait, there is greater potential for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander management of coastal waters and fisheries, and potential for sea ranching of clams, oysters, pearl meat, triton shell and trochus shell.
For example, there are moves to increase the involvement of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities in crocodile farming and trepang-ranching enterprises. As well, triton shell could be produced for the environmental management of the crown-of-thorns starfish. Such developments can boost Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employment.
The Australian South Sea pearling industry is facing significant challenges including widespread damage arising from oyster oedema disease.
Consequently, the committee has recommended that an Australian pearl industry recovery taskforce be established to fund research to identify the causative agent and possible remedial action.
The committee has been encouraged by the move to create aquaculture development zones in Western Australia and the Northern Territory, which will ensure certainty for industry by defining approval conditions and reducing approval times.
In Northern Queensland, in contrast, the development of aquaculture, which is influenced by the need to protect the waters of the Great Barrier Reef, has seen impediments to aquaculture development to a degree not commensurate with its projected impact on the health of the Great Barrier Reef.
There is a pressing need, particularly in Queensland, for scientific certainty and regulatory clarity concerning potential aquaculture industry impacts. To assist science-based decision-making, there should be research into the potential for environmental impact arising from aquaculture ventures in areas adjacent to the Great Barrier Reef.
The committee was heartened by the degree to which there is common ground amongst stakeholders as to how to resolve any development impasse in Queensland.
The committee is confident that aquaculture companies are taking steps to reduce their environmental impact and comply with environmental regulatory requirements.
The expansion of aquaculture in northern Australia increases the need for a skilled workforce, and training institutions will need to provide industry-focused training courses to meet the anticipated skill-set requirements of expanding aquaculture ventures.
In its first report, Pivot north, the committee recognised the need for significant infrastructure investment in Northern Australia. In Scaling up, the committee has recommended funding assistance for developing road and port infrastructure to service the Kimberley Aquaculture Development Zone and Project Sea Dragon in the Northern Territory.
Another consideration is the need for pest and disease diagnosis facilities to provide real-time diagnosis and treatment strategies to aquaculture ventures.
Locating a diagnosis facility within a university campus would enable access to a broad range of scientific expertise which could be harnessed to serve other primary industries.
Development of other facilities to support an expanding aquaculture industry, such as hatcheries, feed mills and fish processing facilities, should ideally be led by industry demand.
Finally, I would like to thank all those who participated in the inquiry by providing submissions, appearing at public hearings and hosting inspections. I would also like to thank my committee colleagues for their commitment to the work of this committee and in particular this inquiry. Mr Speaker, I commend the report to the House.
Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).
I thank our committee chair for such a strong overview of the work of the committee. The really exciting thing that we discovered is that there has been a step change in aquaculture that is revolutionising this industry, including the development of the effect of recirculating systems with a nutrient cycle that is effectively closed. One of the big challenges with aquaculture has been the impact on surrounding environments of effluent discharge from the intense presence of a fish population. I want to commend, in particular, James Cook University on the extraordinary work that they are doing with private sector partners on this and developing land based recirculating aquaculture systems which filter water from fish tanks for re-use within the tank, significantly reducing the amount of space and water required for intensive seafood production. These systems do not interact with the natural environment. They also have the added value of creating a nutrient-rich waste stream which can be used in other applications. Currently, we see it being used for fertiliser production and for hydroponics. Suddenly, the nature of this industry can change quite rapidly. We should be embracing that.
I want to add my voice to the issue of labelling of food products. We have very high standards of production here in Australia and we need to ensure that Australian producers are given the benefit of those. I believe that we should be adopting across Australia similar food labelling provisions to those that we see in the Northern Territory. It is fair for the consumers and it is fair for our producers. We have higher standards and the consumer is entitled to know what is an Australian product. I urge us to move very quickly on that.
I would go further. As the report recommends, we should do likewise with pearls and crocodile teeth. I think it is important that people who shop in Broome or Darwin are able to distinguish what is an Australian made pearl. One of the committee's recommendations is that we have a report on that within 12 months.
I would also express my extreme concern about the lack of urgency that has surrounded the response to the oyster oedema disease syndrome which has devastated pearling stocks in Western Australia and, to some extent, in the Northern Territory. There is a need for us to fund research into that. Unfortunately, the industry bodies are dominated by players who have interest in overseas pearling, so for them it is not such a priority. But I do urge us to understand that this is not only about the pearling industry but also about the whole tourism industry, particularly in Western Australia and more particularly in Broome. If we get to a point where the pearl industry in Broome becomes unviable, that will very much undermine the tourism industry in Broome and the Kimberley generally, and that will have a significant impact on those communities. I am very concerned. I am very pleased that the committee has got behind a recommendation that we set up a proper pearling taskforce and deal with this issue. I very much support the recommendations that we have here. I particularly want to recognise the great characters that we have in that industry and the great science that is being done around the area of aquaculture.
The time allotted for statements on this report has expired. Does the honourable member for Leichhardt wish to move a motion in connection with the report to enable it to be debated on a later occasion?
I move:
That the House take note of the report.
In accordance with standing order 39, the debate is adjourned, and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
I move:
That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
In raising this issue in the parliament, you wonder why people hate politicians. I do not know if people have noticed it, but in our home state of Queensland we change our Premier every 2.3 years, and we are getting close to that now in the federal parliament. It is a vote that people hate you; it is a vote that they do not like you. They will vote one mob out. They will just vote against whoever is there. The next mob will go in and they will vote against them. In Queensland, we had one change of government in 90 years. Clearly we liked what we were getting. The great labour movement dominated our state in those days. We owe so much to that great labour movement which swept out of Queensland and took over the running of Australia.
I have to mention in speaking to this bill my worthy colleague from Denison. In this place, the people have a voice. Those voices happen to be the few of us who are sitting here. The others are just silly, because they get up and say something, like the last speaker said we should be doing something about labelling. We have moved motions in the House again and again and we cannot get a single vote from anyone. In a survey of your electorate, 90 per cent of people want it, but people in this place do not serve the people; they serve a political party. Here is a classic example of it. The laughing stock of Australia is the government. A government that hands out Australian flags which are made in China. This is a government which has the boots of its soldiers made in China. It is a government that buys a Steyr rifle—we are the only country in the world buying Steyr rifles—it is actually made in Australia, but of course all the detailed fabrication is done in a foreign country.
What this bill will do, if we could get some people to break party lines and vote for the welfare of the Australian people, is that it creates—and let's be specific and talk about the submarines. I am told—I have read in the newspaper; we cannot get any information out of the government—that there are some 4,000 jobs involved in this operation. If we are getting light ships built—patrol boats—there is Cairns, there is Tasmania and there is Fremantle. They are all capable of doing the job at the present moment. But if government contracts do not go to them then they will lose the technology and the capacity to build anything.
This is an interesting period in Australian history, because in the last six months Australia has made its last motor car. In the last six months Australia has made its last washing machine. This country can no longer produce whitegoods—refrigerators, washing machines, stoves or whatever you like—and it can no longer produce a motor car. In the OECD countries, they have an 'elaborately transformed' column. But we really do not have a column any more, because we do not 'elaborately transform' anything! We moved out of the OECD countries into the Third World countries, that have no industrial capacity whatsoever!
If you produce the submarines in Australia, there is a great quote. It was in the context of the argument about whether Australia should make its own motorcars. This quote was from a huge argument in America over the Brooklyn Bridge. The chief protagonist, a senator from New York, said, 'All I know is the British may be able to make better bridges than we Americans, but if we build the bridge then we have the money for the bridge and we have the bridge. If the English build the bridge, well, we got the bridge but they got the money.'
Therein lies the foundation argument for the submarines. And if the argument is that we do not have the technology, well how the hell are we ever going to get the technology unless we have a go at it? Unless we face the challenge?
I see the hypocrisy of the government with their innovative advertisements on the television. Innovation! How can you innovate when you have no market to innovate for? When there is no production market out there I see very little point in innovating. But 4,000 jobs are to be created, so somewhere in Australia 4,000 people go off the welfare rights. And if that is $40,000 per person, we are talking about thousands of millions of dollars that are saved automatically because people somewhere will come off the welfare rolls; if 4,000 extra jobs are created then somewhere someone has to come off the welfare rolls. Whether you use the figure of $30,000, or $40,000 or $60,000 a year for a person on welfare, or a family on welfare, I will leave that to other people in this place.
When you pay those 4,000 workers, you get tax revenue from them. In fact, one quarter of what you pay them comes back to the government by way of tax revenue. So when we compare the real cost of getting the Germans or the Japanese to build the submarines, take out a quarter of the labour costs because that comes back to the government by way of tax.
I remember a great quote from the Chancellor of the Exchequer in Britain. He resigned because he could not serve under Margaret Thatcher anymore. And to some degree it was about the closure of the coal industry. He said, 'I could not convince her that, when you take a person off work, you lose the tax revenue and then you have to pay them on welfare.' If you add both those factors up, you end up behind: it was better to keep the coal mines working, even though they were running at a loss. He said, 'I failed to convince the woman.' That he did not have a high respect for her intelligence and her thinking capacity was fairly obvious in what he was saying.
Finally, if Australia is to have a technology industry and a defence capability, it needs these things to be built in Australia. At least we could make the boots in Australia! The member for Denison served his country well and proudly in the Army. Three years ago, I was speaking to the Warrant Officer at the catafalque party on Anzac Day in Charters Towers. I said, 'Is it true that the soles fell off the boots of 2,000 soldiers while they were marching in the Anzac Parade in Townsville?' He did not say anything. But he lifted his foot up. He had been walking on his socks. All he had was the uppers of his boots! I mean, what sort of country purchases its boots from a communist country that we have traditionally been on the other side of the fence from? We fought a war against them in Korea. The last serious war that this country fought in was the Korean War. To have them making our boots puts a whole new slant on 'Pig Iron Bob' attacks on the government!
In all seriousness, for our country to go forward without the capacity to have any sophisticated technology whatsoever is a disgrace to every single person in this parliament. And for them to contemplate for even a single second having our submarines built outside Australia is appalling. (Time expired)
Is the motion seconded?
I second the remarkable member for Kennedy's bill and reserve my right to speak.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this House acknowledges that penalty rates are relied upon by Australian workers and their families to cover everyday costs of living, no matter if they are full time, part time or casual, including workers such as:
(1) nurses;
(2) police, firefighters and ambulance officers;
(3) retail and hospitality workers;
(4) manufacturing industry employees;
(5) services sector employees; and
(6) tourism and transport industry employees.
Penalty rates form a critical part of the incomes of nurses, police, retail and hospitality workers, manufacturing workers, people who work in services and people who work in tourism and transport. All of these workers rely on their penalty rates as part of their take-home income. Frequently, these people work the night shift and unsocial hours on the weekend to be able to provide the money to keep their household budgets afloat—to keep their kids clothed and going to school, to keep the mortgage paid and to keep food on the table. So it is incredibly disturbing that in South Australia and across the nation there is a trifecta of parties who want to pretend that penalty rates are not important and to begin to destroy them in one form or another. Some of these parties opt for an outright attack on penalty rates. But many others, in a more political fashion, want to cut penalty rates as you would cut an onion—slice by slice by slice. We see in this parliament and across the nation over time these attempts to cut up penalty rates. That fallacy—that we live in a seven-day society and weekends do not matter anymore—has been frequently proved wrong whenever someone has turned up to a marginal seat MP's office on the weekend or has rung one of these employer groups on the weekend and found that the answering service is on. For many, the weekend is alive and well.
Look at the various parties. Look at the article dated 7 October 2015 headed 'Briggs steps up Turnbull attack on penalty rates'. It is all about how the member for Mayo, who is a colleague of mine from South Australia, wanted to get rid of penalty rates for small business. I do not think I am paraphrasing him there. That is what he intended to do. More recently, we have had Michaelia Cash talking in similar terms about getting rid of penalty rates. Oddly enough, the Prime Minister has gone cold on this, just like he has gone cold on the GST. They are all matters, presumably, he would come back to if and when he is granted a second term.
In my state, there are other parties as well who want to get rid of penalty rates. For instance, Family First want to get rid of penalty rates. People who are voting for Family First in the Senate would do well to look at Senator Day's proposals. He does not want to just get rid of penalty rates, which he proposed to do in his Fair Work Amendment (Penalty Rates Exemption for Small Businesses) Bill 2015—it was one of the bills he put up—he also wants to get rid of the minimum wage for young people. It is extraordinary, for someone who stands for a party that says they want to put families first, to put forward a policy in parliament that would actually diminish families' incomes.
We know that the new Nick Xenophon Team also has a hostility to penalty rates. Senator Xenophon also presented a Fair Work amendment bill with the same effect—that is, getting rid of penalty rates but just for retail workers and hospitality workers—in an attempt, as I said before, to cut the onion. We know that Stirling Griff, a would-be senator for the Nick Xenophon Team, has some form in this regard. He called penalty rates 'a noose around the neck of small business'.
You can see that there is a trifecta of parties—the Liberal Party, the Family First party, the Nick Xenophon Team—all with a hostility to penalty rates and all vowing to cut them by introducing Senate bills. We know that there was a bidding war about who could be toughest on penalty rates. Now that we are coming into a election year we want to put these three parties, this trifecta of parties that are against penalty rates, to the test and find out whether they have electoral support for their policies. I think we will find that they do not have any support at all out there in the public.
I thank the member for Wakefield for providing the opportunity for this side of the House to present our position on the issue of penalty rates. There is no doubt that the average Australian household relies upon many contributing factors when making up their weekly wages, with penalty rates for working outside what can be deemed normal working hours just one component. We are in an age of flexible working arrangements, extended trading hours and the availability of 24/7 online capabilities. We need to re-evaluate what is deemed normal working hours. After all, what was relevant and required last century is no longer relevant to today's 24/7 environment. However, that is a discussion for another day.
Today we are here to talk about penalty rates. I am sure that, it being an election year, the topic of penalty rates will be brought to the public's attention time and time again, particularly given the unions have invested $30 million in a scare-and-deceive campaign. It is well known that the ACTU have been spending their hardworking members' money to spread deceitful and misleading lies about cutting local jobs, weekend penalty rates and workers' rights. They distribute flyers, hold phoney debates and use their social media trolls to make deceitful and misleading claims in their desperation to claim back power and control of the Australian parliament. Shame! Sadly, it appears only the Labor Party and their BFFs, the unions, are the only ones who do not know or want to admit that penalty rates are a matter for the Fair Work Commission to determine, not the government.
I would like to make my position very clear. I am a strong supporter of local jobs. I am a strong supporter of working with employers and employees to ensure the best possible outcomes for all parties, in regard to penalty rates. I am a strong support of workers' rights and of making sure every employee is treated fairly and with respect. The government has no plans to change the way penalty rates are set.
When Bill Shorten was workplace relations minister he explicitly amended the Fair Work Act to specifically require the Fair Work Commission to review all penalty rates in awards. As a result of Labor's review, employees and restaurants had their Sunday penalty rates cut. This is the only time in Australian history when award penalty rates have been lowered, and it was under a Labor government and with the blessing of the unions. The Fair Work Act provides unions and employers the ability to make arrangements that can vary penalty rates as long as employees are deemed better off overall when compared to the relevant industry award. Unions such as the AWU and the SDA routinely use the enterprise bargaining system to negotiate changes to penalty rates in return for other trade-offs, such as high base rates of pay, to ensure a win-win result.
Interestingly, small business advocates have warned that this system favours larger employers who can negotiate concessions while leaving smaller employers out in the cold with little leverage to secure their own deals. For example, while the general retail award applying to small business owners sets Sunday rates at double time, the Woolworths national enterprise agreement, negotiated with the SDA and signed in 2012, sets the Sunday rate at time and a half.
We need a system that ensures a level playing field for smaller and larger employers alike; after all, collectively, small business is Australia's largest employer. No-one would ever disagree that there are some services that are absolutely vital to the Australian community. These include, for example, nurses, police, fire fighters, ambulance officers and some service sector employees. These professions require the utmost in professionalism and dedication; our lives are in their hands. I support them receiving appropriate remuneration for the hours that they work.
Small businesses that operate around Australia also rely on their income to support their household budgets. The reality is that there needs to be a fair and equitable payment system that ensures workers are paid appropriately for their time and skill level and ensures that employers are able to run sustainable and productive businesses that can grow and effectively create more employment for the economy.
Our community has a diverse and dynamic make-up that is far from routine. This includes our working community. Whether it is full-time, part-time or casual work in the day time, night time or on weekends, every job undertaken by a member of our community keeps our economy turning and contributes to our way of life. Every job is important. This is why making sure that the appropriate remuneration for skill level and time worked is important. It is imperative that we ensure that any system of employment works for all parties involved, not just those represented by a union thugs.
Is the motion seconded?
I second the motion. I rise to speak on the motion about the importance of penalty rates to Australian workers and their families. I support the member for Wakefield's motion as the son of a nurse and the partner of a former child protection worker who did shift work, including night work and a lot of weekend work. Now she is a lawyer, so I am the only one in my household who works weekends. I, like all of my colleagues in the Australian Labor Party, including the shadow minister beside me, will always support decent jobs with decent pay, decent rights and decent conditions, as do all unions. Unions were formed to look after workers. At the moment, whenever members of the coalition talk about penalty rates, they are sadly only talking about cutting these rates. Penalty rates compensate people for the time they miss out with their families when they have to work on weekends, nights or public holidays. I remember many, many Christmases where my mum or my wife was not able to attend because they were out serving their community. Labor knows that a cut to penalty rates is a cut to pay. It means workers and the families of the 4.5 million Australians who rely on penalty rates will be worse off.
At a time when Australia is experiencing the lowest wage growth in 25 years, it is astounding that the Abbott-Turnbull governments have even considered cutting the incomes of Australian workers. I notice that Minister Cormann sporadically makes this point and even occasionally seems to believe this point. We now have a Prime Minister who has very little understanding of or empathy towards families who struggle to make ends meet. We need a Prime Minister who understands that penalty rates are crucial in some households. That is why the Prime Minister continues to turn a blind eye to things like tax avoidance by some of this country's biggest companies while simultaneously presiding over the death of the traditional weekend and the associated penalty rates for everyday Australians. Too often recently, the Australian economic debate has boiled down to a call to slash penalty rates and remove important employee protections, and we have seen that the government of Prime Minister Turnbull has rewarded people that have called for cuts to penalty rates by appointing them to government positions.
Currently working under these provisions are nurses, police and emergency service workers. Reports have shown that a cut in Sunday penalty rates could potentially cost young nurses and midwives $2,000 a year at a minimum. For those with more experience, it would be many thousands more. Our nurses, our police and our emergency service providers have one of the most important and sometimes, sadly, one of the most dangerous jobs: to deliver care or protection to people who at any time may be some of the most vulnerable members of our community. It is only fair that these workers are fairly compensated for the work they do at unsociable hours and on weekends and public holidays, when they leave their families to care for others. To even suggest that such workers would lose their penalty rates is disrespectful and should be condemned.
The government may intend the attack on penalty rates to exclude nurses, police, firefighters or ambulance officers, but the idea that in their place retail, hospitality, manufacturing, services, tourism and transport workers should have this pay cut is outrageous. Working- and middle-class families are already struggling to keep their heads above water. I know of thousands of people in my electorate who rely on weekend penalty rates to simply make ends meet, and this is a vote changer topic from what I can tell from the street stalls I did on the weekend.
Penalty rates for these industries are not a luxury, and rarely are they used to generate per-capita disposable income; they are instead what puts food on the table and petrol in the car for millions of Australian families. For example, take Ben, a university student from the bush living in my electorate of Moreton. I particularly ask the National Party to take note of this, because, like so many people moving to Brisbane from the country to attend university, he studies full time and lives in a share house with friends, but, in order to pay for rent, food, household amenities and university supplies, Ben works in the retail sector and, due to university commitments, has no other option than working on the weekends. So a reduction or removal of weekend penalty rates will considerably damage Ben's living arrangements and those of millions of other Australians, particularly those brighter kids from the bush that are trying to improve their circumstances. The reality is that weekend work is not just for emergency service workers; it is also for kids from the bush like Ben. For many workers in retail, hospitality, manufacturing, services, tourism and transport, weekend work is not a choice; it is unavoidable and vitally important for their families' future, and those industries depend on their labour and the Labor Party to protect their rights. (Time expired)
I must admit that I am a little confused about this debate. We have heard the member for Wakefield and the member for Moreton come to the dispatch box and rabbit on about supposed cuts to penalty rates for nurses and emergency services workers. I know of no such proposals. No-one in this country is suggesting that our nurses and our emergency services workers, who do a very important and valued job, should have their penalty rates cut. The only people that are talking about this are the Labor Party. Sadly, it is nothing other than a shameful scare campaign. To go out there and to scare workers—to scare nurses and emergency services workers—into thinking there is some plan to cut their penalty rates is absolutely shameful. But that is what we have seen in this chamber this morning—just a shameful, misleading scare campaign.
A concept everyone here agrees with is: if someone works unsocial hours, they should be paid a higher rate of remuneration. We must look at this as overtime rates rather than penalty rates. The distinction is a penalty is a deterrent to employment. We cannot have penalty rates set in certain industries that become deterrents to employment. Where that becomes important is not at all in our Public Service areas, because their wages are funded by government, whether they are state or federal, but in the private sector, where the only way those penalty wages and those overtime rates can be paid is through the profits of the business. If the business is not making a profit, it cannot pay those overtime rates. So there is no point if a business is closed because those overtime rates are too high. We must remember that, if the wage being paid is zero, it does not matter what the overtime rate is, because it simply becomes a deterrent to employment.
That is what we are seeing in some areas of the hospitality industry today. That is all that we are talking about. That is all the discussion is through the Productivity Commission. That is the only very narrow area in this economy. The question is: in some limited areas of the hospitality industry are the penalty rates on a Sunday actually set at a rate that is costing jobs? No-one benefits if a business is closed and the workers get no jobs because the penalty rates are set too high, and that is exactly what we are seeing. I am glad that the member for Wakefield moved this motion. There was an example recently in his home state on Australia Day where a business put up a sign out the front apologising to their customers that they were closed because they simply could not generate enough profit on the day to pay a penalty rate of $48 per hour plus superannuation. They would have had to raise profits from that business at $50 an hour to pay their staff, and they did their sums and they could not do it. So the penalty rate actually cost jobs. Where members of the Labor Party feel sorry for and give examples of people who are concerned they will have their penalty rates cut, I am concerned about people who are getting a wage of zero on a Sunday because the penalty rates are set too high.
There is another case where we have seen disparity. The unions have signed up agreements to cut penalty rates with the big supermarkets, so now we have this two-tier system where our larger supermarket chains are paying a much lower penalty rate on the weekend than small businesses are—signed up by members of the Labor Party. They are the ones who cut the penalty rates of their own workers because of their nice cosy deal with the big supermarkets. In this economy we want as many people to earn as many dollars as they possibly can. That is the ultimate aim of this government, but we cannot do that if in the hospitality industry in some small areas it is actually costing jobs. (Time expired)
I also thank the member for Wakefield for bringing this important motion to us. I thank the member for Hughes for at least being able to qualify for us that not only are those sitting opposite the party that wanted to Americanise our education system; they also want to Americanise our industrial relations system. They want people working in hospitality to survive on tips. When we look at that we need to make sure we put this in context. This is the party that introduced Work Choices in 2007. Remember what that did? Work Choices for the very first time in our history made it legal to employ people below an award. They are the people who now say, 'We're feeling sorry for people because they can't open because they think the costs are too high.' No-one is considering the issue about workers here. My dad was a police officer. All my life I have known him to be a shiftworker. My brother was a paramedic with the Ambulance Service of New South Wales—a shiftworker. My son Jonathan is a builder. He has been a shiftworker all his life. My other son Nicholas, an electrician, is a shiftworker.
Mr Deputy Speaker Kelly, do you realise that, according to the last census, there are 1.5 million Australians who are shiftworkers? They depend on their penalty rates. As a matter of fact, 30 per cent of their earnings come from penalty rates. If you listened to all these people opposite you would think that, yes, we could cut those workers' wages by 30 per cent. You would think we could manipulate shiftwork payments and create more jobs because they are going to pay people less. That is a fallacy. All of those the opposite are talking about are some people being able to go out and make more profits. Simply cutting penalty rates does not give you extra customers. Simply cutting penalty rates does not suddenly increase your trade. I will tell you what it does do. As soon as you cut penalty rates, you cut people's take-home pay. That is what this is all about. This is not an issue of how we are going to stimulate the economy by cutting wages.
We sitting here in parliament do not get penalty rates, but I think that those of us who have the honour of representing our communities do pretty well. We are well remunerated for what we do. I am not sure those opposite are going to say, 'Let's peg our rates.' Let us put this in context. When we talk about this, we are talking about cutting the rates of pay for people who are, in many instances, some of the lowest paid people in the country—people in retail and hospitality. They are the equivalent of those people who, in America, rely on tips. This is just another exercise of trying to cut rates of pay.
The McKell Institute discovered that cutting penalty rates for rural workers would cost workers about $900 million to $1.5 billion per annum. The cost to local communities was that people's disposable income—what they could spend in their local communities—would reduce by about $500 million. This would really impact on rural communities.
This is not a magical job-creating situation where, all of a sudden, we are going to create 60,000 jobs. What we might do is create more employment, but it will be at a lower rate of pay. To earn the rate of money they currently enjoy, people would have to work extra shifts. This is about reducing the take-home pay of people and saying that, somehow, it is going to stimulate industry. That is a complete fallacy. The majority of Australians support penalty rates. We know that; that is a fact. In 2007, the majority of Australians said that tampering with the industrial relations system to allow people to be paid lower than award rates of pay was a no-go zone.
These are things that do not just affect people who vote Labor. We are talking about retail and hospitality workers—low-paid workers, on the whole. Maybe they do vote for us, but I am sure you have a lot of such people in your communities who vote conservative. Maybe they vote for the Liberals sometimes—poorly advised, of course—or maybe for the Nationals. If you look in your communities, you will find a considerable number of people who are completely reliant on their penalty rates. Simply to go and cut their penalty rates will not do anything to stimulate our economy.
Mr Deputy Speaker Kelly, I invite you to Magnetic Island. Magnetic Island, off the coast of Townsville, is the jewel in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. It is truly the most wonderful place in the world. As you board the ferry and go across to Magnetic Island, you feel your blood pressure lower. It is the most relaxing part of the world. You can go across there and do all sorts of things. You can ride your pushbike, you can go topless in a motor car—the car, not the person, has no top; they call it Tropical Topless and Classic Moke Car Rentals—you can hop on a little moped and go around, and you can go to Alma Bay, Horseshoe Bay, Geoffrey Bay, anywhere you want. But you have to be careful when you go across on a Saturday or Sunday, because, the way the industry is at the moment, when you are in a tourist destination where the disposable income is such, you are completely at the mercy of people hopping onto a ferry to come across to Magnetic Island. You must have your wages set and you must have your place staffed before the weekend comes up. If there is the slightest whiff that it might be it rainy or blowing a gale and rough on the water, then the number of people going across to Magnetic Island will drop. That means that the cafes, restaurants and bars will have fewer people, and you might be paying $65 an hour for a waitress in a coffee shop there to stand around and serve no-one. It means you lose. It means the business loses.
What we are seeing in Townsville is that, quite often when people go across to Magnetic Island, the places are already shut—they have made a decision not to open. That then becomes self-fulfilling prophecy. Why would you go across to Magnetic Island when the chances are nothing is going to be open? It becomes a snowball effect of how business operates on Magnetic Island. Magnetic Island is a tremendous place to go. Magnetic Island is a wonderful place to be. The food over there is second to none. The service over there is second to none. But what happens if there is no-one there? What happens if you are standing around and no-one is coming in to buy anything? The owner of that business is paying out $65 an hour per person for people to stand there and do nothing. No-one can survive doing that. So we are seeing places not open. That is an extreme example, but you are seeing it again and again across the country, where places choose not to open.
A couple of years ago I was at the Avenues Tavern in Kirwan, and I was talking to the publican there. He was having a chip at me. He said that the previous Australia Day, when everyone was loading up for home and making sure they were all organised for the day, he had two blokes in the bottle shop and, because Australia Day was on a Sunday, they were getting paid $70 an hour. He said he sold about three cartons of beer the entire day. He said, 'What are you going to do about it? What is this government going to do about it?' I said, 'I'm going to give you my resume—I'll do it for you; I'll do the full 12 hours next time we're there!' If you are standing around doing nothing and you are standing around not making any money, the business goes down the gurgler. You cannot survive. So what has to happen? You either shut the business and miss out completely or it has to be addressed.
I do not have a problem with anyone getting penalty rates. I do have an issue with the example the member for Moreton was talking about, of someone who can only work on weekends—that is the only time that is available to him, when it is convenient for him to work. Why is his time worth twice as much as the time of a working mum who has got two kids at school and is only available to work during school hours Monday to Friday? Why is the time of Ben who lives in the Moreton electorate worth twice as much—to work when he wants to work—as the time of a mum to work on a Wednesday when she wants to work? Why is that? How is that fair to the mum on the Wednesday? Can anyone explain it to me?
And can we please on the other side there stop talking about fireys, ambos, police, paramedics, nurses—all those people who are essential services, who are state employees? These are two separate debates. There is no way in the world you can frame a debate around cutting the rates for nurses or anything like that, because there is no market to call on when people need them. No-one in their right mind would think about cutting the pay rates, penalty rates and allowances for nurses and other people in those front-line services, and neither should they. For those on the other side to say that is complete and utterly disingenuous.
Debate adjourned.
I rise to support the motion from the member for Robertson in relation to the NBN rollout. It asks the House to place on record that:
(a) under the previous Government, at the time of the last election just 2 per cent of premises across Australia could access the National Broadband Network (NBN); and
(b) since the election the NBN rollout has ramped up significantly and today around one in ten premises can access the NBN and under the NBN's new Corporate Plan, by June 2018, three in four premises will have access to the NBN;
(2) notes that:
(a) the NBN's 2016-2018 Corporate Plan reveals that a full fibre to the premises (FTTP) NBN could not be completed until 2026 at the earliest and could be as late as 2028—six to eight years later than the current Government's plan; and
(b) the NBN 2016-2018 Corporate Plan reveals that a full FTTP NBN would cost between $20 and $30 billion dollars more than the current Government's plan; and
(3) recognises that it is essential to deliver fast broadband to Australians sooner—not force Australians with no or poor broadband to wait more than a decade for the NBN.
The NBN was one of Labor's biggest and most expensive failures. The rollout under Labor was slow and costly. As the member for Robertson has said, at the time of the last election just two per cent of premises across Australia could access the NBN. Since the coalition came to government, the NBN rollout has ramped up. Today, one in 10 premises around Australia can access the NBN, including 15,000 homes in my electorate of Petrie, in areas like Aspley, Carseldine, Bridgeman Downs and Fitzgibbon, and a lot of new homes up in Mango Hill, North Lake and other premises surrounding. Our plan has always been to ensure people are able to access better broadband sooner and much more affordably.
I turn to the NBN's 2016-18 corporate plan. In October last year, I was pleased to see that most of the suburbs in my electorate had been prioritised for an NBN rollout. In fact, for every single household in my electorate, an NBN rollout will happen a year sooner than Labor's 2024 completion date. I think it is particularly important, given the federal coalition government's national innovation and science agenda, that it is rolled out as soon as possible. On the Brisbane City Council side of my electorate the internet connection does seem to be better than parts of the Moreton Bay area, regardless of whether you have NBN. That is why I have been fighting hard to make sure areas such as North Lakes, Mango Hill, Griffin and Rothwell are constructed as soon as possible. I am very pleased to re-announce today that construction will begin in those areas in July 2016 for some 5,020 priority premises. I want to thank the Prime Minister and the current minister for their help in ensuring North Lakes and Mango Hill have been prioritised, because as a new, high-growth area it has been lacking.
In the Redcliffe peninsula, many locals are already being contacted by nbn asking if they want to take in the HFC trial, which is the cable TV network. This was due to be scrapped by the previous government. But we have ensured that this can be utilised, still getting a superfast 100 megabits per second when most people are on 10. This is a great win for taxpayers. This will not just benefit people in the Redcliffe peninsula; it will also benefit people in Bald Hills, Bracken Ridge and Fitzgibbon, where construction will start in the second half of 2017. In Rothwell, NBN construction will start on priority homes by July this year. In Aspley, Bridgeman Downs and Carseldine more homes will begin in July 2017, and NBN construction will also begin in Deception Bay. In Burpengary East, construction will start on some 1,960 priority premises in July 2016. This means it will be delivered throughout Petrie some six to eight years earlier than it would have been under Labor. That is good news for people living locally.
Last week I visited Tiny Legends childcare centre in the suburb of Brighton with Labor's communications spokesman, Jason Clare. Tiny Legends is one of the very many businesses across Lilley, and right across our country, that are attempting to adapt to and take advantage of opportunities in the digital economy. They are having great difficulty doing that. They have been frustrated by a poor internet service and the failure of the Turnbull government to deliver the NBN by the end of 2016 as they promised before the election.
This is an area that is changing dramatically. Many new families are moving into the area and many new home-based businesses are in the area. But the communications infrastructure is completely inadequate. That is why this area was a prime target for Labor's NBN and most particularly for fibre. The area has a dramatically increasing demand because of young families with their kids, home based businesses and other businesses like Tiny Legends.
Tiny Legends has seen their broadband quality deteriorate over the past several years to the point where their internet ceases to work from 9 am onwards. So they have great difficulty putting in place innovative ideas for their business such as a digital child check-in or updates to the parents during the day so parents can see what is happening with their children at play and in sleep. What they are forced to do at Tiny Legends is to use a hot spot. That is a less reliable mobile hotspot for their internet. That is how bad it is because the infrastructure has not been upgraded as it would have been through Labor's NBN by the end of this year. Of course by using their mobile phones, which are also difficult to use, it is four times as expensive for them. Under Labor, 80 per cent of homes in Lilley would have been connected to the NBN by July last year. Now, under the Liberals, less than half of Lilley has the NBN installed and many suburbs, such as Brighton, will not receive the Liberals' second-rate NBN until at least late 2017.
The rollout of the NBN, under its former minister, Mr Turnbull, has been a shambles. What we are now seeing is a second-rate NBN. We are now seeing the government going back to copper and purchasing copper. We are now seeing in many areas of the country the use of that copper by the NBN, and in many homes it is simply not working. And that fate may well await many in my electorate of Lilley. So we have a second-rate NBN at double the cost and four years behind schedule.
What we are seeing under the Liberals is what we are seeing across so many other areas of public policy. What is going to emerge now—again—is a digital divide, where large parts of the country will not have access to the quality universal service which fibre to the premise would have delivered. All Australians would have had an equal opportunity to access this innovative technology which empowers people in their lives and in their businesses. When it comes to the digital divide or this government's attack on penalty rates, or what it is doing on Medicare or how it is not adopting Gonski, this government does not defend battlers, it creates them. This government sets out to divide in its policies. It does not believe in universal access.
This Prime Minister, like former Prime Minister Abbott, believes in his heart that inequality is good for a country. The government sees it as an economic good that somehow drives competition and productivity. Of course, if you believe that, the logic that flows from that in terms of economics is that the well-to-do and the wealthy do far better and a lot of other people get left behind. And that is what is happening in terms of this digital divide. People across the suburbs with their home based businesses—people in small businesses across my electorate and so many others, including the electorate of Petrie—are being left behind by the decision of this government to give to most people a second-rate service. This will open up the digital divide across the community.
In opposition, Malcolm Turnbull, just like former Prime Minister Abbott, knew that he could not really tell us what the coalition were going to do in government because if the people knew what they were going to do they would not have voted for them. So they covered up their plans for the NBN, they covered up their plans for Medicare, they covered up their plans for Gonski and they covered up their plans for industrial relations because they believe in their hearts that we have a society which should be divided. (Time expired)
I am pleased to speak on the NBN rollout. Under the previous government, at the time of the last election, just two per cent of premises across Australia could access the National Broadband Network. Since the election, the NBN rollout has ramped up significantly, and today around one in 10 premises can access the NBN and, under nbn's new corporate plan, by June 2018, three in four premises will have access to the NBN.
Under the coalition government, the electorate of Macquarie will have access to the NBN more than six to seven years earlier than under Labor's plan. As of this month, premises with NBN services available in the electorate of Macquarie number around 12,500. Around 8,860 premises in the electorate have an active NBN service. NBN build, I am pleased to say, is underway for an additional 15,800 premises in Macquarie, and I am advocating very strongly for those who are yet to be listed on the build to be included as soon as possible.
It was pleasing to announce this month that some 3,400 premises in Katoomba are a step closer to getting access to the NBN with construction of the fixed line network now underway. This section of the rollout, and the entire rollout as a whole, is an important milestone for telecommunications for the people of my electorate, providing greater certainty for homes and businesses who now have, or will soon have, access to superfast broadband.
For Katoomba, final designs are now complete, meaning that in coming weeks, nbn co subcontractors will be seen in the streets, laying out fibre and building cabinets to house the electronics needed to supply superfast broadband.
The nbn plan in the Macquarie electorate is being consistently rolled out: in December last year, construction commenced for some 3,700 premises in Wentworth Falls and Leura. The rollout is all part of the coalition government's ongoing reform of the NBN to ensure that superfast broadband can be rolled out quickly, more cost effectively and with minimal inconvenience to households. Speeds on the new network will easily support high-definition streaming on multiple devices at one time.
The coalition government recognises that consumers want fast broadband as soon as possible. All services over the NBN will allow families to stream movies, surf the web and complete schoolwork online—all at one time—as well as assist people who have home businesses. Businesses will also benefit from the vastly high bandwidth available.
The coalition has cleaned up the NBN mess left by those opposite—Labor—which would have left many Australians waiting a decade for better broadband services. Rollout of the NBN under Labor was slow and costly, plagued with chaos and misinformation—one of the most poorly managed projects in the history of the Commonwealth.
Two years ago, under Labor, only 49,000 users were on the fixed network. The nbn's 2016-18 corporate plan reveals that full fibre to the premises could not be completed until 2026 at the earliest and could be as late as 2028—six to eight years later than the government's plan.
The plan also revealed that a full FTTP NBN would cost between $20 to $30 billion dollars more than the current government's plan, and that it is essential to deliver fast broadband to Australians sooner, not force Australians with no or poor broadband to wait more than a decade for the NBN. At the last election, there were only 260,000 premises in fixed line areas that were passed by the NBN. Today that figure is more than 1.3 million.
Many residents in the Blue Mountains, in particular, have had concerns that they would not have access to the NBN. I have strongly advocated for the electorate, written to the CEO of nbn and made representations to the minister directly to ensure they were included in the rollout as soon as possible. I have been working on and advocating for all communication needs for residents in the Macquarie electorate.
The three-year accelerated nbn plan announced in October last year is exciting news for around 39,570 homes and businesses in the Hawkesbury and Blue Mountains. In total more than 9.5 million homes across Australia will be able to access a service while construction is underway.
Under a coalition government, by using the existing copper and cable infrastructure running into homes, nbn can complete the network far sooner and at a dramatically lower cost to taxpayers. nbn is working to provide fast internet to every home and business in Australia by 2020.
I also look forward to the satellite Sky Muster servicing the more rural and regional parts of the Hawkesbury and Blue Mountains, which is expected to be launched at the end of April this year, with services connecting from May.
This morning we got another piece of correspondence.
Please help—
said Steve Burford.
We live in Morley and our internet is so poor. Very slow speeds and about 10 to 20 drop-outs per day. After a support call with iinet for 9 months, nothing can be done. Morley exchange is not even on the non plan yet. My girlfriend is on track to fail her online uni course and it's putting unnecessary stress in an already stressful life. We are literally looking to move house to fix this. In this day and age it's on par with living in a house without electricity. We are 9 km from the cbd how can we still have such poor internet.
The reason very clearly is that we have the Turnbull government in place and we have 'fraudband' being not delivered around our community. We know that the Morley exchange—the area where Steve's house is—was on the rollout; it was on the Labor Party rollout plan that was put in place in 2013. The Telstra exchange was upgraded and it should have had a proper broadband link by now. Instead of us getting our second-rate system by the end of 2016, which was the electoral promise, what we actually had from the Turnbull government was a lengthy delay of 18 months where nothing happened. The only thing going on was those projects initiated under Labor—fibre to the premises was rolled out, and yet we had a hiatus of some 18 months while we looked at putting in a second-rate system. So people like Steve and his girlfriend are living, effectively, in a non-broadband environment where their access to the internet is not sufficient for them to do the most basic tasks, in particular using it to study online courses.
I want to pick up a point that was made by our shadow minister the other day, and it is the decision by AT&T, the giant American telecommunications company, to go back and redo those areas where it had fibre to the node and deliver fibre to the premises. They have announced that it is going to actually retrofit 21 cities across America in this way. They see that they need to offer speeds of one gigabyte. What we are talking about here with 'fraudband' is 25 megabytes. How do we think that what we are putting in place now is going to be anywhere near adequate when those countries that we will be competing with, countries that we are entering into free trade agreements with, are going to be operating on a gigabyte? If we are lucky, if the government ever get 'fraudband' underway, all we are going to be getting is 25 megabytes. It is completely pathetic.
I was interested to see what vice-president Lori Lee said when AT&T made the announcement of the fibre-to-the-premises plan. She said, 'We're delivering advanced services that offer consumers and small businesses the ability to do more faster, will help communities create the new wave of innovation and will encourage economic development.' This is the fundamental farce of what we are seeing with the Prime Minister. We have a Prime Minister who talks about the centrality of innovation to our economic future, yet at the core of his government's program is a scheme to introduce, one day, some time over the next five to six years, a plan that is going to lock us into the 20th century, when all of our rivals in the United States, in Japan, in Korea, in Singapore and in China are going to be having speeds 10 times that which we are being offered in Australia.
This is a really central problem to the Prime Minister's supposed innovation agenda. You cannot innovate, you cannot have small business innovate, you cannot have decentralisation and you cannot have people in small communities coming up with great competitive plans when they are hamstrung by 20th century technology. (Time expired)
I never actually noticed before that the previous speaker had a speech impediment, but 'fraudband' is probably the accurate descriptor for what the former Labor government tried to put in place. Gilmore is one of the electorates where the NBN has for some time been an integral part of the infrastructure build. Our community was excited and thrilled that our region was one of the initial sites under the last government, but planning for such a project really needs to be very thorough and very meticulous. Is it any wonder that the Labor government's delivery schedule was overshadowed by extensive delays and cost blow-outs when it chose a place such as Kiama for an underground connection without doing a geological study first? The cost was horrendous because Kiama is built on basalt. In the early days, bluestone quarrying was the major local industry, so it is no wonder their drills broke, their times went out and the cost blew out.
Is it any wonder that by 2013, only two per cent of the premises across Australia could access the NBN? There was not even technology in place to connect multidwelling properties. The coalition quickly resolved this issue and then developed a more affordable and efficient connection plan. In the first three years of NBN connection under Labor, only 51,000 premises were connected. By the end of 2015, just two years later, the coalition government had over 700,000 premises able to connect. The most recent update with NBN multimixed technology is that 1.7 million homes and businesses are now able to connect. This accelerated rollout will ensure that regional and remote regions get NBN connectivity faster and much more affordably. By late 2018, it is predicted that we will have 75 per cent coverage across Australia for homes and business premises. The construction is, in fact, underway.
Based on our rollout schedules for our current boundaries, Gilmore will be well above the national rollout figure, with 89 per cent of our homes and business premises able to connect to the NBN—significantly higher than the national average. As with all new types of technologies, there can be glitches and hiccups, and our community members are encouraged to contact my office with any such incidences. We endeavour to resolve these as quickly as possible, working closely with the provider services and the NBN regional managers. We recognise that consumers, particularly in the regions, need fast NBN for education, for research and, more recently, for health training and conferencing and even, at times, for diagnosing and treatment strategies. While negotiating some of the aspects of the NBN rollout, it was identified that a skilled workforce was going to be required. The NBN co-developed a Career Start campaign to begin the recruitment and training process. This is part of a $40 million industry development program that is aimed at stimulating employment.
In my electorate office, we receive a number of emails requiring assistance, some erroneously quoting earlier rollout schedules, completion dates and a smaller budget expenditure. We carefully explain that while on paper this may have been the case, it actually is not worth the paper it was printed on. Labor's schedule was late on delivery, with only 51,000 premises completed by September 2013, after three years of media hype and social media fakery. The costs were extraordinary. The NBN's 2016-18 corporate plan reveals that a full fibre-to-the premise strategy would not have been completed until 2026 or possibly 2028, a good six to eight years later than our current strategy. In addition, the cost estimates are between $20 million and $30 million more than our current plan.
Australians are amongst the most tech savvy consumers in the world. As I understand it, we have the highest per capita ownership across the world of mobile phones, computers, laptops, iPads and other portable devices. Each one of those puts a drag demand on available services. We absolutely need to get this connectivity out there as soon as possible. And, keep in mind, we are also one of the most innovative technology nations in the world. The current technology is not the panacea for NBN. Fibre is not the end point of technology connectivity; it is merely an evolutionary stage. So why on earth would we, as a nation, waste the $20 million to $30 million on a technology that, within a decade, is most likely to be outdated? It is far better to use a mix to get more Australians connected more quickly, more efficiently and with more of a cost-benefit application that will enable us to save the taxpayer dollars so we can put in the new technology at a later date.
I wish to update the parliament regarding the rollout of the National Broadband Network in our community of Kingsford Smith, because it has become a bit of a joke and a disaster. Under Labor's original plan, the National Broadband Network was to be rolled out in Kingsford Smith from 1 July 2015. The rollout was to start in the suburbs of Kensington and Kingsford and gradually over the course of a couple of years work its way east and south to deliver all residents in our community access to a world-class fibre optic to the premises National Broadband Network. Under our plan, Labor was to begin that process on 1 July 2015—a process which would have delivered speeds of up to 100 megabits per second for residents and businesses across our community.
When the Abbott-Turnbull government came to office, what did they do to our community? They stopped the rollout of the NBN in our community and completely took Kingsford Smith off the rollout map. There are 75,210 premises in our community that are eligible to be connected to the National Broadband Network. Do you know how many premises have been connected to the Turnbull government's fibre-to-the-node system? Not one; zero premises in Kingsford Smith have been connected to the fibre-to-the-node network. All this government has managed so far is some fibre to the basement to a handful of apartments. According to the government's rollout plan, not a single existing stand-alone house in Kingsford Smith will get this government's second-rate NBN by 2016, as promised by this government.
What a joke this has become for our community when it comes to rolling out the NBN! And it is a second-rate system. Labor was planning fibre to the premises because that is world class; that is the leading technology. Instead, this government is rolling out second-rate technology, fibre to the node, and then asking consumers to access that via the outdated copper network in their streets. The copper network was installed before Neil Armstrong walked on the moon. That is how old this system is. But this government expects Australians to connect their businesses and their homes through this second-rate telecommunications network.
I will read some of the testimonials from people who have been connected under the Turnbull government's fibre-to-the-node system, because I think they perfectly highlight what this government is doing in terms of delivering a second-rate system. Mr Taylor, from Gorokan on the Central Coast of New South Wales, says:
At night, the new FTTN National Broadband Network service is now considerably slower than my previous ADSL service … the significant reduction in speed is unacceptable …
Mr Gratton, from Newcastle, says:
It almost makes me pine for the ADSL2+ connection that I had … I sincerely hope that the farce that the NBN roll-out has become will end soon.
That is what people are saying about the government's NBN system of fibre to the node. That is a preview for people in Kingsford Smith. This is the sort of system that the government is trying to saddle our community with. This is what the government has in store for the people of Kingsford Smith. The government plans to saddle our community with a second-rate telecommunications system that will cost consumers more and, in some cases, will be slower than their current ADSL2 service.
Overall, this system that the current government has put in place has become somewhat of a disaster. There is a clear difference between what Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull said he would deliver and what is actually being delivered in the Australian community. The Prime Minister said that the overall cost of his system would be $29.5 billion. It is actually costing $56 billion. The government has doubled the cost of the rollout. The Prime Minister said that the cost of fibre to the node per home would be $600. The actual cost is $1,600. The Prime Minister said that it would cost $55 million to fix up the copper network. It is actually costing Australian taxpayers $641 million to fix the copper network. John Howard sold the copper network to Telstra, and what does this Prime Minister do? He buys it back to install outdated technology—and it is costing double what he said it would cost. When it comes to the NBN, this government has completely ballsed it up and it is costing our community and consumers much more than they ever thought it would.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this House:
(1) calls on the Government to apologise to Save the Children Australia and its staff, after the Review of recommendation nine from the Moss Review confirmed findings from the Review into recent allegations relating to conditions and circumstances at the Regional Processing Centre in Nauru, that the Government unfairly removed ten Save the Children Australia staff from Nauru;
(2) acknowledges that there is no evidence to support the claims made against Save the Children Australia staff at Nauru; and
(3) notes the great work done by Save the Children Australia in aid, development and helping vulnerable children.
Is the motion seconded?
I second the motion.
Sorry should not be the hardest word to say and it should not be too much for the Australian people to expect that our government should take responsibility for its actions, especially when those actions damage people, like the nine workers caused to be wrongly removed from their roles in Nauru in October 2014, and also when damage is caused to our democracy through these actions and the failure to be honest and direct with the Australian people as well as those affected workers.
We know now, through an independent report and through the Australian Federal Police, that the Department of Immigration and Border Protection, under then Minister Morrison, had no justification in removing nine Save the Children Australia charity workers from Nauru in 2014 and we know that claims that Save the Children Australia employees coaxed asylum seekers to fabricate accounts of abuse were completely unfounded. Specifically, the Doogan report, which was released very quietly by the government last month despite having been dated June 2015, found that there was 'no evidence nor reliable information' to support the naming of the Save the Children Australia staff at Nauru. This is outrageous and unacceptable and requires an apology to be delivered by the now minister.
The then minister, in publicising details of these outrageous allegations, caused great damage not only to Save the Children Australia and the affected workers but also to other NGOs and indeed more broadly to civil society. This action, and the failure to account for it, has very wide-ranging and serious ramifications. It has been awful for those directly affected—and I will touch on that briefly in a moment.
Let's think here about the chilling effect these actions have had on our civil society. They have undermined our capacity to uphold human rights and hold executive government to account. Some of these individual staff members have spent long periods since October 2014 unemployed and some have suffered from mental health issues after being publicly accused and deported. Having worked, as the Save the Children CEO has said, with some of the most vulnerable children in the toughest of circumstances—this is very difficult and very important work under politically charged circumstances—workers doing the work deserve support, not opprobrium. They deserve support and they deserve respect. It is past the time for that respect to given, in circumstances where nine people have had their reputations tarnished and have been deprived of their livelihoods. And for what?
I remember that the then immigration minister told a press conference on this issue that the public do not want to be played for mugs. This is correct, of course. We have heard a lot of talk about ministerial responsibility lately. These standards include what a minister says. Are we to believe that, if you are the immigration minister, you are free from the ministerial code of conduct? I ask members to think about the provisions of clause 5.5 of that code, which provide very clearly for a minister to correct the record. The insidious nature of the misinformation here is why this government needs to issue an official apology for those concerned from the responsible minister, not a departmental officer.
The government waited months to release the report and then attempted to bury its findings, releasing it on a Friday afternoon in January. This report, of course, not only vindicated the Save the Children staff but condemned the government's appalling and cynical handling of these allegations. It said:
From review of the documentation it seems reasonably clear that the information provided in relation to the ten SCA staff members was not intended to be acted upon in the way it was acted upon. Rather it seems that the intention was that further investigation would be undertaken before any action was taken.
Instead of properly investigating, as he was required to do, the then minister chose to score political points and trash people's reputations through the media.
What we have learnt since, from the Moss report and the Doogan report, was that the government misled the Australian public about what was happening on Nauru. These claims were found to be false by not one but two reports, and the government has thus far refused to put in any effort to correct the record as it is required to do. It puts the new Prime Minister's claims about restoring traditional cabinet government to shame. A simple apology will not make up the mistreatment but it will go some way towards beginning a healing process.
This government needs to recognise that the facts they were provided with were wrong and did not justify their subsequent actions. They need to recognise the damage done by trying to malign a charity—and indeed the workers—with no evidence. It is time for government to stop treating people like mugs and apologises It is not hard to say sorry. It could be the first step in enabling nine people to get on with their lives and in restoring the reputation of Save the Children Australia. (Time expired)
I thank the member for bringing forward this motion in relation to Save the Children. I was lucky enough to participate in a Save the Children visit to Papua New Guinea last year. Although it was not my first visit to that country, it was done with a different perspective to my other visits and it was brilliantly worth the effort.
As parliamentarians, we tend to look for economic and trade connections when we travel to other countries. What else is there to do? We set an agenda of getting there, meeting the key stakeholders, establishing rapport and trying to forge relationships which will benefit each country. My city of Townsville has a 30-year sister city relationship with Port Moresby. It is a strong and vibrant relationship, but it is forged along the lines of governance, commerce, military exchanges, health concerns, university interaction and trade opportunities. I have spent precious little time in Port Moresby, which is, in fact, the closest capital city to Townsville. All of our trips seem to be tightly arranged and time constrained.
So when Save the Children approached me to participate in this trip, I viewed it along those lines. I was completely taken aback and in awe when I saw the work of volunteers abroad—the NGOs and aid workers, the people on the ground trying to make a difference. We travelled to Goroka and then to Port Moresby. We saw how Papua New Guineans were attacking the scourge of domestic violence and how they still had to contend with witchcraft and a lack of educational opportunities.
For me at least, the trip's highlight was a visit to an all-girls boarding school in Port Moresby. Here, the girls are on scholarship and education is at the forefront of their daily routine. To stand there on stage and urge these girls forward in their quest to be that generation which changes the views of women and girls in PNG was as inspiring a moment for me as I have had in my role as a parliamentarian. I am certain that the member for Batman would concur that it was a great day spent there.
There are many challenges in PNG and there are many more levels to their lives which we, as occasional visitors, will never see. But through the work of Save the Children we were able to see the efforts of the PNG police force to tackle domestic violence and crimes against women and girls and children. It was a visit that will stay with me for a long time.
Yes, the stories of the levels of violence, especially towards children, were harrowing. The stories about women being accused of witchcraft made me shake my head—and would make everyone shake their head. There were any number of reasons to think that the task ahead for our nearest neighbour was insurmountable. But through this organisation, Save the Children, we also saw that this was a country not afraid to face up to the biggest challenges, that this was a people who wanted better lives, that this was a country that cared about women and children and was trying its best to make itself a better place. The challenges in PNG are great. From all accounts, it will not achieve a single one of the millennium goals for its people.
In our troupe, there were at least three parliamentarians and one journalist who had never been to our nearest neighbour. Save the Children was able to open the door to MPs and senators from Victoria and New South Wales to allow them to take their stories back to their cities and states. It was a trip worth making. I would urge all who have the opportunity to go on one of these trips to take it up, to bring back the messages of hope from the countries in which Save the Children operates and to make sure that everyone knows what a great job our NGOs and aid agencies do overseas.
I am very proud to lend my name to this organisation in a country like PNG, where we have especially great ties. My city of Townsville has very strong ties through the YWAM Medical Ship, which goes up the rivers in Western Province and does outreach work. It does things like eye surgery and restores sight. It addresses basic health issues of why so many people in Papua New Guinea die in childbirth. Those are the things Save the Children were able to point out to us. They tend to take a very austere look at the way we deal with people and the way we deal with countries. They have the ability to be able to look at the people and not the product, which is hugely beneficial to all of us.
It is confronting when you go overseas to these countries and see just what we take for granted in this country. It is confronting to be put in these places, but it is well worth it. I urge everyone in this place, no matter how marginal your seat, to go in there and have a look at these things, because it is well worth the trip. I thank the House.
I rise to support the motion moved by the member for Scullin regarding Save the Children Australia. I would also like to acknowledge the comments made by the previous speaker, the member for Herbert. I too had the opportunity to be part of a Save the Children Delegation earlier this year, to Cambodia, and I agree that the work they are doing in these countries is remarkable. That is why it is disappointing that more government MPs have not called on their minister and their Prime Minister to apologise for what has happened to Save the Children. It also needs to be noted that the government dumped this report on the media at 5 pm on the Friday before the CEO of Save the Children was due to join the delegation I just referenced. So, the government had the report for well over six months and dumped it to the media knowing full well that Save the Children would struggle to respond because they were leading a delegation of MPs and senators to Cambodia to explain and to share the experiences of Australian aid and what it is doing in Cambodia.
You cannot help but think of the cynical nature of this government when it comes not only to the treatment of asylum seekers but to the treatment of aid agencies that are in partnership with the government to ensure that the most vulnerable of people are supported. Save the Children at the time welcomed the independent findings of the Doogan report and said in its press release that it looks forward to entering into negotiations with the Australian government which should see appropriate compensation awarded to its former employees. Is that the reason the government has been so silent? Again, they are attacking workers—workers doing some of the most heartbreaking and hard work: supporting people who are seeking asylum.
We all know from what Save the Children has said and from what our own Senate reports have said that this government's offshore processing facilities are having a shocking impact on the individuals who are incarcerated in these detention centres. You cannot call it anything other than incarceration and prison. Under this government, processing of asylum seekers has blown out to about 450 days. This is not offshore processing; this is offshore detention—people being imprisoned for simply claiming asylum. All Save the Children attempted to do, which was within their rights, we to expose the conditions, to speak up for people who had no voice of their own. They should be acknowledged and congratulated for that, and recognised for the important role they play in our democracy of letting the Australian people know what has been going on in these offshore detention centres. Instead, these workers were effectively sacked by this government, removed, returned and then left to basically pick up the pieces. What do you do when your entire life has been dedicated to advocating for those who are less fortunate than you? The impact that has on a worker shows how heartless this government is, not just to the asylum seekers but to the organisations doing this critical work.
It speaks volumes to the nature of this government when state premiers, churches, community groups and organisations are calling for sanctuary against this government's own policies. Let's ponder that for a moment. The Let Them Stay campaign is about people in our community calling on our government to give sanctuary to our own government's policies in the offshore detention centres. It is a sign that our democracy is not healthy when people are taking to the streets and calling for sanctuary against this government's own moves. What is going on in Nauru and Manus Island is toxic, and I support the cause that there be more open and transparent conversation about this issue. People seeking asylum deserve respect. They deserve dignity, and they deserve to know that their wishes and their cries for help are being heard.
I have a very active community in Castlemaine that regularly speak to me about their concern about people who are seeking asylum who are locked in detention centres. They have shared with me emails they have received from people who are being incarcerated. All they simply say in many of the emails is, 'We are human beings like you; we have families and feelings and have the right to live freely.' (Time expired)
I am very proud to have seconded this motion on Save the Children Australia that is before the House, and I thank my colleague the member for Scullin for introducing the motion today. With a history stretching back nearly 100 years, Save the Children has an exemplary record in creating better lives for children and their families in more than 124 countries, delivering both emergency aid and long-term sustainable development programs. But the focus of this debate today is the treatment of Save the Children Australia and its staff on Nauru—in particular, the forced removal of 10 Save the Children staff on orders from the Australian government. Their removal was based on allegations that were utterly baseless, as was confirmed by the independent reviews conducted by Moss and Doogan, contrary to suggestions from then Minister Morrison, who insisted that Save the Children workers were 'making false allegations and worse, allegedly coaching self-harm and using children in protests'.
The independent reviews that followed clearly refuted the minister's suggestion that Save the Children personnel had been encouraging disorder, making clear that their expulsion was totally unjustified. Testimony by former Save the Children workers, during a recent Senate inquiry, further illustrated not only the injustice of the expulsions but also the impact that allegations had on workers, like Natasha Blucher. She told the Senate inquiry:
At the time I was distraught at the—
minister's—
allegation because you can imagine that I and my colleagues were terrified and we were desperately attempting to convince people not to harm themselves. … to be told that I was accused of having tried to facilitate that was beyond comprehension.
These were not the statements of staff looking to pursue a political agenda, as was alleged by Minister Morrison. They were experienced support workers, looking to ensure the welfare of children and adults in Australia's care. It is abundantly clear that Save the Children Australia and their employees are entitled to an unconditional apology from this Liberal government. Beyond an apology, the entitlement to compensation remains a live issue, yet, as Ms Blucher told the Senate inquiry, this is not the focus of concern for the former workers. She said:
… to be honest, I do not feel good talking about compensation, because I feel like it is the least important thing in relation to the seriousness of the harm that is occurring to asylum seekers in the offshore processing centre. So it does not feel right to me to talk about it.
The government's modus operandi of shooting the messenger rather than dealing with the substantive issues at hand must be broken. The lack of transparency, in relation to all matters concerning Australia's handling of refugees, leads me and many others to wonder: what is this government hiding? What is happening on Nauru? What is happening when refugees are met by Australian Border Force at sea? How many people are we sending back to the very dangers that they have tried to escape? And, with the removal of Save the Children personnel from Nauru, who is left to protect and advocate for the refugees on Nauru?
The government cannot walk away from our duty of care and our obligations under international law. Where are the guarantees from this government that asylum seekers will be protected from threats to their physical safety, wherever they are housed in our care, and treated with dignity and respect? Immigration detention, both within Australia and offshore, is no place for children and I support every effort to move children and their families out of detention and into the community as soon as possible.
I implore the government: to adopt Labor's commitments to doubling the refugee intake, to massively increasing support for UNHCR, to establishing an independent children's advocate, to imposing mandatory reporting of child abuse in our facilities, to introducing independent oversight of all Australian-funded detention facilities and to restoring measures to ensure that refugee claims are processed as quickly as possible, so we are not leaving people in a permanent state of unknowing. It is time to stop this toxic debate in Australian politics around asylum seekers and, instead, work to form genuine, respectful partnerships with organisations like Save the Children and UNHCR to break the deadlock.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent a bill for an act to amend the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, and for related purposes being presented immediately and a motion being moved for the second reading of the bill.
The reason the government is moving this motion today is that we are determined to give the Electoral Commission the necessary time to be able to implement changes to the Senate voting system, well in advance of when an election is due in the second half of 2016. As members would be well aware, there was a Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters report in April 2014, which was a unanimous report. In fact, Gary Gray, the retiring member for Brand, said that if the recommendations of the report were not implemented that the parliament would be letting down its responsibility to future generations. Since that time, the government has gone through an exhaustive consultative process with a large number of people, in both Houses, to ensure that what is put forward to the parliament has a general consensus. But, of course, as is often the requirement of this parliament, we intend to have a full examination of that bill by the Joint Standing Committee on Election Matters between now and mid-next week, in order to give the parliament an opportunity to examine the aspects of the bill.
This should be non-controversial reform because the bill that will soon be introduced by the Treasurer, on behalf of the Special Minister of State, Senator Cormann, effectively implements the recommendations of the Joint Standing Committee on Election Matters and has, at its core, that the preferences of an individual voter should be determined by the individual voter rather than by registered groups or individual voting tickets. As we have seen over the years, there has been a tendency for some political parties and individuals to game the political system. What this government wants to do, and we hope the Senate will agree, is to put the power over people's preferences back in the hands of the individual voter.
The reason why the standing order should be suspended at this particular time is that in order for the bill both to be referred to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters to be considered by that standing committee and then to be passed through this House and then Senate it needs to be introduced today. That will allow the chamber the opportunity to debate the bill this week. It is certainly not the government's intention to rush this bill through the parliament, but after a debate this week we would expect to pass the bill this week and have it go into the Senate so that the Senate can consider it in due course, according to its own schedule.
This has been the subject of exhaustive discussion since before April 2014. Nobody could suggest that somehow the government has sprung this on the Australian public or the parliament, because it has been discussed since before April 2014. It has been the subject of a unanimous Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters report. In fact, I think the distinguished current Speaker was the chairman of that particular inquiry. Now, the time has come to introduce the bill, to act on the committee's recommendations and to give the public the opportunity to express its own preferences through our very democratic preference system, that is the envy of many democracies around the world—in fact, the envy of many countries around the world—rather than being decided by group or individual registered-voting tickets.
I am very pleased to see the member for Brand in the House today—and I note his recent announcement that he intends to retire from this parliament—because he was a key driver of these reforms in the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. I know the member for Brand has been a strong advocate and supporter of reform of the Senate voting system. I am pleased to see that the Treasurer is here in the House, because once the suspension of standing orders is carried the Treasurer will introduce the bill and then introduce the motion to refer the matter to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. Given the arrival of all relevant parties, I will curtail my remarks.
By the concession of the Leader of the House, that was a speech with no purpose at all other than to wait for others to arrive and we thank him for it. He performed it valiantly!
I think it was significant when he said that the Treasurer is going to be the one introducing this legislation, because what we see with the legislation that will be presented shortly—and we are not going to oppose this suspension of standing orders; they will be able to introduce their bill and we will go through the normal processes—is that a Treasurer who has no plans for policy can stand up and move a bill about politics. A government that has no plans for the economy has plans for one issue only, and that is the voting system. That says everything about those opposite, that we have a government where the Treasurer could spend 46 minutes at the National Press Club and at the end of it nobody knew what he said. But he comes in here, and if it is about votes and how votes are counted, then he understands that and he will have a bill for that. But if it is about jobs—nothing. If it is about the economy—nothing. So long as it is about the voting system it raises the interest of the Treasurer. He will rush in here and introduce a bill.
Mr Nikolic interjecting—
He will announce more policy in introducing a bill in someone else's portfolio than he did for three-quarters of an hour before the National Press Club in what was meant to be a prepared speech. It is an extraordinary situation, that the state of economic leadership in this country is such that the Treasurer of Australia has nothing to say about his own job. The only thing that will get him to rise to his feet in this parliament is to talk about how votes are counted.
Well, those on the backbench know how much he was doing on how votes would be counted in their own party room. Those on the backbench know all too well the obsession of this Treasurer on the internal machinations of the Liberal Party. I do appreciate it that the moment I talk about the Treasurer's role on the internal machinations and have a go at him on that, the member for Bass stops interjecting against me! I appreciate that. You could not shut him up a minute ago when he was wanting to defend where they were on the economy, but the moment it is the internals of this government, at the moment it is the fact that those opposite spend every waking hour arguing about each other's jobs and not a moment on the jobs of the rest of Australia—spend every chance they can fighting each other for the spoils of government—well. That is what they want to do.
Tell that to Rudd and Gillard!
Do not forget for one minute—as the member for Bass would love us to—the charade we have seen going through: every time this parliament meets there is a new line-up on their frontbench. Every time they come up, we think there is an eject seat down on the corner there! I want to see the new seating plan, as to who is there, because sitting a few seats behind is the former Prime Minister, who at any point can leak to the media and press the ejector button on whoever is down there in the corner! Those who get put down there today for the first time for question time would want to know that they are in the spots where the clock is always ticking.
The job that is there for the Treasurer of Australia is an important one. He actually took the job on the basis that we were told his predecessor was not providing economic leadership. That is his whole reason for being. The point of the Turnbull government was meant to be to provide economic leadership. And what do we find all this time later? Nearly six months later? It is waffle! It is waffle, and the gap between what this government says and what it ends up doing could not be wider.
The previous Prime Minister had a bad plan, but at least he had a plan. Those opposite now have no idea what they are doing: watch their own members struggling to keep interested in the Treasurer at the National Press Club as he went after platitude after platitude in a speech that would not even stand up at a branch meeting in Cronulla! It would not even stand up before the party faithful as anything of substance, and yet when he gets his platform to speak before the National Press Club waffle is all he has.
I want to see the situation later today, where we give the Treasurer another go at a 46-minute speech. Let's give him a go a bit later and see if over the weekend he has developed a policy. See if over the weekend the Treasurer has decided that he has a single idea for the future of the economy. A single idea! He used to have an idea—the idea that they used to have was called the GST. The argument that they used to want to have: they used to come into this chamber and say, 'Oh, if you oppose the GST it means you're not at the debate! You're not part of the whole debate! You're just not in there—you've just got no courage!'
What happens at the first moment of some murmurings from their own backbench that they are worried about their own jobs and their own seats? The Treasurer backs off. The Treasurer runs a mile from it. Why? Because what is the one thing that will get this mob to change their minds on any policy? Is it whether it has an impact on the jobs of Australians? Is it whether it has an impact on jobs in manufacturing, jobs in Whyalla, defence contracts in South Australia? That is not what will get this mob moving. They are interested in the jobs that are determined by ballot in their own party room or in their own preselections, and that is as far as their policy goes. That is as far as their interest goes.
I feel for the Treasurer. He got up to the National Press Club—
Opposition members interjecting—
No, I do—because they had him speaking on the wrong topic. He turned up to the National Press Club, and they said he was going to talk about the economy. The poor guy—he has never worked on the economy. It's not something that the Treasurer does! If they had done the decent thing and introduced the Treasurer and said he was going to talk about machinations within the Liberal Party, he would have had a speech to give. If they had said to him he was going to talk about reshuffles, he would have had a speech to give. He could have told us what happens in the next fortnight, because, when you lose 12 in six months, it means you are averaging one a fortnight. We get a new minister sworn in. That is where they are at the moment.
Mr Nikolic interjecting—
But this Treasurer has shown the total level of offence after his week from hell—last week—that he had. I would prefer we were suspending standing orders now to allow the Treasurer of Australia to say something about his portfolio. I would prefer we were suspending standing orders now to allow the Treasurer to say something about his job, which is managing the Australian economy. I would like, if he is going to criticise Labor's plans on reforming negative gearing and doing something about housing supply and housing affordability, to hear what his ideas are. I would like him, for a moment, to do his own job. I would like him, for a moment, to do the job that as Treasurer of Australia he is sworn to do.
Mr Nikolic interjecting—
Don't forget: he is not just part of a government that has been fighting with the opposition to get the Treasury benches. He fought with Joe Hockey to get to that job. He fought with the first two years of legacy of this government—the member for Bass is quiet again straightaway. You can turn him on and off like a clock, this guy! And the Treasurer is the symbol of just how bad the internal division is for those opposite. You will not get a bigger symbol of the division from those opposite than the fact that the first action a member of the executive takes when they come back to parliament is to suspend standing orders so they can talk about the voting rules. And the person who comes in to move the change—the person who they say is the most appropriate person to introduce a law about voting rules—is the Treasurer of Australia.
This is a government that has completely lost the way and a Treasurer who does not have a clue. We are happy to support the suspension of standing orders.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I am pleased, as the Minister representing the Special Minister of State in the House of Representatives, to present the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment Bill 2016, to amend the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918.
The bill proposes to:
A strong electoral system is open and transparent, and allows for the expression of voter intent.
The parliament has been well served by the work of its Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, which regularly examines aspects of our electoral system, and issues that arise from the conduct of national elections.
The bill responds to key elements of the interim and final reports of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters inquiry into the 2013 Federal Election, which were tabled on 9 May 2014 and 15 April 2015 respectively.
To support the changes proposed in the bill, the AEC will be provided with additional resources, including some minor new funding, to ensure their systems can address these reforms, and voters are made aware of, and understand, the changes.
Part 1— Senate voting
Voters' dissatisfaction with the complexities of the current Senate voting system is well-described in the JSCEM's report on the 2013 federal election. The committee concluded that the current Senate voting system lacks transparency, is overly complex, and needs simplification.
At the 2013 election, over 96 per cent of formal votes for Senate candidates were made above the line. The current Senate ballot paper encourages above-the-line voting, with voters relying on a complex, and often opaque, system of individual and group voting tickets to allocate their preferences according to a pattern determined by parties or grouped candidates. Individual candidates and political parties can register up to three voting tickets that determine preference allocation. While voting tickets are required to be displayed at polling places and on the AEC website, the JSCEM concluded that most voters are unlikely to understand where their preferences flow. This has led to some Senate candidates being elected on very small first preference votes.
The bill will introduce optional preferential voting above the line, with voters to number at least six squares in sequence (except where there are fewer than six squares above the line). Advice will be printed on the Senate ballot paper to guide voters on this.
The bill proposes the abolition of individual and group voting tickets. This will return the control of preferences back to voters themselves to empower voters. The abolition of group voting tickets will not impact on the ability of candidates to group their names for the inclusion of a square above the line on the Senate ballot paper.
To reduce the risk of increased informal votes, as the proposed changes amend voting rules that have now been in place for 30 years, the bill includes changes to vote savings provisions. These allow for a vote to remain formal even where voters have numbered fewer than six squares above the line. The objective is to capture voter intent by enabling voters to allocate their own preferences on the Senate ballot paper. This will improve the franchise and support the democratic process. It will empower voters.
The bill also proposes an improvement to the vote savings provisions for voters who choose to vote below the line. It proposes increasing the number of allowable mistakes that can be made by voters when they are sequentially numbering their preferences, from the current three to five mistakes—improved savings measures—where 90 per cent of the number of boxes below the line have been filled in correctly, before a vote becomes informal. There are no other changes to the current provisions for below-the-line voting.
Taken together, the introduction of optional preferential voting above the line, the abolition of the voting ticket system and the enhanced savings provisions for voters that preserve their vote above and below the line, will improve voter control over preference flows, support transparency, and simplify the Senate voting system.
Part 2 – Registered officers and deputy registered officers
Consistent with the JSCEM's recommendations, the bill proposes changes to remove ambiguity around the accountabilities, affiliations, and alliances of political parties by removing the capacity for an individual to be a registered officer or deputy registered officer of multiple political parties. This does not prevent a person from being the registered officer of a federal political party and the registered officer of a State branch or division of that party.
Part 3 – Party logos
In its final report on the conduct of the 2013 election, the JSCEM considered the confusion that arises when political parties with similar names appear on ballot papers. The JSCEM suggested that the printing of party logos could help to overcome this confusion.
The bill proposes to allow for political party logos to appear, in black, on the ballot papers for both the House of Representatives and the Senate.
The AEC will determine the most effective method for registering, authenticating, reproducing, and printing party logos on ballot papers. The bill also proposes a new provision in the Electoral Act to protect the AEC against any action in relation to the reproduction of party logos.
Technical amendments
In the past, voters mainly placed a '1' above the line on Senate ballot papers. This enabled an initial first preference count to be undertaken at polling booths. As the proposed Senate amendments will lead to multiple voter preferences being numbered above the line, preference counts at polling booths will no longer be possible. The bill, therefore, proposes technical amendments to the scrutiny and count processes to enable the AEC to improve and centralise the count of Senate ballot papers.
Conclusion
The government is committed to an open and transparent voting system that has integrity, is simple and clear, and provides voters with the ability to express their will to the greatest extent possible and to have their voting intent upheld. The JSCEM is to be commended for its work in identifying the changes that need to be made in our current voting arrangements to achieve this objective in relation to Senate elections in particular.
The bill addresses the JSCEM's concerns and further improves Australia's democratic processes by placing more power in the hands of voters.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
I seek leave to move:
That the House:
1. Notes:
a. That nearly six months ago, the Prime Minister promised new economic leadership;
b. The Prime Minister, the Treasurer and this Liberal Government have failed to provide that leadership; and
c. That during his 46 minute speech to the National Press Club last week, the Treasurer outlined no new ideas, no plans for housing affordability, no plans for superannuation, and provided no economic leadership whatsoever; and
2. Suspends so much of standing and sessional orders as would prevent:
a. The Treasurer immediately being given 46 minutes to outline the Government's economic plan for Australia; and
b. The Member for McMahon being given the same amount of time to outline Labor's economic plan for Australia.
Leave not granted.
I move:
That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Manager of Opposition Business moving the following motion forthwith—That the House:
1. Notes:
a. That nearly six months ago, the Prime Minister promised new economic leadership;
b. The Prime Minister, the Treasurer and this Liberal Government have failed to provide that leadership; and
c. That during his 46 minute speech to the National Press Club last week, the Treasurer outlined no new ideas, no plans for housing affordability, no plans for superannuation, and provided no economic leadership whatsoever; and
2. Suspends so much of standing and sessional orders as would prevent:
a. The Treasurer immediately being given 46 minutes to outline the Government's economic plan for Australia; and
b. The Member for McMahon being given the same amount of time to outline Labor's economic plan for Australia.
Maybe he will want to talk about unicorns for 46 minutes. Maybe that will be—
I move:
That the member be no longer be heard.
The question is that the motion be agreed to.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( 12:3 0 ): Is there a seconder?
There is. The government has got a problem when Scott Morrison cannot even appear on Ray Hadley.
I move:
That the Member be no longer heard.
The question is that the member no longer be heard.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (12:34): The question is that the substantive motion be agreed to.
I move:
That the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment Bill 2016 be referred to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters for inquiry and report by no later than 9 am on 2 March 2016.
I would like to speak on the motion moved by the Treasurer. It is extraordinary that the Treasurer is moving this motion. His No. 1 priority, the thing he wants to talk to the House about, is how votes get counted—not his plans for the economy, not his policies, not the future of the Australian economy but political matters. That is the Treasurer's one big priority this week. He gave a speech last week. At least Rob Oakeshott had an announcement to make at the end of his 17-minute speech!
The member for McMahon will resume his seat. I call the Leader of the House.
I move:
That the question be now put.
The question is that the question be now put.
The question now is that the motion moved by Mr Morrison be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
I have received advice from the Chief Government Whip nominating a change in the membership of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters.
by leave—I move:
That Mrs Prentice be discharged from the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters and Mr Coleman be appointed a member of the committee.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the House moving immediately a motion to amend the resolution of appointment of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That for the purposes of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters’ inquiry into the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment Bill 2016:
1. participating members may be appointed to the committee on the nomination of the Leader of the Government in the Senate, the Leader of Opposition in the Senate, or any minority group or independent Senator;
2. such participating members:
a. shall be taken to be a member of the committee for the purposes of forming a quorum if a majority of members of the committee are not present; and
b. may participate in hearings of evidence and deliberations of the committee and have all rights of a committee member except that a participating member may not vote on any question before the committee; and
3. a message be sent to the Senate informing it of this resolution and requesting its concurrence.
Question agreed to.
On behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, I present the committee’s report entitled 'Report 454: Early Years Quality Fund: Review of Auditor-General report No. 23 (2014-15)' and I seek leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with the report
Leave granted.
In March 2013, $300 million was committed to establish the Early Years Quality Fund—the EYQF—to provide grants to long day care providers in order to supplement wage increases for childcare workers for a period of two years. As the father of an ex-childcare worker, I can tell you that the general emphasis on improving their wages and conditions is certainly something that those in the industry welcomed.
The grants were made available to providers on a first-in first-served basis, and an advisory board, comprising employer and employee representatives, was established to provide implementation advice. Small providers and large providers were each allocated a pool of $150 million. The program was implemented by the former Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations, with the Department of Education and Training then taking carriage of the program.
By close of business on 6 September 2013, the day before the federal election, funding agreements had been sent to one large provider, Goodstart Early Learning, for $132 million, and 15 small providers, for a total of $5 million.
Goodstart's CEO was on the EYQF advisory board, and Goodstart was the first large provider to lodge a completed application, and received the largest allocation of EYQF funding: 96 per cent of the $137 million allocated to all providers.
In its audit, the ANAO noted that the program's funding cap of $300 million, which was estimated to only cover around 30 per cent of all long day care workers, meant the program would most likely be oversubscribed—in fact, almost certainly oversubscribed. In the event, this funding cap was reached less than 13 hours after the application process commenced. The ANAO found that the department did not provide frank, comprehensive and timely advice to its minister on the program's implementation risks. However, it noted that this role was made more challenging because many of the key elements of the EYQF policy were developed by advisers in ministers' offices and then settled through ministerial correspondence rather than through more conventional cabinet processes.
The ANAO also found that key risks evident in the program's design—in particular, the first-in first-served approach—were compounded by inadequacies in the department's subsequent administration of the program. In short, the department did not demonstrate a disciplined approach to implementation that satisfied the requirements of the then Commonwealth grants guidelines.
At the public hearings, the committee also raised a number of probity and transparency matters regarding the EYQF. However, the committee notes that the Auditor-General did not make any adverse findings in this area. In its report, the committee made seven recommendations, including that: the Department of Education and Training report back to the committee on its progress implementing the ANAO recommendations, and that the ANAO consider including, in its schedule of performance audits, a priority follow-up audit of the effectiveness of grants program administration by the department; the Department of Finance amend the Commonwealth Grants Rules and Guidelines to refer to the implementation risks of a first-in first-served approach, and to specify that, where a method other than a competitive merit-based grants process is used, officials better document implementation risks and complete a risk management plan; the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet update its Guidance on caretaker conventions to clarify what constitutes 'appropriate consultation' with the opposition on grants administration matters during that caretaker period; the ANAO consider providing a clear statement on probity matters in its reports, outlining any probity findings and the Auditor-General's powers in such matters be covered; and the ANAO also consider expanding its Implementing better practice grants administration guideto further set out Commonwealth probity principles for grants administration, particularly regarding best practice information relevant to advisory boards.
On this last recommendation, I would like to take the opportunity to commend the ANAO for its better practice guides. They are important documents in bringing together collective experience on how to achieve outcomes beyond simple compliance with minimum requirements.
In conclusion, I thank committee members for their deliberation on these significant matters. I commend the report to the House.
Acting Deputy Speaker Vasta, I seek leave to make a few comments on this report.
Leave is granted.
First off, I do want to commend the secretariat for their excellent work in running this inquiry and I want to thank the two chairs of the JCPAA during this inquiry. It is not an understatement to say this has been the most politically contentious inquiry we have had in this term of parliament and, on the whole, I think both chairs have managed the partisan heat in this issue quite well. So I thank both of them for their efforts there.
The member for Groom alluded to the policy circumstances in which this policy was being developed. We had a national quality framework that led to an increase in the training requirements for childcare workers, where the decline in the ratios meant that we needed to get 15,000 additional childcare workers into an industry where the staff are underpaid. When you look at the qualifications required, they are underpaid and competing against the education system for teaching graduates.
We also had the context of a national wage case. The last federal government chose to intervene to supplement wages in a limited way. It is fair to say that everyone going in knew the $300 million were going to be stretched very thinly. I think the chairs' remarks about the shortcomings and departmental administration really go to the nub of the matter here.
I make a couple of points about the hearings. Certain members of the committee used the hearings to explore probity concerns and that was absolutely their right. But I make the point that the ANAO stated very clearly that, in the end, they found no evidence of any probity wrongdoings, that the systems put in place were sufficient and if they had found anything to indicate probity concerns, they would have 'chased down that particular rabbit burrow'. They did not find anything, so they did not investigate that particular matter.
On the caretaker conventions, we had evidence from the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet that they provided advice to the department and the minister of the day about how to fulfil the caretaker conventions, and they were followed. PM&C certified that the minister of the day followed the caretaker conventions to the letter and they were implemented in regard to the opposition. But I do support the recommendation to further clarify in detail how effective consultation with an opposition should be done.
On the issue of Goodstart receiving 96 per cent of funding that was finally allocated, this is not an accurate figure. That is the figure when you take into account the broken promise from the coalition. The coalition promised to honour the $300 million of funding and they broke that promise. So, in the end, $137 million was allocated. So the accurate figure was that Goodstart received 44 per cent of total program funding of $300 million. If the coalition had fulfilled their election promise of allocating the full $300 million, Goodstart would have received 44 per cent, not 96 per cent. So, in effect, it was a choice of the incoming government to allocate 96 per cent of funding to Goodstart.
Nevertheless, this was an important ANAO audit. The hearings of the JCPAA went to some very important matters around departmental administration and caretaker conventions. I commend the report to the House and again thank the secretariat for their always excellent work on what was a very high-profile audit.
Does the member for Groom wish to move a motion in connection with the report to enable it to be debated on a future occasion?
I move:
That the House take note of the report.
In accordance with standing order 39(c), the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
I move:
That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate.
Question agreed to.
On behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, I present the committee's report entitled Report 455: Parliamentary delegation to New Zealand and Fiji by members of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit. I seek leave to make a short statement in connection with the report.
Leave granted.
From 20 to 25 September last year, I led a delegation of three members of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit to the Republic of Fiji and New Zealand. Over the last two parliaments, the JCPAA has conducted inquiries into the Public Management Reform Agenda and the Commonwealth performance framework. In this context, the committee was interested in visiting New Zealand to gain a better understanding of New Zealand's approach to public sector reform. I would like to speak about New Zealand's approach, which the delegation found very interesting.
Promising better public services is something it seems every government does, and the public are understandably sceptical. However, we were extremely impressed by the reform agenda that New Zealand is pursuing in its public sector, and it was very clear that over the last few years they are managing things much better and more efficiently. The New Zealand government's Better Public Services program lists 10 challenging targets for its public services, including for example: reducing long-term welfare dependence; increasing participation in early childhood education; and increasing infant immunisation and reducing rheumatic fever.
The important thing about these goals is they are not just aspirational and they are not easy to achieve. The government and agency chief executives are jointly accountable for achieving results. Metrics for each target are regularly published and publicly available, and everyone can see whether the outcomes are on track or need attention. This is a simple reform, but it has clarity and a sense of purpose. Many of these goals stretch across multiple government agencies, and there is a strong focus on creating a culture where state services leaders take ownership of the reforms, focus on building customer-focused agencies and collaborate across agency boundaries. The result has been what the State Services Commission of New Zealand, which plays a key role in delivering these results, has called the New Zealand public sector's 'biggest transformation in a generation'.
The second area of interest was the performance improvement framework program. The original idea came from the capability reviews in the UK but has been improved on by New Zealand so that the PIF is forward looking and involves continuous improvement. A PIF is a review of an agency's fitness for purpose today and for the future, looking at how well placed it is to deal with the issues that will confront it in the medium-term future and how an agency can make improvements. The delegation found there was widespread support for the PIF review process, including from parliamentarians, government agency heads, public servants and private sector firms.
The third initiative I would like to highlight is New Zealand's integrated data infrastructure. Statistics New Zealand is working to integrate different data sources to form insights the government needs to improve social and economic outcomes. Statistics NZ's integrated data includes information from a number of agencies that provide things such as health, education and welfare services to the public. Along with tax, employment, and crime data, it also includes Statistics NZ survey data. The integrated data gives a view across government so agencies can deliver better services to the public and ensure investment is made where it is most needed. It has been informed by the private sector approach to data. For example, the Ministry of Education is already developing population projections, building consent data and school enrolment data to work out where new schools will go. By using geospatial population and traffic information, it is possible to work out the best place for a school or hospital so it will be of most benefit to the community as well as cut travel time to get to those places.
These approaches to public sector reform in New Zealand were of particular interest to the delegation. The New Zealand approach is very different from the one in Australia. New Zealand has moved away from a rules based approach to a principle and results based approach. The delegation believed that the Australian government, parliament and public sector bodies could learn from the New Zealand experience, and the committee has made two recommendations in the report. Firstly, that the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet and the Australian Public Service Commission examine these reforms in New Zealand and report back to the committee on whether they could be adopted by the Australian Public Service, and, secondly, that the Australian Bureau of Statistics examine the use of data in New Zealand and report back to the committee on whether this approach could be adopted in Australia.
The visits to Wellington and Suva provided committee members with an opportunity to engage with related bodies in these countries, strengthen parliamentary links and gain knowledge and expertise in areas of direct benefit to the committee's current and future work. The delegation concluded the trip with a greater understanding of public sector performance, accountability and reform in both countries.
Finally, on behalf of the delegation, I would like to record our appreciation of the work that went into preparing for the visit, including the various arrangements made by the Australian Parliament's International and Parliamentary Relations Office, the Office of the Clerk in the New Zealand parliament, and Australia's High Commissions in Fiji and New Zealand. I commend the report to the House.
In accordance with standing order 39(e) the report was made a parliamentary paper.
On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, I present the committee's Advisory report on the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2015. I ask leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with the report.
Leave granted.
I am pleased to present the committee's Advisory report on the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2015. The bill reflects the lessons learnt from recent counter-terrorism investigations and gives effect to several recommendations from theCouncil of Australian Governmentsreview of counter-terrorism legislation.
The measures in the bill are intended to extend and enhance the effectiveness of the control order regime by allowing a child 14 years of age or older to be the subject of a control order, by allowing sensitive national security information to be withheld from the subject of a control order and their legal representative in a control order hearing and by allowing search, telecommunications interception and surveillance device warrants to be issued for the purpose of determining whether a person is complying with a control order. The bill also contains measures to improve the clarity and operation of a range of existing powers and provisions, and it will introduce a new offence prohibiting the advocacy of genocide.
In the course of the inquiry, the committee received 17 written submissions. It conducted one public hearing and received several private briefings. The committee received evidence about Australia's rapidly changing security environment and the present terrorist threat. It noted trends toward short-term, low-complexity attack plans and instances of young people being involved in terrorist plots, including the horrific killing of Mr Curtis Cheng in October 2015 by a 15-year-old.
The committee concluded that it is appropriate that the control order regime be extended to young persons aged 14 and above, subject to the appropriate safeguards. To this end, the committee has recommended that the bill be amended to expressly provide for the right of a young person to legal representation in control order proceedings, remove the role of the court appointed advocate and clarify that the best interests of the young person is a primary consideration for the court in determining whether the conditions placed on the young person are necessary and appropriate, with national security remaining the paramount consideration.
The committee acknowledges concerns that this bill may contribute to, or have a perception of contributing to, social division by targeting sections of the community. The committee wants to emphasise strongly, however, that counter-terrorism laws are intended to protect the community as a whole and that the measures target conduct, not particular community groups. The committee reiterates its very strong support for efforts to promote social cohesion.
On 5 February 2016, the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor handed down his first report into control order safeguards, addressing, in particular, the question of whether a system of special advocates should be introduced into the control order regime. The committee had the benefit of considering the monitor's findings as part of its own inquiry. The committee concluded that a system of special advocates should be introduced to represent the subject of a control order application where the court decides to consider evidence that their ordinary lawyer is excluded from receiving.
The committee further recommended that the minimum standard of disclosure of information to the subject of a control order application should be sufficient to enable them to give effective instructions to their legal representative. Other recommendations in the committee's report include: a recklessness threshold for the offence of advocating genocide, which should be extended to include private as well as public advocacy; a requirement to have regard to the least interference with the liberty or privacy of a person when issuing a search, telecommunications interception or surveillance device; a warrant for monitoring compliance with a control order; and enhanced oversight, record-keeping and annual reporting requirements in relation to a range of powers. Following consideration of the recommendations, the committee has recommended that the bill be passed by the parliament.
On behalf of the committee, I thank the organisations and individuals who participated in this inquiry. I also acknowledge the work of the member for Wannon and former chair of the committee, Dan Tehan. It has been quite a pivotal period of time for the evolution and development of this committee. This committee has become by far the most important committee to consider security matters on behalf of the Australian people—in a way which we cannot disclose to the public. But—and speaking as Deputy Chair—we subject intelligence provided to us and legislation provided to us with intense scrutiny. I would like to pay tribute to the chair of the committee, the member for Wannon, for chairing the committee in a particularly challenging time. It has been a challenging time for the secretariat and its staff, a number of whom are sitting in the advisers' box—Julia Searle, Dr Anna Dacre and others who worked with us, including the secondees. Thank you very much for your work in very testing circumstances on a number of occasions.
The result has been this: for the five tranches of legislation it has contemplated so far, the committee has made 157 recommendations. We will be awaiting the government response to the recommendations contained in this particular report. With the 136 recommendations that we have made so far, 37 acts have been amended, one act has been repealed and 68 legislative changes have been made. The committee has been making a substantial difference to the national security architecture of this country, balancing, I believe, the rights and liberties of the individual versus the necessity of providing security to the Australian community.
In closing, however, I think this committee does need more power. I have said previously that this committee has been evolving. I have just returned from a trip to the United States, where I looked at the functioning of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. One of the key findings and take-home points I have is that, in these modern times, with leaks like the Snowden leaks and other material that has been put out there, I think that committees tasked on behalf of the Australian people to look at matters of national security and legislation need more powers, including increased access to operational activities of the intelligence agencies that we oversee. We have made progress so far with respect to that. We have brought the counterterrorism functions of the AFP under our umbrella. We have some element of the customs and border protection department. There is some other operational information that we have been given with respect to warrants on journalists, for example, and access to metadata.
But these are incremental and small steps. Fundamentally I think the Australian people need this committee to have the capacity to inquire more diligently and more thoroughly into matters that it should be tasked to look at. That would include, potentially, the capacity for the committee to have self-referencing power, and I draw interested parties' attention to the sterling paper written by former senator John Faulkner which addressed that very issue.
As I said, this is the fifth tranche of legislation that has been passed. I commend the bipartisanship of the committee, but 'bipartisanship' should not be taken to mean that we all sit there and agree with each other on every matter that we have discussed. I can say without breaching any provisions of the Intelligence Services Act that on many occasions there has been much robust conversation with respect to that, but that is the job of our committee—a committee behind closed doors that operates on behalf of the Australian people. As I said, I would like it to have more power. I think it would serve the interests of this parliament for it to have more power, and I look forward to this committee getting more power in the course of its evolution.
In accordance with standing order 39(e) the report was made a Parliamentary Paper.
I move the following amendment to the bill:
That all the words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
"while not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House calls on the Government to make Australia's capital gains tax and negative gearing regimes fairer and more sustainable."
Labor's position is to support the Tax Laws Amendment (Small Business Restructure Roll-over) Bill 2016, but this is a bill about economic leadership, and we need to speak directly about that issue today. The Prime Minister has now been in parliament for almost 12 years and the Treasurer for almost nine years. And after 5½ months of their double act of economic leadership we saw last week the 'emperor's new clothes' moment for the Treasurer, Scott Morrison. We saw that he is unable, given 46 minutes at the Press Club, with Australia's leading economic journalists arrayed before him, to put forth a single idea of his own. Not a single idea has been taken up by this government that contributes in a significant way to boosting growth or equity in Australia. Everything is always on the table, and you are reminded of that Yogi Berra line: 'When you come to a fork in the road, take it', because there is not a fork that this Treasurer and this Prime Minister have not taken. They even had a chance today. We moved a motion to suspend standing orders so that the Treasurer and his counterpart, Chris Bowen, could be given 46 minutes each to talk in this House about their ideas. Did the Treasurer take it up? No. Yet again, he squibbed the opportunity, running away like one of his mythical creatures, off to talk about political numbers—which is all he really cares about, all he is really confident about.
This bill is a modest reform, but let's not pretend that it in any way constitutes economic leadership. Labor will support it because it allows small business to restructure with greater ease. But it would be remiss, in talking about the issues of fair taxation, to not deal with the question of capital gains tax discount and negative gearing. We know that Australia has uniquely generous tax arrangements when it comes to negative gearing and the capital gains tax discount. We know that those policies have worked together to make housing increasingly unaffordable for young Australians. Price to income ratios have approximately doubled over the past two decades. We have seen the share of young Australians owning their own home fall by 25 percentage points in a generation. For low-income young Australians, rates of homeownership have halved. And we now have Sydney as the second most unaffordable city in the world when measured by price to income ratios, behind only Hong Kong, and Melbourne as the fourth most unaffordable city in the world.
Yet, faced with these unassailable facts, the Treasurer does not talk about acting on negative gearing and capital gains tax to make sure that all Australians can afford their own home. No. Instead, he behaves like the Property Council executive he once was—much more interested in protecting tax distortions and loopholes than in good policy.
The list of people who have supported doing something about negative gearing and the capital gains tax discount spans Australia and spans politics. Former Treasurer Hockey said on 21 October 2015:
… negative gearing should be skewed towards new housing so that there is an incentive to add to the housing stock rather than an incentive to speculate on existing property.
There he is, presaging our policy. Jeff Kennett, the former Liberal premier, said:
I'm very disappointed at the way in which my side of politics are arguing against what I think—
Mr Deputy Speaker, a point of order: I draw the member's attention to relevance. This bill is the Small Business Restructure Roll-over Bill—
I thank the honourable member for Hughes, but I call the honourable member for Fraser.
I understand why those opposite do not want to hear Jeff Kennett's words: because they are pretty sharp. He says:
I'm very disappointed at the way in which my side of politics are arguing against what I think is an eminently supportable concept put forward by the Labor Party in terms of negative gearing.
John Daley from the Grattan Institute has talked about negative gearing as being:
… a policy that ultimately reduces home ownership, costs the Commonwealth a lot of money in terms of foregone tax revenue and is very unfair
Chris Richardson has said, 'Congratulations to the opposition.' We have heard positive words about tackling negative gearing and the capital gains tax discount from Cassandra Goldie of ACOSS and from National Shelter. Jillian Broadbent, a former Reserve Bank director, has been quoted as saying:
… a disproportionate amount of individuals savings that go into the housing sector
Warwick McKibbin, former RBA director, said:
The question is do you want to avoid the problem now or do you want to wait until the thing just bursts?
And in the government's own financial system inquiry, brought down in November 2014, under the heading 'Major tax distortions', it has included:
The tax treatment of investor housing, in particular, tends to encourage leveraged and speculative investment in housing.
Indeed, the Prime Minister himself acknowledged, when he wrote about tax in 2005, that Australia's negative gearing settings are among the most generous in the world.
The Property Council of Australia has an ad campaign out today, which talks about a 'housing supply crisis' in Australia. Well, if you believe there is a housing supply crisis in Australia, why would you continue to support a policy where 93 per cent of negative gearing is on the existing stock and only seven per cent on the new stock? Ken Morrison and Scott Morrison need to acknowledge that only one in seven home buyers are first home buyers. And with median prices pushing above $1 million in Sydney and above $700,000 in Melbourne, they need to recognise that a whole generation of young Australians risk being shut out of the housing market if we do not move to measures which are fairer and which boost supply.
Last year house prices grew five times faster than wages. We do not expect that house prices would fall under our policy—house prices continue to rise in plenty of other countries which do not have Australia's negative gearing and capital gains tax settings—but what we do expect is that it might be possible for wage growth and house price growth to be a little closer together. Negative gearing disproportionately benefits the best off. High-income earners, such as lawyers, surgeons and anaesthetists, gain benefits in the thousands of dollars. Lower income earners, such as teachers, nurses and police, earn average benefits in the order of a few hundred dollars. You will hear these misleading statistics about the taxable income of negative gearers—in other words, what their income position is after they have taken advantage of negative gearing. Those statistics, if you believe them, would suggest that 64,000 Australians are negative gearing on incomes of zero or negative incomes, which does raise an eyebrow as to why the bank would lend them the money in the first place.
The fact is, we know that 70 per cent of the benefits of capital gains taxed concessions go to the top tenth. We know that these are tax distortions that burn a hole in the budget. The capital gains subsidy cost $4.2 billion in 2014 and is projected to double to $8.6 billion in 2019. The government's own financial systems inquiry has acknowledged that this is a tax distortion that needs to be tackled. Labor's capital gains tax concession and negative gearing package will add $32 billion to the budget bottom line over the course of the next decade, bringing the total of Labor saves to around $100 billion.
In an environment in which Australians are crying out for the economic leadership that they were promised when Tony Abbott was topped by Malcolm Turnbull, we have, instead, the Labor Party leading the economic debate. Labor will halve the capital gains tax discount for assets purchased after 1 July next year. That will reduce the capital gains tax discount from 50 per cent to 25 per cent. It will not affect small businesses, it will not affect investments made by superannuation funds and, by grandfathering existing assets, we ensure confidence and certainty to small businesses and to investors. Labor's plan incentivises the construction of new housing, so for small businesses that are involved in architecture and landscaping, who are tradies, the flow-on effects will be significant. It has been estimated that around 40 workers are involved in the construction of a new home, many of them will be small businesses. So by standing against Labor's policy on negative gearing and the capital gains tax discount, this government is standing against an opportunity for small businesses in the construction sector to benefit from an increase in housing supply.
Two million small businesses in Australia benefited from Labor's permanent instant asset write-off when we were in government. The coalition, upon coming into office, immediately scrapped that measure, only to bring back a temporary instant asset write-off. The temporary instant asset write-off expires on 30 June 2017. That is going to mean an investment boom just before the deadline and an investment bust straight after it. What is the economic rationale for cutting off the instant asset write-off in the middle of next year? There is none. It is a political rationale based only on the short-term politics that this government seems so fond of. The former Treasurer was too caught up in politics and the current Treasurer is all politics; delighted to come in here and tell us his views on Senate voting reform but terrified of actually talking about economics at the National Press Club.
Another Labor initiative for small business that was dismantled by the coalition was the loss carry-back measure, which allowed companies and businesses that were taxed similarly to carry-back tax losses of up to $1 million to offset taxable income from an earlier year. It was a recommendation of the Henry review but we are yet to see any evidence that the government is serious about broad-ranging tax reform. We recently heard the Treasury head say the department were 'waiting for direction' from the government on whether the tax white paper was dead or alive. It seems like the ex-parrot of Monty Python: the government keeps on telling us it is alive, and if you just push the cage or give it a jolt it will get going again. But the fact is, this tax white paper is an ex-tax white paper. Bereft of life, it rests in peace.
The government is unwilling to tell the people who put their submissions into the tax white paper what they are going to do about tax reform. There were 800 submissions and millions of dollars spent putting in place the submissions, and the Minister for Finance can simply refer to the white paper as 'stationery'. It is 'stationary' all right, not just in the sense that it might be written on paper but also in the sense that it has ground to a halt, as has the economic debate in this country under this government. That is why it has fallen to Labor to list a range of positive plans, which benefit not just small businesses but also all Australians.
We have consumer confidence down, growth down and unemployment up. We have debt up and deficits up—entirely contrary to a promise of the Abbott-Turnbull government that they would deliver a surplus in their first year and in every year after that. How is that promised surplus going? Last I looked, it was at 2020-21 when the government was planning to be back in surplus, but they are now saying that they are going to tackle bracket creep. Bracket creep is, of course, 80 per cent of their return-to-surplus strategy, so once they tackle bracket creep it will probably be out to the 2030s before this government can be pledging to return the budget to surplus. Meanwhile, Labor has laid the groundwork with clear, positive plans for tax reforms that will not hurt growth and equity but will provide us with the scope for a start-up year for young Australians, a smart investment fund and a partial guarantee scheme to finance microbusinesses. Labor supports needs based funding for schools and the proper funding for universities that they deserve.
I was at the Australian National University today with Bill Shorten, Kim Carr, Amanda Rishworth and Gai Brodtmann. The university is delighted that there is one side of politics that takes university funding seriously and is willing to invest in the jobs of the future.
Order! The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. The member will have leave to continue his remarks at that later hour.
'Kaya' is the word for 'hello' in the Noongar language of south-western Western Australia.
Nelson Mandela once said:
Without language, one cannot talk to people and understand them; one cannot share their hopes and aspirations, grasp their history, appreciate their poetry, or savor their songs.
During his recent parliamentary speech on Closing the Gap, Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, admirably, spoke some words of Ngunawal, and this was noted in the community as a significant symbolic step. However, in the Northern Territory parliament recently, the member for Stuart, Bess Price, was disciplined and told she may not use her first language—Warlpiri—without seeking leave. In Crikey last week, Greg Dickson quoted Price as saying:
I feel that I cannot effectively represent my electorate without using my first language, Warlpiri. Over 75% of the population of my electorate is Aboriginal, most of who speak a traditional language.
Article 13 of the UN Declaration on the Rights of the Indigenous Peoples, which Australia supports, provides that:
1. Indigenous peoples have the right to revitalize, use, develop and transmit to future generations their histories, languages, oral traditions, philosophies, writing systems and literatures, and to designate and retain their own names for communities, places and persons.
2. States shall take effective measures to ensure this right is protected and also to ensure that indigenous peoples can understand and be understood in political, legal and administrative proceedings, where necessary through the provision of interpretation or by other appropriate means.
It is time that all Australian parliaments and other political, legal and administrative institutions take action to ensure not only the preservation of Indigenous languages as important cultural heritage but also the active use of these languages as critical to ensuring inclusion and nondiscrimination, as well as to Closing the Gap. (Time expired)
I would just like to thank all those who came along to my street stall last week in Deeragun. Many issues were raised by those who could not stop to chat, and a couple of suggestions were made from those who passed in their cars.
No. 1 was that the intersection at Deeragun Road and Geaney Lane is still not right. There were two possibilities raised to get it right. One was to put in a set of lights and the other was to make that intersection a roundabout. I am just advising those people that I will write to the Townsville City Council to consider those options, as to continue as we are seems silly.
No. 2 is that it is and always has been an issue getting across the road to the Bohlevale State School. The lights seem to take an eternity. Building a pedestrian overpass has been raised. It is hard to believe that the cost of an overpass has now hit the $60 to $70 million mark. The need to have it fully covered and to enable lifts for wheelchair access makes the cost unbelievable. What I ask of all residents is to wait until the ring road has been completed and we can assess how the new traffic flows can work better in enabling us to get across the road. The lights will also speed up at that time as well.
Local crime was also raised with me and the ability to back up the police service in the tremendous job that they do. The federal government runs a safer streets campaign—a streetlighting campaign. I ask those people who turned up and who are following it up with a letter to the neighbourhood about the areas identified in this program to let me know so that I can get the attention of my minister. I thank those people in Deeragun who turned up. Cheers.
It gives me great pleasure to bring to the attention of the House some news from one of the jewels in the crown of my electorate of Indi, Alexandra in the Shire of Murrindindi, in the Goulburn Valley.
I was very pleased to meet with the Probus Club to do some really active listening, and I thank Kath Beveridge, Claire Hulland and the president and committee for all the good work they do. To the captains of Alexandra Secondary College, Olivia and Alex: thank you for your warm hospitality, and to acting principal, Nigel Lyttle. The school prides itself on its academic excellence. Recently, a number of students came to the ANU and participated in the National Youth Science Forum with great results. At least 40 per cent of the school is involved in music; it is very active in outdoor sports—particularly snow skiing; in VCAL and VET in hospitality, construction and their fantastic automotive work; and in speaking Japanese and Indonesian. It is a great country school.
The award-winning Alexandra District Health—the old hospital—which employs over 100 staff, last year attended to over 1,143 outpatients, including 634 operations. They are doing a fantastic job. The reports are there, with VHES—the Victorian Healthcare Experience Survey—reporting that 97 per cent of the people report good or very good experiences. So thank you to Margaret Rae and Mark Ashcroft, and to all the staff at Alex hospital: thanks for the terrific work you do.
Finally, to the listening post—to Melinda and Richard, who came and talked to me about Cathedral landcare and their issues with black— (Time expired)
This month we are commemorating the 18th anniversary of the passing of Julian Simon, one of the greatest rational thinkers of the 20th century. In his honour, I would like to share a few quotations from his work.
On the most valuable resource, Simon said:
The ultimate resource is people—skilled, spirited, and hopeful people who will exert their wills and imaginations for their own benefit, and so, inevitably, for the benefit of us all.
On sustainability, he said, 'Our supplies of natural resources are not finite in any economic sense. Nor does past experience give us reason to expect natural resources to become more scarce. Rather, if history is any guide, natural resources will progressively become less costly, hence less scarce.'
And, on an optimistic future, Simon wrote:
This is my long-run forecast in brief:
The material conditions of life will continue to get better for most people, in most countries, most of the time, indefinitely.
… … …
I also speculate, however, that many people will continue to think and say that the conditions of life are getting worse.
As I said, Julian Simon was one of the greatest rational thinkers of the 20th century and we should have more of his work taught in our schools.
I wish to thank those members of our community who attended our recent second Kingsford Smith Lunar New Year Festival on 13 February at Dacey Gardens in our community.
The festival was a great hit, with double the numbers of last year and with traditional Chinese artistic and dance performances, Chinese dress and wonderful food stalls from one of Australia's best Asian food precincts, in Kingsford. And, of course, the hit was the lion dance that occurred on the evening.
It was a particularly pleasing event, to see so many families, the elderly and young people in our community coming together to celebrate our multicultural background and to enjoy Chinese traditions and customs. I am extremely proud to represent an electorate with such a culturally diverse population and to see members from different backgrounds within the community join together in celebration on such occasions. That is a great thing for our community.
I would like to thank all the staff and mayors of Botany and Randwick city councils, Peter Schick and the members of the Kingsford Chamber of Commerce, the University of New South Wales, who sponsored the event, and of course the Confucius Institute at the University of New South Wales, which provided a lot of the talent on the evening. This is now an annual event. The numbers are growing, and I look forward to hosting it again next year. To all in our community who celebrate New Year: I wish you health, wealth and prosperity in the Year of the Monkey. Xin nian kuai le.
I often talk up the important industries that drive the Capricornia economy in Central Queensland. Amongst these is our growing intellectual industry spearheaded by Central Queensland University.
Recently, I was delighted to host the Prime Minister in Rockhampton, where he officially opened a state-of-the-art allied health teaching facility known as Building 34 at CQ University. This project was funded by a $7.6 million contribution from the Australian government. The centre includes treatment beds, simulation labs, occupational therapy and biomechanical exercise spaces. I congratulate CQ University vice-chancellor Professor Scott Bowman and his team on his vision for this project. Health is among our biggest industries in Rockhampton outside of mining and beef. Building 34 will help train new health professionals, which in turn will help address skill shortages in the allied health sector across rural Queensland.
Meanwhile, I congratulate CQ University chancellor and former engineer Rennie Fritschy on his recent retirement. Chancellor Fritschy made an outstanding contribution to leadership within the university and our local community. It was my pleasure to host recently the federal Minister for Education at CQU's campus in Mackay in my electorate of Capricornia, where he officially opened the new Rennie Fritschy Engineering Building as a tribute to the outgoing chancellor's work.
I want to bring the attention of the House to the appalling situation facing Parramatta families seeking to access the court system to settle family law matters. The situation has now reached crisis point, with waiting times stretching to 18 months for an interim hearing and up to three years for a resolution. Imagine knowing that, if you do not have access to your two-year-old, it could take you three years before that issue was resolved.
A recent Monday was a fairly typical day, and only four of the 12 courtrooms in Parramatta were in use. It was not because there was not enough work to fill a few more but because we did not have enough judges. In fact, we are three judges down at Parramatta. One judge is dealing with 600 Parramatta cases, and the work is only increasing. These unreasonable delays greatly increase family tensions and resentments due to the prolonged uncertainty about child custody and property settlement matters. Delays like this have a lifelong impact on children and their parents.
The root cause of the problems at Parramatta is the nonappointment of Federal Circuit Court judges to replace those who have retired or been relocated. Recently, the replacement of one judge took 560 days. A retirement date has been set for a judge who is currently on long-term leave. At the very least, I request the Attorney-General replace that judge without delay on his formal retirement.
Concern about this issue is widespread within my local community and the legal fraternity, and I call on the government to respond to this matter as a matter of urgency.
I rise today to speak on my favourite topic—the Toowoomba Second Range Crossing—but also to pay tribute to one of the great proponents of that crossing: the member for Wide Bay. Last week, we again announced even more money from the Commonwealth in relation to futureproofing the Toowoomba Second Range Crossing. The crossing, as we know, has been funded in the main by the Commonwealth government for some $1.4 billion, and we had to wait till the coalition got into government to do that. I see the member for Moreton sitting at the table. He knows how badly the Toowoomba region needed that range crossing, and it took a coalition government to build it. They sat on their hands for six years. But I am not going to be distracted by that.
Along with the half-million dollars to futureproof a potential half-cloverleaf, it again was just another tick in the great contribution that the member for Wide Bay has made not only to infrastructure in the Groom electorate but right across Australia. It was 32 years ago when I first sat next to the member for Wide Bay when we were on the state council of the Queensland Graingrowers Association together. At the beginning of my public life, he was already well into his. Our paths have tracked along that way, but there is no doubt that his contribution to this place and Australia has been enormous.
The Reserve Bank of Australia is undertaking a process to introduce Australia's next generation of banknotes. The new banknotes will include improved security features and, thanks to the campaign run by Connor McLeod and supported by the member for Jagajaga and the member for Chifley, those new banknotes will have improved tactile features for those who are vision impaired. They are very welcome by many Australians, so it is good to see a community campaign to see Fred Hollows be one of the Australians featured on our next generation of banknotes. It is called Put Fred on the Fiver.
On the front of our current $5 note we have, obviously, Queen Elizabeth II. On the reverse we have a picture of this place. Fred Hollows would be a worthy inclusion on any Australian banknote. There are two compelling reasons why he should be on the fiver, however. The first is that during his long lifetime he ran a very famous campaign to 'give Fred a fiver' so that he could help restore the sight of blind or vision impaired Aboriginal Australians. The second, of course, is that the $5 note is the only Australian banknote that does not include an Australian on it.
Despite his death in 1993, his work continues through the Fred Hollows Foundation. Many Australians, including Ray Martin, Bob Hawke and Cathy Freeman, have already added their voice to the campaign. He is a worthy Australian to be included on any banknote, so let's get behind the push to put Fred on the fiver.
I want to acknowledge all of those involved in the recent Uduc bushfires in my home area of Harvey in Western Australia. I want to thank all of the firefighters, whether they were career professionals or volunteers, but in this instance I also really want to mention the local farmers.
It was the local farmers with their utes and their fire units who worked solidly throughout this fire; farmers with discs on the back of their tractors, discing around the neighbours' properties to try to prevent this fire from spreading any further than it did. There was significant aerial support as well. That certainly was of great assistance during these days.
But one of the greatest enemies of people in this situation is the sheer exhaustion. That was the same for the career firefighters, the volunteer firefighters and the farmers themselves. I really wanted to thank everybody involved in that for a number of reasons, but this particular one came within a paddock of our own farm. I want to thank every single farmer who was out there. There were 13 or 14 fire units, and those farmers were running up and down the face of that fire, doing everything they humanly could to assist their neighbours and their fellow farmers in managing what could have been an absolute disaster.
The Commonwealth Bank in the mall in West Heidelberg is due to close in March, in just a few weeks time. As this is the only bank in the area, this will be a huge loss for the entire local community. That is why I recently wrote to the Commonwealth Bank's CEO urging him to keep West Heidelberg's bank open. Representatives from the bank have met with me and members of the local community. Local residents made it very clear that West Heidelberg needs to keep its bank.
West Heidelberg is home to many elderly pensioners and low-income families who do not have the ability to travel to banks in adjacent suburbs; nor do they have access to internet banking. I am concerned that the bank's closure could threaten the long-term viability of the mall. The flow-on effects of the bank's closure could be devastating for small businesses. The bank has played an important role in the area's regeneration, but I fear that the bank's closure could jeopardise that progress.
I was down at the mall recently and I was joined by many local residents. I want to say a huge thank you to all of those who are campaigning to keep the bank open in West Heidelberg—to Stavros Zikou and mall trader Rona McLaughlan. We will keep fighting. West Heidelberg needs to keep its bank open.
On Friday evening I had the pleasure of attending the Blue Mountains state emergency services annual presentation. It was an honour to spend the night in the company of these wonderful people, who give their time so freely. SES members are champions of our community; they never hesitate to work around the clock to ensure those who need their help are not left without assistance. Volunteers form the social fabric of the Blue Mountains community, and lives are made better because of their work and service.
From Lapstone to Mount Victoria, the Blue Mountains unit has a membership of about 100, with two bases located along the Great Western Highway at Katoomba and Faulconbridge. About 70 per cent of the area that the Blue Mountains unit covers is made up of Blue Mountains National Park. The Blue Mountains is home to around 76,000 people who live in the 26 towns and villages that are located between 50 to 120 kilometres west of Sydney. These volunteers do an outstanding job, particularly given there are a number of factors that create difficulties for local residents, such as the terrain and climate. Since 1957, SES members have responded to more than 10,000 requests for assistance because of storm damage in the Blue Mountains, and were an integral part of assisting during the 2013 bushfires.
It is such a joy and a privilege to represent a community and a group of people that are so generous. The best of our community shines in our volunteers. I would like to take this opportunity to personally thank all award recipients and SES volunteers in the Macquarie electorate and across this great nation for their dedication to our communities.
I am not sure if government ministers and members have realised but there is an Australian jobs embassy that has been set up on the lawns out the front of Parliament House. These are workers who have lost their jobs on this government's watch. These are seafarers, manufacturers and shipbuilders, people who have been forgotten by this government because of their policies and their lack of care.
What is wrong with a government that they will not even go down to the lawns and meet with these workers and talk with these workers and hear their experiences? These are people who were working on our ships, who in the middle of the night either received a text message or an email to tell them they were sacked or forcibly removed because they dared to say that they wanted to have Australians working on Australian ships. This government has been silent when it comes to standing up for people working in the seafaring industry or in manufacturing.
I met with a man who was one of the workers who was forcibly removed, a man from Golden Square in my electorate, who has worked in the industry for 30 years, and he was shocked. He was shocked that he was replaced by a foreign worker, earning as little as $2 a day.
When will this government stand up and support Australian jobs? When will they go down and meet with the people at the Australian jobs embassy on our own lawns, just out the front of this place? It is time the government stood up for Australian jobs.
I rise today to congratulate those in my electorate of Macarthur who received Australia Day citizenship awards for their outstanding contribution to our community. I would like to give special mention to my close mate Keith Maddock, President of the Lions Club in Camden, who has been recognised for being instrumental in implementing an organ donor awareness program through the Lions Club of Australia. I would also like to acknowledge Jack Wilton, a worthy recipient of the Wollondilly Australia Day Citizen of the Year Award, who has an incredible record of volunteering and community service dating back to 1963, which is a great testament to Jack's commitment and compassion for the Wollondilly community. Keith and Jack have worked tirelessly for their community for many years and are incredibly deserving of their awards.
I would also like to acknowledge all the other Australia Day winners in Macarthur: Brandon Cotter, Kirilly White, Josh Porteous and Team Coshi—all young students who have been recognised for the contribution to the community—and Braydon Hawes, Mark Szalajko, Janine Mladin, Gabrielle Plain and Judith Rigg for their respective achievements in sport.
Community Event of the Year was Mother Hubbard's Cupboard. Eight years after its inception, Mother Hubbard's Cupboard has provided over $300,000 in both cash and kind support for those in need. Community Group Initiative of the Year was Rotary Club of Macarthur Sunrise. Lifetime Achievement Award was Phil Costa. Achiever of the Year was Tim Bennett-Smith. Local Hero was Julie Sheppard.
It is fantastic to see so many people from all walks of like helping others and dedicating their lives to some very important issues in Macarthur. Congratulations again to all the winners. You are what makes Macarthur a great place to live, work, play and raise a family.
I rise to tell the House about an event that was held last Thursday in my electorate. I was pleased to welcome the member for Scullin, Andrew Giles to Hoppers Crossing to a forum about cities and about those things we might do to create more liveable cities across this great country.
Of course it was important in my electorate, which is an outer suburban city. Some here may remember it fondly as the shire of Werribee with a population of 90,000. It has long since been the city of Wyndham and now boasts a population of 200,000.
The member for Scullin and I listened to locals from Point Cook, Altona Meadows, Seabrook, Laverton, Wyndham Vale, Werribee, Truganina, Tarneit and Williams Landing talk to us about life in the outer west, about the quality of life and the impact that congestion across our city and congestion getting into the city causes to them and their family life.
We know that the decisions made by government and not made by government impact on people's lives in busy places like Wyndham. I thank the member for Scullin for his attendance. I also note that on this side of the chamber we have a shadow minister with cities in his portfolio. On that side of the chamber, although there is someone with that title, they are no longer in cabinet. Our side cares and their side does not. (Time expired)
I rise to congratulate Toukley RSL on their 60th anniversary of providing outstanding service to my local community. Toukley RSL has a rich history on the Central Coast.
While it was officially established as an RSL club in 1955, its history actually dates back to 1948 when the Upper Tuggerah Lakes Sub-Branch was formed at the Holmesville homestead, which is now situated opposite the present club, by 10 returned servicemen from the first and second world wars. In 1949, the sub-branch purchased the old Wyong Bakehouse and with voluntary labour they reconstructed the building with suitable additions.
When it was completed, the building was a double frontage weatherboard building situated on land purchased where the present main entrance to the club is now. In 1963, a new brick building was erected and, since then, major extensions and renovations have gradually been undertaken to become the club that we now know.
From their humble beginnings by the 10 returned servicemen in 1948, the club now has a membership of almost 10,000 people. My congratulations go to CEO Trevor Haynes; chairman Ken Piper; the board of Toukley RSL and all of the staff, volunteers and members past and present for achieving the 60-year milestone.
I thank the club for their ongoing contribution to the Dobell community and I wish Toukley RSL every success for the future. May they grow in prosperity for future generations to enjoy.
I rise to acknowledge the many community groups in my electorate, including Vietnamese, Chinese, Taiwanese and others, who have welcomed the Lunar New Year, the Chinese New Year. Obviously, part of that time is spent re-engaging and connecting with family but, in the last week or so, it has also been about reaching out to the broader community by way of celebration in this the Year of the Monkey.
I particularly acknowledge the Taiwan Friendship Association of Queensland, Billy Lowe and the many people who helped organise the event on Saturday, including Professor Chao who chewed my ear for quite a length of time about the recent elections in Taiwan and the President-elect Tsai Ing-wen's victory and how orderly that process was.
I also attended the Brisbane Chinese Cultural Festival event held in King George Square, organised by the Mainland Chinese Society of Queensland. Unfortunately, King George Square was incredibly hot on Saturday as there are no trees there at the moment, but the choir put on a great performance. The Lions Club of Brisbane Chinese also combined it with a 20-year celebration event. Well done Johnson Chen and the founding Lions Club members from 20 years ago and all those people at the Brisbane Chinese Lions Club.
Lastly, I want to mention the Buddhist Compassion Relief Tzu Chi Foundation that has done great work in my electorate. Patrick and his team of volunteers always look immaculate in their uniforms, but I particularly thank them for five years ago when they were filthy in the mud doing great work in my electorate. (Time expired)
Last Friday I attended a Mass of Christian Burial for one of my constituents, Jan Siejka, at the Church of Apostles in Launceston. Jan was born in Poland and his formative years were challenging, to say the least. In February 1940, aged about 10, he was forced into labour by the Nazis. Somehow he survived and after the war he met and married his wife, Mary. The couple lived in a displaced persons camp at Hohenfels in Germany.
Their great fortune in life was migration to Australia, in 1949, and Jan took up work as a cane cutter in North Queensland. In 1950, he and Mary settled in the small Tasmanian town of Perth and in 1952 he established Continental Builders with a 1,000 pound loan. Jan Siejka was behind notable building projects like the Launceston Magistrates Court, the Carmelite Monastery and a number of hospitals and schools.
He sat on the Tasmanian Advisory Council on Multicultural and Ethnic Affairs, the Master Builders Association and, federally, on a number of advisory committees. Jan and Mary were generous donors to so many worthy causes in our community. Jan was awarded the City of Launceston Citizen of the Year in 1994 and an OAM for services to the Polish community and building industry in 1995.
Jan Siejka will be remembered not just by his family but also by our community. May he rest in peace and I extend my sincere condolences to his family.
It is with great sadness that I inform the parliament of yet another tragic workplace death, in Adelaide, over the weekend when Steve Wyatt was killed in an accident at the Royal Adelaide Hospital construction site. Sadly, this is the second time in less than two years that I have stood at this dispatch box and passed on my sympathies to the families and also remarked upon our obligation as members of parliament to make sure that safety in the workplace is absolutely paramount in every decision that we are making.
Of course, this comes too soon after Jorge Castillo-Riffo was also killed in a construction accident, in Adelaide, at the Royal Adelaide Hospital site. It comes after Jacob Porter, a 21-year-old man from Victor Harbour, died in an accident at the Costco construction site, also my electorate, in Kilburn. Just over the Christmas period a teenager, Travis Mellor, who was new to the workplace, ended up in a coma after working in the construction industry during extreme heat in South Australia.
I am absolutely of the view that no matter how tight the deadline is, no matter how heavy the price tag may seem, in Australia in 2016 it is absolutely unacceptable for people to be saying goodbye to their families going off to work and never, ever returning home. I am sure I can speak for the whole parliament in passing on my sympathies to Steve Wyatt's family.
So it came to be that the world championship of Rugby League was played this morning and the North Queensland Cowboys added to their list of titles when they toyed with the Brisbane Broncos last year and took out the game, after full-time, for theatrical effect. We beat Leeds this morning—38 to 4—to win the world championship of Rugby League. Johnathan Thurston added the last remaining trophy— (Time expired)
Mercifully, in accordance with standing order 43, the time for members’ statements has concluded!
by leave—I move:
That the following order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate:
Death of the Honourable Robert George (Bob) Halverson—Copy of the condolence motion moved by the Prime Minister—Motion to take note of the Paper: Resumption of Debate.
In doing so, as someone who served with Bob Halverson for about nine years of my political career, I associate myself with the remarks of you, Mr Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister.
Question agreed to.
In presenting a revised ministry list, I congratulate all the new ministers and parliamentary secretaries and, in particular, our new Deputy Prime Minister.
The document read as follows—
TURNBULL MINISTRY 18 February 2016
Each box represents a portfolio. Cabinet Ministers are shown in bold type. As a general rule, there is one department in each portfolio. However, there is a Department of Human Services in the Social Services portfolio and a Department of Veterans' Affairs in the Defence portfolio. The title of a department does not necessarily reflect the title of a minister in all cases. Assistant Ministers in italics are designated as Parliamentary Secretaries under the Ministers of State Act 1952.
Mr Speaker, I advise that the Minister for the Environment will be away from question time today, as he is unwell. The Minister for Foreign Affairs will answer questions on his behalf. The Minister for Trade and Investment will be absent from question time this week, as he is representing Australia at the Australia United States Business Week, in the USA, and the Foreign Minister will answer questions on his behalf. The Minister for Resources, Energy and Northern Australia will be similarly absent from question time this week, as he is leading a delegation of senior Australian business and academic representatives in the Australia United States Business Week 2016, and the Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science will answer questions on his behalf. And the Minister for Human Services will be absent from question time this week after the birth of his son, Richard, on Friday. The Minister for Social Services will answer questions on his behalf.
My question is to the Prime Minister. When he rolled the member for Warringah almost six months ago, the now Prime Minister said:
Every month lost is a month of lost opportunities.
So, after almost six months of lost opportunities, when will the Prime Minister finally deliver an economic plan for Australia?
The Leader of the Opposition knows very well that the challenge for the Australian economy as it transitions from the mining construction boom is to secure the great opportunities of growth that we see from—
Ms O'Neil interjecting—
Mr Conroy interjecting—
The members for Hotham and Charlton!
the rise of Asia and the rapid expansion of the global economy. We recognise that the jobs of the future, the jobs of our children and grandchildren, the high-wage jobs to which they are entitled, will be secured through innovation, through science, through technology and through investment. So every single lever of my government is pulling in the direction of jobs, growth and fairness. Those are the goals.
The first package of policies that we released was therefore the National Innovation and Science Agenda, recognising that that is the key to growth. We provided real incentives to invest, real incentives for people to invest in start-ups and real incentives for universities to better collaborate with industries, because therein lies the key to growth.
What have our friends on the Labor side done in their response? They have sought to put the brakes on growth—
Ms O'Neil interjecting—
The member for Hotham is warned!
at a time when we are seeking to encourage investment—
Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order on direct relevance. It is three minutes to talk about his policies. He should be able to do three minutes on it.
The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. The Prime Minister will resume his seat for a second. Just while I have a break in proceedings—note that there is no point of order there; the question was very broad, as the Manager of Opposition Business knows—can I also caution all the people I warned in the last sitting week.
Opposition members interjecting—
No, I am just—the member for Chisholm will resume her seat.
Ms Burke interjecting—
No, the member for Chisholm will resume her seat when I am addressing the House. I am just cautioning that all of those members are interjecting in a disorderly manner again.
Mr Mitchell interjecting—
The member for McEwen is warned. He will not interject when I am addressing the House. I do not know how many times I need to tell him. I will do so as patiently as possible. The member for Chisholm?
I am loath to make an administrative point at this time, but how long does a warning last for? This is a new ruling that is absurd.
The member for Chisholm will resume her seat, and she will not reflect on the chair. If the member for Chisholm thinks I should be harsher on those on my left, it is advice I can consider. The Prime Minister has the call. Thank you for your cooperation.
Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Labor Party's response to these challenging times, to an economy in transition, when we need to see investment, is to propose to raise the capital gains tax in Australia to the highest of any comparable country—higher than any other comparable country—each of which we are competing with for investment. What they are saying is, 'If you come to Australia to invest, seeking to make a capital gain, you'll pay more tax than anywhere else.' That is really going to create jobs, isn't it! That will drive jobs away. It will drive investment away. That is the Labor response.
For our part, every measure supports employment. Opening up markets in Asia, the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement, $5½ billion for small business—right across the board, every lever of our government is pulling in the direction of jobs, growth and a fairer Australia.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister update the House on the government's plans to drive jobs and growth? Are there any alternative policy approaches?
As I was saying in my earlier answer, every lever is pulling in the direction of jobs and growth. Everything we are doing is calculated to ensure that there is more investment and more employment. I mentioned earlier the free trade agreements in Asia—with Japan, China and Korea—and the Trans-Pacific Partnership. I hear the members on the Labor Party benches scoffing. Well, no doubt the farmers, the manufacturers, the tourism operators, the universities and the small businesses right across Australia that are benefiting from those opportunities will not find their derision so appealing. They recognise that these opportunities are creating jobs and growth.
We consider the state of Tasmania. Historically, it has been challenged economically. It is seeing strong economic growth and unemployment lower than the national average. What? Why is that? It is driven by exports. It is driven by exports enabled by trade agreements entered into by our government.
Let me turn now to the question of alternative approaches. I mentioned that the Labor Party is proposing to increase the capital gains tax so that, on a top marginal rate, it would go to 37 per cent. That is dramatically higher than the United States, higher than the UK and much higher than New Zealand, which does not have a capital gains tax. Right across the board, it would be the highest capital gains tax in any comparable country. Think about this. Imagine an investor—it could be in a small business; it could be a property; it could be a farm; it could be some shares. Imagine they achieved, over five years, a reasonable annual return of five per cent. They get five per cent return capital growth. It is not the best investment in the world, but it is solid growth. Under Labor's tax, that would mean that the tax on their real gain after inflation at the long-run average of 2½ per cent would be 70 per cent. In other words, they would be imposing a 70 per cent tax on an investor's after-tax return. Nothing could be more calculated to put the brakes on investments, jobs and growth.
My question is to the Prime Minister and refers to his previous answer. Does the Prime Minister rule out announcing any changes to capital gains tax?
The government will make a full tax proposal. We will do so after we have considered all of the considerations—all of the matters—and I can say to the honourable member opposite that increasing capital gains tax is no part of our thinking whatsoever. I could also say to the honourable member, who said I was a liar when I suggested that his negative-gearing proposal would result in a decline in property prices—the very eloquent member there, who is so happy to use strong arguments; let me put this to the honourable member—in December, 34.7 per cent of all new housing loans were made to investors. So what the Labor Party proposes to do is, from 1 July 2017, remove from the buyers for established property over one-third of the demand. And these economic geniuses want us to believe that is not going to have any effect on prices. They believe you can take one-third of all of the buyers out and prices will remain the same. What sort of fantasy world is that? Let me say for the benefit of the honourable member, who, like me, lives in Sydney: that 34.7 per cent is a national average. The percentage of investors in terms of homebuyers' residential purchases in Sydney or, indeed, in Melbourne would be, as we know, considerably higher.
We know that there would be nothing more damaging to confidence and growth than smashing housing prices. Every single Australian recognises that the bulk of most families' assets is in their home. It is well over 65 per cent across the board, so you knock that price down; you knock that value down. That is what Labor is proposing to do—cut out over a third of the demand and knock that price down. And what does that do for consumer confidence? Are people going to go out and buy a new appliance? Are they going to borrow money to start a small business? Are they going to hire somebody if they see their greatest asset shrinking before their eyes, at the hands of the Labor Party? Every measure they propose is calculated to drive our economy into the ground.
Mr Fitzgibbon interjecting—
The member for Hunter will cease interjecting.
My question is to the Treasurer. How is the government ensuring that companies operating in Australia pay their fair share of tax? Will the Treasurer update the House on the new requirements on foreign investment that will ensure foreign companies investing in Australia pay all their taxes?
Mr Conroy interjecting—
The member for Charlton is warned.
I thank the member for Gilmore for her question. When it comes to ensuring multinationals pay all the tax that they should be paying in Australia, you have got to use every single lever that you have available to you. Every single opportunity that the government has to ensure that multinationals pay their fair share of tax in this country has to be deployed. That is why, today, I have put in place a new condition that will be placed on all foreign investment approvals in this country that they must pay their tax here on what they earn in Australia. That requires compliance with Australian law and it requires compliance with Australian tax office directions to provide information in relation to their investment and to advise the ATO if investors enter into any transactions with nonresidents to which transfer pricing or anti-avoidance measures of Australian tax law may potentially apply.
Amongst many of these new controls, there is also that additional conditions may also be applied where a significant tax risk is identified in a particular case. These may include requiring the investor to enter into advance pricing arrangements with or to seek rulings from the ATO or comply with other directions that the ATO may apply to their specific circumstances. If the investor who would have been given a foreign investment approval fails to meet those conditions, they will be faced with divestment of that investment.
This is a serious lever that this government has chosen to apply in these cases. It was not one that those opposite used to apply. In the six years they had to address multinational tax avoidance, what did they do?
They did nothing. When this government put multinational anti-avoidance laws into this parliament, what did those opposite do? They all voted against it. Every single one of them voted against laws that would ensure multinationals would pay their fair share of tax in this country. Digital services legislation which we have brought into this parliament will also ensure that multinationals pay their fair share of tax at the point of sale, and of course there are the low-value threshold changes that we will also be bringing forward. When it comes to ensuring that multinationals pay their fair share of tax, whether it is with the legislation we have introduced or whether it is the foreign investment approvals that we provide, we will ensure that the conditions are there to ensure that they pay that tax.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister rule out making any retrospective changes to negative gearing—yes or no?
Mr Ewen Jones interjecting—
The member for Herbert will cease interjecting.
I am glad the honourable member has asked me about negative gearing, and I can repeat again for his information that the government will set out its tax policies in the lead-up to the election—
Opposition members interjecting—
In the lead-up to the budget and in the budget, in the normal way. And we will do so in a considered way, taking into account all the relevant factors, which the honourable member's side plainly has not.
They have on the Labor benches the member for Fraser, a distinguished former professor of economics, and he was asked today on Sky News about negative gearing by Kieran Gilbert. Kieran Gilbert said, 'Have you done the modelling to show that house prices won't be brought down?'—a fair question. The professor of economics says, 'Kieran, I'm not sure precisely by what you mean by, "Have you done the modelling?"' Kieran Gilbert, anxious to reassure the rather confused professor, said, 'Have you done economic modelling to suggest that existing house prices won't fall as a result of your policy?'—a straight, simple question. 'So if your question is,' says the professor, 'have we looked carefully at what all the studies suggest about the impacts on supply and demand, yes, absolutely.' 'So,' says Kieran Gilbert, 'no, you haven't done the modelling specifically on house prices,' to which the professor replies, 'Kieran, I think we're having a debate about what constitutes economic modelling.' I do not think we are having a debate about it at all. It is perfectly clear: you take more than one-third of the buyers out of the residential market, and prices will come down. How can that be otherwise? In the fantasy land of the Labor Party, you cut the buyers pool by one-third and prices remain unaltered. Perhaps they are hankering for a centrally planned economy where house prices are set by the government and cannot be deviated from.
But the fact is their changes to negative gearing have been very, very poorly thought through. They will cause house prices to fall. Every Australian who thinks about it for a moment knows that. They know yet again the Labor Party has shown it cannot manage the economy, it does not understand markets, it is a threat to residential housing values and it is a threat to the economy.
Ms Butler interjecting—
The member for Griffith will cease interjecting.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Doctors have said that returning Baby Asha to detention would harm her. Your immigration minister has decided not to send her to Nauru for the time being but said it will happen later. Prime Minister, do you now agree with the doctors that detention harms children, or are you just waiting until after the election to deport babies and children to Nauru?
Mr Ewen Jones interjecting—
The member for Herbert is warned.
I thank the member for his question. Last year, when the shadow immigration minister addressed the Labor Party conference and he said that Labor regretted the decisions that they made which resulted in children drowning at sea, I thought his words were profound, I thought they were genuine and I thought they were sincere. It is why the Labor Party decided to move away from the policy which had seen 50,000 people arrive on 800 boats, and at the same time 1,200 people were drowned at sea. Yet, since Operation Sovereign Borders has been implemented by this government, we have been able to stare down the threat from people smugglers. Not one death at sea has been reported over that period. We have the ability to turn back boats where it is safe to do so, and it is the policy of both government and opposition in this country to continue regional processing, because we know that it works in stopping the boats.
We are working with third countries to try and provide alternative arrangements, but we have been very clear—and I repeat this today, because the people smugglers listen to every word spoken in this place and spoken by premiers and other leaders around the country. Let me be very clear to these people: we will not be held to ransom. We will not be blackmailed into changing this policy, because this policy has resulted in lives being saved, and we are not going to retreat on what has been a very successful policy, because I am not going to preside over an arrangement—which the Greens presided over when they were in coalition with the Rudd and Gillard governments—which saw children drown at sea. I am not going to allow that to return.
We have said that we will look at each case compassionately, we will look at each case on its merits, and we will decide, in relation to those cases, what is in the best interests of those children or of those families. I am not going to preside over a situation where we have people self-harming to come to hospitals in this country because they believe that is the route out into the Australian community for Australian citizenship. We know that we will provide the medical assistance, including to this baby and including to other people that we have brought to this country, and when the medical assistance has been provided to that family and to that individual the policy of this government, and the policy of the opposition, is that that person will return to Nauru. We will provide support and assistance to return people back to their country of origin if they have been found not to be owed protection, and that is the policy that we will continue, because we are not going to allow the people smugglers to get back into business.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister outline to the House what the government has done and is doing to support investment and help grow the economy?
I thank the honourable member for his question. He is a great Tasmanian, and one who understands the way in which the free trade agreements and the growing export boom to Asia, particularly from soft commodities, are supporting jobs and investment and growth in his state and, indeed, right across Australia. That is a key platform, a key pillar, of our approach to ensuring that we benefit from this growing global economy as we transition from an economy that was, in large part, led by a mining construction boom which has now toned down. In addition to that, as I said earlier today, we have a $1.1 billion national innovation and science agenda that is driving the jobs and the investment, the commercialisation and the research upon which our children's and grandchildren's futures depend. It is supporting STEM in schools. It is supporting teachers teaching computer coding right across the country—the literacy of the 21st century.
We saw in December the highest female participation rate in the labour force in our history. That is a tribute to the resilience of our economy, and it underlines the importance of our $3.2 billion childcare subsidy, which will make it more affordable for more women on lower and lower middle incomes to be able to work and to stay connected to the labour market. In terms of infrastructure, we have a $50 billion infrastructure program right across the country—building the roads and, indeed, the rail of the 21st century—and we are completing the National Broadband Network, so poorly conceived by the Labor Party, much sooner and at much lower cost.
The contrast with the opposition could not be clearer. Their reckless policy on negative gearing is absolutely calculated to put the skids under property prices. There is no point in Labor pretending it is not going to have an impact. The professor of economics himself, today, in that same Sky interview, did concede it would cause prices to moderate. So he concedes it will have an impact on prices, but he asserts, on the basis of no evidence, that you can take more than a third of the buyers out of the ring and prices will be unaffected. You do not need a PhD in economics to understand that if you take a third of the buyers out prices will come down—and so they will—and those house values underpin consumption. They underpin investment. They underpin consumer confidence. This is taking an axe to confidence; it is taking an axe to the economy.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister think it is fair that, under his government's policy, an investor buying their seventh home will receive more taxpayer subsidies from his government than a first home buyer?
Mr Speaker, that is a question that should be savoured. It reveals how little the Labor Party understand about business and understand about the economy.
Ms Macklin interjecting—
The member for Jagajaga is warned.
Every business, every investor, is entitled to deduct the interest expense of the borrowings they incur in order to buy an income-producing asset, and that is true whether it is a farm or a shop or shares in a public company or whether it, indeed, is rental property. So there is nothing remarkable, unusual or unorthodox about buying property and borrowing money to buy it and, if the interest loss is greater than the rent, being able to deduct that loss. If the taxpayer then sells the property at a gain, then he or she will obviously pay capital gains tax.
The honourable member says that this is a remarkable, unique tax concession. It is no different to the tax concession, if you like, that applies to every company, every farmer, every shopkeeper right across the board. It is absolutely basic income tax principles. The honourable member should understand that. The tax concession, which is substantial and which is absolutely hallowed and sacrosanct—and perhaps the Labor Party has that in its sights; we do not know, but it is sacrosanct on our side—is that the sale of a person's home is free of capital gains tax. So the big tax concession—and even the professor of economics would understand that—in the real estate sector is the fact that the sale of our homes, our residences, are capital gains tax free. So the question the honourable member asks reveals how little he understands about how business operates, and it underlines the risk that the Labor Party poses to the economy.
We will just move to a previous disaster of the Labor Party. Not so long ago they banned live exports to Indonesia. That interfered with eight per cent of the total cattle herd. It devastated cattle prices right across Australia. That is a fact. Now they tell us that, by pulling more than a third of the buyers out of the residential housing market, there will be no effect on prices. Labor cannot add up.
Mrs Griggs interjecting—
The member for Solomon will cease interjecting.
My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources. Will the Deputy Prime Minister update the House on his vision for rural and regional Australia. What progress has the Liberal-National coalition government made in restoring agriculture as a fundamental pillar of the Australian economy?
I thank the honourable member for his question. It was great to go to Central Queensland, to be in the local member's area. It was great to be with a local member who has been working so hard to make sure that we maintain the jobs and the prosperity of Central Queensland and, especially, of Northern Queensland, where he is from. It was great to be up there and to be part of a process which now sees that Pacific Reef Fisheries in Ayr now has final approval, through the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, and this will lead to 100 new full-time jobs and, during the peak part of the season, a further 70 to 100 on top of that.
This goes to show how we are making sure that it is not just a vision for agriculture but a vision for jobs, a vision for people getting jobs. It is also very important that we continue to build on our vision of greater markets, of better prices and of greater economic development for regional areas. It is not just in the local member's area. We have seen that even in the New England area, where the expansion of the Thomas Foods food-processing area, their land plant, will see another 200 new jobs. Up at Guyra, we see a further 10 hectares of glasshouses, with another 170 new full-time jobs.
But what is really exciting, of course, is to be part of a government here in the coalition between the National and Liberal parties that is actually going to construct more water infrastructure and is in the process of doing it right now. It was great to be able to go over the Fitzroy Basin and see the sites for Rookwood and to look over Eden Bann, to have a look on the map for the site for Nathan, to understand the importance of Urannah Dam, in the member's electorate, and to be part of this process where we have put half a billion dollars, $500 million, on the table, $50 million of that for the assessment of dams. There are five of those processes. Three are already being conducted by the CSIRO. One is for the extension of Nullinga. Another one is for the extension of the Ord scheme. It is currently being assessed who will go forward with that analysis. Then we have $25 million for further dams and to see more than 50 applications that have come in.
This is the vision, the vision of a side of government that is not scared of building water infrastructure, that is not scared of having that vision for how we advance the base price of land, from a dry acre around St George, for example, at $200 or 300 an acre to an irrigated acre of up to around $13,000 an acre in some instances, certainly from $7,000 to $13,000 an acre. This is the vision that builds the size of our economy, and this is the side of parliament that has it. I am looking forward to continuing on with this vision, because I know this is the vision that provides the jobs that our nation so crucially needs.
My question is to the Prime Minister. On Friday the Treasurer said, in relation to the government's changes to tax, 'Those issues were not under consideration before September last year.' But the former Prime Minister's spokesperson said, 'It is simply not true that the government only started looking at tax issues last September.' Prime Minister, who is right?
If the honourable member wants to ask the Treasurer a question, she is free to do so. I am not going to provide a commentary on a purported quote of the Treasurer's commenting on one of my predecessors. She is fully entitled to ask the Treasurer a question of that kind, but my job is to answer questions about what my government is doing, not to engage in historical discussions with the member for Sydney.
My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Will the minister explain how this government's free trade agreement is creating opportunities for Australian businesses overseas and leading to jobs and growth at home in Australia?
I thank the member for Forrest for her question and I note what a strong supporter she is for businesses in her electorate who are selling their goods and services overseas.
On a trip last week to China and Japan, I met with many Australian businesses who are currently reaping the benefits of the free trade agreements that the coalition government has entered into with China, Japan and South Korea. There are a number of wonderful examples and great stories to tell. The member for Forrest will be particularly interested to know that the grape industry, under the Japan free trade agreement, has now boosted its opportunities to market and trade its product into Japan. In 2014, 16 containers were exported to Japan. In 2015, it was 165 containers. In 2016, it is expected 400 containers will go to Japan. This means more sales, more jobs in Australia in the grape industry.
Another great example in agriculture is the macadamia nut industry. The New South Wales based Macadamia Marketing International have told us that, under the South Korea free trade agreement, they will more than double their sales, going from 100 tonnes to 250 tonnes. I think they are one of the biggest macadamia nut suppliers in the world. They will more than double their trade into South Korea. And they expect that the trade will double each year over the next five years. That means more sales, more jobs in Australia in the macadamia nut industry, in the agricultural sector.
These job opportunities will only continue to grow as the middle class, the consumer class, in North Asia grows. It is expected that it will increase exponentially, which will provide more opportunities for Australia under these free trade agreements. And of course jobs growth and jobs creation will help maintain our standard of living.
I have to say that these job opportunities would not have existed had Labor been in government, because, when they were in government, there was no progress under their six disastrous years. There was no progress on the free trade agreements with China, Japan or South Korea. In fact, Labor's greatest impact on international trade, as we well recall, was its ban on cattle exports into Indonesia. Not only did that undermine our reputation as a reliable supplier supporting the food security needs in our region but it damaged our domestic cattle market.
Mr Perrett interjecting—
The member for Moreton is warned.
This is what Labor does not understand. The live cattle ban into Indonesia also had dramatic consequences in our domestic market. Only the coalition can be trusted to promote— (Time expired)
My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the Prime Minister's answer a few moments ago, in which he claimed that reducing the capital gains tax discount would punish foreign investors and said, 'That will drive jobs away; it will drive investment away.' Is the Prime Minister aware that foreign investors in Australia do not receive the capital gains tax discount?
Mr Dutton interjecting—
The minister for immigration will cease interjecting.
Again, the honourable member demonstrates how little he understands of the way in which markets are connected. Imagine the situation of an entrepreneur. We all recognise that our most valuable capital is our human capital. And human capital is mobile; our smartest people and the world's smartest people can live anywhere they like. So as we are trying to attract talent back from Silicon Valley, as we are trying to bring the smartest people to work in Australia and invest in Australia, we are saying, 'Come and live here. This is a great environment. Look at our National Innovation and Science Agenda. Look at all these opportunities for collaboration with universities.' What the Labor Party is saying is, 'Oh and by the way, if you do come here and start a business, and you do make some money and you do invest, you'll pay the highest capital gains tax in the world.'
Mr Brendan O'Connor interjecting—
The member for Gorton will cease interjecting.
And then they are also saying to bright young Australians, many of whom are already in Silicon Valley, 'When you're weighing up when you're going to start your business, when you weigh up where you're going to incorporate your company, when you weigh that up, stay in Australia because it is your patriotic duty,' according to the Labor Party, 'to pay the highest capital gains tax in the world.' That is what Labor is saying, demanding that we seek to compete with not one but two hands tied behind our backs. Labor has not thought this policy through. Let's be frank. What they have done is set out to go for a 'soak the rich', 'politics of envy' policy. That is what they have gone for, and it has backfired. I will leave the member for McMahon with this sobering thought. There are nearly twice as many people in his electorate who are negatively geared as there are votes needing to change hands for him to lose his seat. He should think about that.
My question is to the Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science—and I hear the opposition cheering! Will the minister advise the House how the government is supporting critical national research infrastructure in Australia and how this will secure jobs and growth? What support have these measures attracted from overseas?
I thank the member for Swan for his question. I doubt that the opposition would be cheering, because they do not cheer any good news coming out of the economy or out of the government. They only want to cheer bad news—and tax, spend and borrow some more.
The member for Swan asked me about our support for critical national research infrastructure. I am very pleased to be able to say that as part of the National Innovation and Science Agenda, which the Prime Minister and I announced last December, we are putting enormous investment into critical national research infrastructure that makes a huge difference to jobs and growth here in Australia. For example, over the next 10 years we will potentially put $1½ billion into the National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Strategy. And I know that there are critical researchers and scientists in the member for Swan's electorate who have been benefiting from the National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Strategy, a scheme that had no funding at all going forward under Labor. I found a short-term measure last year to save it, to fix the National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Strategy. In last year's National Innovation and Science Agenda we fixed it for good, for the next 10 years, so that it will continue to provide support for national critical research infrastructure and researchers, who are making such a difference in creating the wealth in our economy through science and research that drive jobs and growth.
But that is not all. We have also in the National Innovation and Science Agenda announced $520 million for the Australian synchrotron, a vital piece of infrastructure that will drive science and research jobs over the years to come. And I am very pleased that the New Zealand government has announced that they will support the Australian synchrotron, along with 10 other countries. New Zealand will put $4½ million into the Australian synchrotron over the next few years so that they can be part of that critical and important piece of research infrastructure. I am sure that the National Innovation and Science Agenda formed part of the discussions in the Prime Minister's very successful visit with New Zealand Prime Minister John Key last week.
We have also put $294 million, almost $300 million, into the Square Kilometre Array, which is going to make a tremendous difference to things like driverless vehicles in the mining industry, making sure that we are creating more wealth and more investment in our country. 'More jobs and more growth' is the mantra of this government. We are focused on jobs and growth while Labor is focused on taxing, spending and borrowing. Finally, we have made a $26 million investment in quantum computing because, if we win the quantum computing race in the world, it will mean vast treasure and jobs for the Australian economy. We are getting on with the job of delivering for Australia.
The member for McMahon has the call. The member for Denison jumped up. The Independent question has been asked for today. There is an arrangement in place, which he well knows, so he can resume his seat.
I seek leave to move a motion.
I have called the member for McMahon. You did not have the call when you said that.
My question is to the Treasurer. The former Treasurer, Mr Hockey, said, 'Negative gearing should be skewed towards new housing so there is an incentive to add to the housing stock rather than an incentive to speculate on existing property.' Does the current Treasurer agree with the former Treasurer, or did the former Treasurer have a better understanding of the Australian economy and housing market?
I thank the member for the question on negative gearing. He would be interested to know that, of those who are negative gearing in this country, there are 10 times more negative gearers who are nurses, teachers and emergency service workers than surgeons, anaesthetists and finance managers. In fact over 1.2 billion in net rental losses has been claimed by teachers, nurses, emergency workers and clerks compared with just 150 million claimed by surgeons, anaesthetists and finance managers.
I do not know what those opposite have against those on ordinary wages—those who are on average wages. First of all—
Ms Butler interjecting—
The member for Griffith is warned!
they show no empathy whatsoever—
Ms Butler interjecting—
The member for Griffith will cease interjecting!
for the 300,000 on average wages going into higher tax brackets. Then they want to take away the only thing that people on average wages—people like nurses and emergency workers and teachers—who negative gear and make the sacrifice and the investment, have. You know what they want them to do, Mr Speaker? They want them to go and compete for about 10 per cent of the assets with all of the others on higher incomes and be driven out of the opportunity for negative gearing in this country.
The other thing they want to do, as the Prime Minister has rightly said, is: the day a new home buyer goes and puts their key in the door of their new home—
Ms Butler interjecting—
The member for Griffith will leave understand 94(a).
it turns into an old home. We know what happens to old homes under their polices: it is like driving a new car off the lot—it depreciates in value.
The Treasurer will resume his seat.
Mr Dutton interjecting—
The Minister for Immigration and Border Protection will cease interjecting.
Ms Plibersek interjecting—
The member for Sydney will cease interjecting.
Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order on direct relevance. The question is entirely about a comparison of this Treasurer with the previous Treasurer, and he has not touched on it once. It is a minute and a half in now.
The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. There is no point of order. The Treasurer has the call.
What I am talking about is the policy of those opposite to limit negative gearing just to new houses. As the Prime Minister has said, under their capital gains tax and other measures, one in three investors will be taken out of the existing home market, and they think that that will not have an impact on the nurses, the teachers and the others, who are looking for that opportunity. So what they are saying is: if you have got your property now, if you have had that opportunity, in the future—if you are a nurse graduating in five years from now, you want to get into the housing market and negative gear on an existing property—the answer from those opposite is: 'No, we're going to shut you out. We're going to roll you out.'
Those opposite have no empathy for Australians who are working to pay tax in this country. They have no empathy for those who are trying to back themselves in this transitioning economy. What you get from them is a race for higher taxes. The policy debate in this country is not about who can raise the most taxes, but those opposite think it is. Those opposite think the policy debate in this country is: who can raise the most taxes? We are not in that race; we are into lower taxes and lower spending.
My constituency question is to the Minister for Major Projects, Territories and Local Government. In the Corangamite electorate, there are deep concerns about the lack of infrastructure investment to improve transport links to and from Melbourne. With V/Line services currently in chaos, there is no plan from the Victorian government to duplicate the rail line through southern Geelong. There is also deep concern about the cancellation of the East West Link. Has the Andrews' government informed—
Opposition members interjecting—
Members on my left will cease interjecting.
Mr Speaker, the clock did not reset; the clock did not start at the right time.
The member for Corangamite will resume her seat.
Mr Mitchell interjecting—
The member for McEwen will cease yelling interjections. The Manager of Opposition Business.
Mr Speaker, on a point of order: there have been times previously when our preamble has been very long and the question has been simply ruled out of order when you get to the end and there is in fact no question.
The Leader of the House. The member for Corangamite will just resume her seat while I listen to the Leader of the House.
Mr Champion interjecting—
The member for Wakefield—I want to hear the Leader of the House in silence. Anyone who disagrees with me will not be in the chamber. The Leader of the House.
Mr Speaker, I am informed the clock did not reset appropriately and, as a consequence, that was the reason why—
Opposition members interjecting—
Members on my left will cease interjecting.
The time ran out. Rather than this juvenile performance from the opposition, perhaps the member could be asked to read her question again.
The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. We had this situation with the member for Sydney. We are not going to have a long discussion about it. I am going to let the member for Corangamite ask her question again, as I would—the Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. The member for Corangamite will resume her seat. The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order.
Mr Speaker, on a point of order: whether or not the clock is reset is an issue of whether you have asked the member to rephrase the question. But what has happened here is we have had the—
Government members interjecting—
Members on my right!
identical situation and we have had to put up with the fact that, yes, sometimes you lose a question. It cannot under be a ruling that is that strict and clear on this side of the House and then completely ignored on the other side of the House. That is not how you have been running this chamber and it should not change at this moment.
The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. What I am endeavouring to do is show fairness in the wake of the situation with the member for Sydney—I acknowledged that to the House. There were some interjections during the question, and I am not sure where the clock was at. I would prefer to allow the member for Corangamite to ask her question again. As I said to the House, I would prefer to show that same leniency, if this situation occurs again. So I am going to let the member for Corangamite ask her question—
Mr Husic interjecting—
without interjection—The member for Chifley is warned! The clock starts now.
My constituency question is to the Minister for Major Projects, Territories and Local Government. In the Corangamite electorate, there are deep concerns about the lack of infrastructure investment to improve transport links to and from Melbourne. With V/Line services currently in chaos, there is no plan from the Victorian government to duplicate the rail line through southern Geelong. There is also deep concern about the cancellation of the East West Link which would have delivered a proper western road link. Has the Andrews' government informed the Commonwealth of the commitment to fund and construct the Western Distributor project?
I thank the member for Corangamite for her question. The member for Corangamite has a lot of issues to cover. She is passionate on behalf of her electorate and will use every second of parliamentary time available to her in defence of her constituents. There is no issue that she will not take forward on behalf of her constituents. Be it the question of V/Line services and the regrettable mismanagement of that matter by the Victorian state government, be it telecommunications, be it infrastructure or be it TV reception, there is no stone the member for Corangamite will leave unturned in seeking to make the case for the members of her electorate. She has a particularly strong commitment to and interest in infrastructure.
The Turnbull government have committed over $7.8 billion in infrastructure projects in Victoria. We are delivering on projects like the Princes Highway duplication and the upgrading of the Great Ocean Road—and what a champion the member was for her constituents on that issue—both vital projects for the state of Victoria, vital projects for the electorate of Corangamite.
Another critical project for the state of Victoria, recognised by the Abbott government and a commitment continued by the Turnbull government, is the East West Link, to which we committed $3 billion in the 2015 budget. This project was first recommended by Rod Eddington in a report in 2006 commissioned by the Bracks Labor government. The Napthine government entered into contracts. What happened when the Andrews government came to power? They ripped up the contracts and $1.1 billion of taxpayers' money was wasted, according to the Victorian Auditor-General.
The member for Corangamite represents constituents who would be greatly advantaged were the East West Link to proceed. Should a Victorian government come forward and be ready to proceed with the East West Link then the Turnbull government would stand ready to support that project. Of course, if the Victorian government comes forward with a proposal for the Western Distributor, we will consider that on its merits. But, of course, what we need to see is the business case and we stand by our view that the East West Link would be better. If the Victorian government comes forward with a business plan as to what it proposes to proceed with, we will engage with the Victorian government in a constructive fashion.
I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
Pursuant to standing order 17(a), I lay on the table my warrant revoking the nomination of the honourable member for Ryan to be a member of the Speaker’s panel.
I present the Auditor-General's performance audit report No. 22 of 2015-16, entitledSupporting the Australian Antarctic Program: Department of the Environment.
Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper.
Documents are presented as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members. Details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.
My apologies for not indicating earlier that I was going to ask an administrative question of you. I was caught by surprise by the Prime Minister calling the end of question time, but I do want to raise the point of how long a warning now stands for. In terms of Practice and standing orders, there is nothing that defines, to the best of my knowledge, how long a warning stands for. Previous speakers had determined a warning stands for the day. Now we are finding it is not only standing for the week but overriding from the previous week. I would seek, for the benefit of the House, a clarification of how long a warning lasts for.
I will not make a long statement on the matter now. If I feel the need to make a longer statement, I will do it at a later time. What I am endeavouring to do with members on all sides is give fair warning before they are ejected under 94(a). I am, I think, within my rights giving fair warning to persistent interjectors, of which there are a number who continue to interject. The alternative would be to simply not give them that additional warning. That is the approach I have sought to take. It has not meant that I am not ejecting people under 94(a), but I think the member for Chisholm would agree that those who are ejected have absolutely no surprise nor do other members of the House about it.
I will make a further statement if I feel the need. Of course, practice evolves and, as the member for Chisholm knows, speakers handle practice or rulings in different ways and have different approaches. I am seeking to bring my approach, after some consideration to this issue. I will certainly deal with members who are behaving in a disorderly way, but I do not want any member to think if they are persistently interjecting they are not going to get my attention.
On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, I present the committee’s report entitled Report 158—treaty tabled 10 November 2015. I ask leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with the report.
Leave granted.
The report contains the committee's views on the Agreement between Australia and the Republic of Estonia on Social Security. The proposed agreement with Estonia is the latest Australian bilateral social security agreement, of which 30 have so far been ratified.
These agreements serve to coordinate pension payments between the signatories, and avoid double liability payments for persons working in both countries.
For Australians, the proposed agreement covers the Australian age pension and the superannuation guarantee. This means that an Australian living in Estonia who is eligible for an Australian pension or superannuation payment can receive that entitlement.
Also, an Australian employer making a superannuation guarantee payment to an employee working temporarily in Estonia will be exempt from any obligation to make pension insurance payments in Estonia.
Estonians in Australia who are eligible for either the Estonian old age or survivor pension will be able to receive that pension.
Australia has the sixth largest expatriate Estonian community in the world, although, in real terms, the numbers involved are quite small. In the 2011 census, 2,000 people indicated that they were born in Estonia.
In evidence, the Department of Social Services stated that, in the first year, 1,000 Estonians in Australia will receive an Estonian pension. The sum of money expected to be received from the Estonian government in the first year is $1 million.
The proposed agreement will have a net cost to the Australian budget of $4.2 million over the forward estimates. While this is an apparently large sum considering the number of people involved, the $4.2 million includes the redevelopment of the supporting software systems for all Australia's social security agreements, and should be considered in that context.
The committee recommends that the Agreement between Australia and the Republic of Estonia on Social Security be ratified and that binding treaty action be taken.
On behalf of the committee, I commend the report to the House.
In accordance with standing order 39(e) the report was made a Parliamentary Paper.
I seek leave to move a motion of censure against the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection for implying that Baby Asha was deliberately harmed as a means of facilitating asylum seeker access to Australia.
Leave not granted.
I move:
That so much of standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the member for Denison from moving the following motion forthwith:
That the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection be censured for implying that Baby Asha was deliberately harmed as a means of facilitating asylum seeker access to Australia.
This needs to be dealt with immediately. What the minister said during question time today I found to be one of the ugliest things that I have heard in this place in my 5½ years serving here.
For the minister to stand up and say that Baby Asha will ultimately be returned to Nauru—and, by implication, that the other 29 babies who are currently in the process of being returned to Nauru will indeed be returned to Nauru—and that that has to be done as a disincentive to asylum seekers in the future thinking that they can somehow use self-harm or harming their babies or their children as a mechanism for getting to Australia is something that I find absolutely appalling.
What people in this House seem to be losing sight of is that we are talking about some of the most vulnerable, disadvantaged, endangered people on this planet. In particular, we are talking about what this government is up to right now: the return of 267 asylum seekers to Nauru.
I move:
That the member be no longer heard.
The question is that the member be no longer heard.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (15:27): Is the motion seconded?
I second the motion. The minister has implied that babies and children are in hospital, or may end up in hospital, as part of some deliberate coordinated attempt to blackmail this government. That is a disgusting statement, and it is worthy of censure. Standing orders must be suspended because there are dozens of other babies and children in Australia right now whose situation is uncertain, and heir parents and those around them will be looking to what the minister says to know whether or not they have a chance of raising their kids in a healthy environment.
Let us recap how we got here. The minister was asked a simple question about whether baby Asha would be entitled to stay in Australia or whether she would be sent back to Nauru. He was also asked what was going to happen to the other children. What did the minister say? He said he would not preside over a situation where we have people self-harming to come to hospitals in this country because they believe that to be the route into the Australia community and to Australian citizenship. You can only draw two inferences from that. The first is that babies and children are self-harming because they believe that is how they can get to Australia—that Baby Asha's situation was not the result of an accident, was not the result of spilt boiling water, that babies and children are somehow making that decision for themselves! Secondly, the minister is implying that the families of those babies and children are harming them or encouraging them to self-harm in order to come to Australia. That is a disgusting and vile statement.
And as we always see with this government and the Liberal-Nationals, when the polls go down the vileness goes up, and it is happening yet again. As we head towards another election it is becoming another race to the bottom on refugees, another race to the bottom to see who can take the most vulnerable in our community, those who need the most help, those who are coming here seeking our help, babies and children who have committed no crime other than being born here and going to school here—how we can treat them. And what does the minister say? 'Well, there's self-harm going on, and it may be that they're doing it themselves or it may be that their parents are encouraging them to do it.'
This so-called party of family values stands up in this parliament and says it is conceivable that some parents might encourage their children to harm themselves just to get into a hospital. I have not met one parent anywhere, of any race or nationality, who would ever consider putting their child in harm's way, whatever the potential gain. And now we have the immigration minister suggesting that there might be some deliberate plot hatched to get children into Australian hospitals. What he is overlooking is the simple point that the doctors and the health staff in Brisbane made loud and clear, and it is the same point that is being made by doctors and health staff in my electorate of Melbourne, and it is the same point that is being made by state premiers, and it is the same point that is being made by thousands and thousands around the country: detention harms children. That is why they said they were not going to release them, not as part of some nefarious plot but because detention harms children, and this minister knows it.
Say what you like about the various merits of asylum seeker policy; I think everyone understands that this is a complex issue, and if you do not think it is a complex issue you have not been paying attention. But the suggestion from this government boils down to this: whatever we might be able to do in terms of a regional solution, whatever options there might be, the government is saying that somehow child abuse is a necessary component of an effective border protection and immigration policy. What rot. We do not agree with that. The Greens do not accept that our only choice is between deaths at sea and child abuse.
I notice that the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection is in the chamber, and I hope he is going to stand up. I, because if you stand up and if you are really concerned about deaths at sea then take this opportunity to assure us that on your watch, from the boat turn-backs, there have been no deaths at sea. Tell us that every boat you have turned back has not gone on to cause deaths at sea. Take this opportunity to tell us that there have not been deaths at sea somewhere else as people choose not to come to Australia but instead seek asylum elsewhere.
This is a complicated issue. Of course it is a complicated issue. But the suggestion that the only way we can solve it is by child abuse, and the implication that parents might be encouraging their children to self-harm, is vile, and the minister should be censured.
I appreciate the opportunity to speak on what is a very important issue. My judgement is that the member has taken offence at that part of my question that went to the Greens being complicit with the Labor Party in the number of people, numbering 1,200, who drowned at sea under their watch. Now, I made no such suggestion as the member suggests in relation to Baby Asha. In fact, I was asked a question this morning on the Today show by Lisa Wilkinson about whether or not there is an investigation. I did confirm, because I had received advice, that there had been, or there is, an investigation being conducted by the Queensland police and that it was not a matter for me to comment on. I have not made any public comment in relation to this particular matter, and I make no further comment today. The police and the family services from Queensland have carriage of any investigation in this area and it is completely and utterly an issue for them.
So, I pass no judgement, I make no comment in relation to it. The only action we have taken in relation to Baby Asha is to provide evacuation from Nauru because the medical assistance was not able to be provided on Nauru, and that baby has been brought to Australia and provided with medical assistance at the Lady Cilento hospital in Brisbane. The advice that I received through my department was that the baby had received the medical attention and required no further medical attention. On that basis, the doctors were willing to release the baby from hospital. The next step that took place was that there was a transfer this morning from the hospital. The baby and her family will reside in community detention, as is the case for 83 others who have come from Nauru, received medical assistance or are part of a family group where one person or more has received medical assistance, and that has been the way in which we have got the numbers of children down.
I have spoken in this House before, and I know the Greens do not like this, but we got the numbers down—bearing in mind that 8,000 children were in detention when Labor and the Greens were in power in this country. The number is now less than 80, and the reason it is less than 80 is that I have allowed the children within the group of 83 out into community detention. My intention is to reduce that number from 75 down to zero, because I have said to this House before and I will repeat it today: I am not going to cop sanctimonious lectures from the Greens, who presided over people drowning at sea and record numbers of children in detention. I am going to get children out of detention and I am going to make sure that we keep the boats stopped so that we do not see a repeat of men, women and children drowning at sea.
So, this cooked up situation that the Greens are trying to present to the parliament today needs to be seen for what it is. They are embarrassed by their record. They are humiliated by their record. And I can say, in direct answer to the honourable member's question, which he put in his contribution, as to whether or not I can say that no people have drowned at sea since Operation Sovereign Borders commenced: yes, I can confirm that on the advice available to me not one death, not one injury has been incurred at sea, and that is a significant improvement. We are not going to tolerate these lectures from the Greens, because they have demonstrated time and time again that they are hypocrites, and that is why the censure motion proposed by the member should be rejected.
It is to state the obvious that this debate and this area of public policy is enormously complex and enormously sensitive. There is much in the way the government has handled offshore processing about which we on the opposition side would criticise. We criticise the failure to find credible third-country options in a timely way and we believe this has been one of the critical issues leading to the difficulties faced, right now, in relation to the running of both Manus and Nauru. But what matters deeply in this debate is that we be very clear and very accurate about what facts we know.
This is an almost impossible debate to have and a problem that is impossible to resolve, in circumstances where what is portrayed and what people say do not marry up with the reality of the situation. There has never been, I would suggest, a debate in this country where it has been more important to be utterly faithful and accurate to the facts as we know them. The opposition will not be supporting the honourable member's motion. This is because he suggested the minister implied something that, clearly, the minister did not say, and the Hansard record will bear that out.
I have looked very closely at the motion and spoke with the minister, briefly, to get his recollection—and I, obviously, have my own recollection of what was said in here. The motion suggests the minister said something he did not. There is a principle in all of this that matters: that we get the facts right as we seek to debate this issue, that we be absolutely and forensically and passionately and zealously accurate about it, because we as a country are not going to resolve this issue so long as we make spin a part of how we go about this. In circumstances where what the minister has said is a matter that is plainly on the record, we are not going to be voting for something that suggests something different. That does not mean the opposition does not have a whole lot of matters of difference between ourselves and the government in relation to this; we do and I made that clear in the opening to this contribution.
In relation to Baby Asha, her treatment and care needs to be handled sensitively. It needs to be handled on the basis of her treating physician's and practitioner's advice. And the decisions government makes on her fate and her family's need to be made on the basis of Australia having an ongoing obligation for the safety of all asylum seekers and refugees in direct and indirect care of the Australian government, both onshore and offshore. That is the basis on which the government should be making its decisions, in relation to Baby Asha and her family, and that is a position the opposition has made clear.
Ultimately, the position we take on the motion put before us today is based on our need and belief that the debate has to be had on the basis of accurately representing what all of us say within that debate, and this resolution simply does not do that.
The time has just about expired for the debate; we have 30 seconds.
It needs to be put on the record that sending children to Nauru is a crime. The forcible transfer—
The member for Denison will resume his seat! The question is that the motion be agreed to.
A division having been called and the bells having been rung—
As there are fewer than five members on the side for the ayes in this division, I declare the question negated in accordance with standing order 127. The names of those members who are in the minority will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.
Question negatived, Mr Bandt, Ms McGowan and Mr Wilkie voting yes.
I inform the chamber that I have concluded my remarks.
Is the amendment seconded?
I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.
The question now is that the amendment be agreed to.
It is with great pleasure that I rise to speak today in support of the Tax Law Amendment (Small Business Restructure Roll-over) Bill 2015 in its original form.
This is an important bill that plays an important role in assisting Australian small business, the backbone of our growing economy. The small business restructure roll-over bill seeks to amend taxation laws to allow small businesses to change their entity structure without incurring a capital gains tax liability at that point in time. With more than 11,000 small businesses in my electorate of Forde, I believe this amendment will help support this vital sector of our economy.
Small businesses account for 97 per cent of all Australian businesses, employing more than 4.7 million people and producing over $340 billion of economic output each year. In a time when our economy is transitioning from a mining-construction boom, it is more important than ever that the government is providing the right economic environment to help our small businesses grow and invest. We want Australian small businesses to back themselves with the assistance of the government, to give them the confidence to do exactly that.
To do this, the coalition government announced the $5.5 billion Jobs & Small Business Package in last year's budget. Already our government has passed legislation for the 1.5 per cent small-company tax cuts, the unincorporated small-business tax discount, immediate deductibility of assets under $20,000 and the immediate deductibility of professional expenses. Small businesses that provide their employees with work-related portable electronic devices will also be allowed a fringe benefit tax exemption from April 1 this year.
This bill contains the final tax measure from the Jobs & Small Business Package. Schedule 1 will allow small businesses to change the legal structure of their business and to have the capital gains tax liability disregarded and deferred until eventual disposal. This measure is important in reducing administrative burdens and cash flow impediments for small businesses.
Sometimes a small business will start operating with a legal structure that is not necessarily best suited to the owner's needs as the business grows. This can occur because they did not receive correct advice, or the advice was inadequate or because the business has developed beyond the original aspirations of its owners. For small business owners who find themselves in this situation, the burden can have a massive impact on them financially.
To remedy this situation, a small business owner could choose to restructure their business, but currently the restructure would likely require the owner to pay capital gains tax on the assets of the business, even though there is no change in its ownership. This aspect of the tax laws means small businesses are effectively locked into the structure they choose, when many small business owners do not have the time or money to seek professional advice on the best legal structure for their business. To resolve this problem, the measure in schedule 1 of the bill will allow small businesses to roll-over assets from one entity to another, providing the underlying economic ownership of the assets remain unchanged.
This bill has a cost to revenue of some $40 million over the forward estimates period and, along with other tax measures announced in the 2015-16 budget, will provide more than $5 billion of support to Australia's hard-working small business owners.
The coalition government is proud of its commitment to Australian small business through this package of measures. We are the government that is creating the right environment to back small businesses in our transitioning economy. In my electorate of Forde, small business provides thousands of jobs for people in our community. Our everyday small business owners are anything but ordinary. They have great ideas and great vision, and can change our country for the better.
Our government policies are focussed on backing these small business entrepreneurs. We want small business to be strong, successful and to create jobs and opportunities across the country. It is this government that will continue to foster an entrepreneurial culture and reduce red tape and regulatory barriers so that small business owners can take advantage of the opportunities to grow and diversify their business and adapt to our transitioning economy.
I rise in support of the Tax Laws Amendment (Small Business Restructure Roll-over) Bill 2016. Whilst the opposition supports this bill, I do have some concerns with the process and potential consequences of the bill which many third parties have actually raised and which I will come to. This bill amends the capital gains tax rules applying to small businesses which transfer assets as part of a genuine restructure. Businesses with revenue below $2 million will be able to defer gains or losses that would otherwise be made as a result of transferring business assets from one type of entity to another. This measure was originally announced by the government in the last budget. This new small business rollover is in addition to rollovers currently available where an individual, trustee or partner transfers assets to a company in the course of incorporating their business.
I want to make some points regarding the contribution of small business. We know that at the core of their needs small businesses want customers and opportunities, and it should be the motivation of all of us in this place to help make this happen. Small businesses are a driving force of private sector employment in this country. They are crucial to the economic success of the nation. With an economic contribution of $340 billion to GDP per year, employing approximately 4.7 million Australians and comprising 97 per cent of all businesses, small businesses play a vitally important role in the Australian economy. As a result, measures to assist small business growth throughout their lifecycle must be carefully calibrated to ensure they achieve their stated aims and do not increase complexity for small business owners and operators.
Allowing small businesses to change their legal structure at different stages of their life cycle does have merit and recognises the fact that for many small businesses the legal structure they originally operate under may not be the optimum structure further down the track. Labor agrees with this intention.
In the Assistant Minister to the Treasurer's address to the House in introducing this bill we were told:
We must continue to foster an entrepreneurial culture and reduce regulatory barriers so that people can take advantage of the opportunities afforded by a growing, diversifying and adapting economy.
That is true and that is why we need to be very careful we are not unintentionally adding to the regulatory barriers and increasing complexity for small businesses.
As I have travelled around Australia since being appointed opposition spokesperson late last year, one message I have received loud and clear from small business owners and small business representative bodies is that they want government to reduce regulatory complexity. I know this government thinks they have finished the job on deregulation and reducing red-tape, but don't take it from me; look at the facts. After four rounds in the arena of red tape reduction, the government's third minister responsible for repeal days, the member for Eden-Monaro, recently announced there will be no more red tape reduction.
Decisions in Canberra must not increase the complexity for small businesses driving employment opportunities and economic growth around the country. In fact, we must do the opposite. We must reduce complexity for small businesses to allow them to flourish and concentrate on what is most important. It is therefore concerning that some submissions on this bill point out some issues around its evolution. As Chartered Accountants Australia notes in its submission to the bill's exposure draft:
The ED differs from the Government's Budget announcement in that:
So what does this mean? I note that the government has tightened the eligibility requirements from the budget announcement. I suspect this will be disappointing for some small businesses who thought they would be eligible for this measure. The Chartered Accountants also note that the definition of small business is 'narrower than the small business CGT concessions'. This in effect creates another definition.
As small businesses will tell you, one of their great frustrations is the different small business definitions that different Commonwealth departments and agencies use. As I said, we must be doing all we can to simplify this for small business rather than adding layers of definitions that increase complexity and make it more difficult for small businesses to function.
The Tax Institute notes in its submission to the bill's exposure draft:
While it is encouraging that the Government has sought to offer small businesses a roll-over to allow small businesses to select the most relevant legal structure at various stages in the life of the business without being inhibited by tax costs, The Tax Institute has a number of significant concerns with the proposed small business restructure roll-over as currently drafted in the Exposure Draft.
Again, the Tax Institute points out the differences between what the government announced in the budget and what was presented in the drafting process of the bill. More concerning, the Tax Institute highlights the definitional problems that arise from the bill. As the Tax Institute goes on to say:
Making them cumulative tests severely limits the cohort of taxpayers who will qualify for the roll-over and runs against the policy intent of having the two alternative tests in the first place in the context of Division 152. This will disadvantage high volume, low margin businesses and asset rich, turnover poor businesses.
When the Tax Institute says 'cumulative tests', it is talking about the requirement to satisfy the SME definition. That is the same concern that the Chartered Accountants raised and it is a concern I think is valid.
The Tax Institute goes on:
Further, making the two tests cumulative instead of alternative effectively introduces yet another definition of 'small business' into the 1997 Act, increasing the complexity of tax matters for such taxpayers and unnecessarily amplifying the potential for confusion and error.
As policymakers concerned with this vitally important policy area, this is exactly the type of thing we should be seeking to avoid.
The Tax Institute also highlights concerns regarding residency requirements in the bill, saying:
Section 328-440(2) contains the 'residency requirement' that applies to the ultimate economic owners of the assets subject to the roll-over. In our view, this requirement will inadvertently disqualify many taxpayers from accessing the roll-over which we believe is contrary to the policy intention behind the roll-over.
I want to turn to some issues regarding the fact that those opposite do talk a big game when it comes to supporting small business. Listening to the Prime Minister in question time today, I had to take issue with some of his comments on the free trade agreements and the benefits for small business. Labor supports our free trade agreements. We worked hard to progress them when in government, and in 2015 the Abbott-Turnbull government allocated $25 million to promote business understanding of these free trade agreements.
Utilising FTAs is a complex business. Only nine per cent of Australian businesses currently operate in Asia and only 12 per cent have experience operating in Asia. To assist with this, that $25 million was allocated to 'promote business understanding' of free trade agreements. But here is the rub: over half of this was spent on political ads when parliament was still debating the agreements. So the big loser here was actually small business. As I said, only 19 per cent of exporters use free trade agreements, often due to their complexity and a lack of understanding of the benefits.
These pressures are understandable and they are more acute for small and medium enterprises than for big business. I would argue that wasting money on political ads instead of spending it on practical measures to actually help small businesses understand and take advantage of those global opportunities and new markets sums up this government's approach in this area.
I now just want to briefly touch on the recent announcement by the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Treasurer regarding negative gearing and the capital gains tax discount as it relates to small business. This is an extremely important reform and stands in stark contrast to the policy-free zone of the government. Labor recognises the significant contribution that small businesses make to the economic success of our nation, and Labor's recent announcement regarding negative gearing and the CGT discount reflects this.
If returned to government, Labor will reform both negative gearing arrangements and the capital gains tax discount. More specifically, Labor will remove existing negative gearing arrangements for all non-business related investment assets on 1 July 2017 but will allow it to continue to be used when investing in new housing supply. Labor will also halve the capital gains tax discount from 50 per cent to 25 per cent. Importantly, all investments made prior to the start date will be fully grandfathered.
Importantly for small businesses, the CGT discount will not change for small business assets. This will ensure that no small businesses are worse off under these changes. In fact, small businesses will certainly benefit under these changes. By taking measures to make the housing market more accessible for young people and first home buyers, with a focus on new construction, Labor is directly supporting small-business growth.
It is arguable that the single most important factor in accessing finance for small businesses—as I have received feedback on around the country—is housing as a form of collateral. For too long, young people have increasingly been missing from this market. As the income-to-house-price ratio increased from 3:1 to 6:1, new business opportunities have gone begging. Even the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry recognises this, with their CEO Kate Carnell recently stating this was the issue they heard the most feedback on. The best way to increase the number of new jobs is by new business creation. Young businesses are proven to be the most effective vehicle to get people into the workforce and into employment.
By supporting the next generation of small business owners and operators, Labor is getting on with it, while the government dithers. These reforms are the biggest step forward for tax policy in a decade. They will help underpin an additional 25,000 jobs in the construction sector, by stimulating new investment, the effects of which will be critical for subcontractors and other small businesses.
To sum up, Labor supports the bill. Allowing small businesses to restructure their legal arrangements throughout their life cycles is a worthy initiative and will allow small business greater flexibility. I have expressed and articulated the concerns that third parties have raised with the drafting of the legislation and the implications this might have for small businesses, particularly around increasing complexity for owners and operators.
I rise today to also speak on the Tax Laws Amendment (Small Business Restructure Roll-over) Bill 2016. This is a very important piece of legislation. I know that it has been welcomed by many businesses in my electorate of Brisbane.
This government is committed to growing the economy and creating more jobs for hardworking Australians. And our strong plan is working for Australia: the economy is transitioning well out of the mining boom, generating 301,300 additional jobs last year. Ninety per cent of those jobs were in the private sector, and over 60 per cent were full time. Youth unemployment is at its lowest rate since July 2013, and there are more Australian women in full-time work than ever before.
This bill will continue this agenda and will put into legislation the final item from the government's widely acclaimed Growing Jobs and Small Business package in last year's budget. This is absolutely great news for a large number of the many small businesses that I represent. There are 30,000 small businesses in the electorate of Brisbane. Whether they are thriving businesses in Fortitude Valley; some of the most innovative businesses in the CBD; Enoggera or New Farm—this is a very welcome bill and good news to them.
Small business owners who find they are using a legal structure that does not suit their needs will no longer be stuck with that structure. We recognise that for business to grow, adapt, innovate and remain flexible in this period of transition, we must in turn create the legislative environment that reflects all of those fluid changes that occur in the business world so they can be as flexible and innovative as possible.
We know that business has been stifled by overly onerous red tape. My office is constantly contacted by businesses who have struggled with the rules and regulations they have faced in the past, particularly under the various governments run by members on the opposite side. We have done a great deal to reduce red tape and to make sure businesses run at their absolute best efficiency.
Businesses based in my electorate—like Half Brick Studios, Alt VFX, Cloud Manager—all of these businesses have spoken about the new-found confidence in the business community as a result of this government's work. A large part of that is legislating important measures like the tax laws amendment. It is bills like these that display the government's commitment to small business operators, to mums and dads and to the many people who run a small business and grow our economy in Brisbane.
At the time of releasing this measure as an exposure draft, the government received broad support within the community. The Restaurant and Catering Industry Association said: 'The ability to change legal structure without incurring a capital gains liability represents a significant reduction in red tape for small hospitality operators'
They said that restructuring hospitality businesses almost always requires assets to be transferred from one entity to another, attracting significant income tax liabilities. That, of course, impacts on cash flow and available capital. This discourages expansion, meaning that some businesses remain inefficiently small, it reduces productivity and it dampens additional employment opportunities. The National Insurance Brokers Association had this to say of the bill: 'We welcome the proposals as there is an ongoing level of merger and acquisition activity in the insurance broking sector, and the reforms will allow small insurance broking businesses to restructure their legal status prior to sale or merger, in order to make the business more attractive to a potential purchaser. We note that the rollover benefits will only operate when the business remains owned by the same ultimate owners.'
I know that there are many people who work in the financial services industry, in the electorate of Brisbane, who will be particularly pleased. They will be able to provide a much higher level of service because they will be able to streamline many of these processes. This measure is estimated to have a cost to revenue of $40 million over the forward estimates period. Small businesses considering a restructure may obtain assistance from the Australian Taxation Office or by consulting a tax professional.
Introducing this particular rollover is another example of this government reducing the burden of unnecessary red tape on small business. It aligns with the Board of Tax's review of impediments facing small business. Tax is right up there as well as the red tape that I mentioned earlier. Any entity that carries on a business, when the combined annual turnover of the entity and its affiliates is less than $2 million, will be able to restructure and use this rollover provided the underlying economic ownership of the business assets remains the same. As a government we recognise that there are significant barriers and challenges that stand in front of small-business owners in today's economy; therefore we are doing absolutely everything that we can to ensure that from a legislative perspective they have all of the tools that are out there, including all of the tax tools that are available to them, to help grow the economy.
The small business may be a sole trader, company, trust or partnership and the transferee entity may take any of these forms. The rollover allows small-business owners to restructure their businesses by transferring assets to a different entity without incurring an immediate capital gains tax liability, provided that the ownership remains the same. The ability to restructure through the rollover should reduce complexity and make it much easier for businesses to grow. As a former small business operator in the hospitality industry, I know very well the hoops that need to be jumped and the red tape that has to be fulfilled every single day that they go to work. So we are using this experience in putting into practice ways to help small business. The new small-business entity will pay capital gains tax if and when it sells the asset or triggers a capital gains tax event. There may be state taxes, like stamp duty, payable at the time of the restructure, but we are doing everything we can—every small bit we can—to help small business.
This ability to restructure will be available from 1 July 2016. These are common sense amendments. They will make a huge deal of difference to the many thousands of Brisbane businesses that I represent. It is a much welcomed bill. I know that they will look forward to these amendments and the bills being put into place in the very near future.
Labor supports the Tax Laws Amendment (Small Business Restructure Roll-over) Bill 2016 because, as the member for Brisbane just said, these are common sense amendments. They are indeed fair and sensible, and they will help small businesses throughout this country. In fact, they are amendments that perhaps should have been brought in a long time ago.
In essence, the legislation will allow businesses with revenue below $2 million to defer gains and losses that would otherwise be made as a result of transferring business assets from one type of entity to another. In other words, when a business restructures for one reason or another, in the past there may have been capital gains taxes that would have had to have been paid which, under this proposal, can be deferred.
Labor understands the value of small businesses to the Australian economy. Small business employs some 4.7 million people around Australia and contributes $340 billion to the Australian economy. Indeed, small-business enterprises make up some 97 per cent of all Australian businesses. I note that of the small-business enterprises 61 per cent have no employees at all—that is, they are owner-operators, perhaps a husband-and-wife team, a father-and-son team or a mother-and-daughter team. Another 27 per cent have between one and four employees.
So 88 per cent of them are relatively small enterprises, but they are enterprises run by hardworking Australians who not only work long hours but also, quite often, take huge personal financial risks to get their businesses established. Once their businesses are established they are the people who ultimately pay their fair share of taxes to the Australian government. They pay all of them—the local government, state government and federal taxes that are imposed upon them. I suspect that collectively they would be one of the biggest contributors to tax across all three levels of Australian government, unlike many of the multinationals, who seem to always find ways of avoiding their taxes.
The coalition purports to be a party of small business, but the facts do not necessarily support that. It seems to be more a case of rhetoric than anything else.
I frequently speak to small businesses—indeed, I have spoken to several of them in the last week alone. Many of them are not only people I know as small-business operators, in my region, but also are people I personally know. I know their history within their business and the struggles that they have endured in order to keep their businesses viable through good times and bad. There are two clear messages that inevitably come back to me when I speak to them. The first is that the thing that they look forward to the most is a strong and stable economy, an economy that provides them with a degree of certainty so that they know, to some extent, what the future might hold for them and for their business. In fact, nothing matters more to any business than to know that you have a strong economy in which you are able to win a fair share of the work and increase your business turnover. If business turnover continues to increase, most businesspeople I speak to seem to be on a winner. For them, that is what their objective is. Whilst they might have other issues and concerns, inevitably it is all about business turnover. When the economy is not going well, then the reverse happens: business turnover starts to fall. Whilst business turnover and profitability fall, the taxes, fees and charges that are imposed on businesses do not fall very much at all, and so businesses become very difficult to run and, in some cases, those businesses simply cannot survive.
The truth of the matter is that, under this government, the economy is not doing well. The government has now been in office for over two years. It is into its third year, and there will be an election some time this year. It is a government that has no economic vision and no economic plan. We heard that again today in the responses to questions in question time today by the Prime Minister, where it was clear that everything is still to be determined somewhere down the track, sometime into the future. We had the Treasurer last week give a 48-minute address and again outline no clear vision for Australia's economic future. We have a budget deficit that is going to blow out to $38 billion. Even on the one thing that the government tries to continually promote as a win for it, the fact that there have been several free trade agreement signed in the last year or so, we have a balance-of-trade deficit that blew out to $32.7 billion for the year 2015. In fact, even in December we had a net deficit in trade of $3.5 billion.
These figures speak for themselves. The economy is not doing anywhere as near as well as it could or should be doing. The truth of the matter is that confidence out there throughout the business community is not good. We have heard other speakers talking about the government's record with respect to employment. The fact of the matter is that only last week we had employment figures released that showed that unemployment is now up to six per cent. That does not include underemployment. But unemployment figures have risen to six per cent. Youth unemployment is 12.7 per cent. We have 761,000 people unemployed and, of those, 268,000 are young people. When people are unemployed, they are not spending money. When they are not spending money, that is not good for the two million small businesses around the country, who rely on money going around in their local community.
The reason why the economy is not doing well is directly attributable to the policies of this government, policies which saw this government turn its back on the car industry in Australia. When the government turned its back on Holden and Toyota, what it really did was turn its back on thousands of small businesses across the country, small businesses which depended entirely on that industry for their survival, small businesses which ranged from component makers through to couriers and transport companies right down to the local snack bars, food manufacturers and clothing suppliers for the people that work in those factories. All of them are affected, because, when the primary industry no longer exists, other smaller industries fall as well.
It was a Liberal Premier in South Australia, the late Thomas Playford, who had the vision to support manufacturing and an auto industry in South Australia and invested appropriately in order to do so. He literally created a whole new city, the City of Elizabeth, around the proposed GMH plant in order to sustain it. And now we have a conservative coalition government doing the exact opposite and turning its back on an industry that was generated by a previous Liberal state Premier of South Australia.
It goes further than that. We see the same thing being applied right now to naval shipbuilding in South Australia. The government's procrastination, backflips and uncertainty are all bad for small business in that state. Again, I have spoken to many of the component suppliers, who, because of the uncertainty, do not know whether they should invest in upgrading the machinery within their plants—spend more money—or whether they should downsize. The are really left in limbo. We know that over the next couple of years, because of the government's procrastination, there are likely to be another 1,300 job losses at ASC in Adelaide. Again, job losses will mean that other small businesses will also close. The 1,300 jobs that I referred to are at ASC directly. There are other industries that hang off them. Recently I met with one of those industries, an industry that employs about 50 people. It is an engineering business. It produces very highly sought-after precision components for our defence sector. That business wants to invest new capital in a new plant and it wants to do that in the hope that it might win some of the contracts relating to naval shipbuilding in this country. But it does not know whether that will happen or not. It has got to borrow money from the bank. All of that uncertainty is making its business decision very, very difficult. I imagine that many other businesses are in the same mindset, where they really do not know what the future holds for them because of this government's procrastination and uncertainty with respect to naval shipbuilding contracts.
Right now we have a similar situation in Whyalla, South Australia. Arrium operations have seen some 600 jobs being lost in the Southern Iron project, south of Coober Pedy, and we are now seeing that the future of the Whyalla steelworks is also in doubt. If the Whyalla steelworks close down, the effects right through the City of Whyalla will be felt and felt very hard. If the Turnbull government fails to support the Whyalla community, it will be responsible for the demise of hundreds of small businesses. That is what small businesses look for the most in government—security that comes with government support of the business sector in this country. And yet they are not getting that from this government; they are actually getting the opposite. It is not just the commodity prices that are hurting Arrium and other industries; it is also the policies of this government.
One of those policies, which I have referred to time and time again, is the need to have a common-sense procurement policy for Australia. It is a matter that I have raised on other occasions, and I have gone through in detail the arguments for why we should do that. It is not always the case that buying the cheapest product from overseas is in the long-term interests of this country, and it is certainly not the case that it is always in the social or economic interests of Australia. Procurement decisions should take into account whole-of-life costs, product suitability and the tax losses and social costs to the Australian government that arise from job losses when Australian suppliers lose contracts. A terrific example that has been referred to on previous occasions is the Rossi Boots affair in South Australia. Those boots could have been made in Adelaide by Rossi Boots, but they were outsourced to a company in Indonesia. With that, there are job losses and the loss of the new jobs that might have been created had the company won the contract. It is the same when we see that the ministerial car fleet for the government is given to a car maker from outside of Australia. Again, that is jobs that could have been secured for people here in Australia.
The reality is that, in one way or another, most other countries have policies which support the manufacturers within their own countries. For example, the US has the Buy American Act 1933, which was updated in the eighties. S they have acts of congress that ensure support is given to local American industries. We know that China, one of the economic powerhouses of the world, has very tight controls as to who gets contracts and how they get them—not to mention that China still controls its own currency.
The notion that we should operate with no borders and that we should have free trade across the world would be fine if every other country operated on the exact same level playing field. The reality is that that does not happen right now, so Australian manufacturing industries and Australian businesses are losing out. I have had three or four examples in recent weeks of where local industries are able to provide a particular service or product that is required by government and our own government chooses to buy an alternative from overseas rather than buy an Australian made product which is fit for purpose. It is nothing to do with cost, it is just because the Australian manufacturer has not proven themselves on the market. Ironically, in one case brought to my notice, the product was purchased from a multinational company who in turn subcontracted to the company that was deemed unsuitable to supply the good in the first place.
We need to overcome that and give our own industries every chance of winning the contracts and work that arises from government expenditure. What we are seeing with cladding, with glass that has been used on buildings, with steel and with electrical cabling is that the products we are getting from overseas are not always fit for purpose. They might initially save us a few dollars but, in the long run, it often cost the community and the government a lot more in retrofitting. If we want to support small businesses, there are many ways of doing so. The government has the opportunity to do that by simply making their ability to win work in Australia a lot easier, and that is what it is failing to do.
The Tax Laws Amendment (Small Business Restructure Roll-over) Bill 2016 provides a sensible measure which allows Australia's small businesses to change their legal structures without attracting capital gains tax liability at the time of change. This bill will provide far greater flexibility for small business.
Unfortunately, Australian small businesses were let down by the previous Labor government. Under Labor, Australia experienced a decline in productivity and competitiveness. Australia slipped down in the world rankings of competitiveness. After increasing by an average of 0.7 per cent per year during the Howard government, productivity decreased by an average of 0.7 per cent under Labor. Every day, Australians, Australian businesses and the Australian economy suffered under Labor. Small businesses make up 97 per cent of all Australian businesses. That is a huge number. It is clear that the government needs to do what it can to support Australia's small business.
We have already taken positive and essential steps to support this vital sector in the economy. This government has introduced legislation that provides small businesses with a 1.5 per cent tax cut and introduced the unincorporated small business tax discount and the immediate deductibility of assets under $20,000. We have also legislated the immediate deductibility of professional expenses.
Supporting small business is only a small part of this government's commitment to create the culture of entrepreneurship and innovation. Ronald Reagan once said: 'Entrepreneurs and their small enterprises are responsible for almost all economic growth.' The Turnbull government is taking action to ensure Australian businesses are supported to encourage entrepreneurship and innovation. We are doing this by attracting funding and investment for businesses, by protecting mum and dad investors who share in the risks and successes of Australian business and by changing the laws around employee share schemes. We are ensuring that we take all the necessary steps to support innovation and success in Australia's small businesses.
This bill was announced as part of the 2015 budget's Growing Jobs and Small Business package. This was a no-nonsense commitment to growing jobs in Australia's small business. The government has introduced measures to encourage start-ups and entrepreneurship. We have implemented measures to cut red tape and help unemployed job seekers gain employment. Our economy is now one of the fastest growing economies in the advanced world. We have created the right conditions for Australian businesses to grow and thrive.
Amending the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 is another example of how the government is taking action to provide greater flexibility for small business. Small businesses will be supported by allowing them to change legal structures without paying capital gains tax at the time of change. Small businesses may find themselves in structures that are no longer supporting their businesses. We want to support growing businesses by deferring financial barriers, when they wish to genuinely restructure their business.
As small businesses grow, the entity structure that once suited the business may no longer support the optimum success of that business. The small business may be hampered by additional administrative burdens and cash flow impediments. This can be detrimental to small business that may have simply grown out of its entity structure or received wrong or poor advice.
Schedule 1 of this bill ensures that small businesses will not be financially burdened, if they choose to change entity structures. Small businesses will be able to roll over to a more appropriate business structure without paying capital gains tax at the time of change. The capital gains tax normally associated with the transferring of structures will be deferred until eventual disposal of the business.
No longer will small businesses be locked into a structure that is not allowing business to grow and innovate. Poor advice or business growth will not hold Australia's small businesses back from success. The success of Australian small businesses is essential to Australia's future.
This bill has a cost to revenue of $40 million over the forward estimates period. Together with other tax measures that were announced in last year's budget, the government will be providing over $5 billion of support for Australia's hardworking small business owners.
In Australia, small businesses operate as sole traders, partnerships, trusts, companies or any combination these structures. Small businesses consider tax issues, personal liability, access to equity capital and compliance costs when choosing their business structure. These factors may change over time.
Changing the legal entity structure can help a business to continue to develop and grow; avoid unnecessary compliance costs; enhance business efficiency; move to a more efficient structure for tax purposes; or adapt to current conditions.
Capital gains tax may prevent some small businesses from making a change that could be positive for their business. These amendments extend the relief to transfers of trading stock, revenue assets and depreciating assets to ensure flexibility for small business restructures.
This legislation will give Australia's small businesses the opportunity to increase their capital. This means more jobs for Australians and growth for our economy. We are cutting the red tape that is holding businesses back from growing. Small businesses may wish to increase their capital and hire more employees but they may be unable to do so due to the unnecessary fees applied when a business simply wants to change entity structure. The government is now removing these financial barriers that would prevent a business from expanding, innovating and succeeding.
This rollover is only available for small businesses who want to undergo a genuine restructure of an ongoing business. In this bill, we have provided small businesses with the opportunity to grow. We are facilitating flexibility by removing income tax impediments that may arise for small business owners who are wishing to change legal entities. The rollover will be available as part of a genuine restructure. This means that the asset must be part of a genuine restructure of an ongoing business. This ensures that a range of potential transfer combinations and a range of factual situations will be covered.
The genuine requirement of this bill ensures that this legislation will not apply to artificial or inappropriately driven tax schemes. It is a question of fact as to whether a restructure will be genuine. Examples of genuine circumstances may include bona fide commercial arrangements undertaken to improve business efficiency; situations where the business will continue to operate after the transfer through a different entity structure but under the same ultimate economic ownership; situations where the transferred assets continue to be used in the business; or where the restructure results in a structure that is likely to have been used, had the business owners obtained appropriate advice when setting up the business. The legislation is clear: restructures that are not genuine will not be exempt from capital gains tax.
The legislation will not be used as a divestment to facilitate the economic realisation of assets. This legislation has also provided a safe harbour to provide certainty to small businesses using the rollover. The safe harbour provides that small businesses will be taken to satisfy the genuine restructure requirement if, three years after the rollover, there is no change in the ultimate economic ownership of any significant asset of the business that was transferred; those significant assets continue to be active assets; and when there has been no noteworthy or material use of those significant assets for private purposes.
To be eligible for the rollover, the legislation provides that each party to the transfer must be a small business entity for the income year during which the transfer occurred; or must be affiliated, connected or partnered with that small business entity for the income year during which the transfer occurred.
The rollover must also satisfy the requirement that the transition should not have the effect of changing the ultimate economic ownership of the entity—that is, those natural persons, who directly or indirectly beneficially own an asset, must not change nor should their shares in the interest change.
The difficulty of meeting the ultimate economic ownership requirements for a non-fixed discretionary trust is also provided for in this legislation. In some cases, a discretionary trust can still apply as long as those individuals who are benefiting from the trust do not change. If the discretionary trust is a family trust, then they may need to meet an alternative ultimate economic ownership test. Here the legislation provides flexibility to all those small family businesses that carry their business through family discretionary trusts. This is administered by allowing them to meet the requirement, if the non-fixed family trust stays within the family.
Thanks to this government, my electorate will be in a better position for success. Over 90 per cent of Tangney's businesses are small businesses. This amendment will provide the businesses within my electorate with the tools to succeed The families and businesses of Tangney are being supported to reach their full potential. They consist of high-end businesses such as management, architects, consultants and financial services. The government have made the wonderful achievement of supporting small businesses by securing free trade agreements such as ChAFTA and the TPP. These agreements will allow my electorate's small businesses to trade in services, opening up their opportunities around the world.
Over six budgets, the Labor Party managed to increase spending by over 50 per cent. Labor wasted and mismanaged hardworking Australian taxpayers' dollars. They broke an election promise and introduced the world's largest carbon tax. In the first year of this tax, Australia suffered a $7.6 billion hit to the economy, and let us not forget that Labor was left with a strong starting point from the coalition government. Labor then subsequently ran Australia into the fastest acceleration of debt in most advanced countries. It was not the lack of revenue that caused Labor's failure; it was the spending problem.
Australia was ranked among the best in the world in terms of minimising waste, maintaining low debt and delivering strong budgets. Australia's position deteriorated sharply under Labor. Australia's small businesses were affected by Labor' introduction of more than 20,000 new or amended red tape regulations in six years. This added to project lead times, increased costs and created new layers of overlapping bureaucracy. Labor failed small businesses. They increased pressure by introducing the carbon tax and introducing red and green tape. They hiked up interest rates with the level of debt. They abolished the entrepreneurs tax offset, an incentive to 400,000 of Australia's small businesses. Labor had six business ministers in six years and ensured consumer confidence was at a low.
We are a proud government, showing effective solutions to growing jobs, strengthening our economy and supporting innovation. Small businesses provide income to families and jobs within our communities. Small businesses are Australia's future. They are Australia's creation of ideas and visions that can change our country and achieve success throughout the world. We must support the very sector of our economy that provides support to families, communities and the critical support to Australia's growth. With the correct support, 'There are no limits to growth because there are no limits to human intelligence, imagination and wonder,' as stated, once again, by Ronald Regan.
This government have supported new trade agreements that will ensure opportunities are afforded to businesses to expand and grow into new markets. We have ensured policy focuses on small business so that hardworking Australians can succeed. We must continue to support the growth of our entrepreneurial culture and continue to remove the barriers to success. We are providing Australians with the opportunities to innovate, adapt and diversify. Australians are excited about the future this government are providing. We are leading Australia into an age of entrepreneurship and innovation. Our agile and nimble governance will provide Australia with a strong and diverse economy.
I am pleased to rise this afternoon on this rather hot Canberra day to speak on the Tax Laws Amendment (Small Business Restructure Roll-over) Bill 2016. I would like to start with some comments from the Governor of the Reserve Bank at a hearing of the Standing Committee on Economics about a week ago. I asked the governor a question about what we need for growth in the long term. I would like to quote a few passages from the governor's answer because they are very appropriate. He said, asking himself a rhetorical question:
… in the longer run, where does the growth come from?
He went on:
It cannot really be the case that we get long-run growth by just using monetary policy which, in the end, borrows from tomorrow's income to spend today. That cannot be a recipe for sustained, strong long-run growth. The sustained and strong long-run growth in living standards comes from innovation, risk taking, productivity et cetera et cetera. We have talked about all that, as you know, many times before, and I think the committee understands our view.
He went on:
That is where prosperity comes from. It does not come from manipulating the price of money. There is a place for doing that in a demand downturn but long-term growth does not come from that. We have been very clear about that.
The governor is exactly right. What grows our economy in the long term are innovation and increases in productivity. That is why the steps that this government are making to assist small business and to encourage and incentivise innovation are just so important. It is not because we are trying to give one group special favours over another group; it is the small business entrepreneurs of this country, those who put their capital on the line and take risks, who drive our long-term prosperity and innovation. We must have a taxation policy that does everything possible to encourage those people to start up new businesses. As the governor said, that is where our long-term innovation comes from.
We know that many of those businesses will not succeed. In fact, we know that most will not succeed. We know it will only be a very small percentage that will actually achieve and come up with some better way of doing something—as they say, to find a better way of building a mouse trap. It is only a very small number so we need to get as many businesses as we can to attempt to innovate. How can we do it?
We have seen the way the Labor Party did it and we have seen the results they got. You only have to look at the recent labour force statistics from the ABS. They make very interesting reading. In Labor's last year of government, January 2013 to January 2014—there was a change in government late in that year but there was no time to change policies and turn the track around—full-time employment in this country actually went backwards. There were 108,800 fewer people in full-time jobs at the start of 2014 than there were at the start of 2013. In fact, for the entire year, the increase in jobs was only 7,200—but that was because we had the offset of full-time jobs being converted to part-time jobs. There were a paltry 7,200 jobs created in that full year.
Let us have a look at what the coalition's record has been since then. We hear the member for Makin talking about the coalition's record, but let us have a look at what has happened since 2014. In the last two years—January 2014 to January 2016—250,000 jobs have been created. A quarter of a million new full-time jobs have been created in this country in the last two years—and, add to that another 198,000 part-time jobs. The record of this coalition government over the last two years has been 447,800 new jobs created in this economy. Most of those jobs have been in new start-up businesses, because we have given encouragement and incentives to those businesses. That is another thing that this bill does.
We have lowered the corporate tax rate from 30 per cent to 28½ per cent. As I have said before, I would like to double my bet that, when the taxation results are finally in for this financial year, we will get more taxation revenue from small business at 28½ per cent than was achieved in the previous year at 30 per cent. I know it may sound counterintuitive and that, if you reduce the rate of tax, you may get less tax, but that forgets incentives. I have history on my side here. Over the last 30 years, every single time this country has lowered the corporate rate of tax we have not got less tax revenue; we have got more tax revenue as a per cent of GDP. I will give you some of the numbers. In the mid-1980s when our corporate tax rate was 49 per cent, we averaged 2½ per cent of GDP in corporate tax. We dropped that tax rate from 49 per cent to 39 per cent. You would think it would result in less tax being collected if you are charging a lower tax rate, but taxation revenue went up. It went up to 3.1 per cent of GDP. In the mid-1990s, when Peter Costello came in, we lowered it from 39 per cent to 36 per cent. And what happened? Again, taxation revenue went up. We were getting 3.4 per cent of GDP back in corporate tax revenue. And exactly the same thing happened when we went to a 30 per cent tax rate. Over the last decade we have averaged 5.2 per cent of GDP of corporate tax revenue paid by companies. Every time we have lowered the tax rate, the tax take has gone up—and my prediction is that exactly the same thing will happen.
This bill will incentivise start-ups. Often when businesses start up they are not sure what the best corporate structure is for them. Should they be a sole trader? Should they be a partnership? Are they best to start up as a trust or a proprietary limited company? Under the current tax law there is a problem when you change from one entity to another. For example, a business might start up small as a partnership, have a lot of success and then decide that the best structure for them going forward might be as a proprietary limited company. But, under the current taxation laws, if they do that they are liable for capital gains tax on the capital gains that they have created on the value of the business. So that is a disincentive for them to start up in the first place and it becomes a disincentive again for them to modify their business to what is the best corporate structure for them. Very simply, we are removing that obligation for them to pay capital gains tax.
That brings me to the issue of capital gains tax, which was talked on at length by the member for Fraser. In question time today in this parliament we saw the economic illiteracy of the opposition and the economic threat that they pose to this country. As the Prime Minister said, if you remove one-third of buyers from a market, prices will go down. Yes, we want to work on housing affordability, but the worst thing we could do would be to implement a scheme to fiddle with negative gearing and see house prices tumble down. That would destroy confidence in the economy. And what is often forgotten is that the increase in housing prices is something that underwrites the capital for small business entrepreneurs to borrow against their own family home to start up a business. So, if Labor's plan were introduced, we would be destroying billions of dollars worth of wealth and we would be making it much harder for people who want to get into business, to have a go themselves, to use their own family home as capital. This would be one of the most detrimental and economically reckless policies that anyone could think of; yet it is the policy the Labor opposition are going to take to the next election—a policy that would drive down housing prices, smash confidence and destroy the ability of many people to get into business for themselves.
The other thing that needs to be commented on is the amendment moved by the member for Fraser, where he says:
… while not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House calls on the Government to make Australia's capital gains tax and negative gearing regimes fairer and more sustainable.
The member loves the words 'fairer and more sustainable'. I had a little bit of deja vu. The taxation changes and the capital gains tax changes proposed by the member for Fraser would bring Australia's capital gains tax in line with that utopia Venezuela! This brings me back to a statement from 2007 when members of the Labor Party and the Greens actually sent an invitation to Hugo Chavez begging him to come to Australia. This is what the invitation said:
We have watched developments in Venezuela with great interest. We have been impressed by the great effort that your government has taken to improve the living standards of the majority of Venezuelans …
... what Venezuela has been able to achieve in so little time will be a source of inspiration and ideas for many in Australia.
That is probably the source of inspiration for the member for Fraser. That letter, in 2007, was signed by a Democrats senator, an Australian Greens senator, an ALP national president, an ALP Speaker of a legislative assembly, another ALP senator, another Greens MLC—the list goes on and on, and it is a who's who of the Labor Party and the Greens. They all signed that.
We have seen what has happened in Venezuela through economically irresponsible policies. When they made that invitation, the Venezuelan bolivar was worth US50c. So two bolivars was worth US$1. Today, with the economically reckless policies and increasing capital gains tax—exactly what the Labor Party wants to do—that two bolivar note is no longer worth US$1; it is worth less than one sheet of toilet paper. This is the economically irresponsible policy the Labor Party wants to inflict upon our nation.
There is another issue that we need to tackle. To make sure that we give as much incentive as we can for people to start up new businesses, to try new things, to experiment, to innovate, to drive the economy in the long term and to create those jobs, we need to make sure we have the right competition policy in this country. There have been some reforms suggested in the Harper review, which, with respect, I think completely missed the mark. We know that the legislation that we previously had did not deal adequately with predatory pricing. That is why Peter Costello, the former Treasurer, agreed with the now Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce—then a senator—to introduce the Birdsville amendment to give us an effective regime against predatory pricing. Yet, under the Harper review, that gets repealed and we get this faux effects test. I call on my colleagues: please, look at this proposal very carefully. It is not an effects test; its effect is to substantially lessen competition. It is not what you think it is it; it is a Trojan Horse.
We need to do everything that we possibly can to maintain incentives and encourage small business to innovate, to take risks— (Time expired)
I rise today to speak in support of the Tax Laws Amendment (Small Business Restructure Roll-over) Bill 2016. In my maiden speech, I read a quote from Winston Churchill:
Some see private enterprise as a predatory tiger to be shot, others as a cow to be milked, but few are those who see it as a sturdy horse pulling the wagon.
Small business is just that: a sturdy horse pulling the wagon. All businesses were once small. If you look back at the history of businesses, you will always find at their heart, once upon a time in the generations that have passed, an entrepreneur with a vision, be it somebody like Steve Jobs, Bill Gates or Richard Branson. That is the thing about small business: they start small. Some will grow into multinational enterprises. Some will be one-man sole traders. But, for businesses to become large, they need to start somewhere.
This bill will enable Australian small businesses to change their legal structure without attracting a capital gains tax liability at that time. If we want a small business to grow into medium businesses or large businesses, if we want it to go from being a sole trader to employing a second, third, fourth or fifth person, at some point in time the structures that were appropriate when it was a sole trader may be inappropriate when there are two, three or four employees or the structure within the family's life changes as things happen. That is why this is a good bill. That is why this is a bill that is good for small business. We need more entrepreneurs—more entrepreneurs who will take risks and innovate.
In Australia, small businesses account for 97 per cent of all businesses. In the electorate of Lindsay, Gai Hawthorn, who runs the CBD Corporation, reports that there are close to 1,100 businesses in Penrith alone—and you can add on top of that the other major centres such as St Marys, Kingswood, Emu Plains and Glenmore Park., According to the Penrith City Council economic profile, there are 12,000 businesses across the Lindsay electorate Businesses currently employ 70,000 people across the Penrith local government area. By 2031, that will grow to 120,000. It is crucial that on the outskirts of Sydney, in places like Western Sydney, we are working with small business not to hinder them but to help them get to their feet. The number of small businesses in the Penrith region is expected to grow to over 120,000 by 2031.
We are attracting small businesses and entrepreneurs through a very modern approach, but we are looking to work with many partners, like Deloitte, like Western Sydney University, in the construction of what will be an innovation corridor. This is a smart high-tech corridor that will include many great organisations and, in particular, some really brilliant ideas—places like the Sydney science park, which will be home to 10,000 research positions and 12,000 jobs in biotech and technology, and of course the Sydney IQ facility at Werrington.
One of the things I find really exciting about the Sydney IQ site is the LaunchPad that Western Sydney University has inside the first building there. What is exciting about LaunchPad is that it is in the vein of your Fishburners—it is the organisation of bringing together young, smart entrepreneurs so that they can work together, feed off each other, come up with new technology and come up with new ideas. In this collaborative space, just like you see in Fishburners, they are coming up with ideas for tomorrow. In the case of some of the biggest entrepreneurs and the biggest businesses of today, like Microsoft, Facebook or any of those organisations, a lot of it started with a young, innovative guy thinking about how they could break the ceilings, break new boundaries. And that is what is really exciting about LaunchPad.
We are also working with Penrith City Council to build a commerce and education precinct, a health precinct and of course a justice precinct. According to the Penrith CBD Corporation, this legislation can represent real cost savings up-front for those small and medium enterprises requiring a change in their business structure. Due diligence and professional advice by the business owner should always be undertaken to ensure that the pathway is suitable. But the CBD Corporation goes further in saying that they are supportive in this case with the positive direction of the federal government in the realm of small business enterprise. This bill will reduce risk and complexity and make it easier for businesses to grow by allowing small businesses to change the legal structure of their business and to have the capital gains liability disregarded and deferred until eventual disposal.
Sometimes a small business will start operating within a legal structure that is not necessarily best suited to the owner's needs. This can occur because they did not receive advice or the advice was inadequate, or because the business has developed beyond the original aspirations of the owners. My grandfather started my own family's business in 1936, and of course as the business passed through the generations the needs also changed. I know that it was quite a challenge for my dad to upgrade or update the legal requirements of the business because of some of these hurdles. That is why this bill is a very good measure.
For small business owners who find that they are running a business through the wrong entity structure there can be additional administrative burdens and cashflow impediments. This bill has a cost to revenue of over $40 million in the forward estimates period and, along with other tax measures announced in last year's budget, will provide over $5 billion of support to Australia's hardworking small business owners. This is another example of the coalition government reducing the burden of unnecessary red tape on small business and aligns with the findings of the board of the tax review of impediments facing small business. The coalition government is creating the right conditions for Australian small businesses to thrive, encouraging employers to create new jobs and to make a continued significant contribution to the economic wellbeing of our nation.
I commend this bill, and I commend the work the government is doing to help small business, to encourage small business, because small business is important particularly in the outskirts and places like Lindsay where two thirds of my workforce have to compete every single day for their jobs. Small business is the key employer in places like Western Sydney. That is why we need small business to be nimble. That is why we need small business to innovate and to create. We need small business owners to not see a ceiling. We need them to blast through that ceiling to create some wonderful businesses.
I look across my area and I look at some of the businesses and entrepreneurs that have been so successful—people like Jim Aitken, who when he was a young man pumped petrol for my grandfather. He then started a business called Jim's Bins, and now he has multiple real estate businesses right across Penrith and the Blue Mountains. These are the sorts of people who are now employing masses of other people and moving our community along. They are people like the Campbells, who created Clarendon Homes. Clarendon Homes has been one of the bigger housing construction businesses across the Sydney basin—once again, started in Penrith from just a family.
Another person who has been quite successful is Tony Ferguson. A lot of people have tried the Tony Ferguson weight loss program. Tony Ferguson started as a small chemist on High Street, Penrith, and from there he had an inspiration through pharmacy and through his knowledge of health that it was not just about putting out some shakes and things like that; Tony wanted to work with people in a holistic sense. He grew far beyond his chemist on High Street. The other great thing about Tony is that he was one of the very first people to bring in late-night trading for his chemist. These are the sorts of things we need to look at.
When I talk to people like Tony Ferguson and different small business owners in my region there are concerns about generational planning—when the generation is taking over and what the ownership structures of that will necessarily be, or when there are divorces in the family. In my own family, both my father and his business partner, my uncle, had divorced, and my grandmother had a one-third share. So, there was a share between my grandmother and my dad and his brother, and when my grandmother passed on obviously that was going to affect the business structure. My dad's and my uncle's divorces were also going to affect the business structure. That is why these measures are so important. The 50 employees my dad had in his business needed to have certainty. They did not need their jobs impinged upon by changes in families; they needed to know that their jobs were secure and the business was going to be able to continue on.
There are a lot of measures in this bill that I think are really good. It is important for small business to have the nimble-footed ability to change their business structure without so many hurdles. Innovative businesses that are starting with products today will change over the future so that their business models can grow. If we want to see small-business incubators—places like Fishburners or the Launch Pad out in Western Sydney—we need to ensure that those small-business entrepreneurs can take their vision, take their dream and get to their feet, and when they get to point of getting own premises or bringing that first employee in we need to ensure that we do not get in their way.
As I said at the beginning when I quoted Sir Winston Churchill: small business is the 'sturdy horse pulling the wagon'. We may see shooting stars of wonderful entrepreneurs with brilliant ideas but, if we try to hold them back, if we try to milk them, if we try to keep them down they will never really reach the stars. If we help them, at the end of the day, it will mean more jobs for more Australians. That is why I support this bill.
At the end of 2014 financial year there were 14,289 registered businesses in the Northern Territory. Most of these are in the electorate of Solomon, which, as many of you know, covers all of Darwin and all of Palmerston. In fact, 78.2 per cent of the territory's businesses are based in Darwin and Palmerston. Only 6.6 per cent are in Alice Springs, 5.3 per cent are in Katherine and approximately 10 per cent are across the rest of the Northern Territory. The territory's population is around 244,000 people, so it is plain to see that small business is crucial and is a very big component of economic activity, job creation and social cohesion in our small but rapidly growing jurisdiction.
This brings me to the reason I am on my feet today: when this government released its May 2015 budget, the Chamber of Commerce Northern Territory could barely hide its delight. Under the header 'Small business front and centre in federal budget', the chamber was extremely positive about the coalition's approach to business, and their media release stated:
The engine room of the national economy, the small business sector, has received a much needed boost in the Federal Budget, according to the Territory’s peak business organisation, the Chamber of Commerce NT.
'Five years ago, the small business community wasn’t even mentioned on budget night, but now it is front and centre of Budget commentary. In fact, this is a small business Budget, which is great news for the Territory where over 95% of businesses are SME’s' said Chamber CEO Greg Bicknell.
That is a very important point made by Mr Bicknell and I want to put on record, in this chamber, the approach of the previous Labor government to small business in this country. I want to reiterate that five years ago the Labor government did not make one mention of the very important small-business sector in its budget. As I said, that was according to the Chamber of Commerce Northern Territory. They wanted that point made and I am very happy to reiterate it, here, today. It is quite extraordinary that not one mention of small business was made in Labor's budget.
As far as I am concerned, that is an extraordinary admission by a government—and a very timely reminder in an election year—of Labor's conflicted and very confused priorities. To put it another way: a vote for Labor is a vote against small business, and that would be a substantial mistake given that 96 per cent of all Australian businesses are, indeed, small businesses. They employ over 4½ million people and produce over $330 billion of our nation's economic output each year. There is no shortage of enterprising Australians wanting to enter the small business sector and in the 2013-14 financial year Australians started over 280,000 small businesses. In stark contrast to the Labor Party's 2010 offering, the coalition government's 2015 budget contained the Jobs and Small Business Package which, as reflected in commentary by the Chamber of Commerce Northern Territory and others, was extremely well received.
I will take a moment to focus on one of its most popular measures and that was the accelerated depreciation, under which all small businesses received an immediate tax deduction for individual assets they purchased that cost less than $20,000. Increasing the depreciation threshold from $1,000 to $20,000 meant improved cash flow for small businesses. I know that our local Harvey Normans were very excited about this announcement and it meant that small businesses were able to go in and get some new computers and office equipment up to the value of $20,000. I also know that there were a number of cars available for $19,999 as a result of this announcement. The announcement encouraged small businesses to bring forward their investments in the assets they needed to grow their businesses and service their customers. I got absolutely, amazingly, positive feedback on this announcement. It meant that more money was in the hands of small-business operators and less in the hands of government.
The revised threshold also meant small businesses spent less time tracking assets across various years for tax purposes. This cut red tape and allowed business owners to focus on running and growing their business. That is what this government is all about: ensuring that small businesses have the opportunity to grow their business. It is not the job of government to get in there and try to control small businesses. Similarly, the Tax Laws Amendment (Small Business Restructure Roll-over) Bill 2016 is about reducing red tape and making running small businesses easier.
The bill puts into legislation the final item of the Jobs & Small Business Package. In a nutshell, it provides greater flexibility for small business owners to change the legal structure of their business by allowing them to defer gains or losses that would otherwise be realised when business assets are transferred from one entity to another. In other words, small business owners who find that they are using a legal structure that does not quite suit their needs will no longer be stuck with that structure. They will be able to have the flexibility to change it.
I want to reiterate some of the points that some of my colleagues have made—in particular, those made by the member for Brisbane. She said that when the government released this measure as an exposure draft, the Restaurant & Catering Industry Association said that the ability to change a legal structure without incurring a capital gains liability represents a significant reduction in red tape for small hospitality operators. She would know better than most, with most of her family in hospitality.
The association went on to say that restructuring hospitality businesses almost always requires assets to be transferred from one entity to another, attracting significant income tax liabilities and impacting on cash flow and available capital, and that this discourages expansion—meaning that some businesses remain inefficiently small, reducing productivity and dampening additional employment opportunities.
In another sector, the Australian Automotive Dealer Association was also extremely positive when the measure was announced and provided a comprehensive analysis of its implications, which I would like to put on the record. It is headed 'Improved flexibility for small business restructuring':
The amendments make it easier for small business owners to restructure by allowing them to defer gains or losses that would otherwise be made from transferring business assets from one entity to another. The new small business roll-over is in addition to roll-overs currently available where a sole trader or partner in a partnership transfers assets to, or creates assets in, a company in the course of a business restructure.
Under current laws, restructuring requires business assets to be transferred from one entity to another, such as from a company to a trust, and significant income tax liabilities may arise. The impact of these liabilities on cash flow and available capital may create an impediment to restructuring. Currently, roll-over relief is available in limited circumstances for business restructures.
The Growing Jobs and Small Business package in the 2015-16 Budget introduced a roll-over to allow small businesses to change legal structure without attracting Capital Gains Tax (CGT) liability at that point. These amendments seek to provide further flexibility for small business owners by extending the roll-over to apply to gains and losses arising from the transfer of CGT assets, depreciating assets, trading stock or revenue assets between entities as part of a small business restructure.
There are two types of entities that may be eligible for the roll-over. The first is those that are small business entities in the income year in which the transfer takes place and that satisfy the maximum net asset value test. An entity will be a small business entity if it carries on a business and the combined annual turnover of the entity and other entities that are affiliated or connected with it is less than $2 million.
The entity must also satisfy the maximum net asset value test, which requires the sum of the net values of the entity’s CGT assets, together with the net values of CGT assets of other entities that are affiliated or connected with it, to be less than $6 million. This first kind of entity may access the roll-over in relation to CGT assets that are assets of the business carried on by the small business entity.
The second kind of entity that might be eligible for the roll-over is one that is an affiliate of, or is connected with, a small business entity for the income year that satisfies the maximum net asset value test at the time of the transfer. These entities may access the roll-over in relation to CGT assets that satisfy subsection 152-10(1A) or (1B) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997, which relate to passively-held assets that are used by the small business entity in their business.
This was a very positive and very detailed analysis of the amendments by the Australian Automotive Dealer Association, and it mirrors other positive feedback attributed to the amendments.
In Australia, small businesses may operate as sole traders, partnerships, trusts, companies or a combination of any of those. A small business owner may take a number of factors into account in determining which structure is the most appropriate for their business, including tax issues, personal liability, access to equity capital and, of course, compliance costs. The most appropriate structure for a small business may change over time, or a new small business may select an initial legal structure that it later finds to be inappropriate. Restructuring into a more appropriate legal structure may help a business to continue to develop and grow. It may also help it to avoid unnecessary compliance costs, to enhance its business efficiency, to move to a more efficient structure for tax purposes or, indeed, to enable a small business to adapt to its current conditions.
This bill introduces a new subdivision—328-G—into the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997, which enables small businesses to change the legal structure of their business and to have the capital gains tax liability disregarded and deferred until eventual disposal. This differs to current legislation, as in the current law rollovers are only available in very limited areas that encompass those areas and expand the areas covered by tax exemptions for rollovers by including all legal entities.
A practical example of how the amendments will impact on business was published online by respected business analyst, Julie Van De Velde, who wrote:
An individual starts a business in her own name and is more successful more quickly than she ever expected. The roll-over can be used to move that business to a more appropriate structure, giving better asset protection, more access to funding and a better tax environment for the reinvestment of profit. Assuming the business holds no land there will be neither tax nor duty on the rollover.
As I said earlier, the Tax Laws Amendment (Small Business Restructure Roll-over) Bill is about streamlining business and easing some of the pressure off business operators, who are the backbone of our economy. The new law is expected to apply from 1 July this year and will have around $40 million revenue costs to the budget. In my view this is a very sensible approach to helping small business thrive and, with that in mind, I commend the bill to the House.
At the heart of the coalition government's policy approach is an understanding that, when you grow small business, you grow the whole economy. That is why the coalition made an election commitment to lower small business taxes, cut red tape, remove structural impediments, encourage small business finance and change the culture of government so that small businesses can grow and employ more people.
Small businesses account for 97 per cent of all Australian businesses. The small business sector employs more than 4.7 million people through more than two million business entities and makes a substantial contribution to Australia's economy, generating about one-third of our economic output, more than $340 billion of economic output every year. Helping more small businesses become profitable, sustainable and competitive will ensure they are in the best position to hire new employees, including providing more jobs for Australia's youth and older workers.
By making small business a portfolio in the Department of the Treasury with a dedicated cabinet minister, the coalition has put the sector at the centre of all government economic and financial decisions.
I welcome the Tax Laws Amendment (Small Business Restructure Roll-over) Bill 2016, which contains the final tax measure from the coalition government's Growing Jobs and Small Business package. Introducing this rollover is yet another example of the coalition government reducing the burden of unnecessary red tape on small businesses and aligns with the findings of the Board of Taxation's Review of impediments facing small business: a report to the government.
I congratulate and thank the minister for bringing this bill forward. In doing so, I would also like to thank and acknowledge the member for Dunkley, the Hon. Bruce Billson MP, for his service to Australia as a true champion for the small business sector. The member for Dunkley has played a key role in supporting Australia's small business sector in the wake of the disastrous Rudd-Gillard-Rudd years, and the legacy he leaves will enable long-term growth in our small business sector and the growth in employment that comes with it.
This parliament has already passed legislation for the 1.5 per cent small company tax cut, the unincorporated small business tax discount, the immediate deductibility of assets under $20,000 and the immediate deductibility of professional expenses measures. This bill amends taxation laws to allow small businesses to change their entity structure without incurring a capital gains tax liability at that time.
In effect, from 1 July 2016, any entity that carries on a business where the combined annual turnover of the entity and its affiliates is less than $2 million will be able to restructure and use this rollover if the underlying economic ownership of the business assets remains the same. The small business may be a sole trader, company, trust or partnership, and the transferee entity may take any of these forms. The cost to revenue for this important measure is $40 million over the forward estimates. Combined with other tax measures announced in last year's budget, this will provide more than $5 billion of direct support to hardworking small businesses. This is the biggest small business package in Australia's history.
Most Australians recognise actions and outcomes are a better measure of success and failure. At the heart of the coalition government's Growing Jobs and Small Business package are tax cuts for all small businesses with annual turnovers under $2 million. Small businesses can deduct each and every asset costing less than $20,000 that they buy until the end June 2017. Other small business measures will reduce red tape and encourage entrepreneurship. There are also measures to help employers take on unemployed job seekers and to help disengaged youth become job ready.
The coalition's tax cuts for small business have taken the tax rate to its lowest since 1967, nearly 50 years ago. This is a significant achievement. The coalition has a great story to tell about what it has already done so far for Australia's small business sector in such a short time. Through the efforts of Australia's Minister for Trade and Investment, the Hon. Andrew Robb MP, it is this coalition government that has opened up unprecedented access to global markets for Australia's businesses. By embracing innovation, boosting export opportunities and backing small businesses, we will continue to build a stronger economy with more jobs. Indeed, as the Prime Minister has pointed out, right across the board, every lever of the coalition government is pulling in the direction of growth and jobs.
While most businesses in Australia have their own experience of unnecessary hardship under Labor and their union bosses, let me just recall the macroeconomic indicators. According to global rankings by the World Economic Forum, Australia slipped badly on key competitive measures under Labor. For example, burden of government regulation went from 68th to 128th and the total tax rate went from 83rd to 109th. At a local level, Australia's small business owners will not easily forget the revolving door of six small business ministers in as many years under the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd regime, when Labor tied the economy up in a mountain of red and green tape with the introduction of an additional 20,000 new or amended regulations in just six years.
Labor's consistent response for the small business sector was a never-ending conversation while their union bosses kept their foot on the throat of the small business sector. Under Labor, the number of small businesses was in decline, with the small business share of private sector employment dropping from 53 per cent to well under 50 per cent. The share of small business employment as a proportion of private sector jobs was flatlining, or worse.
After six years of Labor we knew we had to reverse the decline in small business employment by partnering with small business people to support the sector to grow and prosper. As the Prime Minister said, it is a testament to the breadth and depth of the real world experience of our parties, the Liberal and National parties, that we have so many people who have worked in small business and owned small businesses.
This government knows that more small businesses means more jobs. That is why the coalition government will continue to foster an entrepreneurial culture and reduce regulatory barriers so that people can take advantage of the opportunities afforded by a growing, diversifying and adapting economy. It is why schedule 1 of this bill allows small businesses to change the legal structure of their business and have the capital gains tax liability disregarded and deferred until eventual disposal. This is because sometimes a small business will start operating within a legal structure that is not necessarily the best model in the longer term, perhaps because they did not receive the appropriate advice, or because the business developed beyond the original aspirations of its owners.
For small business owners who find that they are running a business through the wrong entity structure, there can be additional administrative burdens and cash-flow impediments. To remedy this problem, a small business owner could choose to restructure their business, but this would require the owner to pay capital gains tax on the assets of the business, even if there was no change in ownership. This aspect of the tax law means that small businesses are effectively locked into the structure they choose at the start of their operations which can turn out to be administratively inefficient.
The Restaurant and Catering Industry Association said the ability to change legal structure without incurring a capital gains liability will represent a significant reduction in red tape for small hospitality operators. They said: 'Restructuring hospitality businesses almost always requires assets to be transferred from one entity to another, attracting significant income tax liabilities, impacting cash-flow and available capital. This discourages expansion, meaning some businesses remain inefficiently small, reducing productivity and dampening additional employment opportunities'.
The National Insurance Brokers Association also welcomed the reforms we are considering today, because there is an ongoing level of merger and acquisition activity in the insurance broking sector. That is why, from July this year, small business owners who find they are using a legal structure that no longer suits their business needs will be able to restructure more easily. This bill will allow small businesses to roll over assets from one entity to another without requiring the payment of capital gains tax if the economic ownership of the assets remains unchanged.
Regardless of the specific type of small business, small business owners considering a restructure can get advice and assistance from the Australian Taxation Office, or by consulting a tax professional.
Before I close, I would like to congratulate Kate Carnell AO on her appointment as the inaugural Australian Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman. Kate has been an active and passionate advocate for small business and is ideally suited to this role. Indeed, this role fulfils our election commitment to establish an independent ombudsman with real powers to act as a Commonwealth advocate for small businesses and family enterprises. A key aspect of this role is making sure that the Australian government and its agencies are fully informed about the needs and aspirations of smaller enterprises, and ensuring these interests are front of mind in policy development, program design and procurement.
Boosting productivity and reducing the burden of regulation is crucial to ensuring Australian businesses, entrepreneurs and workers are better off, while also helping drive down the cost of products and services for both producers and consumers.
I thank the minister for bringing this bill forward today. There has never been a better time to start and grow a business anywhere in Australia and, from here, compete for customers located anywhere in the world. I commend this bill to the House.
First of all I would like to thank those members who have contributed to this debate. It has been said that small business is the engine room of Australia's economy. As small business accounts for more than 97 per cent of all Australian businesses and employs more than 4.7 million workers, who could possibly argue with that proposition?
At last year's budget the government announced a $5.5 billion package of measures to support jobs and small business, and of course the measure contained in this bill is the final tax measure to be legislated. This bill amends the tax law to allow small businesses to restructure their business without incurring a capital gains tax liability at that time.
Small businesses that find themselves within a business structure that does not suit their growing needs will now be able to change to a different structure without having to consider the capital gains consequences. This ability to restructure will be available from 1 July 2016. I commend this bill to the House.
The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Fraser has moved as an amendment that all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question now is that the amendment be agreed to.
Question negatived.
Original question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
I seek indulgence to add to an answer I gave in question time earlier today.
Leave is granted.
On 27 November 2015 the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development and Infrastructure Australia received an electronic version of the Victorian government's business case for the Western Distributor project. This is the Victorian government's reference business case, which assumes the project is delivered by the Victorian government. However, this business case is not an evaluation of Transurban's market-led proposal for the Western Distributor. Victoria is in exclusive negotiations with Transurban on stage 4 of a five-stage process around the proposal, as it has publicly disclosed. What the Commonwealth is awaiting is a submission from the Victorian government should those negotiations between the Victorian government and Transurban conclude successfully.
by leave, I move:
That:
(1) Mr van Manen be appointed a member of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services;
(2) Mr Billson be appointed a member of the Joint Select Committee on Trade and Investment Growth.
Question agreed to.
I rise to speak on Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2015-16 and Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2015-16. In doing so, I seek to avail myself of the practice of speaking widely about the impact of appropriation bills as would apply generally but also specifically in my electorate.
Mr Deputy Speaker—I know you are very much familiar with this—my electorate is the most multicultural electorate in the country. It is very vibrant and very colourful, and we revel in the diversity that that brings. As such, I have the honour of attending many cultural and religious events throughout my diverse community. Recently, I attended—along with you, Mr Deputy Speaker—the Vietnamese Tet festival at Fairfield Showground. Over 10,000 people from all walks of life came together over a weekend to celebrate the lunar new year and welcome in the Year of the Monkey. I certainly commend the tireless efforts of the VCA—the Vietnamese Community in Australia—particularly the president, Dr Thang Ha, and the organising committee of Tania Huynh, Davy Nguyen, Andie Lam, Sydney Nguyen, Tu Le and Thomas Dinh. They all contributed to make this a very special event not only for my region but also for those who came from all over Sydney to attend and celebrate the diversity of this great culture.
I also attended the Phuoc Hue Temple in Wetherill Park, taking part in the midnight countdown to the lunar new year. I certainly thank the venerable monks and nuns not only for what they do in looking after the spiritual welfare of the Vietnamese Buddhist community but also for upholding the traditions, culture, religion and charitable works that are performed throughout our communities. What they do is extraordinary work and it adds to those things we are generally proud of, particularly in Western Sydney.
I would also like to acknowledge the Australian Chinese Buddhist Society. I would like to thank their management committee—which consists of a very good friend of many in this place, Mr James Chan OAM, who is the chair, the president, Vincent Kong, and the members of his executive committee—for all that they do at the Mingyue Lay temple, the Chinese Buddhist temple based in Bonnyrigg. They not only do an extraordinary amount of work providing and caring for the spiritual needs of the Chinese in our community but they do a hell of a lot in respect of aged care, palliative care and the general cultural development of the Chinese members of our community. They are all very senior and accomplished business people in their own right that form these committees, they use their business acumen to ensure that the proper running of their organisation takes place and they are very objective driven in the way that they run their organisations to achieve the needs of the local community. Again, with members here, I congratulate what they do.
There is a measure of disquiet throughout our communities concerning Badgerys Creek airport. This actually remains a tricky issue. It is the second airport in the Sydney basin and residents have mixed feelings. On the one hand, residents have been courted with the idea that this will generate a significant number of jobs, and one thing we do need in Western Sydney is sustainable employment—that is something that people are focused on—but on the other hand, people are concerned about the issue of noise pollution and other deleterious aspects associated with the running of an airport. To date, we have not heard in great detail the make up and the affordability of the necessary infrastructure to underpin the airport plan nor has there been a comprehensive analysis of the proposed development plan presented either to this parliament or, more importantly, to our local communities.
According to the Western Sydney Airport draft environmental impact statement, by 2030, the airport will cater for about 800 domestic flights and 130 international flights per week. Every day there will be approximately 170 passenger planes with 28 freight planes landing or taking off in Western Sydney through Badgerys Creek. For anyone else who does not live out there, it sounds all well and good. But whilst there is an acceptance of the need for a second airport, there remains a significant concern amongst the people of Western Sydney about the health aspects and noise levels above 70 decibels. Even two weeks ago, it was actually acknowledged in the Senate estimates by representatives of Sydney Airport Corporation that, as far as they were concerned, into the foreseeable future, Badgerys Creek will serve as an overflow facility for Kingsford Smith airport.
You see, Kingsford Smith airport has a curfew. You cannot fly there between 11 pm and six am. Government is now saying that, to be viable, Badgerys Creek should not have a curfew; that it should be curfew free. In Western Sydney, we have been saying that that will be an invitation to fly aircraft in and out of Sydney at times when Kingsford Smith will not be operating. That was denied many times by those opposite. As a matter of fact, the Deputy Prime Minister and minister for transport, Warren Truss, made it very clear to us why there will be no curfew at Badgerys Creek. As he said in a statement: the current generation of planes are so much quieter now that you do not need a curfew. Well, Minister, if that is right, if you do not need a curfew because planes are so much quieter then why do you not revise the restrictions that apply currently to Sydney Airport? Because that curfew affects the commerciality of Sydney Airport. It would be able to move more flights per hour and it could have extended times because the planes are quieter now and will not interrupt other people. But the government are not going to do that and there is a good reason why they are not going to do that.
The planes that come in and out of Sydney come in or out over Sutherland Shire—close to where you live, Mr Deputy Speaker Kelly—or over North Sydney. So we are going to protect various conservative electorates and not upset people by looking at their curfew but it is okay for the people of Western Sydney because they accept whatever we give them. We have already said they are going to get thousands of jobs. As a matter of fact, when they started planning this airport and talking constructively about this within the community, they said this is going to generate 30,000 jobs. Then it got up to 40,000 jobs. The Sydney Chamber of Commerce got up and talked about 60,000 jobs at Badgerys Creek airport, which is not bad. Sydney Airport now, if you take all the flight operations and everyone who works there—people who refuel aircraft, people who lug the baggage and people who run the duty-free shops—only employs up to 27,000 workers now. So this is going to be one hell of an airport they are going to build in Western Sydney for us and one which is going to operate, according to the government, 24 hours a day.
According to those who are more than likely going to exercise their right for operation of this airport essentially for the foreseeable future, this is going to be an overflow facility which will, in turn, be used to fly planes in and out of Sydney in times which they are prohibited from flying in and out of Mascot. So I think that actually shows that they expect that if you live in Western Sydney to suck it up, just like they expected us to when the Liberal government of New South Wales wanted to move nuclear waste from Hunters Hill to Kemps Creek in the middle of Western Sydney. Again, the people of Western Sydney will cop it. There is no room in this parliament to be referring to people as second-class citizens. We will not cop that.
If Badgerys Creek airport goes ahead, it must go ahead on a proper basis. It must go ahead on the basis of: if there are going to be jobs, what guarantees are going to be put in place so that priority is given to people of Western Sydney? It is all very well to say, as they did before the go-ahead for the airport, that they are going to generate 60,000 jobs. If you are going to generate jobs, we would want to see priority given to people in Western Sydney. If we are going to have an airport that is going to serve the whole of our communities, we want to make sure that we have the benefit of localised employment opportunities, which is a little bit hard to some extent when you think about it.
Whilst we are saying we are going to generate all this skilled employment there on the one hand, on the other hand you have the New South Wales government looking for every opportunity to cut back New South Wales TAFE. I do not know where we are going to actually get all this technical expertise coming in to fill all these jobs. Just like they normally do in Western Sydney, we will probably go and get people on 457 visas. We can bring them in from overseas to take these jobs. That sort of money is not going to go to extending the employment opportunities or the economic opportunities for developing Western Sydney. I think all of us that have the honour of representing people in the west, regardless of our political parties, should hold hands on this issue and ensure that employment opportunities for Western Sydney go to the people of the west.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, the recent electoral redistribution that has occurred has seen many changes in your area and mine. The consequence, if I just speak about my own area, is that I get to take in a number of new areas that I now have the honour of representing, principally, the areas of Greenfield Park, Prairiewood, Abbotsbury, Bossley Park, Fairfield East, Chipping Norton and Warwick Farm. In respect of Chipping Norton and Warwick Farm, I know I actually inherit those areas from you, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker. I have made it known that there will be a continuation, in terms of looking at files and things that can be handed over, and that we will genuinely do our best to look after people out there. Notwithstanding the fact that you are on the other side of politics, I appreciate your cooperation in ensuring that there is some continuity in the way we look after people in those areas and I will respect that.
Fowler, as you and many know, is very colourful and very vibrant. It is the most multicultural community in the country. But, regrettably, it also has significant pockets of disadvantage. We also have a high proportion of migrants, obviously, and a very high proportion of refugees, and we will also receive a significant proportion of the current refugee intake which has been planned by government as a result of what is occurring in the Middle East—principally, in Syria. There are significant pockets of disadvantage in my community. There are many that work very constructively to do something about this and make life better.
One of the things in my community that is certainly moving to enhance the life and development of younger people, so they can exploit their potential in our great nation, is what our schools are doing. That is why it pains me that, whilst our schools are working very hard—particularly to help children from disadvantaged backgrounds—and whilst schools are doing their bit to do that, the government's cutbacks in respect of the final two years of the Gonski funding reforms are certainly going to impact on educational attainment in our area.
St Johns Park High School certainly has a high proportion of students coming from disadvantaged backgrounds. This school now has a 91 per cent retention rate in year 12, and 146 of its 200 graduates last year received university offers. As the principal, Ms Susan French, says, it is due to the Gonski funding money received by the school over the last three years that the school is able to employ occupational and art therapists, particularly to assist those kids coming from war-torn backgrounds.'
In areas of great need we need to invest in people. Unless we invest in our young people's educational attainment we are jeopardising the future of not only these students but also our nation.
I am thrilled to have the opportunity—perhaps it has come a little earlier than I had anticipated, but I am thrilled to do so nonetheless—to speak on these very wide-ranging bills, Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2015-2016 and Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2015-2016. They provide an opportunity for me to reflect on the very important policy area of negative gearing and, indeed, on the very poorly constructed policy of those opposite which was announced a week or so ago. As time goes on the tremendous pitfalls involved in this policy become clearer and clearer to the Australian people.
It is important to start out by being very clear about what negative gearing is, because in the commentary around negative gearing there can be a tendency to not focus on the raw simplicity of what negative gearing is. The first point is this is not some special concept that only applies to investment property. Reading some of the commentary and some of the assertions by those opposite, you could be forgiven for thinking that perhaps negative gearing was some special thing that had been created for the investment property market, and that is, of course, not at all the case.
Negative gearing is a very simple concept, and the basic concept is: just as businesses have a cost of doing business and are able to deduct those costs in calculating their profitability, people who invest in property can deduct the cost of interest from their investment. Just as you can deduct the cost of renovations, maintenance or whatever it may be on the investment property, you can also deduct the cost of interest. That makes sense, because interest is a cost. Just as maintenance is a cost and renovations are a cost, interest is a cost.
I think that the average Australian business would find it novel in the extreme if they were to be told that there was some threat to their ability to claim interest as a cost in their business. If it were asserted that interest was not a cost, those businesses would say, loud and clear, 'Yes, it is.' Equally, interest clearly is a cost for people who invest in property. It is not a special thing for investment property. It is very important that people understand that. I would encourage all of those who commentate on these issues to reflect on the fact that negative gearing is a very broad based concept in tax law. It applies to investments in shares. It applies to investments in pretty much all investment classes and is not a special thing for investment property.
Then we get to the question of what the Labor Party want to do with respect to negative gearing as it pertains to investment property. To paraphrase their policy as I understand it, it is to say that, to the extent that someone wanted to claim interest—negative gearing, as it is known—on an investment property, that would only apply if it were a brand-new property, and it would not be possible to negatively gear an existing home. That is my understanding of the policy—along with some changes to the rate of capital gains tax that people would be required to pay.
Let us just reflect on that for a moment. That is for every existing home in Australia—by definition, it cannot be a new home if it already exists—and we have, I believe, roughly nine million homes in Australia. Not one of them is a new home, because they already exist. They are not new; therefore, they are existing homes. Therefore it will not be possible to negatively gear an investment in any of those homes once Labor's policy comes into effect for any new investments after—I believe it is—2017. What that means is that, logically, if you are an investor, you will say: 'Hang on, if I invest in a new property or indeed in shares or other asset classes, I'll still be able to claim negatively geared deductions from my interest costs, but if I invest in an existing house I won't. I won't be able to do that. I won't be able to claim the cost of interest from that investment.'
What is the logical consequence? I do not think this is Milton Friedman stuff. This is kind of simple. For every single existing home in Australia, obviously investors are a very significant part of the market at the moment. In the future, what will happen is that none of the new investments in existing homes after 2017 will be able to make use of negative gearing. So, if you are a property investor and an investor generally, you are going to say: 'Hang on, that doesn't sound like such a great deal; therefore, I'm not going to invest in existing property. I'll turn my attention elsewhere.' It might be new homes; it might be other forms of investment. But it is very difficult to see why investors are going to continue to invest in an asset class where they have just basically had the economic rug pulled from under them, in that they can no longer negatively gear those properties.
Research suggests that somewhere around 30 or 33 per cent of investment in the existing-property market is from investors, so it is quite a lot. It is not just one or two per cent. It is not just something that is conducted by excessively wealthy investors. This is a very, very widespread practice in Australia, and something around 30 per cent, or a third, of existing homes are affected by this issue. You will have a situation where, from 2017, that 30-odd per cent of purchasers will pull back, walk away. Why would they continue to invest in the asset class when they cannot claim the cost of interest, when they can in other investments? It is difficult to see why they would do that.
What does that mean? There has been a lot of discussion on this topic about the impact on people who negatively gear. That is an important issue, and I will come back to that in a moment. But the more fundamental issue is not just the impact on somebody who happens to negatively gear but what happens to the house price of the nine million existing homes in Australia. If 30 per cent of the market has just gone, which is what will happen for every one of those homes, as an average, because every one of those homes is existing—this is an important point: no home that exists in Australia today is a new home under Labor's policy, not one. So every single home in Australia as it exists today is an existing home which you will not be allowed to negatively gear post 2017 for new investments. So 30 per cent of the market, of the potential buyers of your home, goes away.
Think about it like this. Imagine a government policy that said: 'You know what we're going to do? We're going to take 30 per cent of the potential buyers of cars out of car yards through our policy.' Imagine that that occurred. Imagine a government policy that said, 'We're going to make it so unattractive for the existing market that 30 per cent of the people who are participating in it won't participate anymore.' That obviously would have a dramatic impact on that industry, and the same thing will happen here with the housing industry with homes because 30 per cent of the investment value of people who are participating in buying existing homes will dry up. It is not possible rationally to assert that that will not have a negative impact on the value of Australians' existing homes.
About 65 per cent, I believe it is, of Australian households own a home, either paid off completely or with a mortgage, so it is a big number. It is millions and millions of Australians. What the Labor Party is saying is that 30 per cent of people who previously participated in the market for existing homes will basically be completely disincentivised to participate in that market, so this is a really big deal. This is not so much about the academic point about negative gearing; this is about the practical impact on ordinary Australian families.
In my electorate, in Sydney, Deputy Speaker Kelly, parts of which you know very well, there are a lot of people who have worked very, very hard to save to buy their homes. ABS figures say that the vast majority of household wealth of Australians is held in real estate. Interestingly, that is particularly the case for middle-wealth households. Very wealthy households have a more diverse range of assets because they are more likely to have invested in shares and so on. Middle-income and middle-wealth households have a very high proportion of their net assets in housing. So this policy from those opposite basically reduces the value of the single most significant asset held by middle-Australian families. That is the practical consequence of this. This is a very significant problem.
There have been a number of reports in recent years that have commented on the fact that Australia has high household wealth relative to other countries in the world. Credit Suisse investment bank and other people have put out reports on this issue. Those reports consistently concluded that Australians have very high median wealth. As much as those opposite might like to say that this is about a small number of wealthy investors, it is not. The median household in Australia has an enormous proportion of its household wealth in housing. We have been so successful as a society in generating wealth that our median household is either the wealthiest or right up at the very top of the list in terms of household wealth in the whole world. The key underpinning foundation of that is housing. So let us be clear: we have an opposition that say, 'Let us put in place a policy to materially reduce the value of the single most important asset that is held by mainstream middle Australia.' That is the consequence.
Think about the big picture in terms of the size of the Australian housing market. CoreLogic RP Data, who do a lot of really good work in this area of housing data and so on, said last year that the value of housing held by Australian households—again the majority of all wealth held by Australian households—is $6 trillion. It is the single biggest thing there is in the Australian economy. So imagine a percentage decline on $6 trillion. You get very quickly into the hundreds of billions of dollars. That is what people in business would call wealth destruction, value destruction. What this is about in more practical terms is reducing the value of people's homes.
In my electorate of Banks in suburbs like Panania, Mr Deputy Speaker Kelly, which was recently added to my electorate after your tremendous representation of them, the median house price is $900,000, give or take. A lot of people have very high mortgages. They work very hard—they work shift work and have both members of the family working—to pay the mortgage and to build those household assets. This policy goes directly after the single most important asset of those homes. So this is an extraordinary policy.
This came out of the McKell Institute. I had a look at the McKell Institute report on this. I think it was option 4 in its report. It is a Labor aligned think tank I understand. This is a policy that should have stayed in the think tank. This is an academic debate about negative gearing but a policy that will have a very significant impact on ordinary Australian families.
If you were to design something to depress the value of Australian housing, you would say: 'How do we get as many people to leave the market as possible?' We want a lot of people out of the market. Investors are 30 per cent of them, so let us basically completely change the model so that investors do not invest in any existing home in Australia.' If you are actually trying to hurt the asset value of ordinary Australian families, that is what you would do and that is what this policy does. It is a very bad idea. It will have a very significant impact on Australian homes if it is ever implemented. That is why it is so important that those opposite do not ever succeed in becoming the government, because it would result in huge loss of value for Australian families.
I rise to talk about the appropriation bills. I will spend a few minutes countering the member for Banks's last contribution, which was a gross mistruth around negative gearing and household investment. It is a pity he is leaving the chamber. He might have received an education about the true state of the Australian investment property market. I will send him a copy of Hansard so at least he has no excuse for peddling untruths in this chamber.
I am pleased to make a contribution on these appropriation bills. I am pleased to confirm that Labor will not be blocking supply—in the finest tradition since 1975. This is a good opportunity to take stock of the current economic debate in the nation. It is clear that there has been a significant deterioration in the Australian economy and the federal budget over the last 2½ years under the Abbott-Turnbull government. In challenging the member for Warringah the current Prime Minister stated, 'Ultimately, the Prime Minister has not been capable of providing the economic leadership our nation needs.' That was absolutely true, but it is also fair to say that five months into his prime ministership the Prime Minister has also failed in his economic leadership test. The facts are absolutely clear: the deficit has blown out, the economy is slowing and government spending has increased.
Under the stewardship of the previous Labor government Australia had one of the best performing economies in the developed world. We were the only developed country not to enter a recession during the global financial crisis, courtesy of strong, well-constructed action by the last government—strong, concerted and decisive action, unlike the coalition, who were literally asleep during the debate. Two and a half years ago the coalition were elected after three years of outrageous rhetoric that we were in a budget emergency and that they were going to revive the Australian economy. The exact opposite has happened, and the economy and the budget have deteriorated on the watch of the coalition. The recent MYEFO clearly identified this deterioration
The Treasurer confirmed that growth is down, investment is down and, at the same time, government spending is up and the deficit has increased—not a great picture by anyone's measurement.
It is disturbing that economic growth is down. In MYEFO growth was downgraded from 2.75 per cent to 2½ per cent, and both Treasury and the Reserve Bank have indicated that 2½ per cent is the new normal. Business investment fell 6.3 per cent in 2014-15. What is most worrying is that the reduction in capex was not limited to the resources sector, where you would expect it to occur; it has occurred in manufacturing and other sectors of the economy. That is very worrying, because today's capex is tomorrow's jobs and income.
Under the Abbott-Turnbull government, spending has increased to 25 per cent of GDP. The member for Warringah last year said the former government were spending like drunken sailors. Actually, the Liberal Party are spending more than the previous government, and the deficit has blown out by $26 billion over the forward estimates. This means a blow-out of $120 million per day between last year's budget and the MYEFO in December. In their 'Real solutions' fairytale booklet, the coalition promised to get the budget back under the control. This is certainly not happening, and in fact the opposite has occurred. And these are not the only disturbing figures. Living standards, as measured by net disposable income per capita, have fallen for six consecutive quarters—we actually have a recession in net disposable income per capita. Capital expenditure is falling, and consumer and business confidence is far lower than when the coalition were elected.
These figures demonstrate that the government is not competent at managing the economy, whether under the member for Warringah or under the current Prime Minister, and the MYEFO was a pathetic admission of this fact. The Treasurer's 46 minutes of waffle at the National Press Club last week demonstrated that. We had allusions to unicorns, to ponies, to used cars and to test matches versus the Big Bash, but we did not have any economic leadership. We had no diagnosis of the problem and no solution. We had a thousand PowerPoint slides but we had no economic leadership, and the Treasurer has failed the test—so much so that his bosom buddy Ray Hadley has criticised his performance, and clearly the Treasurer has now cancelled that spot, because clearly he is getting a harder go even from Ray Hadley.
What did the coalition promise before the last election? They promised:
We will:
What a blatant mistruth! The exact opposite has occurred. The Abbott-Turnbull government has slashed $80 billion from schools and hospitals, and the budget situation has got worse, not better. You cannot deliver better front-line services when you cut $80 billion from schools and hospitals.
We have also seen a very confused debate on taxation. We saw this sort of Dance of the Seven Veils routine around the GST, where it was on the table and off the table; it was not going to happen. Whose fault was it? Apparently, if you asked the current Treasurer, no work was done before September last year. Well, the former Prime Minister was very quick to stomp on that. But, whatever happened, we saw a massive increase in expectations around the GST, and then suddenly the brakes were applied and, in a fit of political courage only matched by his performance around marriage equality and climate change, the Prime Minister welshed on the GST and is now saying it is off the table. Well, I hope it is off the table, because it will hit every single family in this country if it is brought back onto the table. But that was their economic debate: five months of talking about a GST, and then it is canned.
Unlike the coalition, we have been leading a real debate on how we raise revenue in this country; improve the efficiency of this country; get investment that is productive rather than speculative; and use that process to raise revenue to invest in education, health care and innovation, pay down the government debt and improve the productive performance of this country. That is why I am so proud of the Labor Party's announcements around negative gearing and capital gain tax concessions, because that is real economic leadership: identifying a problem, solving it with concrete policy that has been independently costed by the Parliamentary Budget Office, and promising it well before an election rather than making promises before an election and then breaking them in the dead of night in your first budget.
Who is undertaking negative gearing and enjoying the capital gains tax concession? Fifty per cent of the gains from negative gearing go to the top 20 per cent of Australian households. It is even more marked in the capital gains taxation concession, where 73 per cent of the benefit from the CGT concession accumulates to the top 20 per cent of families. Clearly these tax expenditures—because that is what they are—are going overwhelmingly to the wealthiest families in this country.
During this debate, we have seen people clinging onto this myth that the vast majority of negative gearers are those taxpayers with income under $80,000. The Housing Industry Association peddles it out, and I am sure, if I were a glutton for punishment and sat through the contributions from every single member opposite during the appropriations debate, a few of them will be coming out with this line. Well, that figure is a massive misnomer. It is a myth. First off, it is net income; it is not gross income. Second, if you look at the figures, of those individuals under $80,000, 74,000 had negative income for the taxation year, and 250,000 had income below $20,000. So, for 324,000 of those individuals, clearly that was not their genuine income level, for a variety of reasons. Either they were part of a two-income household where the investment was in their name rather than someone else's, or they were engaged in tax minimisation—no doubt very legitimate and legal tax minimisation. But to claim that the vast majority of negative gearers are somehow mum and dad investors on less than $80,000 is a complete skewing of figures. The figures show that a big chunk of them have no taxable income or very low taxable income. If you look at the figures, 50 per cent of the benefit of negative gearing goes to the top 20 per cent of wealthy Australians.
Negative gearing by itself, in normal investment activities, is a legitimate strategy. If you have costs of doing business, you should be able to write them off against the costs of that income-production activity. The trouble is that the interaction between negative gearing in the property sector and the capital gains tax concession has led to massive speculation. A range of economists and Treasury itself have testified to this. What happens under this business model is that you negatively gear a property and you enjoy the taxation benefits of reducing tax on your main job, which would be at the top marginal tax rate, with the belief that your property will gain value and those capital gains will be taxed at half their real gain because of the capital gains tax concession. Yes, you can do this in shares as well, but Treasury testified before the House Economics Committee that there is more of a market in housing because you are able to gear and leverage housing investment more than in the share market. Banks will lend you much more and allow you to leverage much more against bricks and mortar investment rather than shares, hence the interaction of these two tax expenditures leads to much greater speculation and impact on the housing market.
The part of this policy that I am especially proud of is the halving of the capital gains tax concession, because there is no economic justification to tax capital gains at half the rate you tax income derived from your labour. Treasury have confirmed this in hearings before the House Economics Committee as well. Before 1985, capital gains were not taxed. Before 1985, if you sold a share or sold an investment property, you paid zero tax on that capital gain, whereas if you were a normal worker, you would be paying tax on your income above the threshold—and, obviously, the marginal tax rates were much higher in that day than they are now. It was the bravery of Paul Keating and Bob Hawke, against the opposition of the coalition, that led to the introduction of capital gains taxation. There is this myth that the golden era of the 1980s was this bipartisan utopia. It was not. These reforms were hard fought. John Howard opposed taxing capital gains because he knew it would hit the big end of town, who were enjoying a tax holiday.
Using the GST debate as cover, Peter Costello introduced the 50 per cent concession, arguing that somehow you would not have to account for the nominal growth in capital gains and that this was a simpler method. It might be a simpler method, but it meant the Commonwealth missed out on massive revenue, because we now live in a low-inflation era where the nominal growth in capital that you are holding is accelerating nowhere near as quickly as it did in the eighties and nineties. Hence, a 50 per cent discount in capital gains is much more significant now, in a low-inflation era, than if it were implemented in the 1980s.
As I said, there is no justification for privileging capital gains over income derived from labour, and interaction between negative gearing and capital gains tax has led to a massive speculative investment that takes away investment in productive activities. That is the real hub of this whole matter. It is a massive distortion in our economy that I am proud that Labor is combating. Incidentally, one-third of property investors do not negatively gear, so they will not be impacted, nor will anyone who has a residential investment property prior to 1 July 2017.
The coalition's response to this announcement has been all at sea. It demonstrates their economic debate so far and the competence of the Treasurer, because his first response was not to criticise it as they are now—that somehow it will impact housing prices or do something else—it was that it did not raise enough revenue. His first criticism was that it would not raise enough revenue, which is an implicit support for a policy but says it has not gone far enough. The only way you raise more revenue by cutting down on negative gearing and our CGT change is either you do not allow grandfathering—therefore, it is retrospective taxation—or you completely abolish the capital gains tax concession. The used car analogy has been a complete embarrassment and has been taken to pieces by many economists today and yesterday.
We are discussing the appropriation bills, which are the supply bills for the budget. It is a good excuse to talk about the economic legacy of this government, because so far it is a shocker. We have debt up, deficits up, growth down, unemployment around six per cent. All we have is hollow rhetoric and not a single plan to put Australia back on track and really build future prosperity in this nation.
I rise to speak on Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2015-2016, and Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2015-2016. I was born in South Africa into a nation that had a vile racist policy. I fought against this policy when at school and in university. I found reprehensible the various apartheid laws, such as those reserving certain jobs for whites and defining race, the pass laws and so on. But racism, whether positive or negative in intent, is still racism. This brings me to the issue of Indigenous policy.
I will be blunt. In my view, there should be no specific Indigenous policy. There should be no race descriptors. There should be no definition of what it is to be Aboriginal, any more than, say, an Irish-Australian should have a definition and a percentage of Irish blood that he or she should have in order to be described as Irish-Australian. Self-identification is the key to this puzzle. Indeed, the only reason that this is done is due to the racist laws that we have here in Australia. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Alternatively, hell is full of good meanings but heaven is full of good works.
I am particularly disgusted with the headline in Saturday's Weekend Australian, 'Push for Aboriginal ID tests'. This takes me back to various racial identity tests that took place in South Africa. They were absolutely disgraceful. People would have to attend an office, and the authorities would look at their fingernails to determine whether they were blue or pink, because people with some 'black' blood were more likely to have more bluish-tinged fingernails. They would also do a pencil test in their hair, because people with 'black' blood were more likely to have curlier hair, so the pencil was more likely to stick. This sort of disgraceful nonsense ended up with a situation where you could have a brother and sister getting different racial designations, and the one who had the 'white' designation would then have nothing to do with their sibling for fear of being reclassified. This sort of disgraceful thing has got no place in civilised society.
I thought, when I migrated to Australia nearly 35 years ago, that I had left all of that behind. The fact that we are attempting to define what is Aboriginal or not, and what percentage blood makes a person Aboriginal, is racist and it is due to the nature of our laws, where many issues such as benefits, jobs et cetera are defined on the basis of race. I thought I had left behind a situation where certain people, based on race, had a privileged status when it comes to jobs. In South Africa, it was called job reservation. But here we have a situation where certain jobs are reserved for Aboriginals or Torres Strait Islanders. To add insult, many of the advertisements for these jobs say, at the end of the advertisement, that it is a position under the equal employment opportunity act. Really? Talk about Orwellian doublespeak!
Then we allow our Aboriginal Australians to live in situations—and we support these situations financially—that we would support with nobody else. Here I talk of the remote communities and allowance of the lack of attendance of Aboriginal children at school. With any other Australians, we would insist that they attend school and insist that they move to areas where there is the opportunity to find work and for the children to attend school. Racism is racism, whatever the intent. There is an argument about historical disadvantage, and that is true. Australia was invaded over 200 years ago. No Australians, regardless of race, were alive at that time, so none suffered directly as a result of that invasion. What is a stain on Australia is that it took so long, until 1967, for Aborigines to get voting rights and other rights as citizens. That is something I think we can justifiably apologise for as a nation. But you do not correct an injustice by instituting another injustice, however worthy the aim. You do not address inequity by imposing other inequities. We will never close the gap while we have racist and discriminatory policy. We will only do it by making sure that everyone is in the same tent, not some halfway in, halfway out.
We need to have policy to address issues, not race. Very few policy problems are absolutely unique to Aborigines, and even where they do exist they are best addressed in terms of the issue, not the race. So we should not deal with Aboriginal alcoholism, Aboriginal child abuse, Aboriginal incarceration or a whole host of other issues; instead, we should deal with alcoholism, child abuse, incarceration et cetera, wherever we find it. I can already hear the 'but, but, buts'. Here is the question, though: have all those 'but, but, buts' had a real impact? Or would it have been better from the start to have a colour blind policy? An Aborigine with a university degree, working in a high-powered job, has far less in common with some of the disadvantaged Indigenous youth not getting an education and with all sorts of social problems than does some disadvantaged non-Aboriginal youth with no job and little education. As I said, we need to deal with the issue, not the race.
'Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.' That was from Albert Einstein. Yet here we are doing precisely that. Martin Luther King dreamed of a time where his four children 'will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the colour of their skin but by the content of their character'. Yet today, in Australia, we have a situation where I, for instance, have been castigated by some as being a racist for having the view that we should be colour blind. To quote one such critic: 'To be colour blind is to be racist.' Is that really the way we want our nation to be? That is what we are doing with our policy. The word 'racist' in terms of our policy and legislation is extremely confronting, but it makes it no less true.
We have a 40-year failed experiment in terms of affirmative action and positive discrimination. South Africa, similarly, is disastrously pushing on with its Black Economic Empowerment program, positively discriminating. It is a disaster, and the situation in South Africa, after so much early promise from 1994, is going backwards. Look at Zimbabwe, with their disastrous programs of positive discrimination. They are a basket case, and this previous food bowl is now having problems feeding its own people. Discrimination is still discrimination, whether positive or negative. Indeed, categorising, distinguishing, people and hoping to help them on the basis of discrimination means that negative stereotypes become self-actualising. What a terrible burden to put on people.
I put it to the members of this place that the taxpayers of Australia should not be funding lifestyle choices. Yes, I agree with the former Prime Minister, the member for Warringah, when he refers to Indigenous Australians' choice to live in remote communities as 'a lifestyle choice'. In essence, if the 'noble savage' lifestyle, a la Jean-Jacques Rousseau, the same one often eulogised, is true, then there is nothing stopping any Indigenous men or women from pursuing such an existence on their own. Just do not expect the taxpayers to subsidise it. My contention is that the ideal of the noble savage may be less sanguine and altogether more Hobbesian: 'nasty, brutish and short'.
Separate to that fact is the intractable predicament of Indigenous positive discrimination programs being anticompetitive and anti-Liberal. The whole founding ethos and values of the Liberal Party were that we seek equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. We seek to bring all the horses to the samestarting position, not to slow down our fastest horse.Robert Menzies would be appalled by what is being prosecuted.
Let me expand on what is broken with our current system and our current way of doing business with Indigenous Australia. I recall going on a trip to Broome , where we were driven around by the local chamber of commerce. We were driven past a region where there were lean-tos and a whole lot of smashed alcohol bottles and so on. The leader of the delegation said: 'The Indigenous elders are extremely disgusted with us. We can't do anything about it because it's native title land. We can only do something about it with caravanning and camping legislation. After three days we can get them to move on, but they just cross to the other side of the road, which is also native title land.' Here was the problem, and here was the question I asked: 'If the Indigenous elders are disgusted by this and it is their native title land, why are they not doing something about it? On one hand we are saying we should not be paternalistic, but on the other hand we are being paternalistic by saying we will fix it and get the council to do it rather than having the owners of that land do something about it.'
There is almost no employment gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous university graduates. The target to halve the gap in employment by 2018 is not on track. So the question then is: w here is the critical comment? Where are those people demanding better for Indigenous Australians? Tho se polic i es and prescriptions are not wor king and need to be scrapped, and t he victim mentality must end. The gap exists because too many Indigenous people do not participate in the real economy. It will not close unless Indigenous policy shifts from welfare centricity to economic strategy.
Education and employment are the foundations of economic development. Without them, people ca nnot innovate or produce. If governments do not believe we can get Indigenous kids to school and Indigenous adults to work, they should simply abandon Clos e the Gap. Everything else is a waste of time and money because the gap will never close. Between 1990 and 2015 , S ub-Saharan Africa increased school enrolment from 52 per cent to 80 per cent. We need the same focus here. Indigenous adults need to work in real jobs. Nearly 80 per cent of Indigenous people live in urban and regional areas around the eastern and south-western coasts of Australia— areas with viable populations and real economies. Less than 22 per cent of Indigenous Australians live in remote areas. Economies have been built in remote and isolated places before. L ook at Sydney and Melbourne. When Arthur Phillip sailed into Sydney Cove he did not say, ' Th ere are no jobs, let's go home.' But Sydney did no t become a thriving city because of bureaucrats or not-for-profits or welfare or governments.
In Aboriginal affairs , there is a preoccupation with things that do not deliver economic development , such as welfare and government programs , services and grants. All of these centre on government dependency. When they do not work, the typical response is to try more innovative or complicated versions of them, as if government dependency will somehow deliver economic development if you sex it up. Cashless welfare and income management, for example, may tackle social issues but they do not help people to get a job, buy a home or get a loan.
For decades , the central plank of Indigenous employment policy was the Community Development Employment Program , which employed Indigenous people on community projects and paid an income equivalent to welfare payments. Many 'jobs' involved people doing things that they normally do without being paid, such as mowing their own lawn . Giving it a fancy name — Work f or t he Dole — and calling it employment does not make i t a real job. None of these things generate s economic development.
Empowered Communities is another initiative with government dependency at its core. Here 'empowerment' means shifting control of government programs, services and funding to local Indigenous community groups within a complex organisational, governance and legal structure. This is not empowerment. Indigenous people are not empowered if they depend on government for everything, whether administered centrally or locally. Welfare and government dependency do not generate economic development no matter how fancy you make them.
It takes restraint to focus on the appropriations matter after listening to a speech from the member for Tangney, but I will do exactly that. In August, towards the end of last year, the Prime Minister stood about 50 metres from here in the House of Reps courtyard and addressed a press conference that was hastily convened after question time. He advised the press gallery, and Australians through them, that he intended to challenge the Prime Minister for his job. The member for Wentworth, as he then was, said that the government had failed to prosecute an economic agenda—indeed, it did not have a clear story about what it wanted to do for Australia.
That was six months ago, and here we are, less than six months from the next federal election, faced with the same situation. We have a government at war with itself but unable to prosecute a clear economic agenda for the country. We had the ridiculous situation last week where the Treasurer of Australia invited all the senior economics opinion writers in the country to a lunch at the National Press Club. With all those great minds and commentators there, you would expect that he might have had something to say about economic policy and some announcements to make. But no. All we got from the treasurer—and this is a Treasurer who leads this government after 2½ years—was a criticism of the previous Labor government but no policy announcement for the government.
In this situation, we know that Australians are hungry for some leadership on economic matters, so it is a great credit to the Leader of the Opposition and to the shadow Treasurer that they have announced more economic policies in the last six months than any opposition has done in the last two decades. Last week, we announced a plan to put in place new measures to crack down on the excessive and improper use of negative gearing and capital gains tax arrangements in the property market. These will yield around $30 billion worth of additional revenue but, importantly, they will also have the additional benefit of rebalancing investment within this country and ensuring that new homeowners, the people who are trying to crack into the first home owner's buyers' market, will be doing it on a level playing field. It has been widely supported by economics opinion leaders in the country, and I suspect it is going to be at the centre of economic debate as we traverse the time between now and the next election.
In the area of superannuation policy, multinational taxation policy is where Labor is leading the economic debate. In fact if you put together all of the announcements we have made, they total up in excess of $80 billion worth of savings or new revenue measures which enable us to pay for the initiatives that Australians expect Labor governments to put in place when we are elected to office.
Appropriations bills—in fact any money bill that comes before the House—are statements of the government's spending priorities. What we find is: only Labor has a plan—a plan which will protect Australian jobs for Australians, create the environment for investment in new economic activity into the future to improve our schools and bring 21st century broadband to households and businesses throughout the country. We have a plan to protect Medicare and to boost spending in renewable energy. This is the package that we will take to the next election.
On the other side of the House, we have a government that is so fixated on the past and so divided amongst themselves that they still do not have a clear economic story for the country.
In the area of schools, what could be more important than a program to ensure that the next generation of Australians that are leaving our schools do so equipped to enter the labour market of the 21st century. So Labor has announced that we will deliver significant improvements in school education in Australia—probably the most significant package for over two generations. We believe that every Australian child should have the same chance of succeeding at school as any other kid in the country no matter what their background, where they live or what type of school they go to.
Ensuring that Australia's workforce is ready for the jobs of the future begins in our schools, and that is at the heart of Labor's 'Your Child. Our Future' program. It will build the education for all of Australia's children. Our plan will see an additional investment in our school education system of over $4.5 billion over the 2018-19 school years. It will see a total provision of over $37.3 billion for the package over the decade.
Our plan will ensure a strong focus on every single child's needs; more individual attention for students; better trained teachers; more targeted resources and better equipped classrooms; and more support for students with special learning needs. With Labor's policy, every Australian school and child will benefit, and we will ensure that we are investing in schools and teaching so that our kids are getting the very best education possible.
In my own electorate, I know that this matters because, under the Liberals, education funding has been slashed compared to what it would have been with an average of $3.2 million per school being slashed from their future budgets. This is the equivalent of slashing one in seven teachers from future employment in those schools.
Over 10 years, Malcolm Turnbull's cuts mean over $9.5 billion is being ripped out of classrooms in New South Wales. Over $391 million is being ripped out of classrooms in the Illawarra region and over $193 million out of classrooms in my electorate of Throsby.
These are the policies of a government that does not have the right priorities. We have been criticised for our education policies by those on the other side, by the Leader of the House—the former education minister—but what he has left behind in his former portfolio is an absolute train wreck, and it will fall to Labor once again to ensure that the Commonwealth government fulfils its proper role in supporting the school system of this country.
You do not need to listen to just Labor spokespeople on this issue; listen to the New South Wales National Party education minister, Mr Adrian Piccoli. He has made it clear that the Commonwealth government's withdrawal of funding from the Gonski negotiated agreements will be a disaster for New South Wales schools. It will be the schools in electorates such as the one he represents in rural and regional Australia and schools that I represent that will suffer the most. We know that it is the schools in the most disadvantaged areas that rely most on the additional funding from the Commonwealth for their special needs.
I want to talk a little about jobs, because they have got to be the first priority of every member who represents and electorate in this place. Last week I stood alongside a group of steelworkers, miners and maritime industry workers at a rally outside Parliament House—in fact, a jobs embassy, and it will be forming outside Parliament House this week as well. I was happy that I was joined by the member for Cunningham, Sharon Bird, and the shadow employment and workplace relations minister, Brendan O'Connor.
We were there for a common cause—that is, to defend Australian jobs, get the Australian government to step up to support Australian workers and the right to work in our own country. I represent an electorate where one in four workers has come to our region from another country for the purpose of working—whether they be in the steelworks, the mines or the manufacturing industry—which has drawn workers from literally over 70 countries around the world.
We have absolutely no problem with people coming to this country and seeking to create a better life, a new life, by working in my region. But, at a time when unemployment is stubbornly rising at two per cent above the national average, we know that we need to turn our priorities to ensure that every person who is currently in Australia is a priority. If there is an Australian worker who is ready, willing and able to fill a position, then we should not be allowing employers to invite overseas workers to come in and take up that job. I think that all Australians would see that that is a reasonable approach to high unemployment in a particular area.
It is against this background that we are scratching our heads and wondering what is going through a government's mind where they can seriously contemplate a situation where they are encouraging employers to sack their Australian workforce and replace them with overseas workers? This is exactly what has happened to a number of workers in my electorate who are working in the maritime industry. They were working on board the MV Portland and were dragged off their boat in the middle of the night, marched down the gangway, and a few weeks later replaced by a foreign crew.
There might be some countries around the world where people are not surprised when that sort of thing happens, but Australia is not one of them. These are the sorts of policies that are being encouraged by those in the government. Every single member of the government who is facing election at the coming election should be standing up and listening to this. I think voters in their electorates would be very concerned to understand that this is what is going on in this country at the moment. It is not just in the maritime industry; it is across other industries as well, and it is something that must stop.
I want to talk a little about health. Jobs, education and health have to be the three pillars that lead to a more civilised country, one that deals with the problems of the growing inequality in this country. We know that the first act of the previous Prime Minister and the previous Treasurer was to rip up the health and hospital agreement that had been painstakingly negotiated with the states—leading to the $57 billion worth of cuts from our state health and hospital system.
In the six months since this Prime Minister and this Treasurer have sat where they sit, we have challenged them week-in week-out to disown the health policies of the former Prime Minister and the former Treasurer. I think it is notable that in the six months that this man has been Prime Minister of this country, he has not made one significant statement in the health portfolio. He has had nothing to say about the importance of Medicare to the future of Australians health. According to the Liberal Premier of New South Wales and conservative premiers from states all around the country, the $57 billion worth of cuts will see the closure of hospital beds and, in some areas, the closure of hospitals. When challenged to disown, to overturn, to rebuke or to refuse these policies, we have heard absolutely nothing from this Prime Minister and this Treasurer.
Well, Labor have a different set of priorities. We stand for Medicare because we know that the people we represent want access to a general practitioner. They want to know that if they need to access an emergency ward, they will be able to be seen within a reasonable time; that if they need to access the services of a public hospital, wherever they live in Australia, they will have access to those services. We know that the people of Australia for whom this is a reality are relying on a Labor government to ensure that we do not let this government continue to dismantle the system and defund it, thus ensuring that only those who have a fat credit card will have access to the health services that they need.
These are the things that are going to make a difference between a civilised and an uncivilised country. These are the measures that will ensure that we can address the growing inequality in this country, where the top 20 per cent own five times more wealth than the bottom 20 per cent. We know the policies that will address the growing inequality in this country, that will ensure we have a decent education system, that will provide jobs for kids to go into when they leave school, that will provide a decent university and TAFE system, that will provide decent hospitals and the safety net of Medicare. These are the priorities that a decent government will be putting before the House.
The issue of water security is a state government matter—always has been, always will be. You would think that would mean that a federal government has no role in this vital area of infrastructure, but you would be wrong. That is especially so if you are from the north of this great country. You see, there have been only two dams fully funded by the federal government since Federation—just two. They are the Burdekin Falls Dam and the Ord River Dam. Despite being on opposite sides of the country, they do have a lot in common. Both are north of the Tropic of Capricorn. Both are more than 1,000 kilometres away from their respective capital cities. Both are vital; neither had the crucial backing of any state government to actually be built.
In the south east of my state, the residents there have 10 years water security; 10 years of gravity-fed water supply. In Townsville, we have two years water security. After that, we will have to pump water from the Burdekin Falls Dam at huge expense to the ratepayers. That must be addressed.
Townsville Enterprise submitted a proposal to secure funding to raise the wall of the Burdekin Falls Dam and to establish another dam further up the Burdekin River at Hell's Gate. In the paper commissioned by the previous Labor government into industry in the north of Queensland, water security and its availability was high on the list. Hell's Gate and raising the wall at the Burdekin Falls Dam were listed as prime sites for delivery of water security and as a catalyst for irrigation of crops such as sugarcane and maize for ethanol production. This proposal from Townsville Enterprise has my total support.
We must back our strengths in this area and look to James Cook University and the tropical sciences precinct to ensure we are doing the right thing by the environment, as we strive to meet markets and develop new markets and new customers. On that front, it is often said that we do not want to make the mistakes the southern states did centuries ago. While that is convenient, there is much we can learn from the irrigation in the Burdekin cane-farming areas. The challenges of salinity, pest management and the like are right there for us to research and learn from.
Two organisations based in North Queensland are perfectly placed to do this research and ensure that we get the best all-round result. Damien Burrows' TropWATER and Scott Crawford's NQ Dry Tropics are the kinds of organisations that need to be backed if we are to deliver water security, the industry and the jobs of the future. We must get the science right at the start. If you get the science right at the start, you do not have to pay the big price at the end. We in the North do not ask to be treated any different to the southern states and the rest of the country. Most of the time we would settle for being treated half as well. On the matter of water and energy, we simply cannot be considered as a viable option for investment in new industries and the jobs that will provide if we cannot provide affordable and plentiful water and energy. It is that simple. Science and sustainable development are the building blocks for the development of the North.
I was talking to a fellow MP and he questioned the development of the North. Why should we do this? Why is it important? I asked him in all honesty, 'Where are the bauxite deposits in Victoria?' to which he answered that there were none. I said, 'Then why do you have an aluminium refinery down there?' The answer is cheap electricity. Energy and water are the keys to development of the North. Affordable and plentiful energy and water are the two essential building blocks for the north of the country. It is the reason Victoria is the manufacturing capital. Burning brown coal for electricity is cheap and therefore manufacturing costs are competitive. If we were to have a baseload power station in the North, we could open up all kinds of things.
If we had had the $5 billion concessional loan facility in 2010 when we were talking about the copper string project we would be having a very different conversation today—the ability to bring those things together with the $5 billion loan facility, where we get a baseload power station, where we can use the Clean Energy Fund, Direct Action and all those things to make it ultracritical. There is enough private money out there to build these power stations but, if we can add value to it, we will develop that. The copper string project was a way of making sure that things could connect to the national grid. If we were to get a baseload power station somewhere out in the Galilee Basin, that would open up the area for the Kennedy wind farm, big solar and Tully-Millstream. All those renewable energy projects and the science that goes with them would open up and they could then feed into the national energy market. We can provide over 40 per cent of Australia's renewable energy needs in North Queensland through this project alone, if we get the funding right and we get the new businesses and industries into our region.
There can be no doubt that the top 5 issues in Townsville and our North Queensland region are jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs, and jobs. As we see the cranes dominate the Brisbane skyline, the wait for investment from our state government in the North grows longer and longer. The recent appointment of administrators to Queensland Nickel has knocked my city around. We are, of course, acutely aware that we are not alone when it comes to job losses in the resources sector. But we saw 237 people lose their jobs when they were made redundant. Then the administrators were appointed and they are still waiting for their entitlements. Those things tend to knock a city around.
How do we generate jobs locally in a place that is 1,400 kilometres away from a capital city? The federal government has spent over $5 billion in the North since 2006. We have to ensure that many jobs are created locally. How do we do that? We make the decision makers allow local contractors to get hold of that money. If we continue to let the large corporations come in and build these things, the profit will continue to leave our city and the investment that goes with that will continue to leave along with it—and we are left standing at the airport waving goodbye as our profit leaves. If we are able to break down the tenders to bite-size chunks, local firms would be able to tender and get that work. It will save the taxpayer money; it will increase competition; and it will ensure that traineeships and apprenticeships are done locally, as opposed to what we see now where there are no apprenticeships with the tier 1 companies. It is about making sure that we progress those things in our city.
One thing that we can do right now is deal with issues around the Federal Safety Commission. In our first repeal day, then Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer, Josh Frydenberg, repealed the FSC on the building of defence housing homes. This had a number of great effects. Firstly, it lowered the cost of red tape around building defence homes. It actually lowered the cost to the taxpayer of a defence home by about 15 per cent. That is real money. It also allowed a lot more companies to tender for and build those defence homes. So, again, it is creating more competition and creating more jobs. At the commercial level, the FSC does not kick in until $4 million. Commercially, that does not buy you a lot of office space or a government building. We could benefit if we could raise that to $20 million or $40 million. We are not talking about unsafe workplaces; we are talking about everyone around the country operating under the same safety net. When it comes to federal government stuff, the FSC becomes onerous. It is a difficult process to go through to get compliance and it is costly do to, which just cancels out all your contractors from participating in this area. This means fewer apprenticeships, less work in the regions, less profits staying in the region and fewer jobs in the region.
While I am speaking about jobs, I would just make a personal appeal—an appeal I have tweeted every day to Dr Anthony Lynham, the Queensland Minister for Natural Resources and Mines. Can you just sign the mining lease for the Carmichael Mine, please? Everything is in place. The only thing that has to happen now is for the mining lease to be signed. This will lead to jobs all the way from the Townsville port, across every road and every bridge out to the mine site—there is 150 years' worth of mining out there—and then back along the $2.2 billion railway line to Abbott Point. These are sustainable jobs into the future and coal-fired power for our region to develop. All those things could happen there If Dr Lynham could just do us this one little favour. He has taken his eye completely off the ball with these ridiculous lockout laws. He should be concentrating on his own role here and not the lockout laws. He can get this thing done and make sure that we have this mine operating in North Queensland.
Developing the north is not just about dams and power stations; it is also about lifestyles and sustainable jobs. When Andrew Robb addressed a packed ballroom just before the 2013 election, he stated that, if we were to deliver properly for the north of this country, we would also have to deliver the kinds of experience and social infrastructure that people in the capital cities take for granted. The redevelopment of Townsville CBD and the Ross Creek water precinct should be high on our list. Some of the projects, such as the stadium and convention centre, will not deliver the masses of jobs down the line that some believe they will. But being able to offer a seat in the shade or out of the rain as we watch our Cowboys run around should not be an unreasonable request. Jobs in the short term would be created during construction, but they will turn to lifestyle choice for the long term.
As demographer Bernard Salt observed in his presentation at the recent Redefining Townsville seminar, people are choosing cities and where they live based on lifestyle and on what they have to offer. You need only look at the explosion of the Sunshine Coast and Newcastle to see that people are choosing those sorts of places to make sure they get the quality of life that they want. Townsville offers a great quality of life. If we can provide the facilities that go with that, we will move on and create those jobs that we can take into the future. Make no mistake, the building of the stadium and convention centre is state government infrastructure, and they should be funding it in the same way as they do for everything else in the south-east. But we are used to being treated like second-class citizens in the north. The federal government understands the needs of the people in the north, and I will be doing my best to deliver the lifestyle that we deserve.
One of the things that came up in the Redefining Townsville discussions was the need for regional cities to be able to speak with one voice. We as a city must develop that voice. We as a city have to decide what we want our city to be. Too often, I think, our civic leadership has seen people come in wanting to talk about something else and then we drop everything and go after them as if they have something special for us. We have the something special. My city has the something special. As a city, we have to decide what kind of city we are going to be into the future. We have to decide the links that we will have to make. I would contend that our links to the Asia-Pacific are far more important than our links to Brisbane. We will get far more investment if we drive our relationships into Asia, Papua New Guinea and the Melanesian world. We will get far more investment if we concentrate on our relationship with Indonesia than we will ever get by concentrating on our relationships with the state government.
As a city, we have to decide that we want to be that international city that will provide lifestyle, health, training and education to people from all the Pacific nations. That is the sort of city that we want to be. We are a great services city. When we look at the things that we can provide—our professional services, our defence services, our university and vocational education services—we are right on the cusp of being able to deliver these things. It will take a concerted effort from all levels of government and all civic leadership to say: 'What is our city's mission statement? How do we drive this?' And when someone comes in and offers us something outside that, we need to say: 'No, thank you. That's not where we see ourselves going. We don't want to be in that business because we have a mission, we speak with one voice and we are moving in that area.'
We as Townsvillians, as North Queenslanders, have the ability to drive this nation further and to play our part in making sure that Townsville becomes that fantastic city in the north—the true hub of northern Australia, where we are looking at the emerging capitals of Port Moresby and all the cities in Indonesia and through to Thailand, Vietnam, South-East Asia and China and Japan. We need the connectivity, we need the support, and we have the people to do this. We are a great city. I thank the House.
I cannot begin without paying tribute to the member for Herbert and that contribution. I do not know why we are bothering to engage a Hemsworth to sell this country; we just need to get the member for Herbert out there to sell Townsville to the world.
But I do note a couple of things from that fine speech from the member for Herbert about Townsville—jobs, jobs, jobs. It is a theme across the country. I hear the same thing in Lalor. Also in Lalor, I hear utter sadness in recalling the day that the former Treasurer stood at the dispatch box and we saw the end of the car manufacturing industry in this country. They recall it with sadness because of the number of local jobs that have been lost and will be lost as those things wind back across this country. As empathetic as I am to the member for Herbert, I wonder where he was that day and what conversations he had with the Treasurer about jobs in my electorate, jobs across Melbourne and jobs across Adelaide.
We are supposedly talking tonight about the appropriations bills. But in my office, from where I have been listening, I have heard lectures on the Labor Party's negative gearing policy, which was released, I think, a week ago. I have heard an in-depth discussion about the opposition's policy about negative gearing. I have heard a pitch for Townsville and about an argument Townsville is having with the state government. I have heard very little, however, about MYEFO. I have heard very little about the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook from those opposite in this debate that has ranged for hours. I am not surprised at all that those opposite do not want to mention MYEFO. Our new Prime Minister did not want to come and talk after MYEFO was released either. I think he went into hiding for three or four days around that time.
The reason no-one over on that side wants to talk about MYEFO or wants to talk about the appropriation bills and the spends and the cuts that are in those bills is that it would show up their clear lack of an economic plan. It would show clearly that they are in disarray when it comes to planning for this country's economy, and it would show that this new Prime Minister has a clear penchant for saying one thing and then doing another—on education funding, on marriage equality, on negative gearing, on climate change, on the republic. What this Prime Minister says and what he does are two completely different things. He says one thing and he does another.
These appropriation bills seek to appropriate $2.2 billion in 2015-16, yet I hear very little about what that money will be used for. They reflect the changes to the budget that were shown in the MYEFO which was released by this government on 15 December 2015. It showed a continued deterioration of the budget and the economy under what is now the Abbott-Turnbull government, as well as highlighting the lack of an economic plan. If we have a look at what MYEFO told us, the deficit is higher, a blow-out of $26 billion over the forward estimates. That is $120 million a day between the 2015-16 budget and the 2015-16 MYEFO. Net debt for 2016-17 is nearly $100 billion higher than what was forecast in the 2013 PEFO before these people came into government. I do remember the former Treasurer and how often he said, 'Let me say that number again'. So: $100 billion.
We have gross debt headed to $550 billion by the end of the forward estimates. Economic growth is slashed. And this is on the back of figures that show the deterioration of the economy under this government: living standards, as measured by net disposable income per capita, falling for six consecutive quarters; capital expenditure falling, with a broad-based decline, not just in the mining sector; and consumer and business confidence at levels far lower than what they were when this government took office.
It is a sad state of affairs, so I am not surprised that we have not had a lot of positive contributions on the bills from those opposite. This lack of any kind of economic plan for this country under our new Prime Minister and new Treasurer was also highlighted so dramatically for the Australian public. And the best quote, after last week's Press Club address from Treasurer Morrison—the 46-minute speech at the National Press Club, where most analysts have said very little, if anything at all—came from Laura Tingle's article. She put it this way:
… in his first address to the press club, the Treasurer still seems stuck ... between this reality and the daydream that simply by being in government the Coalition will make things better.
Well, I think it is fair to say that MYEFO has put paid to that. And why has it? Because MYEFO locked in and told us clearly that under Prime Minister Turnbull this government has not changed direction, despite the public completely rejecting the 2014 budget, despite the government's not being able to get most of those measures through the Senate—because they are unfair, because they will send this country backwards, because they will build more inequity and inequality into this country and drain our prosperity at the same time. It locked in $23 billion in cuts to education. It confirmed that the Turnbull government was going to continue down the Abbott road of negating the steps we were taking towards a wonderful education system—the funding that was going to be used to take us back to be leaders internationally in education. It locked those cuts in. It told us clearly and it told the Australian public clearly that despite the review led by David Gonski that said that above all the additional investment needed to implement a schooling resource standard is necessary because without it the high cost of poor educational outcomes will become an even greater drag on Australia's social and economic development in the future. The need for the additional expenditure and the application of what those funds can do is urgent. Australia will only slip further behind unless, as a nation, we act—and we act now.
That was in 2011. It is now 2016, and all we are getting from those opposite is, 'Throwing money at education won't fix it,' dismissing everything that review found. And this government and this Prime Minister and this Treasurer have locked that in. Labor's plan would see us implement, continuing into the future, needs-based funding, evidence-based practices and improvement. On superannuation, again, we have seen a cut to the low-income superannuation contribution that would have given a majority of women and low-income earners a boost to their superannuation. Instead, what do we get this week? We get a kite being flown—I hope it's a kite!—to suggest that this government is going to undermine Australia's superannuation scheme.
Then we had today one after the other in here talking about Labor's negative gearing plan. On this side of the chamber we have over 50 policies on the floor going into this election, and in this chamber today I have not heard anybody stand up on the other side and defend the economic plan of those opposite—because there is no economic plan. Interestingly, while they talk about Labor's negative gearing policy, they forget to mention the grandfathering. They leave that part of the story outside the door. The facts about Labor's negative gearing plan are that it will raise revenue and, at the same time, it will ensure that we get new housing stock without impacting on those who already use those investment practices and negative-gearing practices and without any negative impact on those Australians who are already involved in those ways.
What we have seen from this Prime Minister is simply that there are no new ideas on the table. He talks about everything being on the table but very little is being said about any of those things on the table. And we see a MYEFO that locks in cuts to education. The other thing it locked in was the $57 billion cut to health. In Victoria that means $73 million is ripped away from Victorian public hospital patients on top of the $17.7 billion to the Victorian hospitals over the next 10 years. This is going to impact on people's lives on the ground. What does that translate to for emergency department visits? What impact is that going to have on our hospitals? This is after a failed attempt to undermine Medicare through the GP tax. Of course, still on the table and still being discussed are cuts to Medicare through pathology and imaging.
This is a government that wants to take the shortcuts, the easy ways, to solve what they perceive to be economic problems, but all of their answers come down to dividing this country, to hurting the most vulnerable and to putting more onus on low- and middle-income earners—taxpayers in this country—to do with less, without touching the top-end of town. Australians have seen through this and this debate today has highlighted that for Australians. Yesterday's headlines about the proposition that we could allow low-income earners to opt out of superannuation—well it's a game, isn't it? We have families losing up to $5,000, some more, from the changes this government wants to see in family tax benefits—$100 a week out of your hand but that's okay because we will give you $63 back by saying you can opt out of superannuation. There is a $40 difference between $100 and $60 and, long-term, those low-income workers would see themselves without superannuation into the future.
In my electorate we already have a lot of people in their 50s looking for work. If you project that, a young person today who says, 'I don't want super; I want that $60 in my hand, today,' where will they be when they are 55? A retirement age of 70 and you have lost your job at 55 and you have no superannuation. Where are they going to be? It is short-sighted, it is an easy option, it sounds good on a front page but the bottom line is that this government is too lazy to do the hard work on the economy, to do the hard things in the economy, to find the solutions and to have the real conversation with the Australian public. Instead of that, they say everything is on the table until things become too political or too hard to leave them on the table and then they throw them off the table and come up with something else to put on the table.
We know, and this debate has highlighted it, that this Prime Minister says one thing and does another. We know because he has locked in the $23 billion cuts to education and yet stands at the despatch box day after day and talks about innovation. You cannot have innovation without funding education. It just won't work; it defies logic. We hear words like 'agile'. Well, they are very agile at throwing things off the table when they become politically hard but they are not very agile when it comes to getting together and thinking through hard economic decisions and putting a plan forward. We have a government without a jobs plan, without a plan for this country's economic future, and we have a government that wants to always talk about the past but, conveniently, denies a global financial crisis in that past. We have a government that doubled the deficit, in the first instance, and has wreaked havoc on the economy, since. That is what MYEFO told us. Although Labor will not block supply and will support the appropriation bills, those opposite need to start thinking about what those bills mean.
That was a mind-boggling address by the previous speaker, the member for Lalor. We get a lecture about the debt of the country and how it needs to be restrained and that it is an issue and the problems with that and, then, we get that nothing should be restrained as far as spending goes. So I do not know quite how that works. I want to make one point about the previous speaker's contribution: we have increased spending on health, we have increased spending on education and we have increased spending on welfare, every year, that we have been in government for the last two or three years. In the forward estimates we are increasing spending as well. Yes, we are not increasing them as much as you and others would like, because of the situation you so eloquently described at the start with our debt-and-deficit issue.
Everyone in this chamber would say that governments need to spend money in areas that promote jobs in our economy, promote growth in our economy, because from that, obviously, you get more tax to collect from a growing economy and people in more jobs. One thing that we have done exceptionally well is target our spending on some very productive and growth and job orientated infrastructure projects. One of them that is especially important to my area and my region is the Pacific Highway. The previous Labor government went to the 2013 election putting $3.5 billion on the table to complete that exceptionally important infrastructure project.
But that was not enough, because they wanted to back out on a deal they had with the previous state Labor government. The federal Labor government was funding this infrastructure project at 80 per cent and the previous state Labor government was funding the project at 20 per cent. But—lo and behold!—when the state Labor government lost office the previous federal Labor government said, 'Well, we don't want to fund it at 80 per cent anymore; we want to fund it at 50 per cent.' That is a very unfortunate and cynical view of a very important infrastructure project.
So with the help and, obviously, with the cooperation of the former Deputy Prime Minister of Australia, Warren Truss, we negotiated that if we were to win government in the 2013 election we would in fact reinstate the 80-20 funding rule on this very important infrastructure project. Madam Deputy Speaker Henderson—and welcome to the chair!—what that meant for this very important infrastructure project was that the funding went back to an 80-20 split, which was very important, but very importantly it meant that the project was now on target to be finished by 2019.
We all know why these things are important. With the dual duplication of the highway between Sydney and Brisbane the primary reason we do that—and I know that you would know this, Madam Deputy Speaker, as a regional MP—is for safety on our roads. The duplication of the highway has already halved fatalities on that highway from what they once were—even though it is not finished, but just with the section that has occurred, and even with the increased traffic and more people driving on the roads. The fatalities have halved because of the section that has been duplicated. We know that when the dual duplication is finished—there are about 155 kilometres of it to go in my electorate, between Woolgoolga to Ballina—fatalities will decrease even further. That meant an extra $2 billion from this federal government over what the Labor government was going to commit to it, and it has seen a lot of work happen on that highway in the last two years.
The other things that we are also doing are through a program that I am very proud of—and that the Nationals, in conjunction with the Liberal Party, are very proud of—the National Stronger Regions Program. Madam Deputy Speaker—again, I know that you would know this as a regional MP—that is delivering and targeting jobs and growth in regional areas. I just want to go through a few projects which were successful in getting up in the last round in my community and region. They are going to be good for jobs and good for growth.
One of them was an upgrade to the local saleyards at the Northern Rivers Livestock Exchange in Casino. That is a $3.5 million investment. This is an exceptionally important piece of infrastructure for our local economy. Casino being the beef capital of Australia, this piece of infrastructure is essential. In fact, across the road from the saleyards is the local Northern Cooperative Meatworks. They are the biggest private employer for hundreds of kilometres. They employ around 1,200 people and, obviously, they need well-resourced saleyards to get the stock and produce through into the abattoir. That was a great announcement, again, to help local jobs and local growth in our economy.
Another one in the most recent round: we all know the importance of the sugar industry. I see the member for Hinkler in here and he would well know, as a very knowledgeable man about the sugar industry in Australia, that the Harwood Mill and Refinery also received $4 million. This was to improve freight and logistics. They are a co-op. The local cane growers association was the entity that put that application in, Assistant Minister Pitt, and that very successful application is helping their freight logistics operations. This will help to lower the price for which they are going to be able to get their product out of their area.
It is not just the 100 or so people who work at the mill. As you would well understand, Madam Deputy President, it is the growers—and there are many of those in the region—the drivers, the carters and the local communities where those workers live. Again, this is all helping job security in my region. It was another very successful application and a great job and growth project for my region.
The other one was a road to Toonumbar Dam. I encourage you to come for a holiday to the Northern Rivers in New South Wales, Madam Deputy Speaker—it is a beautiful area. In fact, I know where you live; you probably should come up in the winter time—
Corangamite is very beautiful!
Yes, it is very beautiful. I have been there—the Twelve Apostles and the Ocean Road are all lovely. I do not even mind watching Geelong play football, although they are on a bit of a downward spiral! But I encourage you to come up in winter time—it is much warmer! We do not get those bitterly cold southerly winds up there, so I encourage you to visit.
The sun always shines in Corangamite, thank you very much!
If the clouds are there, it is just behind the clouds! Toonumbar Dam is a very important piece of infrastructure for Kyogle. The Toonumbar Dam is absolutely beautiful. It has a gravel road at the moment, but a lot of tourists go out there. It is very popular with campers and families, who go to the dam and, obviously, use it for water recreation sports and other things. In this program we gave Kyogle a million dollars to upgrade that road. It has tourism potential, and we know that when tourists come they spend money. We know that piece of infrastructure is going to be very important to the Kyogle region.
There is more: the Lismore Quadrangle project, which received $2.8 million. It is an old disused secondary school building in the middle of Lismore. It is really looking quite decrepit. It has not been used for many decades and really is a bit of a blight on the landscape. But there is a magnificent plan to completely revitalise that with an art gallery and to revitalise the whole square around it. It adjoins the city library and the conservatorium of music. It is really going to revitalise that section of the CBD of Lismore. Of course, we know that the Margaret Ollie Art Gallery in our local region, further north on the Tweed, has really encouraged a different type of tourist—a different type of person—to visit the region. So there are many exciting things which are going to happen from that.
Lastly, but not least, the other one from the National Stronger Regions Fund is the Ballina Marine Rescue Tower. This is very important for the Richmond River, which meets the Pacific ocean at Ballina—a beautiful part of the world as well. It has a marine rescue tower, manned by volunteers who keep it going. But it is in great disrepair—in fact it had to be closed, and the volunteers have to do their jobs not in that building because it was deemed unsafe. That was not okay. They got $850,000 to completely redo it. Obviously, that will mean a lot for our fishing industry—there is a fleet of trawlers in Ballina—in being able to get out over the bar. The Ballina bar is an exceptionally dangerous bar, so it is an important piece of infrastructure for that industry and also for the tourism industry—obviously, people who want to go boating and those types of things. So it is a great program at the top of things the federal government should do in maintaining infrastructure in job and growth related investments.
The other one—and, again, you would know about this program, Madam Deputy Speaker—is the Bridges Renewal Program. The Bridges Renewal Program is very important to a lot of our local councils, especially in my region. The region is called the Northern Rivers; we get a lot of rain. When you have a lot of rain, you have a lot of creeks, a lot of streams and a lot of rivers. One particular council in my region—Kyogle, which is quite a small council as far as ratepayer base goes—has over 200 wooden bridges, and a lot of them are around 50 or 60 years old. The council does have a maintenance program with them but it is a very stressful program for them to maintain those bridges. The Nationals are very proud with our coalition to put money into this type of infrastructure.
Our Bridges Renewal Program is a new program for this parliament. It was not in existence, and we very strongly lobbied for it. I was delighted to announce just a few weeks ago that in the second round of this program Kyogle put in an application for seven bridges and got approval for them all. The Lions Road is an amazing story. The Lions Road is a shortcut for people to get from Kyogle through to Brisbane. It was built by the community. It was not built by the government or the state government. There is a wonderful family in Kyogle: the Hurleys. Jim Hurley is a legend in that region. They basically said, 'Look, we can take a lot of travel time off getting from Kyogle to Brisbane,' so a number of decades ago they just built it. They got their machinery out, cleared a path and built a road. It was not an easy road to build, because it went up over hills, mountains, creeks and streams. It was a big effort. But obviously some of these bridges are now in need of repair. There are six of them on that road. It is very important for tourism; there are a lot of bike riders, motorbike riders and other tourists who do that trip down through that beautiful region. When you do come, I will point it out to you so you do not miss that bit, and you will admire some new bridges, Madam Deputy Speaker.
There are many others. We have put money into CCTV cameras. From my election promises, I know we have put money into health infrastructure. In fact, the previous member promised some money to an emergency department at the Casino & District Memorial Hospital. I did not. I actually gave some money to the Ballina District Hospital because it needed a new operating theatre and some new imaging equipment. I made a promise for that, and after being successful in the 2013 election the Casino hospital people range me and said, 'Kevin, you haven't promised this one, but come out and have a look.' And I did; I went out and had a look at the emergency department at Casino and saw just how badly needed that piece of infrastructure was. It was a $3 million investment that needed to be made. I approached the then Minister for Health, the member for Dickson, Peter Dutton, and he was very generous and wisely saw the need for that infrastructure spend. We matched that promise even though we had not made it through the election campaign.
Governments have a big responsibility, and appropriation bills are very important. We talk about sustainability when we talk about the environment, ecology, our future, our grandchildren and our children. We talk about the fact that we need to leave things for them, that we are borrowing things on their behalf and are custodians for this. We are custodians for our children's and our grandchildren's finance. With appropriation bills we need to look at the sustainability of our economy and the sustainability of the government's finances. So, yes, as a politician, we love running around handing out money, but we have to be very wise and very prudent with it. We have to give it to projects that are good infrastructure or good jobs- and growth-building projects. But we cannot hand over to our children dirty streams, dirty rivers or land that has been ruined and we cannot hand over to our children or our grandchildren finances that have ruined the country and have put a tax burden on them because of the debt that we have run up and the interest expenses on that. We need to talk much more about sustainability when we talk about appropriation bills and finance. I thank you for the opportunity.
I am pleased to have the opportunity tonight to speak on Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2015-2016 and Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2015-2016. These bills seek to appropriate $2.2 billion in 2015-16, reflecting the changes in the budget that were outlined in the 2015-16 Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook, which was released by the government in December last year. But it is not what is included in these bills that makes them interesting; it is what is missing. Missing from these bills is the same thing that was missing from the Treasurer's address at the National Press Club last Wednesday—the Treasurer's address where we got yet again a lecture, a contextualising, as he called it, another statement on the current state of the economy and the challenges we are facing, as if Australians and Canberrans were not aware of that. We got all that but not much else from the Treasurer at the National Press Club last week. It is the same thing that was missing from the Prime Minister's diatribes in question time today and it is what is missing from this government's rhetoric generally every day. That is vision.
A vision for this country, a vision for our future prosperity is absent. Last week the Treasurer spent, what, 47 minutes at the National Press Club. I think he spent 10 minutes in addition to that time thanking all the people who were involved in the development of what was his speech, although it did just seem like a lecture and a continuation of a conversation that he had been having since September last year. But he did not provide any detail, any vision, any plan for our future prosperity.
There are many question marks. This is the government that actually started the conversation with the nation about the fact that we need innovation, the fact that we need science, the fact that we need to be agile and excited. There are still question marks from this government. Even though they have been carping from the sidelines about what we are doing, there are plenty of question marks about what is going on with the capital gains tax.
We heard from the Prime Minister today on capital gains tax. But what is the government's position on capital gains tax? Are there going to be changes? They have been dangling this tax reform plan for months now, and so far we have zip—zero—in terms of detail. So what is the deal with capital gains tax? Are there going to be changes?
What is the deal with negative gearing? Are there going to be changes? Again, there is plenty of carping from the sidelines by this government about what we are doing in terms of our plans, but what is their plan? What is your plan, Prime Minister? What is your vision for this country? What is your vision for our future prosperity?
What is the plan on superannuation? Are there going to be changes on superannuation? Again, it is one big question mark, as it is with tax reform generally. There is lots of chatter. There are lots of conversations. There is lots of contextualising about the fact that we face a challenge as a nation. Yes, we do; but what is the plan? There are lots of questions being raised. There are lots of problems being put out there, but what is the plan? Where are the solutions? There are none from this government. It has no vision for this country. It has no plan for how it is going to ensure our future prosperity.
Contrast that with Labor. We have outlined a very clear vision for our country—50-plus policies—and a very clear vision that was outlined in our national conference last year. Our vision is one where the government will stand up for middle- and working-class families rather than attack them, which is what this government has done since that cruel budget of 2014, which cut into our social fabric and our DNA. We will stand up for working class families and we will stand up for middle class families, rather than attack them.
A Labor government will put people first; with better pay and protected jobs; with better schools and better teachers; a healthier Australia; a 50 per cent renewable energy target, including driving more solar. Labor has a plan. We have outlined our education policy, 'Your Child. Our Future', making sure a needs based school funding model is here to stay.
We have outlined how we will improve the budget by cracking down on multinational tax avoidance, by cracking down on superannuation tax breaks for the very rich, by abolishing the Abbott-Turnbull government Emissions Reduction Fund. And last week we announced that a Shorten Labor government will deliver the most important structural budget reform in a decade, that will help fund health and education, bring some fairness back into the housing market and underwrite our nation's future. Labor will reform negative gearing and the capital gains tax subsidies to ensure that our tax system is fair and sustainable and to ensure that it targets jobs and growth.
We want to level the playing field so first home owners can compete with investors' housing supply, while creating tens of thousands of new construction jobs. We will limit negative gearing to new housing from 1 July 2017. All current investments and any made before this date will not—and I emphasise that—be affected by this change and will be fully grandfathered. No matter what scare campaigns the government is running on this issue, those investments will not be affected by this change and they will be fully grandfathered.
Labor will halve the capital gains tax subsidy for assets purchased after 1 July 2017, and this will reduce the capital gains tax discount for assets that are held longer than 12 months, from the current 50 per cent to 25 per cent. All investments made before this date will not be affected by this change and will be fully grandfathered, no matter what scare campaign is being run by the government. As I said, all investments made before this date will not be affected by this change and will be fully grandfathered.
In contrast, those opposite have no vision. As I said, it is just lots of contextualising, lots of conversations and lots of waiting with bated breath since September last year—no vision, no clarity. There is lots of outlining of the challenges, but not solutions. Just months out from an election, we have a government with no plan.
Today I want to talk a bit about what this government's lack of plans and lack of vision is doing to my electorate of Canberra. If you surveyed the residents of Tuggeranong in my electorate of Canberra, probably one of their No. 1 frustrations with this government would be the fact that they have no certainty about when the NBN is being rolled out—in fact, I am sure you would get a unanimous response. Particularly in the southern part of the electorate, down in the Tuggeranong Valley, their No. 1 frustration would be having no access to NBN and really poor internet access in terms of availability and speed.
Under Labor, every home in the ACT would have had access to a world-class fibre-to-the-premises version of the NBN. But, under this government—despite being the national capital, despite being home to government, despite being home to Defence, despite being home to world-leading universities, despite being home to cultural and scientific institutions—under this Prime Minister, large parts of Canberra are not even on the NBN rollout map. They are not even there. It is just one big blank page in the southern part of my electorate. They are not even on the NBN rollout map. This is despite the fact that these are suburbs that have the lowest rating in the country for both availability and quality of broadband. It is despite the fact that the now Prime Minister originally promised that all homes and businesses would have the NBN by the end of this year.
It is 2016, and Canberrans cannot even find themselves on the map. They are not even potentially recognised as an option in the near future. They are not even there on the map. Let me tell you that they are very angry, particularly down in the Tuggeranong Valley. They are fed up with this second-rate service. In the last couple of months—particularly since I held a forum on NBN last year—I have been inundated with complaints about the terrible internet service Canberrans are currently receiving.
I have also been inundated in recent weeks about the terrible service that iiNet has been providing to Canberrans. I am putting it on the record now; I am taking a very close look at iiNet because, from what I can gather from people in my electorate, the service that iiNet is providing is suboptimal, to say the least—and that is being diplomatic.
I want to read from what some of my constituents have to say about the NBN. This is from Alan; I got it last week:
… I recently moved house, mind you it was literally across the road … At the old property we would achieve ADSL2+ speeds of a poor 4.8mbps down. Sadly I have not got similar speeds as you would expect at the property across the road. On average we only pull about 0.20mbps down and 0.01 up—
And he has given me a screen shot here.
To rub salt into the wound, VDSL2 is available in Fisher through iiNet (TransACTs network). They have confirmed that there is fibre running through the street our cul-de-sac runs off. They have informed me that I am a little over 200m from their 'super node', which would mean that I would be able to get download speeds of close to 80mbps. Problem—they will not upgrade the network into our cul-de-sac. So for me to get access to reliable internet they have advised me that I can pay for the infrastructure, costing $10,366.35 (ex GST), to have them connect the block of 4 units I live in to VDSL2. Who has a spare $10,366.35 (ex GST) to upgrade the internet to a property they rent? Certainly not us!
… … …
This is what the Turnbull Government is leaving Canberrans with. Barely usable broadband on the old outdated copper network and leaving many Canberra residents in the dark ages. On top of this they—
That is, the connecting people—
want to connect us to the antiquated … failing copper network.
… … …
Our current connection speed causes us many issues. My Husband is self employed. He is contracted to a major Retailer designing kitchens. Our current connection makes it virtually impossible for him to send and receive the files that he needs to as part of his work. Additionally, he is studying architecture full-time at UC. This means at there are times, even at early hours of the morning, he must drive to the University Campus to access their network to download and send his files. Does Mr Turnbull have to travel at 2 or 3 am in the morning to access reliable internet? I guessing not!
I have also had to delay and withdraw from the University degree I was studying via Distance Education. I commenced a Bachelor of Counter Terrorism Security and Intelligence through Edith Cowan University, Joondalup Campus WA. However, our current speeds prevent me from being able to access my online lectures and tutorials. When I am able to download them, on average it took 2 days to download a single lecture!
Two days! We are talking about the nation's capital here. We are talking about a suburb that is probably 20 minutes from where we are the moment—from Parliament House. It took Alan two days to download a single lecture.
Its time Mr Turnbull realised that he has failed when it comes to the FTTN NBN he is rolling out. His priorities in for the rollout are misplaced. Its an embarrassment for the Nations capital to have speeds such as mine. Why are areas with reliable ADSL being prioritised over areas like Fisher?
There we have one of my constituents talking about the challenges that they and their family are facing with regard to NBN.
Here is another, Melanie:
My family lived in Theodore for 7 years and we now live in Calwell. My 3 children go to the local schools and my husband runs a small business from a home office. I am a public servant, I study part time and I often work from home. Slow Internet has a real impact on our day to day lives, our ability to contribute to the economy and our educations. We are a hard working family and we make a genuine contribution through our taxes. Our lives are increasingly reliant on the internet and three years is too long for us to have to wait to have this fixed.
These are just some of the constituents in my electorate who are suffering, who cannot participate in educational opportunities, who cannot participate in small-business opportunities and who cannot participate in active citizenry because of the fact that they are not even on the map and also because of the second-rate system that they are getting as a result of this government.
It is not only the NBN where this government is letting down the people of my electorate. The Abbott and Turnbull governments have shown complete disdain for our nation's capital. This has been made crystal clear in the few parliamentary sitting weeks we have had, so far, this year. We have seen cuts to our national cultural institutions. Most recently, earlier this month it was announced that 350 more jobs would be slashed at CSIRO over the next two years. These jobs are in the area of climate science, and we have learnt today that these job cuts may mean we are breaching our obligations under the Paris agreement on climate change. Since these cuts were announced we have heard from thousands of scientists pointing out that cutting CSIRO's measuring and monitoring capacity will have a devastating impact on Australia's ability to understand and respond to climate change.
This is the damage that this government has inflicted on Canberra this year alone. So much for innovation. So much for agility. So much for a commitment to science. Since 2013 we have seen 8½ thousand Public Service jobs slashed in Canberra alone. The Abbott-Turnbull government has not just presented no vision for my electorate but it has actively hurt my electorate and my community, time and time again. There is no vision for this community—no vision for Canberra, our nation's capital. In fact, for Canberra it is about cuts and contempt. (Time expired)
I like the member for Canberra. She is a good friend of mine even though she represents the wrong side of politics. I just want to give the member for Canberra a bit of hope that there is a vision for this country. It is summed up very succinctly. I know the member for Canberra has a busy schedule so I will get this out of the way quickly, so she can move on to other things.
For this government the vision is about lower taxes, lower spending, economic growth, jobs and innovation. Your vision on the other side is for higher taxes and higher spending. That is what Labor has only ever represented—higher taxes and higher spending. When they were last in government that is all we saw—six years of higher taxes and higher spending. It leaves us—this current government—with the job of fixing the budget. So thank you, member for Canberra, for your contribution to this debate.
Earlier, the member for Lalor, in her contribution, referred to 50 measures that are on the table by those opposite. It is interesting to reflect that most of them are not savings. They are not savings at all. Those opposite have developed this wonderful capacity to turn the term 'savings' into tax increases. They spent six years perfecting that technique and they still roll it out today. They say, 'We're going to make all of these wonderful savings. We're going to improve the budget bottom line.' But the end result for the Australian people is higher taxes and higher spending.
As the member for Page quite rightly pointed out in his contribution, we have a duty—not only for the current generation but for future generations in this country—to leave this country in a sound financial and economic condition. We will leave an inheritance for those future generations. The question is: what is the inheritance that we will leave? Will it be it one that is positive, that allows those future generations to move forward in growing the country and realising the great opportunities this country presents? Or will it be an inheritance that those opposite would like to see, full of debt and deficit and higher spending and higher taxes, which those future generations will have to deal with and pay for?
There is a clear difference between this government and those opposite, in that, as the Australian economy undergoes a transition from the mining and construction boom to an economy that is built on the export of services and agriculture—and agriculture in this country has been an enormous foundation for economic wealth for decades, if not the past hundred years or longer—we are seeking to ensure that our economy, as it becomes more diversified and more innovative, actually has the financial capacity and flexibility to adjust to changing circumstances in a global environment.
In that regard, we have already started to see some of the benefits of the free trade agreements with China, Japan and South Korea and, more recently, the Trans-Pacific Partnership. I have seen locally the benefits of positive sentiment. We have seen announcements over the last little while in my electorate of Forde of multimillion dollar investments in our local communities—over $300 million in an integrated residential and commercial centre in Beenleigh, funded entirely by private investment. And there was an announcement prior to Christmas by Zarraffa's. For those of you who do not know Zarraffa's, they make wonderful coffee, so, when you are next in in Queensland and you get the opportunity, grab some great coffee at Zarraffa's. They are looking to move their global headquarters, as well as other parts of their business, to a building in my electorate of Forde, at Eagleby, right next door to the Beenleigh Rum distillery, which is the oldest operating rum distillery in Australia.
Oh, I don't know about that!
The member at the table might dispute that, but I have to be partisan and support Beenleigh Rum. Beenleigh Rum has also made an enormous investment, over recent times, in a new visitor information centre and conference centre. All of this investment by private enterprise is actually what drives jobs and growth in our economy. That is the value of what we are seeking to do as a government.
What we are seeking to do as a government is to free our business community from the shackles of red tape and regulation, an inheritance left by six years of those opposite, who introduced some 21,000 new regulations. Yet, when they came to power in 2007, they promised that they would remove one regulation for every new regulation introduced. As you are well aware, Mr Deputy Speaker Vasta, when you came in in 2010 we heard that ad nauseam, but it did not happen. I think they repealed some 1,000 regulations but they introduced 21,000. So the ratio was actually: for every one they repealed, they introduced 20 new ones. Not only that; they introduced the world's biggest carbon tax, which was a hammer blow to our economy. They introduced a mining tax which did not work. Those opposite were waxing lyrical earlier today about the Henry tax review. The member for Fraser spoke about it. The Henry tax review was this wonderful document that had 135 recommendations, of which they took two and completely stuffed up one of them. They introduced a new tax that raised no revenue, yet they spent billions of dollars in relation to it. Those are the issues that we are dealing with in this budget.
But also it is important to recognise the many achievements of this government to date. If I look at some of the achievements locally in the electorate of Forde, we can see over the last past couple of years some $40 million in Roads to Recovery funding for the Logan and Gold Coast city councils. Logan and Gold Coast city councils are two of the fastest-growing councils in Queensland. It is the growth corridor halfway between Brisbane and the Gold Coast. That Roads to Recovery funding is enormously important to those councils, to ensure that they can fund the upgrades to the local road infrastructure that are required as a result of this continuing growth of population.
We have also provided some $29 million in financial assistance grants to the Logan and Gold Coast city councils. Importantly, we provided $10 million for the upgrading of Exit 54 at Upper Coomera, an interchange that had ground to a halt through the sheer volume of traffic going through it. The Queensland government also contributed to that project, as did private enterprise. That is the value of governments working together, along with private enterprise, to build key community infrastructure requirements. That project is now about halfway to completion. Whilst, as we all know, there come some frustrations at times with roadworks, the community is extraordinarily pleased that this project is actually proceeding. Not only will it create jobs locally during the construction phase; it will also facilitate a significant new large investment by Westfield and QIC in building the Coomera Town Centre, which will be a large new retail space that will create even more job opportunities for local young people, in particular, to gain part-time or casual jobs, and, more importantly, for older people in the community to gain full-time work.
In Beenleigh, through the National Stronger Regions Fund, some $3 million was funded by the federal government to the upgrade of the Beenleigh town square. That has been a fantastic success. With the Eats & Beats festival already there, and a number of other community activities, it has been extraordinarily well received. And currently in the square we have a mobile food van teaching people how to eat and cook healthily, and certainly that is a key issue in my community. Also I want to commend the current state government for the $1.2 million they have put in to upgrade the facade of the Beenleigh courthouse to better link it into the Beenleigh town square.
There are many things that this government has been doing not only on the national level but also in our local communities. I would also like to touch on the $1 million that we have contributed to the local community for the CCTV cameras for the Safer Streets program. That program has been extraordinarily well received. As part of that rollout, Logan City Council invested a very significant amount of money upgrading their CCTV monitoring room so that they can monitor all of the CCTV cameras.
This government is focused on creating the framework and the opportunities for our businesses and communities to grow. Through our innovation strategy announced prior to Christmas we have seen innovative businesses in the electorate of Forde, particularly in the Yatala Enterprise Area where we have a number of terrific innovative businesses, building on their already existing exporting activities to the world. And in that process, as they build their businesses, they are partnering with our local schools to train school based apprentices in the skills they require for their businesses specifically.
This creates the opportunity for these grade 11 and 12 students at our local schools, when they leave school, to have the opportunity to get a job straight off the bat. There is nothing more important than our youth, who are the future business owners and leaders in our communities. It is important that, as they go through the education system and leave school, they have the opportunity to go to university. If they are not inclined towards academic study, it is equally important that those who have a propensity and a love for the trades, whose eyes light up when they have a hammer or a screwdriver in their hand, have their talents recognised. They are equally as important as those that seek to go to university, because the university lecturer or university professor cannot lecture in a lecture hall if we do not have the tradespeople in our community to build those lecture theatres. They build our roads, our infrastructure and our houses, and often we do overlook the value and importance of our tradespeople. It is our tradespeople who actually build this country, and we should recognise and honour their work as much as we recognise and honour the work of our great professors and scientists and others who have been through the university system, our great academics. They too are wonderful people, but it is our tradespeople who actually build this country and build the opportunities for others to do what they are so successful in doing.
It is always a pleasure to speak on appropriation bills and reflect on the importance of ensuring that we have a budget that is sustainable and manageable for the long term for the future benefit of all people in this country, not just for select groups. I commend this bill to the House.
I rise to speak in relation to the Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2015-2016 and the Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2015-2016. These two bills appropriate some $2.2 billion of additional expenditure across a range of portfolios, and we will support these bills because on this side of the chamber we do not block supply. I note the additional $385 million for the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development, primarily for the Roads to Recovery program. That program has funded the maintenance and upgrade of many local roads in my electorate. We support it because it provides local jobs and is funded and allocated by an independent process.
In 2012, the Roads to Recovery program provided $1.6 million for the extension of Collingwood Drive, which provides such an important extension and connection between Collingwood Park and Redbank Plains. In 2013, it provided $800,000 towards the rehabilitation of a significant section of the footpath in Yamanto, not far from where I live. And in 2013 it provided $840,000 to construct a 2.1 kilometre bike pathway in Brassall.
I have always worked with the Ipswich City Council to support this particular program, and I am glad Labor supports it because I think it is a good program. I commend the government for putting money towards it. I have worked to ensure that funding has been provided properly and carried out in terms of road construction and maintenance in the council areas that I have had in my electorate and in and around them. This includes Ipswich City Council, the Somerset region, the Lockyer Valley and the Scenic Rim areas, when they were in my electorate. I look forward to Blair receiving its fair share of funding from Roads to Recovery in the future.
I do note in relation to road funding a letter to the editor of The Queensland Times by Mark Bailey, the Queensland Minister for Main Roads, Road Safety and Ports. And I ask the government to look again at the funding it once had on the table, across the forward estimates, for the upgrade of the Ipswich Motorway from Darra to Rockley. In every election except the last one, I have fought opponents from the LNP and the Liberals who have always been opposed to the upgraded Ipswich motorway past Dinmore. Labor designed, built and completed the Ipswich Motorway construction, supporting up to 10,000 jobs along the way and funding it at a cost of $2.8 billion. The final section—actually nowhere near my electorate—mainly in the electorate of Moreton and some in Oxley, is absolutely crucial for the people of Ipswich and Brisbane and the whole of south-east Queensland. It is one of the projects that has been identified in the recent Infrastructure Australia report as a priority that needs to be dealt with in the next five years.
I have had some meetings with Mark Bailey and I urge the government to look again at this, because the previous Deputy Prime Minister, the member for Wide Bay, and the previous minister for cities, the member for Mayo, actually had a very different approach to Labor in so far as we supported the Ipswich Motorway upgrade. Speaking in platitudes before the last election that they would support it, they have done nothing about it for 2½ years.
On 21 July last year, the then Deputy Prime Minister, the member for Wide Bay, wrote to Mark Bailey, a Queensland minister, and said that he was directing the department to remove the funding for the project—that is, the Darra to Rocklea section. The $279 million was to kick-start the funding for the construction, particularly necessary for the design—which of course needs to be done first—between the Oxley roundabout and Suscatand Street along the Ipswich Motorway.
I asked the new Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development, Darren Chester, to have a look at this again—a fresh pair of eyes; I said that in TheQueensland Times. I hope he has a new perspective on this issue, because it is absolutely crucial to south-east Queensland. Infrastructure Australia says it needs to be done.
The budget appropriation bills that are before the chamber do not necessarily tell the whole story about the economy. The bills are notable in that they reflect the Turnbull government's ever-worsening budgetary position. We know that the forecast they made in the budget was laid bare in MYEFO in December last year. Of course MYEFO came three months and one day after the current Prime Minister, the member for Wentworth, offered the following justification for his coup against the former Prime Minister, the member for Warringah. He said:
It is clear enough that the government is not successful in providing the economic leadership that we need.
And he added:
We need advocacy, not slogans. We need to respect the intelligence of the Australian people.
After the coup, the freshly-minted Prime Minister, the member for Wentworth, said in The Financial Reviewon 14 September 2015:
We need to have in this country and we will have now, an economic vision, a leadership that explains the great challenges and opportunities that we face.
No ambiguity there, but how is that vision thing going, Prime Minister? It does not look very good now.
The new Prime Minister had scolded the former Prime Minister and his Treasurer, Mr Hockey, for their failure to provide economic leadership. He, on the other hand, could do with a good dose of economic leadership and vision. It seems that his advocacy is poor and his sloganeering is exactly the same as the member for Warringah's.
There was a great national sigh of relief when the member for Warringah was removed but, in a matter of months, it would seem that MYEFO torpedoed the fancy claims and sank the economic and fiscal credibility of this government. It exposed in gory detail the continuing deterioration of the Abbott-Turnbull government's budgetary position and that of the Australian economy.
MYEFO spoke the truth: the deficit had blown out by $26 billion across the forward estimates. To put that into perspective, the deficit had increased by $120 million each and every day between the 2015 budget in May and the 2015 MYEFO in December—and this from a government that has never been shy of spruiking its supposed economic credentials.
The 2015 MYEFO also revealed the net debt for 2016-17 was nearly $100 billion higher than forecast in the 2013 pre-election fiscal outlook statement or PEFO—and PEFO is important, because it is the last independent statement on the Australian economy issued by Treasury prior to the election of the Abbott government. The 2013 PEFO is untouched by the incoming government and reports the true state of the Australian economy when the Labor government left office.
The 2015 MYEFO forecast gross debt zoomed to $550 billion by the end of the forward estimates, but the bad news in MYEFO was not limited to the whole economy: in my shadow portfolio areas of Indigenous affairs, through the 2015-16 MYEFO, the Turnbull government found another way to rip even more money from Indigenous programs. Not content with getting rid of $534 million through the Indigenous affairs portfolio across the forward estimates, the government then decided to provide some form of indexation in the budget just to soften people up by saying, 'We are putting money back into Indigenous affairs.' So they put in an indexation provision in the budget which would provide $17.8 million of indexation funding for organisations delivering vital front-line services to Indigenous communities.
So what did the government do? Having ripped $534 million out and saying, 'We'll put $17.8 million back across the forward estimates,' they then took that $17.8 million out again in MYEFO in December. The cruel irony is that this money had been promised to salve the wounds of what had been happening with front-line services and jobs being slashed across the board in Indigenous affairs—services providing help for Indigenous people such as art shows; the Aboriginal and Community Controlled Health Organisations, which copped another cut in the last budget; funding for front-line services; language; culture; and a whole range of programs that were necessary to close the gap. We saw how bad the Closing the Gap outcome was last time parliament met where only two—just maybe—of the targets were being met.
It was in the area of aged care where the Turnbull government was most savage, bringing the total Abbott-Turnbull cuts to a staggering $1.8 billion since they came to power in September 2013. MYEFO cut $472.4 million from aged-care support pay to aged-care providers for complex care needs, including those living with dementia in residential aged-care facilities. Of the people over 65 years of age, we have the situation where only seven per cent have that high-care need and are living in residential facilities. Often they are people with dementia or with really complex issues. The government ripped $472 million out of MYEFO for the aged-care providers who care for those extremely vulnerable people. It is just cruel and heartless what they did in MYEFO.
Then they cut $595 million from the health and aged-care workforce programs. The facts clearly show that those programs were successful. That included the Aged Care Education and Training Incentive Program and the aged-care vocational education and training professional development programs. This is about people upgrading their skills—carers and assistant nurses who want to upgrade their skills to become an enrolled nurse or a registered nurse. These programs were incredibly successful. The take-up rate was very, very high.
The cuts to aged-care workforce development were extremely brutal because they came days after the government released its much delayed stock take of the Commonwealth funded workforce development initiative. After the government got rid of the aged-care workforce supplement, to say they were going to do something about the development of the workforce in aged care, they said, 'We'd better do a stock take of the Commonwealth funded initiatives.' Why they couldn't do that in a matter of days is beyond me. It took them over 500 days to actually get around to doing this. Labor kept asking again and again why they had not released this. Then they decided to say, 'Right, we're releasing this because it will form the basis of a strategy going forward to address the challenge in aged care because we know we are going to have to nearly treble the aged-care workforce in the next few decades.' That was the pretext, the excuse.
What really happened is the stock take provided the premise and the basis for the government to actually cut the funding in MYEFO for the very training programs that it was assessing in the stock take. So through this whole process, the government was deceiving providers, consumers, the opposition—everyone. They were doing the stock take so they could make the cuts. That is what they did.
On top of the $472 million they cut from the residential aged-care providers who care for Australia's most vulnerable and ill people, they decided that they would cut $595 billion and merge the health and aged-care workforce initiative. They cut funding entirely—$595 million. That was the cruellest part of MYEFO. That is what they did. It was deceptive and deceitful what the government did across this area. It showed that the stock take was all about cost cutting and not about a comprehensive strategy to address the workforce crisis. We know this because, in answers at Senate estimates, the government have now backed off the idea of developing a workforce strategy and said that the market will determine it. The market has not worked.
As well, the NACA process has not worked, because the government have not engaged with the providers in the way they need to. They have not engaged the unions, who are so important in the process. They have not engaged COTA or National Seniors. They need to sit down and develop an aged-care workforce strategy. We have an ageing workforce. We have the situation where people who work in residential aged care are paid so much less than those who work in, say, a public hospital. We need to provide an incentive. We need to develop a workforce strategy and it needs to be a collaboration between providers, consumer groups and unions. And we need the government to show the leadership. This government is failing to show leadership. They are making harsh cuts and showing no leadership across this space.
There is a deficit in innovation in the aged-care workforce strategy. The government talks about innovation, but when it comes to this, why won't the government be up-front and honest? Instead, after MYEFO the government labelled the aged-care providers who were delivering the services as rorters. They labelled them as rorters in the national media. These aged-care providers are helping older Australians. The government have a lot to answer for in MYEFO. Once again, it goes to show they have no regard for Indigenous affairs nor for the aged-care workforce strategy, which they needed to undertake.
I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2015-2016 and cognate bill. These bills seek authority from the parliament for the additional expenditure of money from the Consolidated Revenue Fund for this financial year. The total of the appropriations being sought through these two bills is just over $2.2 billion. The bills detail pages and pages of expenditure and savings, but there are a number that are particularly relevant to my electorate and I would like to highlight them today.
These bills allocate $60 million over two years for round 2 of the very successful Mobile Black Spot Program—something that was actually cut after Labor came to government in 2007. In Leichhardt, we had a high level of community engagement in round 1 of this program and we were successful in getting $2.19 million for three new or upgraded mobile phone base stations at Speewah, Coen airport and Bamaga Island in the Torres Strait. These three stations alone will boost reception at 19 black spots.
Nominations for black spots under round 2 closed in mid-January and more than 50 submissions have been received. Black spots ranged from areas such as the outer suburbs of Cairns to north of Mossman, particularly the Mossman Daintree Road and north of the Daintree River through to Cape Tribulation and the Lion's Den and Rossville. Mount Carbine was identified again along with the townships of Portland Roads, Aurukun and Weipa. I commend Kylie Fell and the Western Cape Chamber of Commerce for being very active in rallying public support, and I look forward to hearing the outcomes of this round.
The White paper on developing northern Australia was released in June last year, just nine months ago. We have already seen the Office of Northern Australia being set up in Darwin; the appointment of an interim chair, John Wharton AO, to establish the new Co-operative Research Centre for Northern Australia; the strengthening of critical biosecurity measures and Indigenous ranger teams. In addition, we have seen the release of the exposure draft legislation for the $5 billion Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility for projects such as the Mt Isa to Tennant Creek railway, Townsville Port expansion, upgrade to Cairns airport and the expansion of the Outback Highway linking Western Australia to Queensland. We also welcomed 350 investors from over 20 countries who came together in Darwin last year to focus on opportunities that we have in northern Australia—40 per cent of Australia's landmass.
There is a renewed focus on tropical health and medicine. The Australian Institute of Tropical Health and Medicine recently opened at the James Cook University campus at Cairns. Plans are being finalised for a feasibility study for key water infrastructure in the north, including the Nullinga Dam proposal outside Cairns and water resource assessments in the Mitchell River catchment. There is also a focus on key transport infrastructure, including a $100 million beef roads program, with forums already held in Rockhampton and Kununurra and a third scheduled for Darwin in March. It is also great to see that water storage at Lakeland is also being considered—something that is very exciting for that area. It will certainly allow them to expand their already extensive agricultural activities in that area. The only thing inhibiting them at this stage is water.
These appropriation bills now secure the $600 million northern Australia roads package, where we will be looking to partner with the three northern state and territory governments to identify and deliver key infrastructure upgrades. They allow for the raising of $17 million over four years by changing visa arrangements to support the northern Australia workforce. Boosting northern Australia's population is absolutely critical to our success in building capacity in northern Australia. These visa changes will help businesses in the North to be a more adaptable and mobile workforce by allowing work and holiday visa holders to get a second visa if they undertake three months' work in tourism, hospitality or agricultural industries in northern Australia; expanding the seasonal worker program to better respond to industry demand; and enabling working holiday maker visa holders to perform 12 months' work with the same employer in certain industries in northern Australia. A lot of our horticulture industries—even our dairy now—and our tourism industries depend very heavily on this workforce, and it is very important that we are able to accommodate the needs there and make sure that the workforce is available.
Another one that I was very pleased to be associated with was the introduction of the Narcotic Drugs Amendment Bill earlier this month. This bill will see the government establish a Commonwealth licensing scheme to regulate the cultivation of cannabis for medical and scientific use, to be administered by the Department of Health. It will also amend legislation to downgrade cannabis from a schedule 9 substance to a schedule 8 substance to make it easier to access for clinic trials and for therapeutic use. I would like to take the opportunity to acknowledge the work of Lucy Haslam and her son Dan; Lanai Carter and her son Lindsay; and, in Cairns, the Hickey family and Debbi Cliff for their ongoing advocacy. They have certainly educated me on the real value of medical cannabis and the relief that will be achieved by being able to use these products. I certainly look forward to contributing in the second reading debate of that bill in this place.
Another major policy that was announced in late 2015 was about driving the smart ideas that create business growth, local jobs and global success. These appropriations bills allocate funding for a whole range of measures, including $127 million over three years to provide greater incentives for university researchers to engage with industry; $2.3 billion over 10 years to set up an ongoing research infrastructure funding program; $17 million to enhance linkages between research organisation and businesses; and $90 million over 10 years to CSIRO to support increased commercialisation of research. This year, the government will also establish a Biomedical Translation Fund to invest in promising biomedical discoveries. This fund will complement the Medical Research Future Fund through the commercialisation of health and medical research, and will receive $250 million over two years from government, to be matched by private sector contributions. All of these programs are designed to make sure that Australia is not just doing great research but also getting great outcomes from that research, whether it is to get a commercial end product or to help businesses operate better.
I was very pleased with the government's response to the National Ice Action Taskforce in late 2015. It is comprehensive and addresses prevention right through to treatment. These bills provide $212 million over three years to reduce the harms associated with methamphetamine use in the community through further investment in drug and alcohol treatment services; supporting communities to increase their capacity to address the impact of illicit drugs through implementing and expanding community based programs; establishing a centre of clinical excellence in treatment, research and training development for emerging drugs of concern; and expanding and improving data sources for the analysis of illicit drug trends. There is also $9.1 million to list 15 new items of addiction medicine on the Medicare Benefits Schedule.
This is very important, particularly in relation to ice, as we see the emergence of it into our remoter communities. It is certainly of great concern, and we really need to continue to focus in this area. It is having a huge impact on our communities generally, on our police forces and on our paramedics et cetera, and we have to deal with this problem. I think that any money that we spend in dealing with this is money well spent, particularly in areas where we can start to focus on some of the rehabilitation that is desperately needed for some of these people who have become addicted to this horrible substance. A further $78 million will be redirected from the Indigenous Australian Health Program to support delivery of drug and alcohol strategies in Indigenous communities—it is a major problem there—with a focus on ice. I am looking forward to working with the communities, the police, the youth and health services and the Primary Health Network as we put together a range of local and practical solutions.
In this period of time, we did of course have ChAFTA, the China-Australia free trade agreement. That is having a huge benefit in my region. Again, I would like to acknowledge Minister Robb for the outstanding work that he did in putting that together, along with a number of others.
There are also red-tape measures in this bill that will make life simpler for small to medium sized businesses. The government is progressively implementing Single Touch Payroll, which will streamline the way employers report their Pay As You Go withholding obligations and superannuation contributions to the ATO. I think that is a great initiative. It certainly assists our small businesses.
There is a specific measure in the appropriations that I am disappointed about, however, and that was the decision to scrap the Clinical Training Fund in the MYEFO. It was James Cook University that alerted me to the plans to reallocate funding from the CTF, and I was very quick to contact the Minister for Health and the Minister for Northern Australia to express my concerns. Minister Ley has since written to me to explain that the funding will be redirected to priority areas, including developing a rural training pipeline for new medical graduates and increasing rural, regional and remote clinical training placements. Sandra Harding, the Vice-Chancellor of JCU, said that this would not address the need for Far North Queensland and has proposed a 12-month freeze on the introduction of these measures to give them time to transition. To me, this seems like a sensible proposition. History has shown that the inclusion of medicine and dentistry training is vital to our rural clinical placements. Through placements, community members have been able to access professional, supervised and cost-effective medical and dental treatment. The experience gained through these placements has contributed to a high proportion of students actually continuing their internships or employment outside our metropolitan areas.
Lastly, the great thing about appropriations is that it gives members wide scope to talk about initiatives that they would potentially like to see included in future appropriations bills. There is a Wet Tropics Management Authority proposal seeking $15.19 million over three years from state and federal governments to eradicate yellow crazy ants from areas adjacent to the Wet Tropics World Heritage Areas in my region. Already, we are spending close to $4 million on baiting and controlling these pests, including through funding for six Green Army teams, a grant made by Terrain Natural Resource Management to Kuranda Envirocare and a $1.9 million grant to WTMA that winds up in June 2016. I would particularly like to acknowledge the great work of Scott Buchanan, the Chief Executive of WTMA, together with Lucy Karger of the yellow crazy ant eradication team and local landowner Frank Teodo.
Now we need the state government to come on board. Biosecurity Queensland has done great work with electric ants, which have been already been eradicated. They can transfer that Cairns based team to yellow crazy ants. They have the expertise and all the set-up, so we can easily transition and eradicate yellow crazy ants. Also, $3 million of federal money has been recently allocated to Queensland through the Agricultural competitiveness white paper for biosecurity measures. Queensland needs to allocate this to the eradication of this horrible pest adjacent to the wet tropics and make a matching contribution. It would be a good start towards WTMA achieving what we need for eradication.
I am also looking forward to $10 million going to James Cook University for an innovation centre that they have put up. They are putting in a lot of the money themselves. It would be great to get the money for that. Of course, we are also seeking $10 million for the Cairns Performing Arts Centre. The Cairns Regional Council, under the leadership of Bob Manning, has done an outstanding job in putting up a new performing arts centre. I think a $10 million contribution from the federal government is relatively small in the overall contribution, and I certainly hope that we can do that.
Finally, we are certainly holding our breath waiting for the $2 billion for the Pacific patrol boat tender to come forward. I am sure that the 'Cairns solution'—in particular, Scott Morrison, from Teekay Shipping Australia; Mark Todd, from Damen Shipyards Group; and Justin Parer, from BSE Maritime Solutions—did a great job in making that contribution. I am sure we will be successful.
It is with a great degree of pride that I stand here tonight as the new Assistant Minister for Defence—
Hear, hear!
supporting Senator Marise Payne, who is doing a wonderful job in that very important and very intricate portfolio. I stand here in the chamber alongside the member for Wannon, who is the newly appointed Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Centenary of ANZAC and Minister for Defence Materiel.
We had an important meeting today to map out our continued vision for the Defence portfolio. Without giving too much away—that is certainly Minister Payne's responsibility—the Defence white paper is being released on Friday. It is a very important document that not only Defence people know but people right across the nation would be aware of. They would certainly be looking forward to seeing the sorts of commitments that our government is not only making but also funding going forward in Defence. The Defence white paper is going to be, as I said, a very important document. It continues our ongoing commitment to what is fundamentally the most important role of the government—that is, to protect its people.
Certainly while we have been in government we have protected our borders. We have that area that is so important and so crucial to national security back under control. We are playing our part in the Middle East. I visited Afghanistan in 2014 as part of the Australian Defence Force Parliamentary Program to see the wonderful work that Australian Defence Force personnel were playing at the time, and continue to play, in that theatre of war.
People often ask me, 'Why are we in Afghanistan?' and I always remind them of the fact that so many more Afghanis are now attending university, so many more Afghanis are now going to school. And when I say 'so many more', most of them are girls, most of them are females, and the participation rate of girls and young women in primary schools, high schools and tertiary education in Afghanistan since the Afghanistan war began and the Taliban were driven back into the hills is really a great sign of the tremendous work that our troops—our Air Force, our Navy—has done in that troubled area.
We know that under this government defence will always be a priority. We saw, in six years under Labor, defence spending fall to 1938 levels, and of course that notion was absolutely pooh-poohed by the other side. They said it was not true, but indeed it is. Fact Check says that in the 2013-14 budget that was brought down under Prime Minister Julia Gillard's government the Labor government planned to spend just 1.59 per cent of gross domestic product on defence. According to the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, the last time this nation spent below that level was in 1938, when Australia spent 1.55 per cent of GDP on defence. And we all know what happened the year after 1938: that was when World War II began. Other members of the opposition had also referred to spending being at its lowest level since 1937, but in 1937 we spent far less, at 1.06 per cent of GDP—this is according to Fact Check. So, it concludes, the 1938 claim is correct. And that is such a shame.
It was necessary, when we took government in September 2013, that we corrected that grave error by the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd governments. And when Joe Hockey got to his feet in the House of Representatives to launch the Abbott government's second budget, for 2015-16, shipbuilders were worried—but they need not have been. Certainly in Adelaide we made strong commitments to ensure that we got our defence building program back on track, because we saw it absolutely whittled away under Labor. Labor has not commissioned construction of a major naval vessel in an Australian shipyard since the Anzac-class frigates in 1989, delivered on time and on budget by the Howard government. The Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government's only decisions on major vessels were to purchase HMAS Choules and two major customs vessels offshore. They were important projects, no doubt, but Labor cut $16 billion—$16,000 million—from defence, reducing spending as a percentage of GDP to its lowest levels since 1938. In 2012-13 the Labor government's 10.5 per cent cut to defence was the largest single cut since the Korean War. And immediately following its 2009 white paper Labor cut or deferred—and we heard about a lot of deferrals under Labor, including, I might add, school spending, but that is another topic altogether—$16 billion from the defence budget out to 2016-17. Labor's decisions led to 119 defence projects being delayed, 43 projects being reduced, and eight projects cancelled, risking critical capability gaps.
I am the proud member of the only inland city in Australia with all three arms of Defence. We have the Royal Australian Air Force, a very strategic training facility, at Forest Hill, where there is also a Navy presence. The Royal Australian Navy has a very strong contingent at Wagga Wagga, even though we are many hundreds of kilometres from the nearest drop of seawater. Also Wagga Wagga is renowned as being the home of the soldier—Kapooka, where they train more than 5,000 recruits each year. Those brave men and women who are continuing that long line of khaki tradition dating back to Gallipoli all come out of Wagga Wagga. There is nothing that gives me a more patriotic sense of pride than to attend one of the march outs and to see people from all over Australia coming to Wagga Wagga—in fact, it is our best tourist drawcard—to watch their sons and daughters march out in unison, in uniform, from that fine military base.
Over the next few decades the biggest regeneration of the Royal Australian Navy since the Second World War will take place, and that regeneration is the centrepiece of the firstly Abbott and now Turnbull government's fully funded and cost-assured defence white paper. This white paper is to be released on Friday and is setting out the government's plan for the Australian Defence Force as it forges a pathway to meet current and, most importantly, future strategic requirements and challenges. And there is going to be an unprecedented continuous build of surface warships in Australia, meaning that Australia's world-class shipbuilding workforce has been given the certainty that they will be building our future needs—frigates, offshore patrol vessels—for years, I will say decades, to come, and that is a great thing. And having spoken to the Minister for Defence this morning, in conjunction with the minister at the table, about how our government is getting on with the job of securing those shipbuilding jobs, securing Adelaide's future, securing our defence force's strength going forward, I know how committed this government is.
Andrew Bellamy, Chief Executive Officer of Austal, describes our commitment as 'transformative change'. He is not alone in talking up the sort of commitment that we are making in Defence. We have had significant achievements in Defence. We have implemented a continuous building of surface warships in Australia, we are building valuable infrastructure at the dozens of Air Force, Army and Navy bases throughout the country and we are continuing the important work not just in places of conflict but also in peacekeeping operations throughout the world. Australia's reputation, in that regard, is second to none and greatly valued by our American friends, as it should be.
I am also pleased that the National Stronger Regions Fund is delivering, for communities, right across Australia. I was very pleased that in the second round, the last round that has just been held, three significant projects were announced for my electorate. One was a $4.4 million indoor sports stadium and cultural precinct for Wagga Wagga. The Bolton Park Sports Stadium, which has served the city proud—particularly its basketball community of which I was once president—is past its use-by date and it is good that it is being replaced. Temora is a great little town. It prides itself on being the friendliest town in the state and it probably is. Its mayor, Rick Firman, is absolutely chuffed—that would be the word; that is c-h-u-f-f-e-d, member for Griffith—that it is getting a valuable medical precinct. The member for Griffith would know how important that is in a regional community, such as mine.
Gundagai is getting an upgrade to its main street development on Sheridan Street, which is the home of the famous Niagra Cafe. I will give a shout out to Tony Loukissas who owns that wonderful cafe. The member for Kingsford Smith will know that that particular establishment was where Prime Minister Curtin held a wartime cabinet meeting in 1942. It is an absolute Labor stronghold. Gough Whitlam went there and a number of other Labor luminaries have been to the Niagara Cafe in Sheridan Street, Gundagai. I have to report that they proudly, now, put National Party corflutes in their window. They make the best burgers in the south-west.
Tony Loukissas is in a Sydney hospital, as we speak, and is suffering a debilitating condition, which struck suddenly just before Christmas. I do hope that he gets well. He has four young children and our thoughts and prayers are with him. He owns that cafe—along with his mum, Denise, and his sister, Tina—on Sheridan Street, which is a very historic street in a very historic town, nine miles from the tuckerbox. That main street precinct is really important and I am glad that the National Stronger Regions Fund is going to provide a significant amount of money to ensure that it gets the upgrade it needs.
I am also very pleased that the Stronger Communities Program, which my friend, the member for Parkes, initiated with $150,000 to be spent in each electorate, is being rolled out as well. Applications for the second round are open. It provides for the sorts of funding that federal members were not always able to provide for—such as Country Women's Associations and all those important community-minded not-for-profit groups, which really value that sort of money—because it has, generally, been seen as the domain of state parliamentarians. It is good that as a federal member you can provide those little things to scout groups, CWA organisations and rural fire brigades and the like to help them get on with the job of doing the important voluntary work that our communities cannot be without.
Our government is getting on with the job of promoting employment opportunities, particularly in regional areas, of building up our Defence network, of providing the sort of stimulus to create innovation, to foster start-ups and to promote business, to help farmers and to support families. If we go down the track—again—at the next election of the Labor experiment we will be very sorry as a nation.
These appropriation bills seek to appropriate $2.2 billion in the 2015-16 financial year. The additional appropriations reflect changes to the budget made in the 2015-16 Mid-year Economic and Fiscal Outlook released on 15 December 2015. The key expenditures these bills provide for include: $447 million for the Department of Immigration and Border Protection for the onshore immigration detention network; further support for refugee resettlement and additional support for the accommodation and processing of asylum seekers; $108 million for the National Disability Insurance Agency, for the transition to the full National Disability Insurance Scheme, as agreed with New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania; and $385 million for the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development, which primarily reflects the additional funding for the Roads to Recovery program that we agreed to with the current government.
Labor will support the passage of these bills. Unlike those opposite, we respect our Constitution and respect the conventions of the Constitution and do not block supply in the Australian parliament. However, the second reading amendment to the bill will seek to highlight this government's complete lack of economic and fiscal credibility and any semblance of an economic plan for our nature's future. When it comes to economic management this government and the Prime Minister are all foam and no beer.
Prior to September 2013, growth and reducing the deficit was all we heard from the other side. We were told ad nauseam that we had to fix a budget emergency and that they were the ones—the only ones—who could fix the budget. Now, after 2½ years and plenty of talk, the Liberal Party has been exposed for the economic failures that they are. Rather than provide the Australian people with sound economic management, the Liberal government has delivered a deficit blow-out of $26 billion over the forward estimates. Debt is at nearly $100 billion—
Debate interrupted.
Since the 1980s, Australia has seen a growing number of Assyrian migrants enter its shores under various humanitarian, refugee and family reunion visas. A high population of the Assyrian community in Australia, numbering around 40,000, actually resides in Western Sydney. Most have migrated from countries like Iraq, Iran and Syria, with a smaller number from Lebanon and Turkey.
Since the involvement of the 'coalition of the willing' in Iraq in 2003, over one million Assyrians, Christian minorities and Mandeans in Iraq have been murdered or forced to flee the country, with all hope of returning to their homes lost. And there has been no improvement since. Minority groups in Iraq, particularly the Assyrian and Mandean populations, have been marginalised constantly and face annihilation. According to the Assyrian Council of Australia, Assyrians are threatened by total annihilation due to the dire and unstable situation in Iraq and Syria. Before the military involvement in Iraq in 2003, the Mandean in population, for instance, numbered 60,000. Now that number is down to 3,000.
There has been real and ongoing persecution of one of these minority groups in Iraq and Syria, and it is not just from the forces of ISIS. Over the last decade, the Assyrian people have been forced to abandon the region where their culture and traditions have flourished over the past 6,000 years. Many Assyrians who have been displaced in Iraq have fled from the cities to settle in remote villages, where there is limited access to aid organisations. These families are living in very harsh conditions, with no resources and little hope of ever returning home.
Last year, together with the member for Berowra, I visited refugee camps in Jordan, Turkey and Lebanon and was able to see the situation firsthand, much of which is not reported in the media. The refugees I got to speak to were mainly women and children. They were living in crowded tents or shipping containers which very much would only be expected for short-term occupancy. Many of them had already lost all hope. But the thing is that these were not Assyrians, not Mandeans and not members of the Christian minorities; for them, living in a refugee camp is still very unsafe.
With the growing threat of ISIS taking hold in Syrian and Iraqi cities, Assyrians and Mandeans have been subject to ongoing torture, kidnap, rape and complete displacement. Assyrians and other minority groups lack the proper funding and resources needed to combat ISIS. The House would remember that a number of us called on Iraq, only two years ago, to establish an autonomous province on the Nineveh Plain to accommodate the Assyrian people.
While the Iraqi government gave favourable consideration some two years ago, regrettably it now remains just a distant dream. In fact, Nineveh—once considered to be ancient Assyria in Iraq—which flaunted beautiful sites, and sculptures housed in the Mosul Museum, has now largely been destroyed by ISIS, leaving nothing for the Assyrians to go back to. Their everyday lives, their homes and their history have all been wiped out.
I acknowledge the great work of friends of mine: Hermiz Shahen, the Deputy Secretary General of the Assyrian Universal Alliance, and David David, the President of the Assyrian Australian National Federation, for their tireless work in bringing these issues to the attention of the international community. We have a duty to advocate for these minorities; people whose voices are not being heard over the Islamic nature of the Middle Eastern conflict. The very identity of the Assyrian culture is now under serious threat.
Assyrians and minorities in the Middle East conflict have made Western Sydney their home. These persecuted minorities have made first-rate Australian citizens. They have embraced Australia as their new home and value the freedom and democracy that it offers. I greatly enjoy getting to know these communities and vow that I will continue to work with them.
Reports released by the UNHCR, the Assyrian International News Agency, Amnesty International and the minority groups themselves make the same point: that persecution is happening and that there are not enough resources being directed to assist in these concerns. The Assyrians and other minorities deserve a homeland—a place where it is safe to live, to raise a family and to enjoy the right to live and to practice their religion. (Time expired)
I begin by congratulating Chris Crewther, his partner, Grace, and their daughter, Yasmin. Chris has been selected as the Liberal candidate to contest the seat of Dunkley at the next federal election, and I want to thank him and his family for all the energy they put into that contest. In fact, all eight candidates had so much to offer. I want to thank them and their families for their work and the nearly-200 grassroots members who chose Chris to be the flag bearer for Liberalism for the Dunkley electorate at the next election. I wish them well.
It was interesting—when I announced my intention not to re-contest the next election, some really lovely messages have come to my office. Some of them are very touching and some of them are just really nourishing at this time of change. One point was made by a couple who are well into their 80s. They have seen a lot of politicians come and go, if I remember their letter well. They pointed to the fact that I had made things happen and, in their words, 'brought life back to Frankston'. Well, I am going to talk about the life that is not only back in Frankston but how it is buoyant and how the opportunities are just delicious in this 'Riviera of Melbourne' that is around our city by the bay, Frankston!
We had people coming from everywhere for the summer influx. And why wouldn't they? There is such vitality, such great opportunity and so much to appreciate—whether it is the community, the people, the natural appeal of the environment or the visitor attractions. So we had a pretty busy summer and people were coming to visit our city by the bay. And this has not just happened by hoping it happens; it has been a concerted program to bring economic development, investment and vitality to our city.
I remember well over a decade ago, working with the Howard government to secure funding for an event strategy for Frankston. It is one thing to have the hardware; you also need the software, the activity, the reason to bring people to the city to engage in the city and then to do it again and again. Through that strategy, the Sea Harvest Festival was conceived. It was a wonderful occasion that transformed into the Waterfront Festival in another example of how that sound planning and targeted investment has made a real difference to employment and economic opportunities in our community.
It also identified the need for a visitor information centre. Everyone knows the Mornington Peninsula is the Yarra Valley with a beach. It is a great place to be. It offers so much that other parts of our nation offer but all there together. And the launch pad to enjoy the very best that the peninsula offers, where there is a reason every season to come to the Mornington Peninsula, is Frankston. Therefore, we needed a way of engaging with that visitor community to let them know what is available.
The visitor centre has done it again, winning award after award. They took out top honours at the Qantas Australian Tourism Awards, held in Adelaide earlier this year. As a tourism centre, they have gone into the national hall of fame, so highly regarded are they. But, again, it was an investment made possible by the support of a coalition government.
It did not stop there. The work that is going on to make sure the beach itself presents its best face for our community is another investment by a coalition government. More than $1.2 million went into the Frankston foreshore and yacht club precinct redevelopment. They are opening up that opportunity for people to come and enjoy all that is terrific about our community.
That is on top of the announcement I made last week that Sandstorm Events, operators of Sand Sculpting Australia, will receive three-quarters of a million dollars for an installation of a structure that will extend the sand sculpting season, which is currently four months, to be all year round—another reason to visit our community whatever the season.
As we look further forward, we are not stopping and resting on our laurels. We were in the vanguard of the Build the Frankston Bypass campaign. We succeeded. Now we have got Peninsula Link. We needed signage so that visitors to our community knew where these great attractions were. There was $175,000 from the coalition government to make investment in the visitor industry possible, to make the infrastructure that we fought hard for, led the argument about, got people to join the campaign for—for example, the Scoresby Freeway, which is now EastLink. We led that campaign and Labor followed.
It was the same with the Frankston Bypass, a project that I was told by then Premier Brumby no-one would ever use. That is not the case. It is brim-full of traffic. It is brim-full of people wanting to come and enjoy the very best of the peninsula but also our residents reaching out for economic opportunities that are part of their aspirations for their lives.
This, as the lady said in the letter to me, is about making things happen and bringing Frankston and our region to life. Chris Crewther has economic development credentials. He knows about the importance of jobs and opportunity. I am looking forward to working with him in the lead-up to the next election to make sure the Liberal flag flies high and proud over the Dunkley electorate for many years to come.
Given the social, economic and geographic diversity of the Blair electorate, it is no surprise that the concerns of residents often vary according to local circumstances. The challenges facing a farmer in Kilcoy are often different from those of a young family moving into a new housing estate in Ripley Valley south of Ipswich, a retiree in Pine Mountain, a school student in Bundamba or a young woman keen to start a home based business in Brassall. Nevertheless, one grievance unites all the people of Blair: frustration and anger at our telecommunication system.
The undeniable truth is that large areas of Ipswich and the Somerset region do not have fast and reliable telecommunication technology. This hampers local residents, hinders the educational opportunities of our students and harms our local economy. Barely a day passes—certainly not a week passes—without a resident telling me about a problem with their landline, mobile phone or internet service. Last year, these complaints became so frequent that I launched my Blair telecommunications survey so I could get to the bottom of problems for each constituent who contacted me and meet directly with phone and internet providers to push them to lift their game. I have met with a number of them.
Tonight I want to speak briefly about some of the telecommunications problems facing the people of Blair. Landlines still matter to people in Ipswich and Somerset. Despite recent statistics suggesting nearly one-third of adults no longer have a fixed line, these remain a necessity for many people living in Blair. For the elderly, ill and vulnerable in the community, a home phone is the easiest way to contact family and friends. Unfortunately, a home phone depends on an ageing copper network that is in poor condition in many parts of Blair. Recently Telstra admitted that it did not even fully know about the quality of its own network.
What we do know is that faults and failures in the copper network frequently disrupt local phone services. I saw that last year when flooding around Esk caused by the storm and flood conditions we often get in Queensland flooded the Telstra pits. According to Telstra, that was the reason for many people in the Esk region not having access to landlines for about a month.
Poor mobile phone coverage is another common complaint in Blair. While some areas have adequate coverage, there are several notorious black spots, particularly in the Somerset region. Some towns struggle to get mobile reception. This lack of mobile reception is a hand brake on the local economy and a real safety issue for locals and travellers. I was pleased to lobby along with the Somerset Regional Council for $710,000 in the Mobile Black Spot Program funding in round 1 for areas such as Linville, Moore and Somerset Dam. I also lobbied hard in the second round for areas around Coominya, Esk and Toogoolawah to improve mobile phone reception.
However, on 17 February I was frustrated to learn that the Turnbull government had included neither Moore nor Somerset Dam—and that includes Linville—on the program's first six-month rollout in round 1. It means that local residents may need to wait up to a further 2½ years to see mobile coverage improvements in their community. That is simply not good enough, and I have written to the Minister for Communications to urge him to give priority consideration to building mobile infrastructure in Moore, Linville and Somerset Dam by the end of 2016.
The NBN is another bane in the life of people in the region. Under Labor, the country towns as well as Ipswich would all get fibre to the premises and those people living in the rural and remote areas of Blair would also get coverage through advanced satellite commissions and other technology. On 18 February I hosted a public forum in Ipswich to allow people to voice their concerns, and I am pleased that the shadow minister for communications, the member for Blaxland, attended to meet with local residents and business owners to hear firsthand their accounts of phone and internet problems besetting parts of Ipswich and the Somerset region.
We had a good discussion that night, and business owners working in the Ipswich telecommunications industry took the time to come along and talk about their experiences. The member for Blaxland, the shadow minister, heard many stories about the future of the NBN. After two and a half years of the Abbott-Turnbull government, local people were understandably concerned about the NBN—about when they will get it, how they will get it and how fast it will be. They are right to be worried, because it has blown out. Malcolm Turnbull our now Prime Minister promised his second-rate NBN would be built for $29.5 billion. That has now doubled and become $56 billion. He promised his second-rate NBN would reach all homes and businesses by the end of 2016. That has more than doubled now to seven years.
As usual the Prime Minister says one thing but does another. On the NBN, it is simply not good enough for Ipswich and the Somerset region. The Prime Minister should do much, much better.
In 2007, the House Standing Committee on Family and Human Services—a committee I chaired—brought down a report entitled, The winnable war on drugs: The impact of illicit drug use on families. In that report we identified the evils of ice, which only now seems to be getting the focus that we said it needed. We identified then that it was an issue that needed dramatic action.
We took evidence from a vast number of people and we came down with certain recommendations, 31 of them. One of the main recommendations, and perhaps the main thrust, was that there was a need for a strong advertising campaign which told young people what drugs, and particularly methamphetamines, do to them. We noted that there was a dramatic difference between the success of the antismoking campaign and the way illicit drugs were treated under the harm minimisation concept. We saw that quite strongly when we took evidence from one particular parent who really outlined the sorts of problems that we were to be faced with, and I would like to read one stepfather's story:
I started to get very concerned because Andrew turned around to someone who was parked next to us and started to get aggressive towards him. When the mental health counsellor came out, he did a stupid thing. He stood in front of Andrew, which you never do. You always stand to the side. Andrew is six foot six, and Andrew went berserk. He was flailing his hands around. If Andrew had connected with him, he would have broken his neck. He went away, and all of a sudden we had seven police officers around. It took the seven police officers, one ambulance driver and one of the security guards to pin him down and get the handcuffs on. It was the most terrifying thing. I had never seen this aggression before. He was then admitted as an involuntary patient. They had a lot of problems with Andrew. He refused drug screening. That is the biggest problem.
Problems like that were heard all around Australia, and yet there was a reluctance for action to be taken. We said we needed a campaign of the intensity of the 'grim reaper' campaign, which had such a dramatic effect with regard to AIDS. We said there needed to be a campaign with the intensity and length of the antismoking campaign, with harsh messages similar to those used in that campaign, so that the highly addictive nature of methamphetamines and the consequences of its use could become common knowledge.
We highlighted a program that was used in Montana, where the images they used were dramatic and showed the scabs and picking that went on when people became addicted. The result of that campaign was a 38 per cent drop in the use of methamphetamines by teenagers. In our report we said:
Unlike many illicit drug information sources, which seek to rationalise or ‘balance’ the decision to take drugs by listing the positive as well as negative effects of illicit drugs, there is no recognition of the benefits of smoking, such as a description of its relaxant properties. Nor is there any advice on harm reduction or smoking 'safely’ or ‘responsibly’; rather, the message is that ‘every cigarette is doing you damage’.
That is the sort of hard-line campaign we recommended to dramatically reduce the use of illicit drug taking, particularly with respect to ice.
So many stories have come out now about the risk to doctors, to nurses and to paramedics, yet still we are not seeing the hard-hitting campaign we recommended back in 2007. It is a good report. It contains many stories which can be acted upon and much material that can be used. And it is, I think, timely that we embark upon such a tough campaign because we in Australia are the highest users of methamphetamines and the damage that is being done can no longer be tolerated. We need a hard-hitting campaign like the one that is suggested in this report.
When Malcolm Turnbull ousted Tony Abbott to become Prime Minister last September, Australians breathed a collective sigh of relief. We were told that the days of broken promises and chaotic government were over. We were told we had seen the end of Mr Abbott's extreme hardline ideological obsessions and Mr Turnbull would govern from the political centre in the national interest.
But six months later it is the same reactionary government, the same old obsession with wiping out the progressive gangs of the past. There has been plenty of spin. We have heard the incessant use of words like 'innovation', 'agility' and 'suppleness'. Indeed, Australian taxpayers are paying for it through massive advertising campaigns.
But the only change in substance has been the identity of the man in charge. This government still wants to cut health and education spending. It still wants to undermine Medicare. It still wants to cut pensions and undermine people's job security and working conditions. It still wants to remove penalty rates. Beyond that, it has no plan. Mr Turnbull and his Treasurer have spent months trying to look busy, flying kites about tax reform. But, while they have alarmed pensioners and low-income earners with thought balloons, they have no new policy.
The climax came last week, when the Treasurer attended the National Press Club without making a single announcement of substance. The fact that Mr Morrison had to resort to tortured analogies about cricket and unicorns highlighted something that is dawning upon the entire nation—that this is a government without a plan and without a purpose. We are nearly at the end of the term and we still do not know what this mob stands for.
I often used to say that Mr Abbott had a plan to get into government but no actual plan to govern. Mr Turnbull, as the new Prime Minister, is no different. We got rid of Mr Angry and we got Mr Smiley. But now, finally, we have worked out that we, actually, got Mr Waffle. As each week passes, and as the opposition releases its policies for a better and fairer Australia, this Prime Minister has nothing to say of substance. People are entitled to wonder what the point was of changing leaders, other than a change of the occupation of The Lodge and a confirmation of Mr Turnbull's unshakeable conviction that he was born to rule.
Let's have a look at some of the facts. In unemployment, when government changed the rate 5.6 per cent; today the rate is six per cent. Under Labor we collected 21.5 per cent of GDP on tax in 2012-13; under the coalition it is 22.3 per cent and headed upwards. In government spending, under Labor in our last financial year of 2012-13 it was 24.1 per cent of GDP; under the coalition it is 25.9 per cent of GDP. In new capital expenditure, in terms of public expenditure on infrastructure, it is down by some 20 per cent from the September quarter of 2013 compared with 2015. In private expenditure on capital the figure is even worse—down 24 per cent from the September quarter 2013 compared with 2015. National debt under Labor peaked at 12 per cent of GDP; under the coalition it is 18.3 per cent of GDP.
This is a coalition that has more than doubled the debt. This is a coalition that has presided over a collapse in infrastructure investment and a collapse in policy development when it comes to our cities. We compare this with the fact that when we came into office in 2007 Australia was ranked 20th in the OECD, and when we left office we were ranked first. The coalition has cut investment in infrastructure by 20 per cent, and now it will cut it again to spend $18 million on a propaganda campaign to pretend otherwise. It has failed to deliver actual infrastructure, so instead it will deliver propaganda.
Tonight I rise to raise the issue of council mergers—in particular, the proposed merger of Port Stephens and Newcastle councils. On this issue I speak with more understanding than most, as I served on Port Stephens Council from 1999 to 2004. Let me make it abundantly clear from the outset that I am against this merger. More importantly, my community is against this merger. A petition of over 1,000 signatures shows that 90 per cent are against this merger.
Port Stephens Council, like all councils, supports the government's direction in strengthening local government based on logic, but this proposal seems to defy logic. Port Stephens Council has been declared fit for the future by the New South Wales government. It has met each and every benchmark, whether it is financial, of scale and capacity requirement or operating at a healthy surplus. That is because Port Stephens Council, over the decades, has built very strong commercial investments and alternative revenue streams, which keeps the rating base very affordable. That is in stark contrast to Newcastle council, which has been a financial basket case.
When former mayor Jeff McCloy was elected he turned it around and got it on a pathway to financial resurrection. But after he resigned the new Labor mayor, Nuatali Nelmes, seems to have gone back to the future with expenditure and wanting an increased base rate. Port Stephens Council delivers 51 different services and provides over 500 local jobs through that. It strives to provide the best effort for its community, and that is reflected in the benchmark surveys that come back to council. It has a satisfaction rate in excess of 80 per cent. That is one of the highest levels for an LGA.
This merger proposal is supposed to be based on economic modelling, yet there has been an independent review of the New South Wales government's own modelling, which shows that it is fundamentally flawed. It is fundamentally flawed because it is inconsistent and based on outdated data from 2014. It does not even adhere to the New South Wales government's own treasury guidelines; it is using nominal values and not present values. Their analysis shows that there will be a $65 million saving. The review contained in this proposal shows that it will actually be a $20 million cost to Port Stephens Council. Deputy Speaker, guess where that comes from: out of the ratepayer's pocket. Clearly, Port Stephens Council as a standalone council is more efficient and a very successful entity.
When the whole proposal was built it was supposed to be built around like communities. I say to you, Deputy Speaker, Newcastle and Port Stephens are very different. Port Stephens is made up of villages and coastal communities. It is tourism-focused. It has dispersed settlement patterns, with 490 properties on a farm rate versus 18 in Newcastle. Yet Newcastle is highly urbanised and industrially and commercially focused. It is the world's largest coal port. It is an industrialised economy. So the difference is absolutely striking. It is as different as the financial capability of each of those councils.
One of the other concerns of the people in our community is the lack of representation. The population of 65,000 residents in Port Stephens has 10 elected representatives. By the time it is merged with Newcastle there will be 230,000. That means we will get three out of 13 votes. That is three out of 13, with most of the money holding. That is just unconscionable. Our say in all of these community matters will, actually, shrink. What we fear is that the debt-ridden Newcastle council will seek to access the financial books of the Port Stephens Council to settle its debts. Newcastle council was not declared fit for the future, but Port Stephens is. So why the merger?
The other area of concern among our people is the increase in rates. Business rates seen in modelling through to 2019-20 show that businesses in Port Stephens will pay $4,600 in rates, yet Newcastle is $13,00. That is an increase of $8,400. Residences will go up by more than $500 in Port Stephens—a 45 per cent increase—because of the special rate levy approached by the Newcastle council and approved by this Liberal government in New South Wales.
I reject the proposal. I urge the Baird government to rethink this proposal. Submissions close on Sunday, the 28th. I urge everyone to put forward a submission opposing the merger.
It being 9.30 pm, the debate is interrupted.
House adjourned at 21 : 30
I rise today to discuss the concerns of a number of people in my community about Centrelink's lengthy customer service process. Centrelink's frontline customer service staff have a pretty difficult job at the best of times, and I think that they do it well. I have worked alongside Centrelink staff out in the communities in McEwen that have been affected by fire or other natural disasters and, at those times, I have seen dedication and people wanting to do their best to help other people as much as possible.
I think that Centrelink's frontline staff are stuck between a rock and hard place. It is pretty clear that Centrelink's frontline customer service staff have been let down by their department heads and left holding the bag. Cuts to the number of frontline staff across Australia have not helped either. The Department of Human Services has failed to invest in resources and human capital to provide a service that is capable of meeting the expectations of clients. It is the nature of social services welfare that each person's individual circumstances are necessarily taken into account. We currently have a system that relies on individuals reporting changes to their circumstances. There needs to be an efficient and effective way for people to comply with this—and remember, the vast majority do comply.
One of the issues that people in McEwen continually raise with me is the long wait times, both in the centre and on telephone queues. Of course, there are options of submitting information online, which is great if you have access to broadband, but this is often fraught with IT glitches—and I am pretty sure many of us here remember the complaints we have received from people in our communities about supposed debts owing to the government that were not real. But forcing people online is not working either. Thirty-seven per cent of people using the Medicare mobile app have experienced problems using IT, and 40 per cent of calls to Centrelink arise because of difficulty using the apps or the website! IT glitches aside, we have people in our community who—for whatever reason—need to speak to a person about their circumstances. A 90-minute wait on telephone services experienced by Mrs Elliot from Kilmore is evidence that we need to provide a better way of providing customer service in this space. And Mrs Elliot is not alone; Mr Blakely, also of Kilmore, told me that with his hearing impediment and limited computer skills, it was almost impossible to make an appointment either by phone or on the website. Instead, he had to go to the Centrelink office in Seymour, where he waited over an hour to see someone because he did not have a previous appointment. For Mr Blakely, the trip to his nearest Centrelink office in Seymour is a round trip of 120 kays. These examples from my electorate probably echo the experiences of people in communities all around Australia. Instead of turning off the waiting-time message, perhaps managers at Centrelink and DHS could take a leaf out of Telstra's book—if the telephone queue time is extensive, Telstra provides customers with the option of a call-back service, and when they do call back, they ask if it is a convenient time to talk to customers and, if not, arrange a more suitable time. The situation we have is like something out of The Hollowmen: people can't use myGov, can't use Centrelink, can't use Medicare, and can't access DHS websites; IT glitches are telling people that they owe the government money when they do not; phone lines are jammed and offices are full because the online systems do not work— (Time expired)
With my good friend and colleague, the member for Dobell, we attended the Brisbane Water Local Area Command medals and award ceremony at Laycock Street Theatre in Gosford to honour some of the hardest-working men and women in my electorate, who dedicate themselves to keeping our streets safe. It is the case right across our region that the police are confronted with demanding and dangerous situations on a regular basis, only to put the safety and security of others above themselves. They serve us sacrificially, but not for praise. I believe it is appropriate to spend this short time today honouring their commitment and sacrifice. It is thanks to our emergency services personnel, like the police of our Local Area Command, that our family and friends can be safe from crime.
On this occasion, we saw 55 officers from the Brisbane Water command presented with medals. They included Superintendent Danny Sullivan, who was awarded a national police service medal for 27 years of service. Superintendent Sullivan is a fearless and committed leader, and he is a tremendous communicator as well. I have seen his advocacy firsthand through his roles in our local Tackling Drugs & Alcohol Committee, which has engaged local pubs and clubs, and other community members, to help tackle the scourge of illicit drugs in our community. Danny has also spoken up about the need to confront and address the serious issue of domestic violence on the Central Coast. He has been a strong supporter of the need to roll out more crime prevention infrastructure such as better lighting and more CCTV cameras in my community, which has meant safer streets in locations such as Gosford CBD, Kincumber, Kariong and on the peninsula.
What was most inspiring about the medals and awards ceremony in Gosford last week was that keeping our community requires a team of dedicated police men and women of all ranks, ability, roles and experience—like Acting Inspector Sergeant Phil Burgess, who also joined the police force 27 years ago. He shared how detective work has evolved from snail mail and typewriters to infrared technology and facial recognition. He also received a National Police Service Medal, along with Senior Constable Brooke Anderson; Sergeant Steven Carroll; former senior constables Neil Cartland, Heidi McCallum, Michael Oates and Joanne Pym; Sergeant Ben Parle; Sergeant Peter Robins; Sergeant Paul Taylor; and former sergeant David Southall. Sergeant Bruce Coates was awarded his 35-year clasp to his police medal, recognising him as the longest-serving officer in the command. Senior constables Gerard Pasfield and Emily Stallard were awarded the Northern Region Commendation for courage and commitment to duty, which included chasing down an armed criminal on foot. And the Certificate of Merit was awarded to another senior constable, Rhys Kirk, who demonstrated incredible bravery during a terrifying incident in Point Clare. Details of these deeds are not often publicised, in many cases for good reason. So today I extend my sincere thanks and appreciation on behalf of the Central Coast—(Time expired)
In parliament two weeks ago I spoke about the stench of tax evasion through the use of tax havens and tax shields such as those used in Singapore. The use of these tax shields by so-called respectable Australian companies is demolishing Australia's corporate tax base. In particular, I highlighted the actions of BHP, who are part of a wider scourge that has seen billions of dollars in revenue smuggled out of Australia in recent years. Last week BHP wrote to me in misleading terms, claiming to be a global leader in tax transparency. That letter hides more than it reveals: BHP's aggressive use of transfer pricing and profit shifting through its Singapore tax shield and its continuing denial that its marketing hub was created for tax purposes are both shameful deceptions. BHP says it has been transparent, but we can see right through it. It is time for BHP to be really transparent about its tax and royalty liabilities and to close down the use of its marketing hub in Singapore as a tax shield.
Between 2006 and 2014, BHP sold Australian minerals to its Singapore marketing hub to avoid paying taxes on profits of $5.7 billion. While BHP later repaid $1 billion in top-up taxes, these taxes only applied to 58 per cent of the profit generated through the Singapore marketing hub. A full 42 per cent of the profit was untaxed in Australia. Nor was it taxed by the government in the UK, where BHP is co-owned. The directors of BHP Australia and BHP UK are the same people. This tax shield exists solely to smuggle profits out of Australia. There is no question that BHP has been gaming the system and is in serious dispute with the tax office over its unpaid taxes. BHP cannot claim to be transparent given its failure to clearly outline numerous back payments as a result of tax office audits, as well as those amounts currently in dispute with the tax office and the Australian states.
BHP must make a full public declaration of these payments and the reason behind the repayments it was forced to make to the tax office in 2006. It should also publicly outline what issues remain unresolved and the provisions that it has made for repayment. Media reports indicate that BHP has also used the Singapore tax shield to evade royalty payments of up to $300 million to the Queensland government. This problem extends to other jurisdictions. When global companies like BHP behave this way they compromise the integrity of our social contract and give smaller taxpayers a green light to go about minimising or evading tax. I call on the corporate leadership of BHP to embark on ethical and transparent—(Time expired)
The local government authorities in my region have united to engage with the federal government to advance key infrastructure projects, economic development initiatives and strategic cooperation opportunities. A delegation from the cities of Joondalup, Wanneroo and Stirling has travelled to Canberra this week as part of the Tri-Cities Alliance. The joint local government delegation will deliver a presentation and meet with government ministers, as well as Western Australian members and senators, for the purpose of lobbying the federal government to provide funding to support local infrastructure, community facilities and economic development projects. I welcome Mayors Troy Pickard, Tracey Roberts and Giovanni Italiano, together with Chief Executive Officers Garry Hunt, Daniel Simms and Stuart Jardine.
The Tri-Cities Alliance is a proactive initiative which raises the profile of our region and makes a greater impression with federal decision makers. Delegations of local governments to Canberra at a regional level are becoming an effective method of strategically positioning regions within a national context. This is particularly relevant as the three cities combined represent an estimated population of 570,000 residents currently, growing to a projected population of 750,000 residents by 2031.
The rapidly growing north metropolitan region is of major strategic importance to my home state of Western Australia. Governments at all levels must work cooperatively to provide the essential infrastructure needed to provide a high level of service delivery, including in health, education, economic development, telecommunications, roads, public transport and other community services.
The City of Wanneroo is seeking federal funding to further develop the road network in the Neerabup Industrial Area. Investment in better road infrastructure will be of benefit to residents living in my electorate through less traffic congestion, improved road safety and access to local employment opportunities that minimise commuting time. Local economic development will also be promoted by providing efficient transport logistics to facilitate heavy vehicle movements and freight deliveries. The City of Joondalup is seeking federal funding to develop a regional performing arts and cultural centre, and assistance with the planning and consultancy costs involved with the Ocean Reef Marina redevelopment project.
Local government plays an important role in delivering services and facilities for our local community. I am pleased to have served as a councillor for 14 years and appreciate the synergy of having close relationships between all levels of government.
On Sunday 21 February the Bangla-speaking people of Western Sydney joined people of all languages and cultures in celebrating International Mother Language Day. 21 February was chosen as International Mother Language Day in memory of that date in 1952 when students protested for the right to speak their own language. During the demonstration, four students were shot dead by police in Dhaka, the present-day capital of Bangladesh. It has been commemorated in Bangladesh since 2000 and is now an international day that recognises the rights of language and culture.
I would like to acknowledge Mr Abdul Wahab and Mr Laurence Barrel from Ekushe Academy for their work in organising such a vibrant day. Ekushe Academy is a secular, non-political organisation that promotes the Bangla language, its literature and cultural practices. This is the 10th anniversary of their first International Mother Language Day commemoration in 2006 in Ashfield Park, where the event is still held today. Thanks also to Mr Nirmal Paul from the celebration committee for his hard work in organising the day over many years and his ongoing service in conserving his mother language, and to the hardworking volunteers who, along with everything else that they had to do that day, cared that I might need lunch before my drive to Canberra. Thank you, Nargis Mdatai and Maliha and Mahirah Sattar.
Linguistic diversity is a world heritage resource that must be valued and protected. I would like to wish a happy International Mother Language Day, for yesterday, to all of my communities.
On Thursday, I had the honour of attending the Tamil community Pongal celebration at New South Wales Parliament House. Pongal is a four-day-long harvest festival celebrated in Tamil Nadu and Sri Lanka and, indeed, wherever Tamil people live. For as long as people have been planting and gathering food, there has been some form of harvest festival, and Pongal is one of the most popular Hindu festivals of the year. The four-day festival of thanksgiving to nature takes its name from the Tamil word meaning 'to boil' and is held in the month of Thai—January-February—during the season when rice and other cereals, sugarcane and turmeric are harvested. Wherever there is Tamil food, there is turmeric!
The event was organised by the Tamil Arts and Culture Association, a group of great Tamil volunteers who cater for the growth of the Tamil community Australia-wide, in particular in my area, where nearly half of the Tamil Australians live in the suburbs of Wentworthville, Westmead, Toongabbie and Pendle Hill. Like its name suggests, it seeks to enhance the cultural and social life of the Tamil community beyond the occasional cultural gathering. Congratulations to TACA, in particular their president, Anagan Babu, for organising their Pongal event in New South Wales Parliament House for the very first time. My state counterpart, Geoff Lee, hosted the event in the New South Wales parliament and I promise to host Pongal in Canberra next year. I know my Tamil community will hold me to that, so, to my Tamil community: I will see you all down here next year.
Five years ago the Alstonville Community Preschool were told that they had to move; the hall they were operating out of was going to be used for another purpose by its owner. It was with great joy that, on Saturday, I was at the opening of the new Alstonville Community Preschool. It has been a long five years. There were many trials and tribulations, with a whole lot of logistics that were really a bit of a nightmare at times. The opening is a great tribute to the perseverance of the community and the people involved with the Alstonville Community Preschool, and indeed the Alstonville community as a whole, who got behind this project and made Saturday happen. It was a day of great joy, especially seeing the 40 young preschoolers in their new preschool.
I would like to pay tribute to some of the people who made this happen, because there was a lot of work involved. First there are the current committee members: Katherine Buckley, the President, who was tireless in her perseverance; Katrina Evans; Gabby Thompson; Nichole Roberts; Paul Green; Kirsty Heaps; and Criodan Dunford. The staff, Narelle Walker and Kay Walmsley, have also been tireless in making this happen. There are also the people who got the ball rolling five years ago, including Fernando Lamas, Jocelyn Perritt, Georgie Ford, Renee North and Ern Sandral. There are many people in the community as well who provided help and sponsorship: Don Page, the former member for Ballina, who was crucial; Ben Franklin, my Nationals colleague and current MLC, who was very important in getting this to happen; the mayor, David Wright; all the Ballina Shire councillors; and the former mayor, Phil Silver. People in the community who donated time or resources were the Ballina RSL; Fiona Lomax; the Alstonville Wollongbar Chamber of Commerce; Dave Gambley Building—Dave is a friend of mine and a great builder; Greenstar Earthmoving; Richmond Sand and Gravel; Summerland Credit Union; Think Water Alstonville—I could go on and on. To the Alstonville community: congratulations on your tireless work to make this happen. It was all worth it on Saturday when we saw those children running around and having a great time.
On Saturday night I attended a fundraiser for Generation Ag. They are the Next Generation group of the Far North Coast Group of show societies, who are passionate about the sustainability of the show movement. Generation Ag is aimed at 18- to 35-year-olds who live in our region. It holds an annual fundraiser, and on Saturday night the fundraiser was for the Drought Angels, who provide crucial support to farming communities in times of drought. I congratulate Craig Hosking, the president, Kelly Bryant, the secretary, and Samantha Chilton, the treasurer, on a great night. The fundraiser was at the hall in Clovass, which was great. I would also like to acknowledge some of the people who went in the challenge this year: Alyce Mitchell, Alice Magna, Benny Foster, Brandy Burgess and Brendan Gallagher. (Time expired)
South Australia's economy has had a very tough time since the election of this government. We have seen the car industry basically being shipped out; we have seen enormous consternation over submarines, when it was always a given that they should be built in Adelaide; and we now see troubles in steel, in particular with Arrium up in Whyalla.
The South Australian government and the minister responsible, Treasurer Tom Koutsantonis, who is a longstanding friend of mine, have put to the federal government that they should be involved in discussions to save this plant, to make sure that we remain a country that can make steel for vital infrastructure projects. The government's approach to this, of course, has been as confused and contradictory as everything else under the Turnbull government. Say what you like about Mr Abbott; at least we knew where we stood with him. On Friday Mr Pyne told reporters in Adelaide, 'We're not in the business of giving taxpayers' money to businesses that are struggling.' But he then confirmed that they remained in discussions with the state government about the best way to provide help. Labor has a clear policy on this: we believe in steelmaking. We believe that steelmaking is important to South Australia and an important national capacity to have. That is one of the reasons that the Leader of the Opposition wrote to Malcolm Turnbull and suggested a number of things, ensuring—
A government member interjecting—
Well, he is the current Prime Minister—at the moment, I guess.
Members should be referred to by their correct titles.
The Leader of the Opposition suggested that the government lead by example and procure steel from Australian steel producers; provide financial assistance to the South Australian government to expand and develop the Whyalla port; guarantee that it would not weaken or repeal the Australian Jobs Act; and reinstate the local employment coordinator in that area. These are all worthwhile things to do. We remain committed to steel, as we are committed to the manufacturing of submarines in South Australia and as we remained committed to providing support for the automotive industry. We could have secured investment of a billion dollars from General Motors. That was investment of a billion dollars that we missed out on because the previous Prime Minister, Mr Abbott, basically waved goodbye to it, and that has resulted in a tragedy.
Ms Scott interjecting—
The member for Lindsay will cease interjecting.
We want to make sure that the tragedy that occurred in the automotive industry—the same sort of malaise and confusion that occurred over submarines—does not now occur over steel. I call on the government to support the Leader of the Opposition's policies in this regard.
There was a collective heaviness in the hearts of people right across Western Sydney, and in particular in my electorate of Lindsay, when the news filtered through that a young man had been killed in a car accident on the corner of The Northern Road and Andromeda Drive in Cranebrook. His name was Kieren Birks. The community of Cranebrook knew Kieren as an all-round good kid. Kieren, tragically, was only 17. While the cause of the accident is still being determined, there has been an outpouring from the community to ensure that this does not happen again. Despite the accident occurring at around 3.30 in the afternoon, this young man has lost his life.
I rise today to pass on some simple yet significant and compelling words from Kieren's sister, Kirsty. She has signed a petition calling on the New South Wales government to urgently upgrade the intersection. More than ever, the Birks family, in their grief, are going to the support of other people. In Kirsty's words, 'I don’t want another family to go through this pain.' My office contacted Kirsty, who simply wanted to say, 'We are very glad that the intersection will be fixed to save other families.'
I will make sure that this government does whatever it can to ensure that the intersection is fixed and fixed quickly. We will continue to put pressure on the state government to ensure that this happens. I know the area very well. I grew up in Cranebrook, on the north side of the electorate, and for a number of years I have been pushing for the entire Northern Road to be upgraded, from either Richmond Road all the way through to Narellan or at least from the crossroads through to Narellan. We have been successful in pushing the upgrades to the Great Western Highway, which is really great news.
I pay tribute to the family but also place on the record what a tragedy and a sadness it is that a young man has lost his life on our streets. I say to people, 'Please be safe on our streets,' and to the state government: 'We cannot wait any longer. We need this done.'
I stand today to speak about the recent cuts to the CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research centre in Aspendale, in the great electorate of Isaacs. A category five catastrophe—'Cyclone Turnbull', if you will—recently hit the Aspendale CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research centre, cutting a reported 70 jobs from the centre and a total of 350 CSIRO jobs nationwide in the government's latest round of cuts to science funding.
Sadly, this is not the first time that jobs have been cut at the Aspendale marine and atmospheric research centre since the election of the Liberals in 2013. I was joined by my Senate colleague Kim Carr at the centre in 2014 when the first round of CSIRO cuts under the Liberals occurred, and spoke with climate scientists about how this government has failed science in Australia.
The CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research centre in Aspendale is one of the most important carbon research centres in the world. It is, to quote David Schimel, the chief adviser on carbon cycle science at NASA's jet propulsion lab in California, 'a national treasure'. The centre is responsible for some of the most significant findings in climate change research over the past 50 years. Its research into climate change in the Southern Ocean is second to none, and the centre's contribution to international climate change research is exemplary.
The Turnbull government's cuts will see a reported 70 people at this centre lose their jobs, but they are not the only people to lose from this terrible situation. Australian science will lose. Australian innovation—a word so beloved by the Prime Minister—will lose. Australia's ability to contribute to international climate change research will be damaged and all Australians will lose from the lost research and lost data. Two thousand nine hundred scientists from 60 countries said in a letter to the Prime Minister that these cuts have 'alarmed the global research community'.
The Prime Minister likes to say that his is a government that believes in climate change. Yet his government has failed at every hurdle. The Prime Minister had his chance to join Labor and commit to real action on climate change but he blew it, instead opting for the long-discredited Direct Action Plan of his failed predecessor.
Opportunity rarely knocks twice, but the opportunity is there now for the Prime Minister to admit his mistake and make a small positive contribution to Australia's role in fighting climate change by restoring funding to the CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research division and guaranteeing the jobs of the CSIRO marine and atmospheric researchers that have been made redundant by this government. I call on the Prime Minister to seize this opportunity and embrace science, embrace innovation and, particularly, embrace opportunities for future generations.
I welcome the opportunity to talk today about an outstanding organisation, Probus. In 1976 the first Probus club in Australia was established—the Probus club of Hunters Hill. This year marks the 40th anniversary of Probus in Australia. Australian Probus is a part of Probus South Pacific Limited, which has now grown to over 1,900 clubs and 146,000 members. Probus is an association of active members and communities who are predominantly lively retirees. Members share intellectual and cultural interests and participate in social and active lifestyle programs. Probus is an opportunity for people to share great friendships and enjoy fellowship with others within their local community.
Dobell has a large number of retirees. We are very, very lucky because we have a number of outstanding and very active local Probus clubs. We have many retirees who take part in Probus on the Central Coast.
As people retire and their children are busy with their own children and life in general, it can be easy to become disconnected and, sadly, in some cases, lonely, but joining a Probus club makes it possible to be socially connected with a community of like-minded people sharing the same interests at similar stages of their life. As I mentioned, Dobell is lucky to be home to an active and resourceful Probus community, including clubs in Forresters Beach, Wyong, Tuggerah, Toowoon Bay and Bateau Bay.
Wyong's Probus club could very well hold the title for the oldest Probus club on the Central Coast, with their 34-year anniversary celebration coming up. The Wyong Probus club currently has 60 members and is looking to increase its membership by 100 per cent over the coming year. This year, Bateau Bay combined Probus club is celebrating its 10th anniversary, which is really exciting for all of the members. I am looking forward to attending their celebrations in early March and meeting all of the members. Last year I was privileged to address the Forresters Beach Probus Club, giving them an insight into life at Parliament House. I am looking forward to addressing the Toowoon Bay Probus Club in April to also talk about federal parliament.
These clubs have so many activities for their members. Members could easily fill up their social calendars with more than one activity a week, including regular travel, often domestic and international, and activities including monthly dinners, theatre productions, concerts at the Sydney Opera House and day trips to Sydney—even a trip to Palm Beach on the ferry. There are interest days held monthly, such as for ladies craft, golf and bowls days. Congratulations to all Probus clubs across Australia for your 40th anniversary. Thank you for the work that you do for our community.
In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members’ statements has concluded.
I move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) football (soccer) is:
(i) played by more than 1.18 million people in Australia in some capacity; and
(ii) the most popular sport amongst children of both genders in Australia with more girls now playing soccer than netball;
(b) the Hyundai A-League now has 104,913 members, creating a tremendous community spirit amongst supporters and players;
(c) local football clubs are the backbone of the football community, with 2,155 clubs in Australia at the moment; and
(d) there are positive effects on mental health of adults who play sport, including football; and
(2) congratulates the Football Federation Australia on its positive community programs, including Sporting Schools, Football Fever, the AIA Vitality Miniroos, Female Football Week, and Play Project, as well as the Asian Football Confederation Asian Cup multicultural programs which encourage participation, community spirit, integration, as well as healthy, active living.
It gives me great pleasure to introduce this motion into the House to recognise the value of soccer, or football as it is more commonly known around the world, to the community in Australia. Some 1.8 million people in Australia play football in some capacity. It is the most popular sport amongst children of both genders in Australia, with more girls now playing soccer than netball. The Hyundai A-League has gone from success to success, with nearly 105,000 members across our member clubs, creating tremendous community spirit amongst supporters and players. Importantly, it is our local football clubs that are the backbone of the football community, with some 2,155 clubs across Australia at present. But, more importantly, there are the positive effects on the mental health of those who play sport, and, in particular in relation to this motion, it is football that we should recognise. I would also like to take this opportunity to congratulate the Football Federation of Australia on their positive community programs, including Sporting Schools, Football Fever, the AIA Vitality Miniroos, Female Football Week and Play Project, as well is the Asian Cup multicultural programs, which encourage participation, community spirit and integration, as well as healthy and active living.
As we stand here today and recognise the value of football in our community, it is also important to recognise that around the world it is known as the world game. It might not quite have that flavour here in Australia, but the football community is working very actively. You may support the well-known household names of Manchester United or Liverpool, or in my case Tottenham Hotspur, Bayern Munich for those of German origin, the great Italian clubs of Roma and AS Roma or the great Spanish clubs of Barcelona. It is a game that attracts all sorts and all cultures. Whether we look at local futsal competitions, social competitions in our local communities or school programs, tournaments and events, we can see that football has become the most popular sport among children of both genders in Australia, with, as I said earlier, more girls now playing football than netball.
There is no doubt that it is a sport that plays an increasingly important role in Australian society. You only have to walk through your local shopping centre or through your local community to see the kids in jerseys of clubs far and wide across the world, but, also, there are those supporting our great local A-League clubs. Unfortunately, my great local A-League club played in a nine-goal thriller on the weekend, but still lost at the end of the day to those from Perth. But it is a great example of where football is going in this country, and of the support that people are giving to their local A-League clubs. That is the pinnacle here. Equally, it is great that those A-League clubs are getting involved in our local communities, by holding coaching clinics not only to encourage our juniors but also to train them up in the skills that they need to create an opportunity if they want to progress overseas.
As I said in my opening comments, there are some 2,155 local football clubs across the Australian community—great clubs such as Logan Lightning FC, Ormeau FC, Park Ridge Panthers FC and Bethania Rams FC; clubs that have been around for many years and provide a tremendous community link for those who are interested in playing football. In a lot of cases, those local sporting clubs have become the backbone of those local communities. Equally, Football Federation Australia has done some great work over the past few years and delivered more than 10,000 community coaching courses to ensure that our kids have the skills and abilities to compete in a global game. It is a game that continues to grow and prosper, and I wish it every success in the future.
Is the motion seconded?
Proudly seconded, Deputy Speaker. I am proud to support the motion put forward by the member for Forde. We work together on a unity ticket when it comes to supporting football. I echo his comments about the great work that Football Federation do, not only at the sporting level but also at the community program level, both in health and in reaching out to members of the community who need a helping hand in so many ways.
I will start upfront with the comment about how surprising it is—how much things have changed since I was a kid—that we now have more girls playing football than netball, with all credit to the Football Federation for the great grassroots programs that they have. It has been called the world game in many other countries, but now it is even starting to take on that tone here in Australia. And I say that with all respect to Rugby League, Rugby Union, Aussie Rules and all the other codes. But football is obviously played in more countries around the world, and now the Australian teams can hold their heads up high. Before I became a member of parliament, I had never really kicked a round ball. That changed down on the Senate oval, under the guidance of Senator Stephen Conroy and many other MPs who have changed me from being a Rugby League player to now being a Rugby League player who plays football. I particularly note the member for Forde in his role as goalkeeper; we keep him particularly busy whenever there is a game going on.
In terms of football's international popularity, the FIFA World Cup is the most widely viewed sporting event in the world, exceeding even the Olympic Games. That puts it in context. Here in Australia, football—or soccer—has grown from those humble beginnings to now challenge and even overtake the already well-established football codes of AFL, Rugby Union and Rugby League, as well as netball and the other ball games. It is now the most played outdoor team sport in Australia and ranks in the top 10 for television audiences. A recent audit in 2013 by the sporting authority Gemba found that 1.96 million Australians were actively involved in the game as players. When coaches, referees and families are included, that involvement was around 3.1 million—higher than any other sport in Australia. Roy Morgan polls suggests that, at the junior level, soccer overtook swimming as the most popular sporting activity among Australian kids, with one in two children aged six to 13 now playing. I will say that again: one in two children aged six to 13 are now playing football. Furthermore, this research showed that the number of women playing can only make the code stronger in the future. Soccer players do not just rely on their sheer brute strength, like the other football codes; it is arguably the most graceful of all the codes, which is why it has been called the beautiful game.
My two boys, despite me trying to angle them towards Rugby League, have ended up playing football and they love it. They love it. This year, one of my sons was going to switch to one of the rugby codes but, after I spent a couple of weeks showing him what tackling involved, he decided to stick with soccer for another year. But we might see what happens in the future. I think that is the nature of the modern Australia: that people can go along to an Aussie Rules game but the next day go and see a game of soccer. I see that with the families I deal with in my electorate.
I can only marvel at the top soccer players' skills, but I know that these skills have been refined and improved from the junior level. I see the way that my children are coached. The skills are broken down and it is not just hit or miss; it is very much a methodical approach to imparting these skills. We see it with the Socceroos and the Matildas, who are their heroes as they start their soccer journey by joining their local soccer club.
In my electorate, there are a number of strong and vibrant junior and senior soccer clubs that offer an outlet for players. I mentioned the Olympic Football Club, Oxley United, Tarragindi Tigers, Souths United, El Salvador, Mt Gravatt Hawks, Acacia Ridge,Annerley Recreation, Holland Park Hawks and Brisbane Knights, to name just a few.
Football Federation Australia is to be commended for overseeing the growth of the game at all levels, particularly amongst girls, as well as implementing the many positive community programs which encourage participation. They also give that message about healthy active living and about being an active member of a team, and about integrating with people from different countries—I see that in the clubs that my children play in—and also they boost community spirit.
I rise today to also support the member for Forde and his motion about football. In Lindsay, football is truly also becoming the world game. Whether you call it football or soccer, this game has, undeniably, a positive impact on the people of Western Sydney. Western Sydney, in return, has added to the fabric of Australian football and achievements in history.
Mile Jedinak started playing football, the world game, in Werrington, within Lindsay, and went on to play in the 2010 and 2014 FIFA world cups. Another name: Mark Bridge started out at St Marys, and went on to represent Australia at both junior and senior levels in international football. Even Brad Smith, who currently plays for England's powerhouse team, Liverpool FC, was born in Penrith.
But let us not forget the Western Sydney Wanderers. Since this side entered the A-League in 2012, they have become both premiers and champions under the banner of Western Sydney, even playing a few matches in Pepper Stadium at home here in Penrith.
But football is not all about the big names and popular achievements—that only tells a part of the story. Really, football is the grassroots game that so many of our young boys and young girls go out every weekend and play. It is the game that they are practising at night at all of the sporting fields right around the area. To give a clearer indication, the Nepean Football Association has had an increase in players registered between 2014 and 2015 from 11,900 young people to 12,640. That is a phenomenal increase, and it is wonderful to see so many young people participating in this awesome sport.
In Lindsay, young players in this sport are moving up the ranks through the Nepean Development Program. Established only five years ago, it strives to build on the skills and talents of these young players. This program links our young players from club level and, potentially, even one day walking out in the red and black for the Western Sydney Wanderers.
Given increased participation rates, the Nepean Development Program will expand by increasing the use of outdoor venues from three to 10 this year. Young sports stars like Henry Davies or Solomon Monahan-Vaiika commenced their playing careers in the Nepean-Penrith area. Now they have made their mark playing for the Australian Joeys team and are working their way up through the Australian Institute of Sport. According to James Rankine, a football manager and technical director at the Nepean Football Association: 'Our programs are not about making players famous. It is about making young players better people as a whole. They are school holiday clinics giving young people the opportunity to play football over the school break.' With respect to this, I honour and commend the hard work of the coaches, the managers and the assistants, but in particular the mums and dads taking young people to sport every single weekend and to training on week nights. Not only does the Nepean Football Association give players the opportunity to showcase their talents, it also allows them to keep fit, active and healthy.
I would also like to note the power of football to unite a community. I do not believe there is a better example of social cohesion in our community than what you see when you go to Pirtek Stadium and see the diversity of people who will sing for the Wanderers. It is truly the world game and the way that the Western Sydney Wanderers brings people together in my community, I think, is truly fabulous.
I am also the patron for the Australian Bhutanese Youth Festival which hosts Bhutanese interstate soccer tournaments. This is also a wonderful example of the Bhutanese community working within our local area. The community of the Southern Sudanese and other marginalised areas have been working under the leadership of Emmanuel Kondok, who also organises a local football tournament. This is to help integrate people and help people work together. It brings the local Sudanese people together with other football players around the area. I think one of the most phenomenal things about football is how it brings people together.
In closing, I would also like to acknowledge some of the support that we have given locally. We have given $25,500 to Andromeda Oval in Cranebrook, which will also help football in the Cranebrook area. An additional $60,000 from the last election has gone to Grey Gums Reserve where we have resurfaced two ovals and built an awning for the clubhouses. Recently, under the Community Building Partnership grant, a further $13,000 went to the Penrith RSL Soccer Club. Thank you.
What a terrific opportunity to speak about something that is truly bipartisan in this place: our shared love for soccer football. I acknowledge the member for Forde who moved the motion. Whatever his other substantial shortcomings are in this place, he is actually a terrific advocate for this sport. I have seen firsthand that he is also a very handy goalie, because we played on the same team in the Parliamentary Street Soccer Cup in support of The Big Issue. I acknowledge that. He was easily our best player, but please do not tell Senator Conroy that I think so!
This is a timely opportunity to speak about soccer football from my point of view. I spent some time on Friday afternoon with David Gallop, the CEO the Football Federation, talking about this very issue: the contribution that football makes to our local communities and, through that, the broader nation. The stats in the member's motion really do speak for themselves: there are 1.18 million people involved; it is the most popular sport amongst both genders; more girls play football than netball; and there are 105,000 A-League members and 2,155 clubs. Those numbers are pretty stunning numbers when you think about it and it is a terrific success story when it comes to participation in our sport, with all of the benefits that that brings. I will touch on some of those in a moment. The popularity of soccer would not come as a surprise to any of us who engage with our local communities. Whether it is the member for Gellibrand, the member for Grayndler or the member for Moreton, we would all spend time with our soccer clubs, our football clubs, for various reasons, because they make that terrific contribution.
Of those 2,155 clubs, there are none finer than Rochedale Rovers, Logan Metro, Slacks Creek Football and Logan City Kings—four of the best clubs anywhere in the world. They are terrific football clubs—
Up there with Real Madrid!
Up there with Real Madrid, as the member for Grayndler said! There are also many other community and school teams. I was at the Rochedale Rovers match on Saturday for their season opener. I want to thank Paul Swindells and the whole executive for making me feel so welcome there, as they always do. I know Underwood Park intimately from growing up just around the corner. I have kicked a soccer ball around Underwood Park more times than I can remember in my 37 years. It is terrific to go back there as the member for their community. They make such a terrific contribution to it, not just to Rochedale.
Mr Van Manen interjecting—
I cannot hear what the member for Forde is saying. That is probably for the best. The motion mentions mental health which is very important. When you talk to some of the service providers in my community, particularly in Logan City, they do talk about the role that football can play in building social capital and giving people the opportunity to understand what services are available—particularly as it applies to new migrant and broader multicultural communities. For an electorate like mine, with 189 different cultural backgrounds, football is a terrific unifier. This weekend we have the Brisbane Roar Harmony Day Community Shield. We have got a club called Logan Metro which makes a special effort to include recently-arrived migrant young players. In late 2014 I hosted some of the former Socceroo greats—Craig Foster, Jason Culina and David Zdrilic—for the World Game Multicultural Festival in my community, which was a terrific success, working with SBS and Access in our community.
My electorate is becoming the epicentre of soccer in Queensland, because Football Queensland have moved their headquarters to Slacks Creek, which is a terrific development for Logan City more broadly but specifically for my neighbourhood. To have Football Queensland there at Meakin Park is something we appreciate greatly, and we thank our friends at Football Queensland for having the vision and foresight and the understanding of football in our community to move the headquarters right into the middle of my electorate.
Beyond football, we also need to think about the role that sport in general plays in our economy. Football is a huge participation sport and is a big contributor to the 137,000 jobs that exist in sport—which creates $5 billion in economic value added each year. More important than the economic impacts, of course, is the contribution it makes to the social fabric.
I congratulate everyone involved in football, whether it be in my local community or around the country, and David Gallop and his friends and colleagues at the FFA. We have had such a good story to tell about football in the last year or so, with the success of the Asian Cup—not just in hosting it effectively, but also in taking out the cup ourselves. It shows that football really is becoming ascendant in Australia. It shows the power and potential of football to enhance cultural ties with our neighbouring economies as well. I am very proud to stand up here and talk about the contribution of football. I thank the member for Forde, and I look forward to working with my football clubs in the years to come.
I am delighted to support the member for Forde's motion today to recognise one of this country's fastest growing sports, played by thousands of children, young people and adults in my electorate. As mentioned by the members for Forde and Lindsay—and I noticed the member for Robertson is here today to speak—football, or soccer, is played by more than 1.18 million people in Australia and is the most popular sport amongst children of both genders, with more girls now playing soccer than netball. In my electorate of Macarthur, the Macarthur Football Association is made up of 26 fantastic clubs including Appin United, the Bradbury Ambarvale Bears, Burragorang District Soccer Club, the Camden Falcons, Camden Tigers, the Campbelltown Cobras, the Campbelltown Collegians, Campbelltown Southern Districts Soccer Club, Campbelltown Uniting Church Soccer Club, the Douglas Park Wilton Razorbacks, the East Campbelltown Hawks, the Eschol Park Wolves, Fields United Soccer Club, the Gunners Soccer Club, the Harrington United Hornets, Ingleburn Eagles, Macarthur Magic, the Minto District Stingers, Macarthur District Football Referees Association, the Mount Annan Mustangs, Narellan Rangers, Oran Park Rovers, Picton Rangers, Ruse Football Club, St Mary's Eagle Vale Soccer Club and the Tahmoor Taipans.
The association caters for both male and female players, from the under-six minis to the over-35s. We also have competitions dedicated to female-only teams, starting from the under-12 girls. The MFA is also the home of the Macarthur Rams, who play in the National Premier League 2 competition, and the Macarthur Rams women's team, which plays in the National Premier League 1 competition. The Rams' home ground, Lynwood Park at St Helens Park, recently received a $1.4 million synthetic turf field. The project was one of my election commitments and will be used by many sporting teams across Macarthur. The new synthetic turf field means more games and increased facilities for the Macarthur Football Association, with its growing numbers of teams and players. It will create enormous opportunities for the club and for football in Macarthur. The new facility will host 60 games per week, with approximately 20,000 participants annually. The project was jointly funded by Campbelltown City Council, the federal government and the Macarthur Football Association. I would like to thank Campbelltown City Council for its support of this project to ensure the people of Macarthur have first-class sporting facilities to call their own. This has been a great win for our community, and one that I am personally very proud to have played a role in.
Macarthur is not the only electorate experiencing a rising interest in soccer. There are currently 2,155 clubs in Australia, and the Hyundai A-League now has almost 105,000 members, creating a tremendous community spirit amongst supporters and players.
They are starting young these days. In Macarthur, soccer is becoming increasingly popular for children as young as 18 months of age. We currently have hundreds of toddlers and preschool-aged children taking part in Little Kickers classes in Campbelltown, Elderslie, Harrington Park, Mount Annan, Narellan, Oran Park and Smeaton Grange.
Little Kickers is an organisation that gives young children a positive introduction to sport by teaching quality soccer skills in a friendly, pressure-free environment. Last week I spoke to Luke and Soraiya Fuda, who take their son, Spencer, to Little Kickers in Harrington Park. The Fudas said Spencer started Little Kickers when he was 18 months old and the local soccer team helped encourage early learning and teamwork. They said Little Kickers also encouraged Spencer to share and work harmoniously with his peers. It has been good for Spencer because it has taught him basic etiquette including waiting his turn, team morale and interacting with children as well as respecting authoritative figures. His coaches have played a fundamental part in his learning process and the Fudas say they have seen a vast improvement in these areas since Spencer started with Little Kickers. I hope that one day we will see young Spencer playing for his local club in the Macarthur Football Association or perhaps even in the A-League.
Young soccer lovers in my electorate have also been impacted by the community programs run by the Football Federation Australia, especially in our local schools. The FFA runs many successful community programs which encourage participation, community spirit, integration as well as healthy, active living. I have seen the positive impact of these programs firsthand. In 2014, the federal government, SBS and the FFA came together to launch the Harmony Game Schools' Pack in my electorate. I was honoured to join Senator Concetta Fierravanti-Wells and former Socceroo Craig Foster at Briar Road Public School for the launch. This was a great initiative that encouraged students to take ideas about diversity and cultural identity from the soccer field to the classroom and the wider community. The release of the pack, with its soccer-themed activities, was timed with the departure of our Socceroos to Brazil to represent Australia in the FIFA World Cup. I was very pleased that Macarthur was chosen for the national launch of this program.
I am proud to represent an electorate which is full of great sporting clubs, schools and families that work together to encourage good health, teamwork and a love of sport. The increased number of young people engaged in soccer in my electorate is a testament to the wonderful volunteers and coaches at our local clubs and the parents and carers who encourage their children to try their best each week on the soccer field. I wish them all the best as they prepare to kick off the 2016 soccer season in Macarthur.
I rise to support the motion, which is about the importance of football to Australian communities, with more than one million players around Australia. First and foremost, of course, playing sport is a significant part of keeping the people of Australia healthy, in particular our young people. Football is now the sport played by more young boys and young girls than any other sport in Australia. It encourages not only the development of local communities but the development of the health of these young people, including the wider Australian public. The continuing growth in popularity of this sport, fostered by competitive organisations such as the A-League and the Football Federation Australia, is extremely positive.
My electorate of Grayndler plays host to a large number of independent football clubs. During my almost 20 years in office, I have seen personally what these institutions are capable of contributing to their respective communities. They call it 'the world's game'; indeed, football breaks down all borders. Many people have come to this country with little grasp of the English language and only tenuous links to its culture. Coming to a new nation, the first port of call for many new arrivals has often been the local football club. These clubs not only contribute to the national health of our people but serve as unofficial language and education centres that enable successful societal integration. Often, many of the people introduced to these clubs return years later as volunteers to facilitate and support social building with people in similar circumstances. This type of selfless action is what keeps communities alive.
Clubs in my electorate include Leichhardt, Balmain, the Hurlstone Park Wanderers, the Stanmore Hawks, new club the Cooks River Titans and the Marrickville Red Devils. The Marrickville Red Devils have an extraordinary history. They were formed in 1946, so this year is their 70th anniversary. Tim Cahill is their most famous junior player. The Marrickville Football Club runs a number of community-enriching programs such as the Little Devils preschoolers league, the Red Devils Academy and school holiday programs. This is on top of organising competitive play for all ages and skills groups, while providing a number of jobs for members of the community. Most recently the club's former president, Ron Royston, was awarded the Medal of the Order of Australia on Australia Day for his service to football in Sydney's Inner West. Active in the club since he was nine years old, Ron rose through the ranks to become president in 2000 and to make Marrickville Football Club one of the most respected organisations in the district.
Now retired, Ron continues to contribute through coaching the young Red Devils. Their home ground of Marrickville, Mackey Park, is an example of how governments can provide support for active sport and participation. That oval was refurbished through the Regional and Local Community Infrastructure program whilst I was the minister, with support from Marrickville Council. Importantly, this not only upgraded the oval so it is now used year-round in an area where open space is very much valued but the Marrickville Cricket Club now uses it during the summer.
Importantly given the growth in football participation by young women, part of the upgrade involved putting in women's, as well as men's, changing rooms—a challenge right around the country that has to be dealt with. Local sporting infrastructure is particularly important. The ability that football has to bring people together to foster relationships and to form communities is quite extraordinary. The physical and social needs of many Australians are uniquely addressed by football organisations, which I think is critical.
I congratulate those people, particularly Frank Lowy and his leadership in terms of the FFA. For many years while I was young, many of the football teams at that senior level were defined by particular ethnic characteristics. The great thing about the A-League is that that has been broken down, and what we now have is mass participation based on where people live rather than on ethnic background. That has been very positive in terms of unifying communities and building that sense of community spirit. It is an extraordinary tribute to Frank Lowy in particular that he has been able to show that leadership, and also to David Gallop, whom I got to know well when he was with rugby league, on his leadership of the FFA.
I am really pleased to rise in support of this motion moved by the member for Forde because sport, of course, is a great way of life on the Central Coast. I am pleased to report that the Turnbull government is actively contributing to ensuring not only that we play sport in our community but also that we have access to fantastic sporting infrastructure. For example, we have invested $3½ million in a major redevelopment of Woy Woy Oval, which is also being funded by the New South Wales government, Clubs New South Wales grants and Gosford City Council. The government is also working with council by investing more than $300,000 in a vital upgrade to McEvoy Oval at Umina Beach, and we have also delivered on two other projects that were part of our positive Growth Plan for the Central Coast. Brendan Franklin Oval at Terrigal now has improved drainage and lighting thanks to $100,000 in funding from the federal government, and a $40,000 commitment to better lighting at Kariong Oval has also been delivered.
These upgrades are not much good at all without the people who use them all the time. At this time of year we are preparing to start and end seasons in sports like football, cricket, rugby league, rugby union, athletics, netball, baseball, basketball and many more—including even gridiron, with news last month that the National Gridiron League has added the Central Coast Cyclones to the upcoming competition. The Central Coast Academy of Sport, led by a passionate, experienced mentor, Ian Robilliard, is one of the leading organisations in this area.
But today we are focusing particularly on football, especially the positives that this sport delivers to families in our community. As the member for Forde has noted, the round ball game is played by more than 1.18 million people in Australia and is the most popular sport among children of both genders. Much of this is driven at a grassroots level by the local football clubs that are the backbone of our communities, including 10 clubs in my electorate. In fact, I will make a disclosure: my son, Oscar, has signed up for the first time to play in the under-7s for the East Gosford Rams in the upcoming season.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
Yes, I finally get to be a soccer mum! May I extend my best wishes to everyone at East Gosford Rams and to all clubs in my electorate, including the Avoca Sharks, Terrigal United, Gosford City Dragons, Kariong United Cougars, the Kincumber Roos, Mountain District Football Club, Southern and Ettalong United, Umina United Eagles and the Woy Woy Roosters Football Club.
Many of our clubs also link up with local schools where there are a series of programs such as the Sporting Schools initiative, with an objective to reach children who may not normally choose to play sport and to get them involved. Fourteen schools in my electorate run this program, including in suburbs such as Peats Ridge, Kincumber, Empire Bay and Gosford. I have no doubt that the success of these programs, and many others, is in many ways enhanced by the community focus and leadership of the mighty Central Coast Mariners, and of course of the A-League.
Our Mariners have a proud reputation and record. As a dedicated member of this great club, I can say it is a truly unique feeling being part of the crowd at Central Coast Stadium. It is not just the on-field action; every game, thousands of people seem to leave the ground with great memories; our palm trees, the beautiful Brisbane water in the backdrop, the trumpets of the Yellow Army, and singing with some of the best bands in the league. May I place on record my appreciation to the CEO, Shaun Mielekamp, to Coach Tony Walmsley, to Captain Nick Montgomery, and to the entire playing squad and their staff. Also to Lawrie McKinna, now Mayor of Gosford City Council, whose legacy as coach will never be forgotten. I met with Shaun Mielekamp last week, and he spoke about the club's values and vision. The signing of Spanish legend Luis Garcia has also shown the ambition that this club has. I am confident that there are many great successes to come.
I would like to end with a call to action for clubs in my electorate. Many will know about the death of Mickey Dean. He recently died of a heart attack while playing football, which is a game that he really loved. He was only 47. I have spoken in this place before about Mickey, who was taken all too suddenly from his family and his community. Since then, working with his family and with the clubs—Southern and Ettalong United—we have developed a petition in support of seeing defibrillators installed in clubs on the Central Coast. While a defibrillator may not have helped in Mickey's case, it dramatically increases the chances of survival after a sudden cardiac arrest, if applied quickly. Central Coast Football and Men of Football on the Central Coast have already pledged their support to this important cause, and I am pleased to report that more than 100 locals have signed this petition in clubs around the electorate. This coming football season, I encourage others to get behind this very important cause and add their voices to those who have already signed our petition, to demonstrate the strength of support for this important piece of vital life-saving equipment for our clubs in our sports-loving community on the Central Coast.
I too rise to speak on the motion before us from the member for Forde, and I thank him for putting it forward. Obviously, I am a Victorian and with that comes the descriptor 'sports-mad'—I will own it, I will wear it; yes, I am a sports-mad Victorian. It is important to note that football in Victoria is the Australian game, while soccer is the world game—or the beautiful game, as many in Victoria call it. As I speak today, I will call it soccer—for my Victorian counterparts, and so that those at home know what it is I am speaking about.
It is true to say that in Victoria and in the electorate of Lalor, in the city of Wyndham and in the city of Hobsons Bay, soccer is an enormously growing sport. It has been embedded in my community for some 40 years in longstanding clubs that are growing and growing. As a teacher, I can tell you that I have watched the development of soccer. I have watched the spontaneous games of soccer take over playgrounds, alongside—what we now often see Victoria; I know that it used to be a rarity—the spontaneous growth also of rugby, along with Australian Rules and cricket for our boys who are mad about ball games on the ovals around my electorate, and in the schools where I have taught. As everybody in this place would know, I am a mad-keen netballer. So I have to take umbrage at the notion that soccer is more popular with girls between six and 13. I found some Roy Morgan research that says that 40 per cent of girls this age are taking part—and I would like to think that 90 per cent of girls at that age are, of course, playing netball. Despite my love of netball, I am a huge fan of the Matildas. I would like to use this opportunity to highlight some of the things that the Matildas have confronted most recently. They are Australia's most successful side in the round ball game—in the beautiful game. Last year was a great year for the Matildas. They had their best ever result at the Women's World Cup, reaching the quarterfinals following a 1-0 win over Brazil.
We all love sport for its fitness and health impacts, but I always think too about the leadership it instils in our children, our young people, and about the collaboration they learn when they play team sports in particular. I have spoken often in this place about the grassroots community building that happens through sport and the way it brings people and communities together. In fact, many of our communities in my electorate come together through the sport that their children play.
It is important that our peak teams, our national teams, are supported and perform as well as they can. We had some important breakthroughs last year around gender equity, with the Matildas successful not just on the field but also in winning a pay rise. I would like to congratulate Football Federation Australia on that breakthrough decision in women's sport that saw our soccer players, our Matildas, getting a pay increase. We all know that they were earning $21,000 a year, which is less than the mandatory minimum wage of $34,158 in Australia—quite bluntly, a joke in comparison to their male counterparts. These things are important. It is important that our girls see that there is no difference between the genders, particularly when one gender is actually outperforming the other on the national stage. So I am thrilled that the Matildas have secured a two-tier pay structure, with the best players receiving $41,000 a year and players at the next level earning $30,000 a year. It is an incremental step, and it is obviously far from what the male players are earning, but it is better than it was prior to this breakthrough.
It is really important that the symbolic things come through as well, so I cannot finish today without congratulating the FFA on its decision that women's soccer leagues and clubs throughout the country will be travelling on the same class of transport as the male players. I congratulate the FFA on the decision that the women's team will be travelling first class to the Olympics alongside the men—or they will all be travelling in business class or they will all be travelling in economy class. I think that is really important for equity.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) February is Ovarian Cancer Awareness Month, which aims to raise awareness about ovarian cancer and help women recognise the signs and symptoms of the disease;
(b) Thursday 24 February is Ovarian Cancer Awareness Day and encourages everyone to wear a teal ribbon to show their support for women living with ovarian cancer; and
(c) about 1,500 Australian women are diagnosed with ovarian cancer each year and only 43 per cent of these will survive;
(2) notes with concern that ovarian cancer is diagnosed late as the symptoms are often similar to other common health problems;
(3) acknowledges:
(a) that there is no early reliable detection test for ovarian cancer and that the Pap smear does not detect the disease; and
(b) the good work being done by Ovarian Cancer Australia to raise awareness about the signs and symptoms of the disease;
(4) recognises that the four most common symptoms of ovarian cancer are:
(a) abdominal or pelvic pain;
(b) increased abdominal size or persistent abdominal bloating;
(c) needing to urinate often or urgently; and
(d) difficulty eating or feeling full quickly;
(5) understands that every Australian woman needs to know the symptoms of ovarian cancer; and
(6) notes the need for more research funding to help Australian scientists find early detection markers and more effective treatments for this disease.
February is Ovarian Cancer Awareness Month. The purpose of this month is to raise awareness around ovarian cancer and also help women recognise the signs and symptoms of this insidious disease. Unlike other forms of cancer, ovarian cancer is very difficult to detect. There is no single test that can be undertaken that will immediately indicate that a person has ovarian cancer. When ovarian cancer is diagnosed, it is invariably too late. There are various forms of treatment and a series of different diagnostic tests. But the diagnosis quite often comes down to finding the right doctor—one who has previously been involved with the diagnosis of a woman with this insidious disease.
This morning I went to a morning 'teal' here in Parliament House. There will be a number of morning and afternoon 'teals' this month and next month. I have two in my electorate next month. At these afternoon or morning 'teals', I will be presenting bracelets which have been made by Carolyn Bear, a constituent in my electorate whose daughter, Kylie, was 34 when she died from ovarian cancer. She went through all the challenges that came with the diagnosis. I am wearing a necklace today.
About 1,500 Australian women are diagnosed with ovarian cancer each year and only 43 per cent will survive. There are many women who survive the survival period of five years but do not go on to reach the average age at which other women in this country die. Ovarian cancer is not just one disease but a range of diseases. These diseases have different cellular appearances, different molecular characteristics and different trajectories. As I mentioned, it is the late diagnosis that is quite often the problem. There is a blood test, the CA-125, and there is a CT scan, but the only absolute diagnosis comes through surgery, where tissue is removed as well as abdominal fluid. It is a really difficult disease to diagnose. Because there is no early detection for the disease, there needs to be more research into how this disease can be diagnosed earlier. It is interesting that Ovarian Cancer Australia have a national action plan for urgent priority of ovarian cancer research. It is a well designed plan and it has all the inbuilt requirements to ensure transparency and accountability. Ovarian Cancer Australia announced $1 million in funding and they are doing that in partnership with the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre. That is a very important step forward. We must raise the need for more research.
I mentioned Carolyn and her daughter. The other constituent I have worked very closely with in my electorate is Rose Molloy. Rose is living with ovarian cancer and she is an ambassador for ovarian cancer. She will be speaking at my morning 'teals'. She goes out of her way to make people understand. She tells the story that it was only because she was persistent and went to a variety of doctors that she was finally diagnosed. That should not be the way. There needs to be a way for ovarian cancer to be detected early. Carolyn and Rose received the Shortland award for outstanding work in this area.
Is the motion seconded?
I second the motion. I am proud to rise in support of this motion. I thank the member for Shortland for bringing this motion to the House. I always welcome the opportunity to lend my voice to raise awareness, to save lives and to provide support to those impacted by this deadly disease. In Australia, a woman dies from ovarian cancer every eight hours—the life of a mother, daughter or sister extinguished to this ruthless disease. The rate of ovarian cancer on the New South Wales Central Coast has fluctuated since the 1970s, but, sadly, in any given year as many as 30 women on the Central Coast will be affected. Tragically, ovarian cancer's high mortality rate is due to the absence of a proven screening test. Doctors who suspect ovarian cancer are able to perform a number of tests, including blood tests and ultrasound, to help make a diagnosis, but, as we heard from the member for Shortland, surgery is the only definite way to diagnose ovarian cancer. Throughout February, Ovarian Cancer Australia, the peak national body for ovarian cancer, campaigns to highlight the symptoms of ovarian cancer to honour the women who have lost their battle against this deadly disease and to raise vital funds to support essential educational, support and advocacy programs.
We all have a role to play in minimising the impact that ovarian cancer can have on our community by encouraging Australian women to be aware of the symptoms. This is particularly important as the prognosis for women diagnosed with ovarian cancer is generally poor due to the advanced stage of most ovarian cancers at the time of diagnosis. In fact, ovarian cancer is often overlooked until it has reached later stages because its symptoms can often point to other, more common health problems. Almost half of the women diagnosed with ovarian cancer were unable to identify any symptoms of ovarian cancer. Sadly, every year around 1½ thousand women are diagnosed and, tragically, more than 1,000 Australian women die from this disease every year. The overall five-year survival rate for Australian women diagnosed with ovarian cancer is approximately 43 per cent. If the cancer is able to be treated when it is still confined to the ovaries, 93 per cent of patients will be alive in five years. It is important for all women to know that, even if they are vigilant in getting regular Pap tests, a Pap smear will not detect ovarian cancer, only cervical cancer. This is why it is vital that all Australian women get to know what the telltale symptoms are and whether they are at increased risk. Ovarian cancer, despite the symptoms being associated with less serious health problems, is not a silent cancer and it does have recurrent health complaints. Symptoms may be non-specific and include persistent abdominal, pelvic or back pain; increased abdominal size or persistent abdominal bloating; the need to urinate often or urgently; and fullness after food, weight loss and loss of appetite. Every woman needs to be mindful of ovarian cancer and be aware of these symptoms.
Ovarian Cancer Australia was founded by people directly impacted by ovarian cancer who wanted to raise awareness of the disease and support those who have been affected. In helping women to understand the signs and symptoms, they also advocate for women not to ignore the symptoms if they find they are experiencing them frequently. They have created an ovarian cancer symptom diary for women to monitor their symptoms over a four-week period and take the diary to their GP to assist with diagnosis. The diary is an easy-to-use checklist of symptoms to help women track how they feel on a daily basis over the course of a few weeks. Women can collect one at a Chemmart pharmacy or download a copy online at Ovarian Cancer Australia's website. While many women will not end up being diagnosed with ovarian cancer, it is still just as important for them to listen to their bodies and provide opportunity for early detection. To quote Ovarian Cancer Australia:
You know your body better than anyone else, so always listen to what your body is saying and trust your instincts.
I do hope for the day when we have available widely accessible detection tests and effective treatments for this disease. It is important that we get behind organisations such as Ovarian Cancer Australia, so this Wednesday demonstrate your support by purchasing and wearing a teal ribbon to support women living with or affected by ovarian cancer. I encourage all Australians to get involved to show their support and raise awareness, and also to help raise vital funds to help reduce the impact of ovarian cancer and improve outcomes for those living with this insidious disease. Together, we can raise awareness to fight to save more lives through early detection. I commend this motion to the House.
I, too, am delighted to join with colleagues in supporting the member for Shortland's motion to raise awareness about ovarian cancer in this Ovarian Cancer Awareness Month, which raises awareness about ovarian cancer but, more particularly, tries to engage with the community so that we can actually save lives.
Ovarian cancer has not, it is fair to say, achieved the same level of public recognition as other cancers, such as the magnificent work that has been done in recent years to raise awareness of breast cancer; and yet ovarian cancer is an insidious disease which takes a terrible toll on women in Australia and around the world. Ovarian cancer is the second most commonly diagnosed women's cancer in Australia and the leading cause of burden of disease from gynaecological cancers. Almost 1,500 women in Australia and over 250,000 women worldwide are newly diagnosed every single year. Mortality is very high and barely improving, with around 1,000 Australian women dying from the disease every year. While Australia's overall cancer survival rates are the best in the world, with two-thirds of people alive five years after diagnosis, for ovarian cancer that figure is below 50 per cent, with just 43 out of every 100 women still alive five years after diagnosis. Although there has been some improvement since 1982, survival rates are low and remain well below the average for all cancers.
The reasons for that are fairly straightforward. As the Cancer Council states on its website: 'There is no screening for ovarian cancer currently available in Australia.' Under the heading, 'Preventing ovarian cancer', it states: 'There is no proven method of prevention.' With no detection and no prevention, it is an insidious cancer. It is no wonder that most women do not find out they have ovarian cancer until the disease is at its very advanced stages. The symptoms are hard to spot and are often mistaken for women simply feeling tired or rundown or going through menopause. But, with early detection vital to survival, it is crucial that we do more to raise awareness—for women and for the men and partners who love them—so that we can save more women from this disease. We have already heard that symptoms include abdominal or pelvic pain, increased abdominal size or persistent abdominal bloating, needing to urinate often or urgently, and difficulty with eating or feeling full quickly. Australia's most famous survivor of ovarian cancer, Raelene Boyle, describes the symptoms as being so minor—having a distended tummy, a sore back or bleeding—that women put up with these things. But if you do think there might be something wrong, go and get it checked out.
The average age of ovarian cancer diagnosis is around 64, but it can also affect much younger women. This was evidenced by Raelene Boyle, and just last week by the announcement that one of Australian's most successful indie-rock bands, The Jezabels, were cancelling their worldwide tour because keyboard player, Heather Shannon, had to undergo urgent treatment for ovarian cancer. She is just 36. I had an Afternoon Teal in my electorate office on Friday and I met lovely Marg, whose daughter, Loo, passed away at the age of 33 some years ago. Marg, together with Fay, who is facing her third bout of ovarian cancer—she is a tenacious one, is Fay!—and Dot, who supports them, are doing a huge amount in my local community to raise awareness. The clock tower on our town hall this month, is teal. And every time I speak to anybody in our community about the clock tower being teal, I take the opportunity to raise awareness of ovarian cancer.
For me—as I know is also the case for the member for Lindsay—this is a very personal journey. I lost a very good friend and a very good mentor, Betty Leahy. Before she succumbed to her own illness, she had also suffered the tragic loss of both her husband and her daughter—in her 30s—both of them from cancer. Bet was an extraordinary and gorgeous woman who provided financial counselling services at Child and Family Services before she retired, and who mentored me as a young social worker and friend when I worked there. Shortly before she died, Bet asked me come and see her in St John of God Ballarat Hospital. She particularly asked me to use my position as Labor's health spokesperson everywhere I go, to talk about ovarian cancer, to champion the cause, and especially to focus energy and efforts on getting more research into diagnosis, prevention and treatment. Bet, I hope I am slowly honouring your memory by doing so. I particularly want to make sure that I elevate this cause, not just here in this place but that we all use our positions in our constituencies, and our friendship and community networks, to raise awareness of ovarian cancer every single day.
I would like to start by commending the member for Shortland for bringing this motion to the House, and also the spirit of bipartisanship in which wonderful women of the parliament are speaking out against this insidious disease that afflicts so many women—and that is, from my personal experience of losing a family member, possibly one of the most painful and horrific ways to die.
To raise awareness of ovarian cancer, Teal Ribbon Day will be on Wednesday this week. Ovarian cancer is a disease that we know little about. There is no screening. There is no proven method of detection. Symptoms are often very, very difficult to spot. It was once considered to be a disease that we see in older women, but we are seeing ovarian cancer appear more and more in younger women all around Australia—women in their mid-30s are fading away from this disease.
My personal journey is quite interesting. Today is 22 February. Exactly one month ago today, on 22 January, my sister-in-law Hallie Parnell lost her battle with ovarian cancer. Hallie was 36. After nearly two years of treatment, Hallie was gone. Hallie's story, much like the member for Ballarat was just discussing, started with an MRI screen because, for a number of years, Hallie had endured back pain—for six years, in fact. The MRI to investigate what was going on with her back actually showed that Hallie had ovarian cancer, and she had merely weeks to live. She was diagnosed at stage 4. She was immediately taken off for an operation—a full hysterectomy. Hallie had never been married and she had no children. Hallie would not accept the prognosis of eight weeks. She went into surgery. After enduring chemotherapy, hormone replacement treatment and pain medication that was required around the clock, Hallie passed away the day before my wedding to her brother Aaron. We continued on with our wedding because she told Aaron that she would be angry if he did not continue. That was Hallie: she was always thinking about others and others' well-being before her own.
From what I observed of Hallie's treatment in Australia, I was quite disappointed. The quality of care of the nurses and doctors in our country is second to none, and the quality of support was amazing. But because chemotherapy seemed to be the only option—and Hallie's illness often made her too sick to be able to use chemotherapy—it often really seemed quite a hopeless situation. I observed many oncologists, as did the family, wanting to apply more experimental treatments that are being used in the US. We observed oncologists being forced, in many cases by health funds, to say that some of these treatments were not an option. When one specialist considered moving ahead, Hallie’s health fund sent a threatening letter to Hallie's father saying that if a specific treatment was tried they would refuse to honour her health insurance and would not pay for even her time in hospital—even after chemotherapy had not worked. The family were told by hospital staff that this was not the first letter of this kind that they had seen. To add further insult to injury, the family was told by hospital staff that the health fund was in fact phoning around to ask the hospital the names and numbers of patients who may have been considering some of these more experimental treatments. It is important that we have health insurance, but, when we have challenges like ovarian cancer that are so insidious, I do not for one second accept that this is acceptable behaviour by Australia's health insurers. My husband's family are very upset and angry that whilst Hallie was being treated this is what they endured from this health fund. I will be taking this, as a formal complaint, to the minister as I do not believe this is acceptable. I truly believe that health funds are there to help Australians.
While it is too late for Hallie, there is a light at the end of the tunnel and we must continue to work together to fight this disease. Through Cancer MoonShot 2020, the President of the United States of America, Barack Obama, is giving researchers in the US the political backing to give specialists the motivation to look outside traditional chemotherapy. Results are already being seen in the US through the use of combined therapies, which are not available in Australia. After the experience of my family, and the battle of Hallie, I truly believe that we have fallen behind and we need to look outside merely using just chemotherapy. I will also be discussing this matter with the minister. I realise Obama’s idea is only a concept at the moment, but moving this forward is a really important way we can fight this.
I watched my sister-in-law Hallie Parnell fade away from being a bubbly, energetic girl from Melbourne to someone whose last conversation with me was about how she was still scared of dying. She had so much more life to live. There are so many other Australians, regardless of age, who deserve a better choice.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak about Ovarian Cancer Awareness Month. I thank the member for Shortland for moving this important motion, as she has done in previous years, and for her ongoing work in this area over a number of years. As the ACT's Ovarian Cancer Australia ambassador I am proud to be involved in raising awareness of ovarian cancer in Australia. February, as we have heard, is Ovarian Cancer Awareness Month. It is a time to promote awareness of the disease and to encourage Australians to raise funds for vital research.
We have heard from the member for Shortland and we have heard very moving and personal stories from the members for Lindsay and Ballarat about how ovarian cancer has touched their lives and affected the people they love and know. What is unusual is that there are probably not many of us whose lives have not been touched by ovarian cancer—through a friend, a workmate or a family member—yet awareness of the symptoms of ovarian cancer is so limited. Part of this exercise is to raise awareness about the symptoms of ovarian cancer, because currently there is no reliable early detection test or screening program. Each year more than 1,400 Australian women are diagnosed with ovarian cancer and around 100 will die from the disease. On average, three Australian women are diagnosed every day and one Australian woman dies every eight hours. These are shocking statistics, and that is why this month I will be joining all my colleagues to campaign in our electorates: to talk to women about the symptoms, to raise awareness of the symptoms and, importantly, to raise funds.
A major part of the problem with ovarian cancer is the late stage at which most women are diagnosed. The prognosis for women diagnosed with ovarian cancer is generally poor because they are diagnosed at a very advanced stage of the cancer. In fact, more than half these women will not live for five years after their diagnosis. But if ovarian cancer is found in the early stages up to 95 per cent of women will be alive and well after five years. Ovarian cancer often goes unchecked because the symptoms are some that many women face from time to time and are often symptoms of less serious and more common health problems. The key to early diagnosis, to being one of those 95 per cent of women who will be alive and well after five years, is to know the symptoms and to see your doctor if they arise. Almost all women are diagnosed with four symptoms: abdominal or pelvic pain, increased abdominal size or persistent abdominal bloating, needing to urinate often or regularly and urgently, and feeling full after eating a small amount. This February I ask everyone here in this chamber and in the parliament to learn these symptoms off by heart. Make sure your wives, mothers, sisters, girlfriends, daughters and friends know these symptoms too.
As well as learning and keeping watch for these symptoms there is one more thing that we can do to ensure early diagnosis—that is, to know and talk about our family history. A recent national study of 16,000 Australians, commissioned by Ovarian Cancer Australia, found that 44 per cent of Australians with a history of breast and/or ovarian cancer in their family have not spoken to their doctor about their family history. This is despite the fact that up to one in five occurrences of ovarian cancer are an inherited form of the disease, often attributed to the BRCA1 or the BRCA2 gene mutations that increase a woman's risk of developing ovarian cancer. It is imperative that Australian women know their family history of breast and/or ovarian cancer and discuss it with their GP this month. This will ensure that their GP can give an appropriate evaluation of their risk of inheriting ovarian cancer. If a GP is aware of a patient's family history of ovarian and breast cancer, together with the patient they can make more informed decisions about monitoring, genetic testing and preventive measures. This can enable a more timely diagnosis and a better chance of survival.
My message this February is to know the symptoms and to know your family history. Ovarian Cancer Australia relies on the generous support of the community to help fund research programs and support services for women diagnosed and their families. I commend their work and I ask all Australians to know those four symptoms.
I do hesitate to rise after the emotional contributions of the members for Ballarat, Shortland, Canberra, Dobell and Lindsay. They all told personal stories of a disease that has affected many people in our community. I rise also as a friend of one of my constituents, Paula Benson, who has been touched personally by this disease but who, since that time, has gone on to do extraordinary work, particularly with Ovarian Cancer Australia, to raise awareness of this disease.
This is an issue that, when I first heard about it, certainly, 10 years ago, I knew next to nothing about. The symptoms of this disease, and the importance of early awareness and early diagnosis, were things that were, frankly, not at all on my radar. But since hearing of this good advocacy work, since the Morning Teal and since the ovarian cancer awareness days, this work that has been done in our community has alerted me to it. It is a discussion that I have had with my family members and with people that I know. I have asked family members whether they know the common symptoms—whether they know that abdominal or pelvic pain, increased abdominal size or persistent abdominal bloating, needing to urinate often or urgently and difficulty eating or feeling full quickly can be signs of ovarian cancer. These are generalised symptoms. It is difficult from the outside to diagnose. So it is very important that women are supported in trusting their own bodies and in seeking medical diagnosis and support. Having these conversations in families and in our community and ensuring that there is a wide knowledge of these symptoms is a very important thing that we can all be doing in this House. I congratulate those members here who have been talking about this. I encourage members to get along to the Teal Ribbon Day events that are going on in the community and in this House. I commend the member for Shortland for bringing this motion to the House and the member for Dobell for seconding it.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this House places on record that:
(1) the Government is committed to improving education in regional, rural and remote Australia;
(2) this commitment stretches across all levels of education—primary, secondary and tertiary; and
(3) Members in regional electoral divisions have held higher education forums throughout regional Australia, to identify how to bridge the gap between metropolitan and regional higher education.
I am very pleased to speak on my private members' business motion highlighting the Turnbull government's work in country education. Firstly, I want to set the record straight regarding education funding. Last year, this government increased funding to Western Australian schools by a whopping 42 per cent over the next four years—which is some $619 million. So accusing this government of making cuts to schools is pure fantasy.
As a Liberal, I am very proud to be shining a light on improving education in the bush. I start by paying tribute to the other three speakers today from the government side: the member for O'Connor—who is here with me now—and also the member for Forrest and the member for Canning. All these speakers are from the Liberal Party and all proudly represent rural and regional Western Australian electorates. All four of us know the challenges of living outside of a city and are determined that a kid in the bush should have the same opportunities as their city cousins. In a bid to improve education in the very remote towns which I represent, this government is providing $22 million over four years to Good to Great Schools Australia to roll out the Flexible Literacy for Remote Primary Schools Program in 33 remote schools in Western Australia and the Northern Territory. This will target the disparity between remote and metropolitan schools, where 94 per cent of year 3 students meet the minimum standard in NAPLAN compared to 84 per cent in remote schools and, sadly, only 55.7 per cent in very remote schools—many of them in my electorate. As well as improving education in remote schools, the Turnbull government is improving education for Indigenous Australians. We have provided some $11.5 million over three years to 2016 through the Indigenous Boarding Initiative to support non-government schools with a significant number of Indigenous students from remote areas. Last year this initiative helped 26 schools and over 1,700 students throughout the country. This funding will help these schools to deliver improved services to students—such as a focus on school attendance and engagement—and to ensure that Indigenous students from remote areas have access to a universally good education, as they deserve.
Learning is a lifelong process, and I believe that tertiary education is an important chapter in every young man's and woman's education. In Durack I am very proud of the highly successful, innovative Geraldton Universities Centre model. This is something that I am working hard on to expand not only into the northern part of my electorate—in the Pilbara and in the Kimberley—but also more broadly into the Wheatbelt. Since its inception in 2001 GUC has grown from 20 students to more than a whopping 250 students this year, which I believe is a fantastic result. It has been so successful that the GUC model has been copied in Cooma, New South Wales, with the Cooma Universities Centre opening in 2013.
I am especially proud of this government's recent changes to youth allowance, which will enable more kids from the bush to go to university. Reforming this assets test has allowed thousands more young people to qualify for youth payments such as youth allowance, ABSTUDY, living allowance and the assistance for isolated children scheme. The regional higher education forums which were held around the country—we held one in Moora in my electorate last year—I am very pleased to say will also lead to improved outcomes for regional tertiary students. Our regional higher education forums were very proudly supported by representatives from the departments of education and social security, which are now charged with the responsibility of preparing a report on the findings from the forums. I am quite confident that the report will detail the barriers for country students and will also deliver real recommendations.
I have met with the education minister, Simon Birmingham, and also the social services minister, Christian Porter, along with fellow regional members on this side of the chamber, and we are pleased to say that we are now pushing hard for an increase in rent assistance for students from the bush. As I have said, the Turnbull government is focused on creating real solutions, delivering real action and improving education across all levels—primary, secondary and tertiary—for regional, remote and rural students. To students and their families in the bush my message is simple: we on this side of the chamber understand the issues you face. We are listening, and those of us on this side of the chamber are working to deliver quality education. I am very pleased to be here today to talk about what we are going to do both now and into the future.
I thank the member for Durack. Do we have a seconder for the motion?
I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
Whilst listening to the member for Durack and reading this motion I could not help but note that, whilst some of the programs listed in the member for Durack's speech are all well and good, she neglected to say that, before the last election, this government infamously promised no cuts to education. Then, since the election, we have seen $30 billion cut from education funding in Australia into the future. That will impact greatly on rural and regional schools because that funding was to go to needs based funding for schools, and one of the loadings of that needs based funding was for regional and rural students. I am surprised by the hypocrisy of the member for Durack and other members on this motion if they do not mention their budget cut of $30 billion to education that will disproportionately impact on those schools in rural and regional Australia.
It would also be remiss of me not to mention their failed higher education reforms. We heard from the member for Durack about the importance of tertiary education as well as primary and secondary education—and she is right about that. But the tertiary education reforms that have been put up by this government and knocked off several times by the Senate would again impact disproportionately on regional and rural universities. That is why they had to come up with a regional universities assistance package. That was recognition that their policies would hurt regional students and regional universities. They actually admitted it by putting up these additional funds—nowhere near enough, by the way, and we certainly still oppose those higher education reforms. All they have done since they have got into government, with their cuts to needs based funding and their higher education reforms, is make students in regional and rural Australia worse off, rather than better off, over the long term.
We have heard about how they are holding forums around the country, which is all well and good, as I said, but we already know that country, rural and regional kids start behind. They start off behind when they start primary school, because of the lack of early childhood education in rural and regional Australia. We already know that their NAPLAN scores in years 3, 5, 7 and 9 are behind metropolitan students. We already know that they are behind in their science and maths. We already know that the reading literacy is behind in country schools. We already know all this information. We also already know that students drop out at a higher rate.
A division having been called in the House of Representatives—
Sitting suspended from 12:21 to 12:52
As I was saying before the division, regarding retention rates, we already know that students drop out of rural and regional schools. We know that rural and regional students have a lower year 12 attainment. I particularly want to refer to my home state of Tasmania, where the figures are quite alarming. We are the only state or territory to actually go backwards in year 12 retention rates. In 2004, we had a retention rate of around 76 per cent and our year 12 completions are now down to 68 per cent, and they have particularly dropped in those regional, rural and remote schools. So it is a really serious issue to consider when we talk about the disadvantage of students in rural and regional schools. For members on the other side to come in here and talk about all the good things they are doing really shows their hypocrisy, given, as I said earlier, their cuts of $30 billion to needs based funding for schools. This money would absolutely make a difference to those students in those rural and regional schools because of the loading, as I highlighted before.
As I also highlighted before, Labor has a positive plan for funding to needs based schools. We have outlined how we would fund the additional money for those schools and we have also talked about the benefits of what that would mean for students in the schools. It would mean extra one-on-one time to meet the needs of every student. It would mean literacy and numeracy support for every student. It would mean higher teacher entry standards. It would mean more specialist teachers, particularly in rural and regional schools, and better professional development and support. It would mean new subject choices, better extra curricular activities, more support for students with disabilities and more access to specialist allied health services like speech and occupational therapy. Our plan for schools would actually make a massive difference to students in rural and regional areas right across the country. As I said, I am particularly concerned about students in my home state of Tasmania, where we have had students falling behind and, when it comes to retention rates, going backwards. It absolutely needs to be addressed. As the member for Durack outlined, the government is doing very little. They are talking about some of the funding programs, but they have cut $30 billion out of schools funding into the future, and they should be ashamed at the hypocrisy of this motion.
Today I rise to thank my colleague and dear friend the member for Durack for introducing this private member's bill acknowledging the commitment of this government towards improving educational opportunities in the bush. Together, our electorates of Durack and O'Connor make up most of rural, regional and remote Western Australia. Our constituency is as varied as the landscapes we traverse in our daily work. Our challenges range from improving Indigenous school attendance and academic outcomes to ensuring all remote students have optimal access to distance education programs. We want our country schools' sporting, arts and academic champions to have the opportunities to compete on a global stage and for our school leaders to have equitable access to higher education, relative to their urban counterparts.
So what is the government doing to maximise the opportunities for kids in electorates like O'Connor? In the Indigenous space, I have visited many remote communities who are proactively working towards greater school attendance. Many O'Connor schools participate in the Clontarf program, which I have been involved with, along with Wongutha CAPS, which is a non-government boarding school with two campuses in O'Connor—in Esperance and Coolgardie—providing outstanding learning opportunities for remote Aboriginal students. The government's Indigenous Boarding Initiative assists students like these who choose to board to maximise their academic, artistic, sporting or educational opportunities. Last year over 1,700 students from electorates just like mine benefited from this initiative. Many of the more remote schools in my electorate receive additional government assistance through funding weighted according to their accessibility, remoteness, Indigenous make-up and measurable social disadvantage.
Over the next four years, the government is providing $22 million to roll out the Flexible Literacy for Remote Primary Schools program, which will help remote schools target those students who are not meeting the NAPLAN minimum standards for reading. The government also understands the unique challenges facing parents in isolated areas and supports the Isolated Children's Parents' Association, who are not only advocates but also innovators, assisting parents educating their children via distance education. Meanwhile, the Assistance for Isolated Children Scheme financially supports children who, due to geographical disadvantage, isolation or special needs, need to live away from home to undertake their studies.
Probably the most significant change this government has instituted is the amendments to Youth Allowance eligibility announced in last year's budget. The removal of the Family Assets Test and Family Actual Means Test as of January this year will have far-reaching consequences for the families of O'Connor. I have long campaigned for changes to Youth Allowance to address the inequities in accessing higher education for our regional and remote students who face greater costs due to having to move away from home to study.
Whilst O'Connor is fortunate to have regional campuses of the University of WA in Albany and the School of Mines campus of Curtin University in Kalgoorlie, the vast majority of our school leavers must relocate to Perth to realise their tertiary education aspirations. Tragically, although regional students have more chance of being offered a university place than their city counterparts, less than 62 per cent accept their offer. Of these, over 16 per cent defer their enrolment—more than double that of city students. Others postpone their studies for 18 to 24 months to become eligible for Youth Allowance and then reapply for a university place. Last year, principals from schools in the Great Southern informed me that, although 80 per cent of the graduating class of 2014 qualified for university entrance, approximately 97 per cent were taking a gap year, largely for financial reasons.
I thank the current government and in particular the ministers for education and social services, who have listened to MPs from electorates like mine and heeded the outcomes of regional consultations from the recent Australia-wide higher education forums. I am grateful for the changes that have been initiated this year, which are benefiting families across my electorate. I thank them for the upcoming changes from 1 July that will see larger families benefit from the consideration of all dependent children when assessing Youth Allowance eligibility and taper rates. However, I implore them to continue to consider ways to make tertiary education more accessible for regional students. I note the member for Durack mentioned that additional rent allowance would be much appreciated. I believe the biggest remaining eligibility barrier for regional students applying for Youth Allowance is the Parental Income Test. These kids work hard to attain independent status by earning over a specified threshold only to be deemed ineligible due to their joint parental income exceeding the $150,000 threshold. I encourage the government to continue to try to even the playing field for regional, rural and remote students seeking tertiary qualifications, for they are our regional professionals of the future.
I would like to close by acknowledging some schools in my electorate that have achieved recent accolades that reflect the calibre of our regional education. Many of these are independent public schools, so I congratulate their boards and principals for the autonomy and innovation that they have embraced that is now paying dividends. Last year, Manjimup Senior High School was awarded the title of WA Secondary School of the Year, East Kalgoorlie Primary School principal Nicole Hanna was awarded the title of WA Primary School Leader of the Year and the Mount Barker Community College made the top 25 WA Certificate of Education schools and was ranked the top regional school in WA.
I want to take the opportunity to discuss this motion of private member's business today because, as has been outlined, government speakers here on this motion have pointed to a number of initiatives that the government has put in place that they want to highlight as they have had positive impacts. The member for Durack spoke about the youth allowance changes. The member for O'Connor did as well, and they spoke about things like the Clontarf program. But what they have ignored is that that is so massively outweighed by what has been done in slashing the overall funding bucket not only for schools but also for vocational education and training. I have yet to hear much discussion about that, so I want to have an opportunity today to talk about that directly.
First of all, in terms of where we are with schools funding, I note the member of Durack, in her opening address, referred to the $30 billion that was cut from schools as complete fantasy. It would be absolutely true to describe those people's reactions to the last two Abbott government budgets as a complete nightmare. There has been $30 billion cut from schools in this nation; it is in their own budget papers, it is not difficult to find and it is even put into a simple graph so that you can see exactly what those cuts are. You do not have to take our word for it. Go and chat to some of your colleagues, particularly those from the National Party, in some of the states and ask them what they think about those two budgets and the impacts on schools—I will come to that in a moment. Across Australia, what the government's walking away from their commitments means is that there are about 1.5 million country students and they are facing, over the next 10 years, a cut of $12.5 billion in funding for their schools. In my own Illawarra region, that is about $391 million cut from our schools over the next 10 years.
The result of that, of course, is that, as previous members have indicated, there is a gap, a disadvantage factor for students from regional, rural and remote Australia compared to their city-based colleagues. We should be focused on closing that by putting in place the sort of needs-based funding that David Gonski and his panel, after extensive investigation, recommended. Indeed, that is what everybody thought they were getting prior to the election. The signs were out all over the place: 'Vote for us. Vote Liberal. Vote National. You'll get exactly the same on Gonski funding as you would with Labor.' Unfortunately, as with so much campaigning by the then Abbott opposition, apparently we had to read the fine print, which said 'only for the first four years'. Of course, the vast bulk of funding rolled in in years 5 and 6. That was not advertised. I still cannot find the fine print on those posters myself, but maybe somebody else can point it out to me.
On top of that, of course, there are the across-the-board funding cuts that occurred in the budget. This is actually what the sizeable impact of this government's policies has been on regional and rural schooling. It is a sector of all of our states that can least afford it. As I said, I just want to point out that the now Leader of the National Party, before the election, said, in his own words, 'I believe without a shadow of a doubt we will continue to commit to Gonski past the first term.' You can find that in The Northern Daily Leader from September 2013. His New South Wales colleague Minister Piccoli was very unimpressed with his federal colleagues. In 2014, after the budget he said, in his own words:
Not only is this a breach of a commitment to NSW, it is breach of faith with all school students in the State … Schools in regional areas, as well as disadvantaged and Aboriginal students, will be the hardest hit.
That is in his own media release of June 2014.
Let's go to the vocational education sector. We have seen $2 billion in support cut out of this sector, yet it is in regional and remote Australia that the biggest percentage of students actually go into vocational education training. In regional and remote areas 8.5 per cent of students go into the VET sector. Since 2012-13, we have seen a 13 per cent decline in the number of students from inner and outer regional and remote areas enrolled in vocational training. This is a direct result of the slashing cuts that this government has been making, which ignores TAFE' capacity to deliver for regional and rural students. (Time expired)
I rise in the House today to acknowledge the member for Durack's motion, which I wholeheartedly support. The coalition is committed to education in regional, rural and remote Australia, including in my electorate of Canning. Some 15.1 per cent of people aged between 17 and 22 years in Canning attend higher education. However, this figure is growing.
This government, and this party, supports education from a deeply held philosophical position. I believe that there is an unwritten contract between the dead, the living and unborn. This contract is realised through the passing down of knowledge through education. Education provides answers to enduring questions. We cannot have an informed body politic without education, whether it be a primary, secondary or tertiary. Education progresses society as we see advances in science, medicine and technology. Most importantly, in Canning and in other rural and regional areas, education provides the opportunity for social mobility. Anyone who works hard can rise above their present situation in a country like Australia. The member for Dunkley—and we are mourning the fact that he will be departing from this parliament come the next election—said:
I represent that your postcode does not determine your potential. We all have the capacity to learn, to grow and to gain insight and wisdom to succeed in this country.
I support those words very much and I am glad to see that our government is encouraging higher education in rural and remote areas.
Under the Australian Education Act 2013, additional funding is provided to schools in rural and remote locations. That is why the government is providing $22 million over four years to Good to Great Schools Australia to rollout the Flexible Literacy for Remote Primary Schools program. This will support 37 remote schools in Western Australia and the Northern Territory.
Without adequate literacy rates the whole community suffers. Communication is at the heart of our political and economic system. Canning, as I mentioned, is a diverse electorate. We have agriculture, construction, manufacturing and light industry. My electorate of Canning has many tradesmen. In fact, it has the second highest number of tradesmen in the country. Within Canning itself, particularly in Mundijong and Byford, we enjoy a high rate of year 12 completion. Each of these areas reports that between 32 and 45 per cent of students complete their secondary studies. It has been very encouraging that Byford Secondary College, which was established as recently as 2014 under the coalition government, has had its first intake of 180 new year 8 students who are eager to learn. Education is progressing well under this government in Canning.
I should also note that, in 2015, Waroona District High School had an average attendance rate of 89.2 per cent—and this is in an area where, compared to city areas such as the electorates of Perth and Curtin to our north, high school students traditionally do not go on to complete year 12. Of course, there is always room for improvement. In Mandurah, only 19 to 25 per cent of all students who begin their secondary education will complete year 12. The average weekly household income around the Mandurah region ranges from $699 to $942.
Along with 20 per cent youth unemployment, all of this contributes to the reasons why education is of vital importance to our future in Canning. The government is aware that students from remote and regional areas face various barriers to higher education. That is why I applaud the opportunities that this government is giving through existing initiatives such as the regional Student Start-up Scholarships for eligible regional students in higher education. These important scholarships assist with difficult moves away from homes in Canning, Durack, and beyond, for those students wishing to attend university. Canning is an electorate brimming with potential. Education is a key way to tap into that and to take us further into the 21st century. The results that we are seeing in our secondary and higher education in Canning are a fine example of how the coalition government cares deeply about regional education.
I am very pleased to be speaking on this private member's motion, as providing educational opportunities to students living in our regions is vitally important. But the fact is that the Turnbull Liberal-National government has failed to properly invest in education, and it has failed to ensure that students—particularly our regional students—are properly trained and ready for the jobs of the future. In regional areas, it is the National Party that has failed the students of country areas. As I often say, 'National Party choices hurt,' and their plans to cut education funding have really hurt regional, rural and remote areas.
We know that education can make a real difference and bring real change to an individual's life. It can open the door to jobs and opportunities and, for our country, it builds prosperity and a secure economy. When we look to all levels of education—whether it is schools, universities or TAFEs—this government has repeatedly cut funding and repeatedly failed those students. In contrast to this, Labor believes in properly investing in our education system. In terms of the cuts to education, as I say, it will be particularly hard for those regional, rural and remote students. Make no mistake about it, the government's plans for $100,000 university degrees mean that young people from the country just will not be able to go to university. I have families tell me this all the time.
The government's secret plans to take over vocational education will be a disaster for TAFE. This comes on top of their cuts of almost $2.5 billion from skills and training, including $1 billion from apprenticeship programs. When it comes to schools, this government just has one policy—that is, to rip $30 billion out of funding for our schools—$30 billion out of our classrooms. I talked about National Party choices hurting; well, the $30 billion really hurts. It especially hurts in country areas. The government's $30 billion cuts to all Australian schools completely destroys the needs-based funding model. It totally destroys it. Let us have another look at some of those government cuts and what they actually mean. Those cuts mean an average cut of $3.2 million per school—the same as sacking one in seven teachers. They mean less individual support. They mean fewer subject choices. They mean less support for students with disabilities. They mean that literacy and numeracy programs are cut. And they mean less training and support for our teachers.
Let us just stop for a minute and look back to the last election, when we had all of those Liberal and National Party candidates running around promising everyone, 'no cuts to education'. They all said it. And they said, 'We have got an "absolute unity ticket" when it comes to school funding.' That was their pre-election promise. And in my area—all up and down the New South Wales North Coast; in all those seats—all those National Party candidates were saying exactly that. They said, 'No cuts to education.' This really shows they cannot be trusted, because what happened when they got into government? As soon as they got in, that is exactly what they did—they cut all of that funding to education. So it turned out to be a broken promise—just another lie; just something they said in the lead-up to the election. To see how harsh the cuts are, I will give an example from my electorate that shows how severe the impact on my schools will be. The Liberal-National government's school cuts will rip $176 million out of the Richmond electorate over the next 10 years. This just means those kids will not get the opportunities they deserve.
Education is not just a policy about equity and fairness. It is also a plan for economic growth. Only Labor has a plan to properly invest in education. Labor's Your Child. Our Future plan represents the most significant improvement in schools in Australia for two generations. We believe every child should have the same chance at succeeding in school, no matter what their background, no matter where they live—even if it is in rural, remote or regional Australia. Your Child. Our Future means the Gonski funding and reforms will be delivered on time and in full. This reverses the very harsh Turnbull government cuts. Our plan will see an additional investment in our education system of $4.5 billion for years five and six of the Gonski reforms, and will provide more than $37 billion over the decade. This investment will see every child in every school funded on the basis of need, and it will be a permanent improvement to our schools system. It will be a massive benefit to regional schools. Specifically, the plan ensures a very strong focus on every single child's needs, much more attention for individual students, better trained teachers, more targeted resources, better equipped classrooms and more support for students with special learning needs—all very important needs-based funding and, most importantly, for those kids in rural, remote and regional areas.
When I look to my electorate of Richmond, this means that every student in every school will get the support they need to reach their full potential under our plan. It is so important that those children can do that, because they are being denied that at the moment with the Turnbull Liberal-National government's harsh cuts. The government are making it harder for kids from the country to access education, whether it is at primary school, secondary school, TAFE or university. When it comes to regional Australia, when it comes to remote Australia and when it comes to rural Australia, only Labor will invest in schools. In contrast, the Turnbull Liberal-National government will just keep cutting. At every chance they get they will cut education funding.
Since being elected in 2007 I have waged a long battle to get a fair go for regional students in the education system in this country. That was when Labor made deliberate changes to youth allowance that discriminated against rural and regional students. I commend the member for Durack for this motion.
It was my own motion on 28 October 2010 that called on the then Labor government to reverse their decision to discriminate against regional students in the changes they had made to youth allowance. That motion was the first defeat on the floor of the House for an incumbent government for a long, long time and represented what I think is a low point for Labor in power. I had to meet those students and families who had no choice but to change their dreams, hopes and goals as a result of Labor's discrimination. Labor had, as they are prone to do, disadvantaged regional Australian families and students to divert funds into outer metropolitan seats—seats they thought were Labor strongholds and in which they were desperate to find an electoral advantage. As a direct result, over and over I was approached by families, young people and their parents—families who just could not afford to send their children to tertiary education and young people who had their education dreams dashed in that one effort by Labor.
I heard about the parents—and this really hurt me—who had to decide which one of their children they could afford to send to university. The parents said, 'Well, because I don't have access to youth allowance'—that is what Labor did, took away their access—'I actually have to choose which one of my children can go to university.'
We know that Australia's geography and demography pose significant challenges for regional families, especially as their young people move beyond the education experience offered by very good country schools to secondary or tertiary education in larger cities. Many regional students have absolutely no choice but to relocate. It is not that they choose to relocate; in many senses they have no choice if they want to pursue their particular course. They and their families face significantly increased costs of living away from home.
Students from regional areas are less likely to finish year 12 than their metropolitan counterparts and are significantly underrepresented in tertiary education. A far greater percentage of metropolitan students go on to tertiary education compared to our students from regional areas—as the member for Durack knows well. Evidence has shown that the financial barrier of the cost of relocation often prevents more regional students from undertaking tertiary studies. It also affects their aspirations. If they believe their families cannot afford to send them, these young people just do not aspire. They make a conscious decision not to aspire to higher education because they know their family cannot afford it and they know they are not going to put their family under that level of pressure.
Of course, 14.9 per cent of students in Western Australia whose homes are outside the capital city defer their studies. Often that is simply so that they can earn some money to be able to study at university. I have spoken on and represented this issue frequently in this place. It is one of the core issues for us as rural and regional members of parliament. We have taken a very direct and active role in this issue. There are few issues that impact on students in our electorates more than this does, and we continue to work on this. Yes, on 1 January we made changes to the assets test for youth allowance, but this does not apply to non-independent young people—and 'non-independent' is really an odd way of saying 'dependent'. Dependent youth allowance recipients will no longer be assets tested. Removing the family assets test for dependent youth allowance will allow 4,100 additional dependent youth allowance claimants to qualify for the first time, accessing average annual payments of more than $7,000 a year. The change means that farming families will not have farm assets counted towards the means test for their dependent children claiming youth allowance. It is an important reform and a step in the right direction, but it is for non-independent youth allowance. The changes also impact on the income test component of youth allowance for a section of the community.
I will continue in my battle to provide a more level playing field for rural and regional students and their families, as will the member for Durack and my colleagues.
I have to say that this is quite hypocritical of government MPs to bring forward this motion and during the debate cry out, 'Shame!' when it is this government that has cut billions from our higher education sector, including to universities based in my electorate like the Bendigo La Trobe University campus. It was this government that wanted to deregulate universities, seeing $100,000 degrees—and, in some cases, $200,000 degrees—introduced into higher education.
In Bendigo we are incredibly proud of our rural school of health which was funded by the former Labor government. That particular campus offers courses like dentistry, courses like physio and courses which regional students are taking up, and what we have seen from early graduation figures is that when you train country kids in a regional setting they stay in the regions. The suggestion from the government that all regional students need to go to the city for their higher education is a furphy, and it also means they are less likely to move back to the regions to work. The figures we are seeing from La Trobe speak volumes to the credibility of campuses like La Trobe in Bendigo and also James Cook University in Townsville—that when you train regional students in the regional communities they stay and work in the regions. Yet what we have seen from this government is attack after attack on our regional schools and our regional higher education facilities.
The most recent attack to La Trobe happened right before Christmas, when the university received a letter from this government cutting the funding to their clinical placements—meaning that they would have to take funds from other areas of their budget to fund clinical placement. If this government were serious about supporting regional students it would not have cut the funding from regional placements, from students studying at a regional university who need to do placements to be able to graduate and qualify. This is the nature of this government.
Let's now also talk about their funding cuts to primary and secondary schools, which have cost the schools in my electorate $200 million over 10 years. Regional schools would have been the biggest beneficiaries under the Gonski reforms, yet this government have turned their backs on these regional schools by cutting their fifth and sixth year of Gonski funding. Regional schools, small schools, remote schools, schools with a high Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders cohort, schools that have a higher number of students with a disability—these are features of so many of our regional schools, yet this government have cut the critical loading. This government have cut the years that matter in the Gonski reforms. They have cut $3.2 million from every school—$1,000 less per student—in support, which is the equivalent of sacking seven teachers per school.
What has happened because of this government's cuts is that schools in my electorate of Bendigo are saying, 'We have the choice between employing a part-time teacher aide or SSO and watering the oval.' Watering the oval or employing a teacher aide! So what does the school do? Of course, they let the oval go. The kids do not have a place to play while the school has funded the teacher aide because they said, 'It's critical that our students get the support in the prep years and year 1 so that they can read properly.'
These are the decisions that schools are being forced to make because this government has cut funding from their budgets. We know from the results coming out of NAPLAN that our regional schools are doing it tougher. It is no secret in our community that, at the moment, postcode determines your education outcome. That is why, if this government is serious about supporting regional kids, it will put the money back into schools so that all kids, regardless of postcode, will get a quality education and have opportunities.
I was really proud to talk to a couple of dentistry students on the weekend—local students that have finished their senior secondary and are going onto dentistry and pharmacy at La Trobe. They have been through our public school education system, they have a scholarship from Bendigo La Trobe and they are about to start their course. They are examples of what great opportunities we can have in the regions with the right government support and investment.
This government has dropped the ball. It does not understand what it means to fund education and higher education in the bush, and putting forward this motion that we have seen today is nothing more than window dressing. It is them trying to deny the fact that they have cut so much money from our regional schools and our universities.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this House:
(1) expresses deep condolences for the suffering and loss of life, homes and businesses in the recent Yarloop fires, and expresses our gratitude to career and volunteer firefighters who worked courageously to contain the fires;
(2) notes the quality capabilities and assets of the Australian Defence Force (ADF) in Western Australia and the availability of those to provide Defence Aid to the Civilian Community (DACC) at the request of state and territory governments in the event of emergency situations;
(3) acknowledges that the Australian Government and the ADF have established protocols under COMDISPLAN as to how DACC can be utilised in emergency situations;
(4) calls on the Minister for Justice to engage the Western Australian Government to ensure it is aware of the capabilities and assets of the ADF in Western Australia to assist with serious bushfire events, as these were not utilised in either the recent Yarloop/Harvey fires, nor the Esperance fires in late 2015; and
(5) notes that:
(a) climate change has resulted in an increased likelihood of catastrophic bushfires in Western Australia, as bushfires increase in number, burn for longer and affect larger areas of land;
(b) the Climate Council estimates that by 2030, the number of professional firefighters in Western Australia will need to more than double to meet the increasing risk of bushfires; and
(c) there will be a greater role for the Australian Government and the Department of Defence in dealing with these issues across Australia.
We have previously spoken here on the tragic losses sustained in the Yarloop fires and of our gratitude to all of those that were involved in containing these terrible fires and dealing with the sequelae of them. Today I want to focus, in our brief time, on what we need to do for the future. The Climate Council's 2015 report, The heat is on: climate change, extreme heat and bushfires in WA, found that the concept of a normal bushfire season is rapidly changing as bushfires increase in number, burn for longer and affect larger areas of land. They found that, by 2030, the number of professional firefighters in WA will need to more than double to cater for this increasing risk and intensity.
We have to question how WA would cope if there was a Yarloop, an Esperance and a Margaret River fire burning at the same time. We need to ensure that we are fully utilising all available resources to fight these fires. In particular, I want to ask whether or not we are utilising the skills and the physical assets of the Defence Reserves based in WA. This question has been raised with me on frequent occasions by reservists, career service personnel and fire victims. There is a much deeper engagement needed in WA on these important capabilities.
I know that the Australian Defence Force has established protocols under the COMDISPLAN as to how Defence aid to civilian communities can be utilised in emergency situations at the request of the state and territory governments. Other states do not appear to have any reluctance to ask for such assistance—Queensland requested assistance on five occasions between 2011 and 2013 for these category 3 tasks, which is where there is no direct threat to human life. The ADF was heavily involved in the recovery work following the Victorian Black Saturday bushfires in 2009—indeed, more than 600 personnel were deployed in Operation Vic Fire Assist, including reservists from WA who remember this service with great pride.
One of the defining images of the Yarloop fires was of firefighters passed out on the ground from sheer exhaustion. In a separate fire in the south-west just a couple of weeks later, the local state MP had to call 000 to beg for food for the exhausted volunteer firefighters, who had returned from 12-hour shifts to find no food or support. I understand that a senior Defence member was part of the state operations centre team responding to the Yarloop fires, but this does not seem to have translated into assistance on the ground, even though there was a multitude of ways in which Defence could have helped. Defence has a wide range of assets in WA that could be utilised during bushfires. We have earthmoving equipment such as tractors and excavators that could be used to establish firebreaks and water tankers that could be used as a refill point, ending the need for a two-hour round trip to refill trucks. We have heavy-duty trucks that could be used to move personnel and equipment through the fire zone. There is an Army depot in Bunbury, which is less than an hour from the fire zone, with a range of assets that could have been utilised.
We are not arguing that Defence personnel should be out there holding the hoses, but they could provide the logistical support needed to free up the firefighters' time. Reservists could be made available on four hours notice. They have had years of training in this work and they could have been deployed to assist, as they have been deployed to assist over in the East. Defence could also be used to help mop up, get roads cleared and get critical infrastructure back on track. We saw the Karnet Prison Farm inmates being given an opportunity to help out in these logistics. We say, 'Let our Army reservists do the same.' I ask that our justice minister engage the Western Australian government to ensure that it is well aware of the capabilities of the Australian Defence Force to assist in these events to ensure that, next time, when we see a fire of this scale, we will utilise all available capacity. Tragically, we know that there will be a next time. (Time expired)
Is there a seconder for this motion?
I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
I thank the member for Canning. The practical management of major fires, not just in Western Australia but right around Australia, is extremely challenging. What happens in an incident control centre during this sort of incident is a response based around real time and constant change. I saw this, given that a large proportion the fires referred to, including the very devastating fires in Waroona, Yarloop and the Shire of Harvey, were, in fact, in my electorate of Forrest. We were at our family farm and watched the fires as they evolved, and constant change was the one thing that we could certainly rely on. Depending on the wind and the weather conditions, there was constant change in the fires.
Consider who in Western Australia manages fires. In actual firefighting, we have the Department of Parks and Wildlife and the Department of Fire and Emergency Services. We also have a whole group of wonderful volunteer brigades and, of course, the people on the ground who are often in that first line: our farmers and locals. In a fire, you always see a whole raft of local farmers, with their fire units on the back of their utes, doing everything they can to deal with the fires, not only those on their own property but also those on their neighbours' properties and elsewhere. We saw significant aerial support. The water bombers and helicopters on one of those days were just like bees over my home, with the number of flights they were doing. I saw my local fire brigades of Yarloop, Cookernup, Harvey, Uduc and the Harvey Hills doing extraordinary things. I have referred to them previously as ordinary people who do extraordinary things. In Western Australia, the government has set up an inquiry to be conducted by the former head of the Country Fire Authority Victoria and the South Australian Country Fire Service, Mr Euan Ferguson, with powers under section 24 of the Public Sector Management Act 1994. It will have similar powers to a royal commission. These are powers to subpoena people to attend and require them to produce documents and give evidence under oath. In this particular inquiry, the terms of reference are to investigate:
(a) The effectiveness of pre-incident bushfire prevention and mitigation activities;
(b) The effectiveness of emergency management plans and procedures;
(c) The effectiveness of the suppression strategies and tactics used during the fire;
(d) The effectiveness of incident management, including coordination of agencies, volunteer fire and emergency services and interstate assistance;
(e) Protection of essential services infrastructure and access to essential services (power, transport, water, communication) by emergency services organisations and the community;
(f) The effectiveness of public messaging including the adequacy and timeliness of emergency warnings issued to residents and visitors;
(g) Effectiveness of assistance to and management of those affected by the fire:
(i) Evacuation procedures
(ii) Communications with the community over the course of the fire
(iii) Provision of welfare support
(iv) Management of people seeking to return to their properties
(h) Livestock and companion animal management and welfare issues.
I have been on the ground talking with so many of my constituents—all of the various levels of emergency management, the local volunteers, each of the groups involved in fighting this fire, and even the local farmers and residents. I would encourage everyone who has experiences and recommendations to offer in relation to those terms of reference to put in a simple submission to this process. Their experiences and what they saw and heard will be a critical part of the findings and of management of future emergencies such as this one.
Debate adjourned.
Sitting suspended from 13:37 to 15:59
I wish to pay tribute to the life of Lockyer Valley mayor Steve Jones, who sadly passed away at 7 pm last Friday. Steve suffered a very severe brain bleed and, regrettably, passed into glory after a life of commitment to the people of the Lockyer Valley Regional Council. Personally, on behalf of my family and the people of Blair, I pay my sincere condolences to his wife, Ann, who I know; his sons James, Dale and Brandon and their partners; and his granddaughter Avery.
I first got to know Steve in 2004 when I ran for the seat of Blair. From the creation of the seat of Blair in 1998 until 2010, Lockyer Valley was in Blair. Thereafter, Steve almost adopted me as his surrogate Labor shadow for the area. I note the member for Wright in the chamber. I am sure he will pay tribute to Steve as well.
Steve was first elected as a councillor on the old Gatton Shire Council in 1997. He served as mayor in the inaugural Lockyer Valley council in 2008. He will always be remembered for his great commitment to the people of Lockyer Valley in the floods in 2010, when I took Simon Crean to visit the area, for the relocation of Grantham after the devastation of the floods in 2011 and for the recovery of the eastern part of the Lockyer Valley in 2013. Vale Steve: you served your community very, very well.
I appreciate the comments from the member for Blair. I will make my contribution to the good mayor in another part of the proceedings so that I am afforded more time to give him the honour he deserves as a mayor.
Today, I would like to raise the importance of the NBN for my area. In particular, I am pleased to announce that the residents of Flagstone, Cedar Creek, Cedar Vale, Mundoolun, Jimboomba and South Maclean are on the doorstep of accessing the National Broadband Network, with construction of the fixed line network now well and truly underway.
On Friday, I visited a site in Flagstone where some very exciting and long-awaited new NBN infrastructure was being installed. On the day, I met with our new local chamber of commerce president, Kerry Menck, who understands how badly the NBN is needed by residents and local business owners. At the moment, many local businesses are relying on very expensive and often unreliable wireless internet or on a very congested satellite service. The improvement to fixed line services from the NBN will mean a world of difference to these residents. The rollout of the NBN in Flagstone and surrounding regions is one of the first locations for the new accelerated rollout plan for my electorate. By the end of 2018, up to 75 per cent of the electorate will have fast, reliable fixed line or wireless services under the NBN. This is great news for locals, especially when you consider the NBN was not planned for Wright until 2020. I would like to acknowledge Trevina Schwarz, a local councillor, who was present for the rollout.
I rise to speak about a very important morning tea that will be held on Wednesday in my electorate. It is being held to celebrate one year since the Wedgetail Retreat at Dulguigan was opened. The retreat is situated just near the town of Murwillumbah.
The Wedgetail Retreat is a unique place. It is the state's only adult end-of-life hospice. It is going to have a gathering to celebrate its first birthday. The anniversary will be marked by a fundraising morning tea that will be hosted by Tweed Palliative Support.
Tweed Palliative Support and the op shop it runs has gathered much community support over the past 18 years for its in-home volunteers, its palliative care equipment and the hospital beds it provides. Its president, Meredith Dennis, has done an outstanding job in her role in providing such remarkable support: 200 in-home volunteers, 20 hospital beds, 40 wheelchairs, free transfers for radiotherapy patients, and it reaches approximately 1,200 people a year. I would like to pay credit to all its volunteers, who make a difference in the lives of so many people whilst they are receiving palliative care and also those at the Wedgetail Retreat. It is truly a unique establishment run by very caring people. The hospice was opened a year ago with great support from the community. It does not receive any government funding, so I encourage people to be involved with this very important fundraising morning tea on Wednesday.
Late on Saturday afternoon I was driving in Girrahween, a suburb of Cowan, on Hainsworth Avenue, when I was turned around by the police. The raid had been blocked following the assault and grievous bodily harm of a teenager of Sudanese heritage, who lies in intensive care with terrible head injuries—17-year-old Kuol Akut may not survive his injuries. It has been reported that a birthday party for a 16-year-old got out of control and a brawl erupted between Sudanese and Aboriginal youths.
This is not the first incident of this kind in or around the suburb of Girrahween. In fact, a local resident was quoted in the newspaper on Sunday as saying:
This is Girrawheen. You've got to have a blade or a machete or a bat.
This is a tragedy not only for Kuol Akut's family but also for the good people of Girrawheen—the people who feel they have to have weapons in order to defend themselves: not to go out onto the street to attack, but to defend themselves and their children if someone was to come into their homes and offer violence.
The police do an outstanding job, and I encourage witnesses to this crime, and the other crimes that occurred on Saturday night, to come forth in order for those responsible to be brought to justice. But we do need to see this event in the correct light: this is a large number of people bringing their prejudices to a street to create trouble. This was a time when arrogance and violent character traits were released with a reckless disregard for the safety of the good people of Girrawheen. There can be no excuses for such criminality. This was not the fault of the police, the state government, the City of Wanneroo or anyone else. Perhaps this is about a lack of leadership or a lack of parenting; however, above all, it is definitely about criminal behaviour by people who deliberately chose to act in the way they did. The blame stops there. (Time expired)
As parliament drew to a close last year, Footscray West Primary School celebrated its centenary. For months the staff planned a range of events to celebrate its long history. The events included an art exhibition and an evening party hosted by actor, author and former school parent William McInnes. It is a place with a real sense of community, and the celebrations brought generations of families back to the school grounds. Past students, some of whom graduated decades ago, came to share their stories and old photographs of their time in primary school. Those photographs have now been put up on the school's website for all to enjoy. There was even a Facebook page set up for past students who could not attend the celebrations to post their favourite stories of primary school, from Easter hat parades to billy cart races and watermelon days in the summer. Many of these past students have also seen their children and grandchildren graduate from Footscray West Primary School. It is an august institution, one that has even educated one of my predecessors in this place, the former member for Gellibrand the Hon. Ralph Willis.
It is a place I love visiting. Just last week, Footscray West Primary School welcomed the Leader of the Opposition, Bill Shorten, Labor's shadow minister for education, Kate Ellis, and me to talk about Labor's 'Your Child. Our Future' policy. It is a policy that will enable schools like Footscray West primary to continue to deliver quality education to people in Melbourne's west for many years to come. It was a pleasure not only to be welcomed by the school staff but also by the fantastic kids, who wanted to impress us and show off their school. Congratulations Footscray West Primary School on your centenary, and I look forward to watching the school's work for many years to come.
Last week Infrastructure Australia released the Australian infrastructure plan and priority list. The priority list ranked the Coffs Harbour Bypass as a national priority. The proposed $1 billion project is a vital missing link in the eastern Australian transport corridor, and I have made it clear to the new infrastructure and transport minister, Darren Chester, that this project remains top of mind for Coffs Harbour businesses, community and local residents.
I have invited Minister Chester to the Cowper electorate to personally inspect the proposed route and witness firsthand the traffic problems caused by the Pacific Highway splitting Coffs Harbour CBD. When motorists travelling on the duplicated Pacific Highway arrive at Coffs Harbour, they are confronted by a large roundabout, 12 sets of traffic lights and thousands of local cross-city traffic movements. Coffs Harbour cannot be the only city not bypassed when the Pacific Highway upgrade is finished. The Coffs Harbour Bypass will create jobs for locals and inject millions of dollars into the local economy. The preferred route has been locked in, significant numbers of properties acquired and concept plans have been developed. The bypass will form an important part of the local road infrastructure system, improving traffic flow in the city and providing safer motoring for local drivers. The Pacific Highway upgrade is powering ahead, and it is important that the Coffs Harbour Bypass project starts as soon as possible to get the trucks out of the main street of Coffs Harbour.
Yesterday I attended the 20th anniversary celebration of the Toukley branch of the National Servicemen's Association. It was the first branch formed on the Central Coast, and I was privileged to attend the inaugural meeting 20 years ago. Some of the members who were at the first meeting were present yesterday. As a group, they have provided support to each other. They have also raised a considerable amount of funds for the community and donated it to many groups on the Central Coast—they have given money to cancer groups, they have given money to support families in need—and we heard about all the work that they have done for the community that they are a part of.
There was national service in Australia between 1951 and 1972, and a predominant number of people did national service in the 1950s. These young men joined the Army not because they chose to but because their number came out of a ballot. These men and their families joined together to remember where they had been and what they had done, and they continue to support each other and provide direct assistance to their community.
I am fundamentally opposed to the lockout laws just introduced in Queensland. The principal argument I propose is that 99.99 per cent of people who go out want to have a few drinks, have a great time and be with their friends. We have a very small percentage of people who think it is fun to go out looking for a fight, to hurt, to maim. We should be directing our attention to these grubs and not the vast majority of people looking to have a good time. Target the grubs, not the clubs. The police need to be backed up when arresting these people. Make the penalty count. The first offence should not be, as it is at the moment, a 10-day ban from the precinct; it should be a 12-month ban from all licensed premises across the entire state. That includes restaurants, bottle shops and the like. Make the punishment hurt the grub who wants to fight. That changes their basic behaviour; it gives them consequences. Do not offer them the cloak of shared responsibility by proffering that all young people who go out are drunken brawlers, because it is simply not true.
In the 1980s the Queensland government targeted drink drivers. They increased the penalty; they increased the number of suspensions; they did all the hard work. What we have to do now is follow that example, because we do not drink drive anymore, and the people who do are fools for it. We have to make sure that the people who are creating this problem are the ones who are paying for the problem, not the people who are enjoying themselves.
The Global Fund, a partnership between government, civil society and the private sector, works to accelerate the end of AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria as epidemics. It raises and invests nearly $4 billion per annum into programs run by local experts in more than 100 countries and communities most in need. The Global Fund's cumulative results as of the end of 2015 show the significant impact the initiative has had in supporting programs that aim to end HIV, TB and malaria as epidemics and strengthen health systems.
Since the partnership's creation in 2002, Global Fund grants have assisted in providing antiretroviral treatment for 8.6 million people currently living with HIV, the detection and treatment of 15 million TB cases, the purchase and distribution of 600 million mosquito nets, the distribution of 5.2 billion condoms, and 16 million training sessions for health workers. Since 2002 the program is reported to have saved more than 17 million lives, with more than two million lives saved each year. By the end of this year the fund will have assisted countries in saving 22 million lives, if current trends hold.
Funding contributions are organised into three-year replenishment cycles. The next, to be held mid this year, seeks to raise US$13 billion to end HIV, TB and malaria as epidemics by 2030. I urge the Australian government to make a significant contribution at the replenishment conference. The global benefits of this alliance are proven.
Finally, I wish to recognise and pay tribute to Svend Robinson for his elegant and effective advocacy for the Global Fund. I also want to acknowledge the wonderful work of RESULTS Australia.
Last Wednesday the Minister for Tourism and International Education, Senator Richard Colbeck, paid a flying visit to the Great Southern area of my electorate of O'Connor. We covered some serious ground visiting some of the successful projects funded through the recent Tourism Demand Driver Infrastructure program. The Albany mayor, Dennis Wellington, briefed the minister on plans to use their $250,000 grant to relocate the visitor centre to the town square in the heart of the city.
Out at the old whaling station, the general manager of Discovery Bay Tourism Experience, Philip Cox, hosted the minister and 50 local tour operators at a wonderful lunch on the old Cheynes IV whale-chasing vessel overlooking picturesque Frenchman Bay. Today, Discovery Bay houses a museum relating Albany's whaling history, botanical gardens and a wildlife park. Popular with locals and tourists from all over Australia and overseas, it is one of the many must-see attractions on the south coast.
In Denmark we visited the trail head of the newly funded Wilderness Ocean Walk, which showcases spectacular coastal scenery and will be an exciting addition to the iconic 1,000-kilometre Bibbulmun walk and Munda Biddi bike trail.
In Mount Barker, the Rotary Club met the minister atop Mount Barker's Wireless Hill to show him the breathtaking vista from the lookout they had built with their own funds. The 360-degree panorama takes in the Stirling Range and Porongurup national parks, the surrounding farmland and vineyards. Plans include a picnic area, walk trails and Indigenous heritage signage, putting Mount Barker on the map for the Great Southern tourist visitation.
I thank the minister for taking the time to visit some of the most scenic and exciting tourist destinations in O'Connor.
Australia has voluntarily assumed humanitarian obligations to those fleeing persecution. Labor's policy aims to help more people and to get them here safely to settle in Australia. Indefinite detention is no part of Labor's policy—nor is holding people in conditions that are inadequate, unsafe or unfit.
I do not want to reopen the route from Java to Christmas Island, and nor do I want to see preventable deaths. I also do not believe you should respond to 1,200 deaths by ruining 1,600 lives.
Offshore processing can be done quickly, safely and humanely, with people being resettled to start new lives. But the Turnbull government has comprehensively failed on each of those measures. You only have to read the Moss review or last year's Senate inquiry report to know that.
Recently, in my electorate, outside the Lady Cilento Children's Hospital, hundreds of people gathered to say that Baby Asha should not be returned to Nauru. I have visited the gathering twice. Baby Asha's care must be in accordance with the treating doctors' advice.
I thank the medical, administrative and support staff at the LCCH for their work in seeking to protect Baby Asha. I also thank Ros McLennan and Ged Kearney, along with the Queensland union movement. The passion that those people bring to this situation is critical and has been critical, and I congratulate them.
All refugees and asylum seekers under Australia's direct and indirect care, both in Australia and offshore, need to be treated with dignity and respect.
Today I would like to talk about one of the most important issues in my electorate: black spots on our roads. Last year the coalition government delivered $1.7 million to upgrade two notorious black spots at Holland Park West. The intersections at Gaza Road and Messines Ridge Road, and Messines Ridge Road and the south-east arterial road ramp, have recorded high crash rates in recent years. Now, thanks to the federal Black Spot Program, work to improve traffic signals at these T-junctions is expected to be completed soon. This will help reduce crashes and save lives. Further black spot funding will be allocated across Australia this year as part of the coalition's long-term commitment to improving safety on our roads.
I have been pleased to see my council colleagues advocating at a local level for black spot fixes in our area. In particular, Brisbane's Deputy Mayor and Councillor for Chandler Ward, Adrian Schrinner, has been a strong voice for upgrading a notorious black spot in Ransome. He has shared with me the need to install channelized right-turn lanes at the Rickertt Road and Chelsea Road T-junction, which would improve safety for right-turning vehicles out of Chelsea Road. Councillor Schrinner is also fighting for additional safety features at this intersection. I thank him for his good work.
I look forward to delivering more black spot funding for Bonner and to working with Brisbane City Council to identify and fix other black spots on our roads.
It was a privilege for me last week to host a forum attended by a diverse community of Melburnians to talk about the issues facing Muslim Australians. I never feel more welcomed than I do when spending time with Muslim constituents in Melbourne. Yet last week we heard from Muslim Australian leaders—like Bayram Aktepe of the Islamic Council of Victoria—that many people in the community are feeling that they, their friends and their families are being targeted and treated unfairly by police, anti-terror legislation and also by other institutions.
I was moved to hear lawyer Samira Zeno say that, as a law-abiding Australian citizen, she knows that so-called 'terror' laws should mean nothing to her—yet they do. Lawyer Rob Stary told us of his clients' experience with the double standards that exist when it comes to enforcing anti-terror legislation.
I was particularly pleased to welcome to Melbourne Dr Mehreen Faruqi, Greens MLC in New South Wales and the first female Muslim MP elected in Australia. She is an incredible and talented parliamentarian, yet even she recently faced racial profiling when travelling abroad.
Sadly, reports of Islamophobic incidents continue to come in. This government, with the full support of the opposition, has spent close to a billion dollars on security and police, in the name of fighting terrorism. But where is the community approach? Where is the leadership to say that equality is for everyone, and that we must not create laws that leave Muslim Australians feeling targeted? Where is the understanding that, when a young person is singled out and told that the people they know must pass tests to prove they are not a security problem, of course they will feel excluded and alienated. This conversation is being led by Australia's Muslim community and the government must listen. (Time expired)
Following the downsizing of Caterpillar in Burnie beginning last year, the Turnbull Liberal government has responded with a $2.3 million structural adjustment package. A key aspect of that package is a Jobs Fair to give those workers from Caterpillar—and also workers impacted down the supply chain—an opportunity to network and establish connections with employers, and to discover new job opportunities. It will be held at the Burnie Arts and Function Centre on Tuesday 22 March.
There is no doubt that the closure of the Caterpillar underground mining and manufacturing plant in Burnie will continue to have a significant effect on the local economy. However, I believe that advanced manufacturing has a strong and prosperous future on the North West coast. We continue to be world leaders in the manufacturing of mining trucks, rail and forestry machines, pyrethrum, and many other products. It is through events like the Burnie Jobs Fair that we can help these industries grow by matching industry needs with the highly skilled workers now looking for work. I encourage all the training organisations, manufacturing employers, and potential employees to take full advantage of the opportunities that a professionally run, advanced-manufacturing-focused jobs fair will bring. Every change brings opportunity and, while the downsizing of Cat does bring a change to the employment in the region, the opportunities for advanced manufacturing are out there waiting to be seized—especially as the free trade agreements come into effect. The Burnie Jobs Fair is an exciting event to empower the people of Braddon to take control of our region and our future.
Today I would like to acknowledge the work of the Beechworth Men's Shed and the fantastic gathering they organised on 4 February, with over 134 attendees. The Beechworth Men's Shed is a member of the Australian Men's Shed Association, AMSA, which is the peak body. There are over 960 men's sheds who are part of the association, and they employ four staff.
At the gathering at the Beechworth Men's Shed, there were a number of issues that came up for discussion. But one they particularly asked me to bring to the House today was the issue of funding. The men's sheds are funded by the federal Department of Health, with over 50 per cent of that funding being competitive grants. However, the funding has actually decreased since 2010—despite the number of men's sheds increasing. So I bring a heartfelt call to this House and to members of the government opposite to do some work in increasing the funding of men's sheds. They do such a good job. The movement was started over 12 years ago and it has since grown to over 1,000 sheds around Australia, New Zealand, Ireland and the United Kingdom. They are now recognised right across the country as a major health provider for men. The Beechworth Men's Shed kicked off in November 2010 and it now has its own house at the back of the high school. It is going from strength to strength. I would really like to congratulate John Herbst and all your team: a fantastic job well done. I call on my colleagues to give you the funding you deserve.
I am glad to announce that last week I met with Andy Paschalidis, a tireless advocate for the Heartbeat of Football campaign, and Reno Aprile from the Cardiac Arrest Survival Foundation, to discuss the future installation of a zap stand to be located my electorate of Barton at Jubilee Oval in Kogarah. This will be a great result, as it will be the first 24-hour-monitored defibrillator at a sportsground and will be the model for all sportsgrounds around Australia. The installation of life-saving defibrillators across all New South Wales sporting fields is something that I have been passionately supporting since my appointment as the member for Barton. It is essential that we supply defibrillators to all sporting locations, so that everyone has access to properly equipped defibrillators to save lives. Cardiac arrest is a leading cause of sudden death in Western society. It is the silent killer that can strike anyone, anywhere, at any time. The proper deployment of defibrillators is essential to survival. Sadly, between 2014 and 2015 we lost nine players in Sydney alone. There have been other fatalities, before and after games and training, which have not been reported. Cardiac arrest kills between 23,000 and 33,000 Australians each year—more than breast cancer and road crashes combined. The installation of a zap stand defibrillator at Jubilee Oval will benefit the sportsground, school students, teachers, parents, 10 local shops and approximately 244 local residents. This is all helping to build a better Barton and to support the fight against cardiac arrest.
As I have mentioned in the House before, with the redistribution we have had occurring in New South Wales, I am very pleased that the coastal town of Ballina will be moving into the Richmond electorate. Ballina is a very exciting, vibrant town. It has been experiencing growth, and part of the reason for that is the fact that it has a very busy airport which services the entire Ballina-Byron region. The future of Ballina's airport continues to look very promising, with much growth in tourism meaning record numbers of visitors and also an increase in capital to the local economy.
Whilst we hear stories of many regional airports that are struggling financially, the Ballina airport pays for itself. In fact, it generates a small operating surplus of $1.3 million a year for the Ballina Shire Council. The Ballina airport has been growing at about 10 per cent year on year and indeed will challenge Gold Coast Airport as a domestic hub for southern Byron Shire and Ballina Shire. It had a record summer which saw 46,000 passengers in January alone, which is quite a lot for a regional airport. In fact, the Commonwealth Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics data last year highlighted that Ballina Byron Gateway Airport is among the fastest growing airports in Australia, and the airport has many great hopes for the future. There are plans to triple the size of its terminal building, a project costing $7.2 million.
Of course, the growth is driven by an ever-increasing number of holiday-makers to, of course, the best address in Australia, the North Coast of New South Wales. In fact, our local economy is sustained by our tourism growth, and the Ballina Byron Gateway Airport plays an important role in that.
I am very pleased to speak about one of the many fabulous educational organisations in my electorate of Durack, the West Kimberley Clontarf Academy. Established in 2006, the West Kimberley Clontarf Academy is an innovative education organisation which uses our most popular game, Australian Rules football, to engage and retain Aboriginal boys in the school system. The West Kimberley Clontarf Academy is located over two sites—Broome Senior High School and St Mary's College, also in Broome—with about 210 students enrolled this year. The academy was the sixth Clontarf academy and has developed 110 graduates since its inception.
Last year was a very successful year for the academy, with 50 students having 95 per cent plus attendance for the year and the organisation having two camps interstate: one for years 11 and 12 in Cairns and one for years 7 to 10 in Darwin, both action packed, so I understand. Late last year, over 300 people attended the Clontarf awards night at the Broome Convention Centre, which saw 14 students graduated from the school last year. From all reports, everyone who attended the event had a fabulous evening and most left a little blurry and red eyed given it was such an emotional event. Led by director Phil Docherty, the staff steer a steady and inclusive ship in the Kimberley, and I am very proud to say that the academy will have a special 10th anniversary event for its alumni later this year.
I rise to put on record yet again my absolute disgust and disappointment with this government's decision to close the Belmont Medicare office. This is a Medicare office that the Howard government closed and that Labor reopened when they were in government—and they opened it not only as a Medicare office but as a Medicare-Centrelink office. Belmont is an area where there are a lot of older people living. It is an area that looks after people that live to the south of it, and it takes them 20 minutes to drive there and over an hour to go by bus to Charlestown, the nearest office.
I would argue that this is really bloody-minded, and I would argue that the government is distorting figures. Every member in this House knows that this government is moving away from service delivery. It is refusing to provide services to the customers that go to Centrelink offices and to people that go to Medicare offices. People walk into those offices and are directed to a computer. I have seen 10 people standing up to use the computer because this government has instructed people that they are not allowed to approach the counter and that the staff cannot provide the service. This government stands condemned for its treatment of the people of Belmont and east Lake Macquarie.
I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate two of Forde's biggest small business identities, Barry and Jenny Lane, for their hard work and commitment to providing training and development opportunities for their Coffee Club employees. Barry and Jenny are passionate about making a positive contribution to the local hospitality industry. They run four Coffee Club stores, with their four daughters, at Springwood, Slacks Creek, Meadowbrook and Loganholme.
In the 14 years the family has operated in Logan they have gained numerous industry accolades. Most recently, all four stores have gained national recognition for a new learning and development program that allows their team members to earn certificates and diplomas in hospitality, on the job, while they are working. This new and innovative learning and development program was awarded Training Initiative of the Year at the recent QSR Media Awards, and I would like to congratulate the Lane family on this outstanding achievement. This industry-first program has enabled the Lane family to invest in the professional development of their staff and allows them to recognise and reward their staff by supporting their career aspirations with industry-recognised certifications.
Under this learning and development program the Lane family have a number of staff well on their way to becoming qualified chefs and hospitality professionals. Well done to the Lane family on supporting local jobs and training opportunities.
Last week I had the pleasure of meeting members of the Cathedral Landcare Group who work in the Upper Goulburn, and I had the joy of talking to them about a very successful Landcare control project that is happening in north-east Victoria. The Mitta to Murray Blackberry Action Group, known as M2MBAG, is a western Towong Shire community-led project that is encouraging landholders to work collaboratively in the eradication of blackberries from properties to improve production, access and versatility of our farms. Blackberry removal also increases biodiversity, reduces pest animals and improves the overall asset.
The M2MBAG group is entering its fifth year of operation with 107 landholders who have committed to treating their blackberries after having had their properties mapped for eradication control. This project with the landowners has managed 26,000 hectares of private land, and the mapping has been undertaken by a project officer who meets with the landholder and discusses the various philosophies, their time pressures and available equipment. Then, together, they devise a practical plan to operate over the next three years under a voluntary agreement.
The M2MBAG is coordinated by a voluntary management committee with representatives from Towong Shire, landowners and six volunteer groups—DELWP, Parks Victoria, North East CMA, Goulburn-Murray Water, HVP Plantations and AgriWealth. Congratulations on a great job. Well done.
On the last sitting day I announced that I would not be contesting the next federal election and stood down as Deputy Prime Minister and as Leader of the Nationals. I want to take my 90 seconds today to say thank you to the very many people who have extended to me very generous good wishes on that decision.
I was particularly moved by the comments of my colleagues in the House of Representatives from both sides, and very much appreciated the generosity of their words. It certainly made me appreciate what a privilege it is and what wonderful people we have to work with in the parliament—people who are committed to building a better country. I think our only disagreement around the parliament is not that we do not all want a better country but just how those objectives should be achieved. I have also particularly appreciated the many good wishes I have received in my electorate and from around the country. I have to say I enjoyed last week when I was visiting and attending quite a number of functions within my electorate, and I am looking forward to spending time with my electorate, over the remainder of the term, talking to them about the issues that are of importance to them.
It has now been 40 years since I was first elected as a representative for my community, and it has been a wonderful privilege and opportunity to serve in those offices. And the wonderful colleagues I have had to work with during that period have made it very rewarding for me. Thank you.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
I would like to read a letter:
Dear Prime Minister and Australian parliament
We are the 160 children from a kindergarten called The University of Melbourne Early Learning Centre in Abbottsford, Victoria, and we are 'the voices in the forest'. We have been learning about the Toolangi Forest for more than 100 days. We know that Toolangi is a very special forest because it is the home of the Leadbeater's possum, sooty owl, orange-bellied parrot and many gliders and beautiful parrots. We know that some of the old Mountain Ash trees in the forest are more than 300 or even 500 years old. They know lots of secrets of the forest.
… … …
We are worried that if you allow loggers to cut down many old trees, the shelters of the Leadbeaters Possums will get destroyed. They might get extinct as we grow up. And when we grow up and take our children to Toolangi they would feel like their hearts snapped in half.
We would like to ask you to help us and stop the logging of Toolangi. Maybe you could fence the forest with love and respect necklaces. We also ask you to use wise paper made out of specially grown forests.
Please look after Toolangi and respect all the forests and all the lands and all the trees in this world. Without them we wouldn't have any shade, or air, or rivers or love.
We, who are the 'Voices in the Forest', ask this with our whole hearts. Thank you for listening, The Voices in the Forest.
It was my privilege to have that letter read to me by the students who, as has been said, are at a kindergarten in Abbotsford in my electorate in Victoria. They know that we need a great forest national park to protect that area, to protect the Leadbeater's possum and so that we stop logging some of the world's oldest and tallest trees for paper.
Last Saturday I attended the Henley Surf Life Saving Club junior presentation. It was great to see so many young children receive acknowledgement and so I want to congratulate all the juniors on their efforts during the season. Special congratulations to all of the age group leaders on their voluntary work over the summer, in particular, the junior manager Nikki von Bertouch, Rachel and Brett Roe, Gary Ashton, Cat Bahr and the many others who assisted the juniors. I saw firsthand at my children's surf club at West Beach and the numerous junior carnivals the fine work undertaken by the age managers.
Henley surf club have just completed their 10th Big Row fundraiser and I understand it was another success with around $60,000 raised. All funds raised go towards funding the club's surf life saving activities. Well done to all participants who traversed Gulf St Vincent, covering around 60 km of open sea, as well as the many supporters of the event. I was not able to make it this year to have a look, but I have supported the event in previous years. I look forward to their next Big Row.
Still on surf lifesaving, well done to the Glenelg Surf Life Saving Club on their hosting of the junior carnival a week ago. It was a well organised event, and I know from watching my daughter participate that the children enjoyed the competition immensely. So thanks to the team at the Glenelg Surf Life Saving Club, including Sarah Tidswell, Anthony Merchant, Adam Luscombe and Emma Martin for their outstanding efforts. And well done to those who managed the barbecue at the surf club. After a long day on the beach, I know my family appreciated the chance to have a late midafternoon lunch and support the surf club at the same time.
I rise to share with the House the experience of the NBN rollout in the Shortland electorate. I was very interested to hear the comments of the member for Wright stating how excited he is about the NBN coming to his electorate. I have news for the member for Wright: that excitement will dissipate the moment it starts. My office has been inundated with complaints from people who have been without any telephone service, any internet service for more than two months—and these are people that I have worked with. My staff have contacted both the service provider and the NBN. There are major technical problems. The service the people in the Shortland electorate were promised is not there. This government promised one thing before the election, and they just have not delivered. They promised fast-speed broadband, and not only are there enormous technical problems but there are also problems with the speed. People paying for 100 megabytes per second are actually getting as low as three. If this is the way the government delivers for the people of Australia, it is no wonder the people are starting to become totally disconnected from them.
I rise today to talk about the significant milestone of two ministers in the local Anglican community in my electorate. On 28 January, Reverend Barry Butler AM and his wife Margaret, along with Reverend Patricia Williams and her husband Keith celebrated their diamond 60th anniversaries. I was fortunate enough to be invited along to the celebrations on 7 February; however, it was a significant milestone for my family, with my mum turning 70 on that day. We were actually here in Canberra, so while it was great to be able to spend some time with Mum, unfortunately I was not able to spend time with the other two families.
Prior to leaving for Canberra I did catch up with Reverend Patricia and we were able to have a look at the cards from the Prime Minister and the Queen. I know all couples really appreciated those sentiments. I would like to thank Reverend Keith Joseph for making me aware of this very special occasion in the community and also for making sure I was invited to come along. I wish the Anglican community all the very best. I hope these couples are very happy and there are many years left in their marriages. They are wonderful people. I wish them all the very best.
Ovarian cancer is a major issue. I was delighted to attend the Border Ovarian Cancer Awareness Group's very successful luncheon and fundraiser on Saturday, 6 February at the Albury Commercial Club. This was attended by our local MP across the border, the Hon. Sussan Ley, the Minister for Health. Other distinguished guests included Mr Tim Fischer and his wife, Judy Brewer; the Mayor of Wodonga, Ms Anna Speedie; Councillor David Thurley and his wife, Susan.
Ovarian cancer is a really important disease. It is great that we have a chance to learn about it and to fundraise. One of the key speakers on the day was Dr Christopher Steer, a local cancer specialist. He spoke about the importance of clinical trials in deciding what the best treatment is. His group conducts world-class research in Albury-Wodonga. This research has been given a huge boost by the donation of over $180,000 raised by this local cancer group for research over the next three years. Funds were also pledged by Elders Real Estate. Anna Speedie has booked to jump in their skydiving tandem. There were over 50 prizes donated for the raffle. So many thanks go to the businesses of Albury-Wodonga who did all this work. Also thanks go to the Wodonga Chamber of Commerce for their generous support.
The Kelsey Watts Memorial Research Grant was launched on the day. Kelsey's mother, President Heather Watts, was there. It was fantastic to see. I thank everybody for their hard work.
Last Saturday evening I had the pleasure of attending Symphony under the Stars in Launceston's beautiful City Park. The Tasmanian Symphony Orchestra, conducted by Benjamin Northey and headlined by soprano Amelia Farrugia, delivered a bravura performance. We heard pieces by Mendelssohn, Koehne, Puccini, Verdi, Rossini, Gershwin, Bernstein and Tchaikovsky under a program called That's Amore, or that's love.
I would like to congratulate TSO Managing Director Nicholas Heyward, the gifted TSO musicians, artistic director Marko Letonja, conductor Benjamin Northey, diva Amelia Farrugia, compere Ryk Goddard, the Launceston City Council, wonderful volunteers like Rosemary Edwards, and everyone else who is involved in supporting this wonderful orchestra.
I want to tell parliament about the great work at the Australian African Foundation for Retention and Opportunity, which last week launched the Somali community education and information week at Flemington Primary School just around the corner from me. This group has come together to make sure that particularly parents of children who have come from the Somali community who attend the local primary and high schools are trained to be the best firsts teachers that they can be. Many of the students at the school are excelling. We now have captains from the Somali community at the Flemington Primary School, which is great, as Principal Lesley McCarthy told us. She also told us that many parents are not quite sure how best to support their children.
It came as a shock to know, for example, that students are meant to have 5,000 words of vocabulary by the time they start primary school. So we had a fantastic discussion, particularly led by the men from the Somali community, who got up and said, 'It is time for us, as men, to start reading to our young children and reading to our babies. Even though they might not understand it—they are like sponges that will absorb what is being said.' In that respect, I want to particularly acknowledge the work of Daud and also acknowledge the work of Nujum, from Flemington Primary School, who has done a wonderful job not only in cooking a fantastic meal for that evening but in making sure that parents feel like this school is their own, and that they are trained so that parents can be the best first teachers.
There is a fatwa at the moment against the state Labor government in Queensland—that is Urban Dictionary slang for 'frozen at the wheel'.
This is a state government that clearly does not get North Stradbroke Island, and clearly does not get young Queenslanders either, with their new lockout laws. I will be the first one to say that there is a real role for lockout laws, and it does have an evidence-base of having a small but significant decrease in a range of violent types of crime—but that is a self-limiting decrease which ultimately can be eroded over time if there is not quality policing.
The way to reduce violence at night is a multipronged approach, with zero tolerance from police and licensing officials looking at the servicing of alcohol and making sure that that is correct. Obviously, then there is a small role for hours. But it is just like closing the Macca's drive-through a couple of hours earlier; that will not stop the obesity epidemic. In the same way, just changing hours is something that young people simply adjust their drinking consumption to. The pace of drinking simply changes according to the hours.
We will see reductions all over this country, not because of the hours changing, but concurrent with increased policing interventions that have just the same effect. If you look in the towns that do not change their hours but have the increase in policing, you get virtually the same reduction in crime.
I predict that this is a state government that will do nothing more on this issue, having clubbed the club owners. They will do nothing more. If new legislation comes along, I would like to see it. It is great to see the AMU—stronger together—fighting for Straddie to move that ridiculous 2019 date to a more sensible 2024. Good on the unions for standing up against Labor.
In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members’ statements has concluded.
This regional preferential trade deal has attracted significant criticism here in Australia and also internationally. It seems to a lot of Australians that in doing this deal the Liberals have conceded a lot of ground without getting enough of a return to justify doing so. Take the investor-state dispute resolution provisions. The Liberals have agreed to include ISDS provisions in the TPP. If it comes into force, that will be the first time that Australia will have had an agreement with the US and Japan containing ISDS—yet we already have existing trade deals with both.
I have previously spoken about the concerns that I have with ISDS provisions, and I am far from alone. Last year the ABC's excellent journalist, Jess Hill, put together a package on ISDS provisions for background briefing. She interviewed George Kahale, one of the US's leading ISDS lawyers. I want to repeat some of his comments to her. He said:
These things can take place—
these things being arbitrations under ISDS provisions—
in any number of settings. Often they take place in hotels, or in conference centres at the World Bank for example. But it could take place anyplace. And what you're walking into is a temporary courtroom made up for a very intense usually a couple of days or perhaps a week.
And he went on to say:
Well, you usually have three arbitrators. You'll have the court reporter and you'll have counsel for both sides. You'll have the witnesses. These hearings by and large are private. So there are no cameras, there are no reporters, none of that.
And he went on to talk about the lack of reliance on precedent. He said:
Each one is basically free to view the law the way it sees it. So they're not technically bound by any precedent and if they wanted to be or even had a, let's say, higher degree of respect for precedent, you know, right now the precedents are all over the place, so they can literally find a precedent for anything.
He also said that litigation funders are sponsoring companies to bring claims against nations.
Of course, the ISDS provisions are not the only criticism of the TPP. There are equally, if not more, significant concerns in relation to labour standards, labour market testing, skilled migration, intellectual property and the effect on medicine costs and copyright. Nobel prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz has said the TPP was driven by the interests of corporations and will do little for the wellbeing of citizens. He believes it may turn out to be the worst trade agreement in decades.
Of course, it is not enough in assessing any trade deal to focus attention only on the negatives or, equally, it is not enough to focus attention only on the positives. Any deal will necessarily include compromises—that is the nature of deals—and the more parties you have the more difficult it will be to aggregate all the compromises and come out with something everyone can support. So it is intellectually dishonest to focus exclusively on negatives, just as it is to focus exclusively on positives.
An agreement has to be weighed carefully. An assessment needs to be made about whether, taking into account all the pros and all the cons, on balance it should be supported. The material from the government clearly seeks to demonstrate the agreement's upside. The government is an advocate for its own deal—that is hardly a surprise—but it is relevant and important to acknowledge the predicted benefits, as interested as the department may be in publishing the upside. As the department has noted, the 12 countries that negotiated the TPP—Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, the US and Vietnam—represent around 40 per cent of the global economy and a quarter of world trade. Australia's exports of goods and services to these countries were worth $109 billion last year—one-third of our total exports. In 2014 Australian investment in the countries that will become TPP countries was 45 per cent of all outward investment.
In the material promoting the agreement the department notes the market access gains for Australian producers, especially in agriculture. Beef, sugar, rice, dairy and others are expected to reap the benefits of that increased access, both in countries where we have existing trade agreements and in the countries where we do not have existing deals, which is three of the TPP countries. We do, though, have those existing trade agreements in all but three TPP countries, as I said.
I have spoken already about my concerns about ISDS. The trade deals we have with two of our biggest trading partners in the TPP—the Australia-US FTA and the Japan-Australia Economic Partnership Agreement—do not have ISDS provisions in them. So you would think it would take a lot of economic upside for us as a nation to agree to give those countries' firms ISDS rights against our nation—in other words, the right for the firms to sue Australia in a private hearing in a private arbitration court run by private individuals, a sort of international arbitration club.
You would want something pretty good in return for selling out our sovereignty when we already have the benefit of a lot of existing trade deals and a lot of existing trade. But even with the increased market access, which is a benefit that should not be disregarded—and I do not seek to downplay it—the World Bank says that this deal will deliver less than one-half of one 10th of one per cent in additional growth for our economy annually. Every bit helps, and I am not dismissing the additional growth—far from it. Nor am I seeking to downplay the benefit to Australian farmers and other Australian producers. But if you set the benefits and the compromises on a scale, would a balance be struck? And if not, what would outweigh the other? Would the pros outweigh the cons, or would it be the other way around? I am also not saying that we should consider only the direct benefits to Australia. We are part of a region and part of the world, and we should consider the benefits to both. For example, the World Bank says that Vietnam and Malaysia will benefit in the order of 10 per cent and eight per cent GDP growth, respectively, to 2030. It also says that there might be spillover positive benefits to the world generally and there may be positives for some individual countries that are not members of the TPP. But the World Bank also says the trade diversion and erosion of preferences could result in GDP losses for Korea, Thailand and possibly other Asian non-member countries. These impacts, both positive and negative, should be considered when deciding whether Australia should be part of the TPP. I also think that most people would be hard-pressed to tell you how the operation of the TPP will be affected if and when the other big regional deal is done—and of course I am talking about the negotiations for the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement, the RCEP Agreement. Nine out of 12 of our top trading partners, including China, are participating in those negotiations and together with the other six participating countries account for almost 60 per cent of Australia's two-way trade and 70 per cent of Australia's goods and services exports.
Given the situation where we have one big regional agreement that we are being asked to support and we have another big regional agreement on the horizon, it is hard to see how those two are going to interact, how that is going to happen if and when the latter is actually concluded. But most importantly, given the seriousness of the concessions we are being asked to make—the concession that says that a US firm, a Japanese firm, a Chilean firm or a Canadian firm should be able to sue the Australian government; that is a big concession that relates to our sovereignty as a nation and the ability of our courts to make their own decisions about the rights of companies that do business here—you would think that the government would want some independent analysis of the text of the TPP now that it has been finalised, released and signed.
Obviously, the government is giving itself a pat on the back for the agreement, and equally obviously, the Joint Treaties Committee will consider the agreement. The process will get underway as it always does. Members will remember, I am sure, that the government gave itself a very similar pat on the back in 2005 when another treaty was concluded. I expect that the government will continue to give itself pats on the back for the TPP, but we should be careful of having the Australian government tabling glowing endorsements of trade agreements that the Australian government has done.
We should think about getting some evidence based independent analysis through the lens of Australia's national interest commissioned, and we should think about hearing from such independent sources before we make a decision about whether to support the TPP. There are options for a more independent form of scrutiny that should be considered, given the scope and seriousness of this agreement. For example, the Productivity Commission has offered to do an analysis, but the government do not want its help. Maybe because they know that the Productivity Commission thinks pretty poorly of bilateral and regional preferential deals like this one. The Productivity Commission sees them as being preferential trade deals than rather free trade deals, that divert trade and investment rather liberalise trade for the good of the world and our own domestic economy.
In relation to the TPP, the commission's trade and investment report last year reminded us of its previous warning against ISDS provisions and its previous conclusion that there was 'an absence of an identifiable underlying economic problem on market failure grounds that necessitates the inclusion of ISDS provisions'. What they are saying is they considered the argument mounted in favour of ISDS which was that because it will comfort investors when they invest here, it will drive more investment into Australia. In other words, they considered whether or not there is an empirical basis for ISDS provisions based on the argument that is mounted, and they said that if you are going to have these sorts of interventions in the market, there should be an underlying market failure ground to justify that, and they said, as I said before, that there was 'an absence of an identifiable underlying economic problem on market value grounds that necessitated the inclusion of ISDS provisions'.
Assessing this agreement is not about whether we support free trade or not. Being a supporter of free trade does not require mindless acceptance of any and every trade deal. It certainly does not require uncritical acceptance of preferential regional deals that divert trade and have, at best, uncertain consequences. The Turnbull government should swallow its pride and get this deal independently assessed.
Before I call the member for Charlton, I inform members that we have present in the gallery participants in this year's Inter-Parliamentary Study Program. I wish our guests a very warm welcome.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
I welcome our guests as well. I rise to take note of the motion by the then trade minister regarding the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which is the largest preferential trade deal—I will not call it a free trade deal—this world has seen, covering 800 million people and, from memory, about 40 per cent of global trade. It is a very significant trade agreement.
The questions that this parliament should resolve through the treaties committee and ultimately through parliament is: 'Is it merely a standardisation of trade access? Is it opening up freer trade for the 800 million people who live in those economies covered by it? Is that the reason we are doing it? Is that the outcome—standardisation of things like rules of origin, investor state procedures, harmonisation of rules of content—or is it more about advancing and strengthening monopoly rights over intellectual property and strengthening the rights of foreign corporations to sue sovereign governments?' I suspect the answer is a bit of both.
That is one of the difficulties pertaining to the Trans-Pacific Partnership—that is, there are well and truly some beneficial things in this trade agreement. There is no doubt that it will improve the lives of some of the poorest people in the world; there is no doubt about that. But there are also plenty of ugly things in the agreement that this parliament should scrutinise carefully, because this trade agreement does impugn and does reduce the sovereignty of this parliament to make laws in the interests of the Australian people. The question that we always have to resolve here is, 'Is slightly more trade access for our agricultural exports and our service sector worth that sovereignty being reduced?' I am not sure what the answer is, to be clear.
Some of the most egregious parts of this trade agreement go to investor-state dispute settlement clauses, ISDS, which my colleague the member for Griffith alluded to and went into some detail about. But I will simply say that any clauses in free trade agreements that have been cautioned against and criticised by the Productivity Commission and by the High Court of Australia through the Chief Justice are things to be worried about. The Productivity Commission and the High Court are not organisations traditionally renowned for being mad, rabid, left-wing, anti-trade organisations, yet both the Chief Justice and the Productivity Commission have cautioned against investor-state dispute settlement clauses.
As the previous speaker talked about, there is no market failure that ISDS is seeking to solve. There is not a market failure that justifies giving foreign corporations greater rights than domestic corporations to sue the Australian government. We saw Philip Morris's pursuit—ultimately unsuccessful, thankfully—of our plain packaging laws through an obscure Hong Kong arm of their organisation, because their Australian arm had already tried the case and lost in the High Court. So it is an incredibly worrying clause. It is a clause that impugns the sovereignty of this parliament to make laws for the betterment of all Australians.
I am concerned about the expansion of ISDS in this agreement and about the safeguard provisions contained in this, because often, when trade ministers—in particular the member for Goldstein—say there are safeguards, when you look at the detail they are sorely lacking. So I looked at the agreement. The national interest analysis put together by DFAT that accompanies the treaty says that there are safeguards around governments' ability to provide social services to the people, and it goes into some detail in a paragraph around health, education and other measures. But it is unclear whether those social services, for example, cover the ability of this parliament to make laws around climate change and to restrict carbon pollution that is increasing global warming. Is that a social service that is safeguarded under the ISDS provisions, or does a foreign corporation have the ability to challenge climate change laws made by a future parliament? That is of great concern.
Another concern is: does the TPP expand monopoly intellectual property rights that give greater length and greater powers for IP holders? We are an IP importer in this country. We pay more to IP holders overseas than we gain in revenue from the rest of the world on IP. IP is an important economic provision, but ultimately it is providing a rent to corporations that have developed intellectual property. That rent is necessary to drive innovation, but it should be kept to a minimum, because ultimately it reduces the welfare of economies by providing a rent to corporations.
There are other concerns in this agreement, particularly on labour rights. Labour rights in the TPP were once promised to provide full safeguards around ILO conventions to signatory nations, but, if you look at the actual agreement, it appears that the only commitment is to implement a nation's own labour laws, not recognised international standards. If this is true, this is very worrying, because the agreement refers to the International Labour Organization declaration but it does not appear to reference the core ILO conventions that guarantee access to collective bargaining and the rights to organise and form a trade union and not have forced labour. If the only protections are to the ILO declaration and to the nation's own labour laws, which can be reduced at any time by a parliament of that nation, then we will not have advances in countries in the TPP that currently allow forced labour, do not have free trade unions and do not guarantee the right to collectively bargain, which are recognised human rights through the ILO conventions. This TPP does not advance that cause one jot, and that gives me cause for concern.
Around labour movement, my information is that this agreement removes labour market testing within Australia for temporary skilled visas for another five nations covered by the TPP. This is concerning because, again, any time we look at using temporary skilled migration without guaranteeing absolutely that there is not an Australian who can do that job is of great concern.
Around environmental commitments within the agreement, at the start of and during the process we were promised that there would be enforceable commitments to at least seven international environmental agreements. But the text mentions only four environmental agreements, and there is only one that has clearly enforceable commitments—that is around trade in endangered species. That is an important treaty, but there are six other international environmental agreements that are lacking, and there is not a single mention of climate change, which is, quite frankly, the greatest economic and environmental challenge the nation is facing at the moment. To have a trade agreement that covers 40 per cent of global trade and 800 million people not mentioning climate change is a concern.
Provisions around pharmaceuticals are also a worry. Whether they stymie access for affordable medicines to 800 million people, particularly in the poorest nations, is a concern. There is still considerable uncertainty around biologics. We were promised that there would only be a five-year protection for biologics, but in the text it states that it is either eight years or five years plus an equivalent of a further three years, which seems very wishy-washy to me. It is either five years or eight years. It cannot be both at the same time. But United States negotiators are saying it is eight. The member for Goldstein, the previous trade minister, is saying it is five. If it is eight, that is of great concern.
In summing up, if this trade agreement is mostly about standardising country-of-origin labelling and content rules, reducing tariff access for our agricultural exports and giving service providers a chance to crack markets then it is a good thing. However, if it is about impugning the sovereignty of this parliament, if it is about extending IP monopoly rights, if it does not provide decent labour rights protections and if it does not provide enforceable environmental protections then this is a substandard agreement that this parliament should scrutinise carefully, as our US colleagues are doing right now, because this trade agreement will have a real impact on this nation, and I, for one, hope it will be positive rather than negative.
Debate adjourned.
I rise in response to the 2016 Closing the gap statement delivered recently by the Prime Minister. In doing so, may I acknowledge the Ngunnawal and Ngambri peoples, who are the traditional custodians of the Canberra area, and also the Darkinjung people, who are the traditional custodians of my electorate of Robertson and of the Central Coast. May I pay my respects to the elders, past and present, of all Australia's Indigenous peoples.
I would first like to echo the line that the Prime Minister ended with: closing the gap is more than another government Indigenous policy. It speaks to all of us, and it speaks about all of us. It is our best selves—our deep, just, fair values given practical form. When we close the gap, we make ourselves more whole, more complete and more Australian.
I venture to say that few places exemplify this spirit and this challenge better than the Central Coast—in particular, in my electorate. In the Robertson electorate, our Indigenous population is supported by hardworking local organisations, many of which are linked through the Barang partnership. Barang is an agreement that includes service organisations such as Bara Barang, Bungree, Darkinjung Local Aboriginal Land Council, The Glen, Mingaletta and the National Aboriginal and Islander Skills Development Association, or NAISDA, dance academy. You can see NAISDA graduates right across the country, performing in all sorts of capacities. They are incredible, positive role models for Indigenous youth not just in my electorate, but right around our nation—indeed, around the world. In particular, I would like to commend NAISDA for their goal to develop opportunities, self-development and independence, and their commitment to encouraging students to maintain strong links to their cultural backgrounds. I also thank NAISDA chairperson, Dr Warren Mundine, and executive director, Kim Walker, for their inspiring leadership in this area and particularly with this dance college.
If the Closing the Gap initiative is more than just a policy statement, then how have we fared? As we have seen in the latest report, in the eight years since the Closing the Gap targets were set there has been mixed progress, and this year's report is no different. Importantly, the target to halve the gap in child mortality by 2018 is on track. Between 1998 and 2014, Indigenous child death rates declined by 33 per cent, and the gap narrowed by 34 per cent. Yet the life expectancy gap is still around 10 years. I join with the Prime Minister and much of the community's response in saying that this is an unacceptably wide gap. The target is not on track to be met by 2031.
The reading and numeracy target, which aims to see national minimum standards, was also mixed. Only half of the measurement points are on track. I am advised that the new target to close the gap in school attendance by the end of 2018 has also seen little change. However, on any given day, the vast majority of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students are believed to be attending school. This has assisted in keeping on track the target to halve the gap in year 12 attainment by 2020. More Indigenous young people are finishing high school and more of those young people are enrolling in tertiary education. This has seen a 70 per cent increase in the past decade—the number of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students in higher education. This promotes not only further education skills and outcomes but also the environments where our future Indigenous leaders are being fostered.
I am known for telling the stories of people on the Central Coast. We have so many success stories to celebrate on the Central Coast. I would like to refer briefly to one that I found from the Aspiration Initiative website. It is a story of Aunty Kerrie Doyle. Aunty Kerrie Doyle is a Winninninni woman, who grew up in Darkinjung country, became a general nurse and worked for the Gosford District Hospital on the Central Coast of New South Wales. At 33, Aunty Kerrie enrolled in the University of New South Wales and became their first Indigenous psychology graduate. Attaining her undergraduate degree solidified Aunty Kerrie's interest in academia, and she went on to receive a Roberta Sykes Scholarship in 2012 and became the first Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander woman to obtain a postgraduate degree from Oxford University—an accolade which now sits nestled amongst an impressive and lengthy list of academic qualifications. And there are now more and more of these types of stories coming through from Indigenous people in my electorate.
We also need jobs. Sadly, as in previous years, the target to halve the gap in employment by 2018 is not on track. The 2016 Closing the Gap update is optimistic that factors such as gains in Indigenous education, economic growth and strong Indigenous business will have a positive impact on these results in coming years. I join this optimism, but I am also aware that much of this growth and opportunity must come from our direct engagement with Indigenous communities. We must listen to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people when they tell us what is working and what needs to change. Empowered communities are an important part of this dialogue. We also want to be able to see more opportunities for Indigenous business and to encourage Indigenous innovation and entrepreneurialism, particularly on the Central Coast. I understand that Indigenous businesses are 100 times more likely to hire Indigenous people. Because of this, supporting Indigenous enterprise is a way to boost employment while promoting the right approaches so that we can celebrate and promote Indigenous businesses we can be proud of and that also support and embrace local outcomes and services.
Darkinjung Local Aboriginal Land Council, which I mentioned earlier, and its CEO, Sean Gordon, has engaged in this work recently through projects like its community mural in Terrigal. This two-kilometre work of art is about being able to address issues and promote awareness. Darkinjung has also launched initiatives with Barker College in Sydney's north. Together they established the Darkinjung Barker campus at Yarramalong, supporting and encouraging Indigenous students from kindergarten to year 6. In Gosford, Sean advised me of plans to engage with the state government and Lend Lease in a partnership related to the development of Gosford Hospital. This aims to create 30 Indigenous jobs over three years, based in Gosford. Sean's focus, and that of other Indigenous leaders in my electorate, is to keep working hard to get important measures delivered, including measures around security, housing, jobs and secure income. Perhaps other opportunities can also be explored: for example, how we can more strongly support Indigenous businesses and entrepreneurs on the Central Coast. We certainly have a great model further north, with the Mandurah Hunter Indigenous Business Chamber, which I understand already works closely with our stakeholders on the Central Coast. Its aim and mission, through CEO Debbie Barwick, is that it:
…strives to assist Aboriginal People to achieve control over their own destiny through the establishment and growth of viable enterprises which create wealth, employment and increased choices.
As we seek more innovation and more ideas across our country, let us also keep encouraging these businesses to explore their potential and collaborate.
When the Prime Minister hosted young Indigenous entrepreneurs from across the nation recently, there were many fantastic success stories. We heard about their imagination, their creativity and their resilience while embracing the opportunities of the future. Those young people will be making a contribution to their families, to our economy, to our society, to their nation, to their own people and to our future. They are also role models and will build on the strong partnerships that we need between government and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians. One of these, who has worked and invested time and energy on the Central Coast, is Mayrah Sonter from 33 Creative. Mayrah has shaped a company mantra of 'engage inspire empower'. So while we look to shape policy, let us also make sure we connect with these ideas and help to close the gap on the Central Coast and right around Australia along with the many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander organisations, leaders and elders on the Central Coast and around our nation who are working together to help close the gap. I commend this motion to the House.
I acknowledge the traditional owners, the Ngunnawal and Ngambri peoples, and I pay my respects to their elders, both past and present. There has been no greater failure in public life than the failure of governments—state and federal, Labor and Liberal—to ensure our first Australians enjoy the same quality of life as all other Australians. Lives are being ended far too soon and parents are not living long enough to see their grandchildren—due, more often than not, to health outcomes we would not tolerate in our wider community. That is why it is so important that until the gap is eliminated all of us here in this place are reminded every single year by this report of what we have achieved, where we have fallen short, what is working and where we need to do better. As the Leader of the Opposition said, it is about telling the truth, being honest about where we are and making sure that we continue to do that each year.
Again, this year we as a nation are falling short, with just two of the seven targets on track to be met, according to the 'closing the gap' report delivered to the parliament. There is just one target that Australians can be confident is on track to be met, and it is a very important target that we can be proud of: progress is being made in reducing infant mortality rates by more than 33 per cent. Long-term progress has also been made in narrowing the gap in year 12 attainment, with a significant boost in the rate of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students completing secondary education, although it is less clear whether Australia remains on track to halve the gap in year 12 attainment.
But on the remaining targets the news is far from good. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander kids have lower rates of literacy and numeracy, greater rates of truancy, lower readings skills and are going to high school without the minimum requirements. The overall employment rate for Indigenous Australians actually fell between 2008 and 2013, with fewer than half of 15-to-64-year-olds holding down some form of job. Most shamefully of all, Indigenous adults are likely to die 10 years earlier than other Australians. If we are ever to close this gap it will require the best efforts of all of us, working with Aboriginal communities, to ensure all Australians enjoy the same quality of life and health care most of us take for granted.
We need to ensure that every child is given the best educational opportunities to succeed in later life. It is why the Gonski reforms are so critically important to not only this population group but other population groups. It is a matter of equity. We need to develop a justice target to prevent crime, improve community safety and tackle the unacceptably high levels of Indigenous incarceration and victimisation rates. And we need to tackle health outcomes that should be considered unacceptable in a First World nation for any of its people—outcomes such as the wholly preventable eye disease trachoma, which is still rife in Indigenous communities.
It is why I and my colleague the member for Blair were very proud to hear the Leader of the Opposition commit to investing an additional $9.5 million for additional optometry and ophthalmology services and prevention activities to close the gap in eye health and to eliminate trachoma and other eye diseases. Shockingly, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander adults are six times more likely to suffer from blindness. However, 94 per cent of this vision loss is either preventable or treatable. Addressing vision loss alone will account for around 11 per cent of the gap in health outcomes between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and other Australians.
Australia is the only developed nation where the infectious and wholly preventable eye disease trachoma still exists at endemic levels, and it only exists among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, where it is endemic in two out of three remote communities. Leaders such as the Vision 2020 alliance of health organisations, including the Fred Hollows Foundation and the Indigenous Eye Health Unit at the University of Melbourne, are making great progress in improving Indigenous eye health. However, there is a significant unmet need. Around 35 per cent of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander adults have never had an eye exam. Labor will deliver additional funding to increase visiting optometry services for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to address this gap in general eye health. We will also increase funding for ophthalmology services for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to address the gap in specialist eye healthcare service delivery. To continue to drive progress towards the elimination of trachoma in Australia, Labor will invest in trachoma prevention activities recommended by the World Health Organization. This is sensible reform. It is not a huge amount of money. I call on the government to match this funding and ensure that we eliminate trachoma from Australia by 2020 and we begin to turn the tide on this endemic health problem both with trachoma and, more broadly, with those preventable eye health issues that so deeply affect our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities.
I also call on the government to abandon its repeated attempts to make health care more expensive and its attack on bulk-billing through its four-year freeze on Medicare rebates and its move to scrap bulk-billing for pathology and to change it for diagnostic imaging. These attacks have one aim in mind: to make patients pay more for those services. For Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, who already suffer far worse health outcomes than is acceptable in any First World nation, the consequences of that attack are disastrous. As the report of the Close the Gap Campaign Steering Committee—a report that is released prior to the parliamentary report each year and one which I think provides very important and challenging reading for all of us—said:
A further factor that could negatively impact the services offered by ACCHOs—
Aboriginal community controlled health organisations—
is the … freeze on GP and non-GP Medicare rebates continuing until July 2018, announced by the Australian Government … The freeze is continuing despite the fact health care costs continue to rise above the rate of inflation … A recent study has estimated that by 2017-18, the freeze would amount to a 7.1% reduction in GP rebate income compared with 2014-15. It is generally expected that GPs will pass increased costs onto patients, as many do already. But ACCHOs don't pass on such costs—to ensure their services remain affordable (and therefore economically accessible) to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. At worst then the freeze could result in staff or service cuts. Whatever its impact, it will be a disproportionate one on ACCHOs and the users of ACCHOs, who are predominantly Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, over other primary health services and their clients.
It is an important point that they are making and one, I have to say, that the government has refused to deal with or respond to appropriately.
We already know that cost is a big barrier to health access for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, especially in remote areas. We know that one of the COAG Reform Council's later reports showed that cost is already a barrier to one in eight Indigenous people seeing a GP, for one in five visiting a dentist and for one-third filling a prescription. This situation will become worse as this freeze bites and the attack on bulk-billing takes hold. The COAG Reform Council also says that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians are three times more likely to die of an avoidable cause, meaning that three-quarters of deaths of Indigenous people under 75 could have been avoided through early prevention or treatment. The cuts to Indigenous health and the Medicare freeze make early prevention and treatment a lot less likely. One of the most pernicious and short-sighted cuts, frankly, was the cut to smoking cessation programs that were beginning to work. It absolutely astounds me that the government would think a program that was working towards prevention on the ground should be cut in the way that it was.
The gap is already far too large and our efforts to close the gap are too slow for us, with these health cuts, to threaten the progress we have made. For the sake of the health of all Australians, and especially our First Australians, the government must abandon its attacks on Medicare and bulk-billing and instead commit to ensuring all Australians, not just those who can afford it, have the right to live a long and healthy life. In particular, I commend the work done by my predecessors on the national Indigenous health plan. I note that the government has since, after much time, worked on the national Indigenous health implementation plan. An implementation plan is only as good as the resources that you put into it to make it happen. We look forward to, and we will certainly be looking in the budget for, a very sound commitment to the Indigenous health implementation plan, because you cannot, as many have said in this place, cut your way to closing the gap. This is what the government has done. There are consequences for that. The Indigenous health implementation plan will need to be resourced seriously, and we will certainly be looking at the government to do so.
I acknowledge the Ngunawal and Ngambri people, the traditional custodians of the land upon which we are meeting, and pay respects to their elders past and present. I rise to speak on the eighth annual Prime Minister's Closing the Gap report. It is eight years on and the report on our progress as a nation into closing the gap in Indigenous disadvantage is both sombre and disturbing. We saw many respected Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander leaders express their understandable frustration with the pace of progress to reduce Indigenous inequality, but, most importantly, we heard their frustration at a process many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people feel they do not have a stake in. The lack of real and meaningful engagement with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities puts at risk the long-term progress we have made. A co-chair of the National Congress of Australia's First Peoples, Dr Jackie Huggins, said there was:
… lack of engagement, not a general commitment to the needs and the aspirations of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in their community.
Dr Huggins went on to say that she could not remember such a 'low point' in our history. She was not alone in expressing such sentiment. The father of reconciliation, Professor Patrick Dodson, warned:
Closing the Gap hasn't got a buy-in from Indigenous communities.
… … …
Without Indigenous participation it's going to be doomed to fail.
This should trouble us all. It should make us very uncomfortable because what began eight years ago as a joint effort of governments, organisations and communities is failing to live up to the rightful expectation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples that they would be equal partners in this generational endeavour. We cannot close the gap unless Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are engaged as genuine partners in our national effort. One cannot happen without the other. Engagement has become somewhat of a buzzword for governments. While Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples have heard the promises of 'a new relationship' and 'a resetting of relations', it does not reflect their lived experience. Genuine engagement is as simple as it is difficult. It is not lack of goodwill nor an absence of good intention from government.
Perhaps no government has done it exceptionally well, but there are tangible examples of what can be achieved when partnerships based on mutual respect and responsibility underpin and drive the process. The result is meaningful outcomes of which Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples have ownership—for example, the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Plan. It was developed under the previous Labor government in partnership with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health experts, organisations and communities. The plan produced a framework for the long-term future of Aboriginal health over the next 10 years. Last year we welcomed the implementation strategy that will put this plan into action. It can be done, and we await the government's commitment to funding the health plan. We hope they will do so in the budget.
The National Congress of Australia's First Peoples was established six years ago as a national representative body for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. Its members include more than 8,000 individuals and more than 180 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander organisations. It is an important vehicle for communication in the national discussion about the aspirations of Australia's first peoples. This government had a choice: to support and engage with the national representative body, or not, and this government chose 'or not', ripping away $15 million from this peak representative body. In fact, it went one step further and completely defunded the congress. I am profoundly disappointed in the government's decision. As I have said time and time again, I urge it to change its position, and I urge it to refund the congress.
Another report was delivered in the same week as the Prime Minister's Closing the Gap address to parliament. Among its pages were illuminating and shocking statistics measuring our national progress towards reconciliation. The state of reconciliation in Australia report, from Reconciliation Australia, reveals that almost all Australians—86 per cent—believe the relationship between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and other Australians is important, yet 33 per cent of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, one in three, had experienced verbal racial abuse in the six months before the survey. Shockingly, many Australians did not believe that past race based policies of governments and institutions have created today's disadvantage.
If we are to close the gap in Indigenous inequality, we must confront the truth of our history and acknowledge the unequal burden of that history borne by our First Australians. We must face up to the collective responsibilities of all of us and confront the scourge of racism where it exists in our communities. At the heart of our efforts must be respect. What is reconciliation without respect? What is recognition without respect? This is the platform from which we must all begin. Despite the best efforts of communities, organisations, businesses and governments, it remains a shameful fact that an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander person is more likely to die earlier and to find it more difficult to get a job than another Australian.
The Prime Minister's report labels it a 'mixed result'. There are signs of modest long-term changes that ought to be acknowledged. Generational change takes time. We remain on track to halve the gap in infant mortality rates. It appears we are on track to halve the gap in year 12 attainment. These are important fundamental building blocks for future progress, but let us not sugar coat this. It is not a mixed result. It is not. Of the seven Close the Gap targets, we are on track to meet just two—maybe, just maybe, two. Without new data it is not entirely clear that we remain on track to meet the target to halve the gap in year 12 attainment.
One of the things this report makes so important is the need for accountability in relation to government policy. It is not to make ourselves feel better about our labours; it is about accountability. When progress is stalled in the key areas of health, education and employment, there must be candid and transparent reporting about what is true if we are going to achieve Closing the Gap targets. We will not make progress with pretty words. The Prime Minister's report was replete with words of encouragement, but it offered little in terms of evidence based analysis.
Nowhere was this more evident than in reporting against the employment target. We are not on track to halve the gap in employment by 2018. Shamefully, there has been no reported progress against this target. The report states that, although no progress has been made against the target since 2008, Indigenous employment rates are considerably lower now than they were in the 1990s—more than a decade before the Closing the Gap targets were agreed upon. There has been no new data that the government can report since 2012-13, though the minister for Aboriginal affairs assures us he has created 50 jobs a day for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. This is not transparency. It is not accountability. It is not good government.
Under the 'Accelerating progress' heading the government lists the Indigenous Advancement Strategy as driving Indigenous employment. I am not sure how they can accelerate progress when they have gone backwards on this target. There was not a word about the many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community organisations that were defunded when the government ripped more than half a billion dollars away under their Indigenous Advancement Strategy—the jobs that were lost and services that were cut to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities.
These have real and devastating impacts on our ability to close the gap. The government seems to think it can cut its way to Closing the Gap. You cannot do so. There are things that we can do, and Labor has already outlined substantive policies that will improve outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. This need not be a partisan endeavour. There should be real and substantive change and recognition in the Constitution. I would be thrilled if the government would work with us to put policies, including constitutional change, into practice. There need to be justice targets. When three per cent of Australia population is Indigenous and yet 25 per cent of our prison population is Indigenous, that is a shame, a tragedy and a national disgrace.
Supporting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander girls to stay in school by partnering with the Stars Foundation to provide mentoring is critical, and I commend state governments who wish to undertake this. I urge the government to take up Labor's commitment in this regard: resourcing schools with additional funding to support Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students and giving them the best educational opportunities in life. A hundred and ninety-five thousand Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander schoolchildren will benefit from Your Child, Our Future and Gonski funding of a Labor government. I urge the government to take up that commitment that Labor has made.
Developing a new justice target in Closing the Gap and changing the government's broken promise to recommit itself to a justice target is critical, as are investing in alternative approaches like justice reinvestment, which Labor will do; reducing incarceration rates and victimisation rates; improving community safety; supporting domestic violence services; and funding outreach optometry and ophthalmology services to close the gap in vision loss and eliminate trachoma. The test for the government is how they translate these fine words into practical and credible action. They cannot cut their way to Closing the Gap.
I acknowledge the Ngunnawal peoples and the Ngambri peoples, traditional owners of the land on which we meet, and I pay my respects to elders past and present.
In speaking in relation to the Closing the gap report I observe, as other speakers have, that only two of the seven targets are on track to be met. It is a very disappointing result for this country, which has for a long time been seeking to close the gap that Indigenous peoples face. I also want to note and agree with the previous speakers in this debate that there should, in addition to the existing Closing the Gap targets, be a target in relation to the justice system. I observe the significantly higher rates of incarceration amongst Aboriginal men, and I also observe the significantly higher and increasing rates of incarceration amongst Aboriginal women, including in my home state of Queensland. Those are issues which our whole nation should seek to address and about which we should all be concerned.
In supporting the Closing the Gap targets and the view that there ought to be justice targets as well, it is important to acknowledge that reducing violence against women and children must underpin and be a part of any work that this country does to address Indigenous disadvantage. So significant is this issue that there has been a significant amount of work and thought put into how, in fact, we could reduce violence against women and children for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women.
Under the National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children, one of the national outcomes relates to Indigenous communities. The national outcome is that Indigenous communities are strengthened. Of course, the National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children is a 12-year plan that was initiated under the previous Labor government. It is presently in its second action plan, with a third action plan by the government no doubt underway. To give the parliament an idea of what that national plan requires in respect of Indigenous communities, I just want to read from the plan itself a couple of excerpts to give the flavour of what is required. As I said, the outcome is that Indigenous communities are strengthened, and that outcome:
… will be measured by reduction in the proportion of Indigenous women who consider that family violence, assault and sexual assault are problems for their communities and neighbourhoods; and increase in the proportion of Indigenous women who are able to have their say within their communities on important issues, including violence.
There are several strategies that underpin that national outcome. They are: 'to foster the leadership of Indigenous women within communities and broader Australian society, to build community capacity at the local level, and to improve access to appropriate services'. Those three strategies are very important means of addressing the issue of violence against women and their children, specifically for Indigenous women.
One of the wonderful things that has occurred under that national plan has been the establishment of Australia's National Research Organisation for Women's Safety to reduce violence against women and their children. It is a long name, but it is usually abbreviated to 'ANROWS'. ANROWS very recently—in January this year—published a paper called Existing knowledge, practice and responses to violence against women in Australian Indigenous communities: State of knowledge paper. Apart from raising some concerns about an absence of available evidence, the paper very helpfully canvassed the evidence as it stands at the moment. In so doing, it turns to the issue of the incidence of violence against Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women and their children. In respect of the latter, it notes that very little is actually known about the incidence of family violence in the Torres Strait, so most of the report focuses on mainland Aboriginal women and their children.
In seeking to canvass the rates of violence against Indigenous women, the report notes that there are significant issues of underreporting of violence with respect to Indigenous women. There are a few reasons for that. There is the fact that national surveys are often not designed to collect information specific to Indigenous women on family violence. There is also a lack of a consistent definition of family violence across jurisdictions, and that is an issue that permeates all of the work that is done to try to reduce and ultimately end family violence.
One of the issues that does contribute to the lack of clarity around the rates of violence for Indigenous women is underreporting. Some of the reasons for underreporting in Indigenous communities cited by the report include:
For all of those reasons there can be significant underreporting of family violence. On the reporting that we do have—it has been reported in the national plan to reduce violence against women and also in this recent paper to which I have referred—we know that Indigenous women are 35 times more likely to be hospitalised due to family violence related assaults than non-Indigenous women are. Probably an equally horrifying statistic is that hospital data from Queensland, Western Australia, South Australia and Northern Territory showed that the rate of head injury due to assault was 21 times higher amongst Indigenous people compared to non-Indigenous people, and the head injury rate experienced by Indigenous women was 69 times higher than that experienced by non-Indigenous women.
Those statistics are bleak. Equally bleak is the statistic relating to mortality from violence. Despite representing just over three per cent of the total Australian population, Indigenous women accounted for 15 per cent of homicide victims in Australia when survey information was taken back in 2002-03. A 2006 report indicated that Indigenous women were nearly 11 per cent more likely to die due to assault than non-Indigenous women were.
So the incidence of violence against women and their children in Indigenous communities is significant and, in seeking to address that incidence, obviously it is important to talk about the causes of violence. I will not go through it in detail, but it is complex. There are many factors that contribute to violence, and they are listed in this report as breakdown of culture, normalisation of violence in some contemporary communities, policy and governance issues, sociodemographic stresses and alcohol, and there are ecological models which suggest that there is an interconnected and ecological set of circumstances that contribute to violence.
The report goes on to talk about what can be done, as does some of the work that has been done under the national action plan. It talks about the importance of community-led approaches. In seeking to reflect Indigenous voices and Indigenous opinions about what ought to be done to combat violence in Indigenous communities, the report lists a number of community-led approaches, such as: training an Indigenous workforce; distinguishing women's from men's business; using or developing Indigenous materials, such as visual images or artwork; developing culturally appropriate safe houses for women and children; developing more flexible appointments and program sessions; developing programs that include offenders as part of the healing process; developing community-led education about family violence; valuing elders as mentors, and support people playing central roles in programs and services, including women staff at services; developing antiviolence education campaigns to raise public consciousness; and providing community development opportunities to de-normalise violence—for example, promoting the value of women in the community; men supporting women; and increased knowledge that family violence is illegal and unacceptable.
I want to give an example, briefly, of a couple of such programs. One of them is Sisters Day Out, a very successful program that Aboriginal Family Violence Prevention and Legal Service Victoria runs. It is a one-day workshop that engages with Koori women—and, in particular, young Koori women—for the purpose of preventing family violence by facilitating community networks to reduce social isolation; raising awareness of family violence and its underlying causes and impacts; and by providing information to promote community safety. It is a one-day session. It is culturally appropriate. It is not threatening. There is relaxation. There is beauty therapy and beauty treatments. There are exercise activities. They put a lot of emphasis on self-care and wellbeing, and that is a really important mechanism that is out there working now.
Another one is the NO MORE Campaign, founded by Charlie King. I hope that many more sports codes and individual sports clubs will get on board with this men-focused primary prevention program that encourages sporting clubs and organisations to agree to a domestic violence prevention plan.
We have seen cuts from this government in relation to front-line services and family violence, and that is a great shame.
I note at the outset that only two of the seven targets in Indigenous health, education and employment are on track to be met on time. Halving child mortality by 2018 is on track. As to ensuring 95 per cent of Indigenous four-year-olds are in preschool by 2025, that is not clear. Halving the gap in reading and numeracy by 2018 is classified as 'mixed'. Halving the gap in school attendance by 2018 is not on track. Halving the gap in year 12 attainment by 2020 is on track. Halving the employment gap by 2018 is not on track. And closing the gap in life expectancy by 2031 is not on track.
I turn to each of those targets in detail. On the issue of life expectancy, the report notes that meeting the goal of closing the life expectancy gap by 2030 remains 'a significant challenge'. The data is only available every five years, but the report found that between 2005-07 and 2010-12 the life expectancy gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians only shrank by 0.8 of a year for men and 0.1 of a year for women. Indigenous Australians still continue to die about 10 years earlier, on average. And, while Indigenous mortality rates have declined 16 per cent since 1998, this will not be enough to meet the target. Indigenous deaths resulting from cardiac disease have fallen, but deaths from cancer are, as the report notes, increasing.
The aim of closing the gap in mortality rates for Indigenous children under five within a decade is on track, the Indigenous child mortality rate having fallen 33 per cent since 1998. It is, however, the report notes, not clear whether progress has continued over the past eight years.
On the issue of education, year 12 attainment rates among Indigenous Australians have improved, but the number of Indigenous students finishing school is still relatively low: around 60 per cent compared with 85 per cent for non-Indigenous students. We know a great education is the best antipoverty vaccine we have yet devised, and so it is absolutely critical to close that gap. School attendance rates for Indigenous students barely moved between 2014 and 2015, with rates still below benchmarks. As the report notes:
Progress will need to accelerate from now on…
In terms of the particular question of attainment gaps, the report notes that this is close but not on track. Four areas—year 7 reading and years 5, 7 and 9 numeracy—are on track, but the rate of progress is not currently fast enough for year 3 numeracy and years 3, 5 and 9 literacy to meet the 2018 goal. In terms of increasing higher educational attainment, between 2004 and 2014 there was a 70 per cent increase in Indigenous students enrolling in higher education. Improving the share of low-SES Australians attending universities was a key focus of the previous Labor government, and the lack of focus under this government on making sure that our university population reflects the full diversity of the community is disappointing to me.
In terms of early childhood education, in 2013 just 67 per cent in major cities and 74 per cent in regional areas were enrolled in early education programs. There is a higher rate in remote communities but, since most Indigenous Australians live in urban and regional Australia, that still is not enough to get us there.
It is important to note that needs based funding is particularly critical for closing the gap. As my colleague the shadow minister for education, Kate Ellis, puts it:
This report is just more evidence that if Australia is to improve our education system and close the gap, our schools need investment, not Malcolm Turnbull's $30 billion cuts.
She points out that there are 195,476 students receiving the Indigenous loading under Labor's school funding agreements.
One thousand, seven hundred and sixty-eight of them are here in the ACT, but because the government has walked away from years five and six of the Gonski reforms those Indigenous loadings are under threat, and with them the potential for closing the education gaps.
The report notes that the progress on halving the gap in employment outcomes between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians within a decade is not on track. As the report puts it:
No progress has been made against the target since 2008.
It acknowledges that the Indigenous employment rate fell from 53.8 per cent in 2008 to 47.5 per cent in 2012-13. Over the same period, the overall employment rate fell only from 73.4 per cent to 72.1 per cent, resulting in an employment gap which has widened rather than narrowed.
Labor has argued for the inclusion of an incarceration target in the Closing the Gap targets. We understand that Indigenous Australians represent three per cent of the Australian population but 27 per cent of the prison population, and that Aboriginal men are 15 times more likely to be imprisoned than non-Aboriginal men. The Prime Minister said on 10 February 2016:
It's certainly something we'll look at.
But, when asked the same question on the same day, Senator Scullion said:
So it's just a pretence to say, 'OK, let's have a justice target,' that's the end of that end of the story, that's the end of the effort.
As quickly as the Prime Minister offered bipartisanship on an incarceration target, Senator Scullion was quick to scuttle that bipartisanship. As the Close the Gap Campaign notes:
The Campaign remains particularly concerned about imprisonment rates and community safety (particularly family violence)—which are only getting worse. In 2013, the age-standardised imprisonment rate for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people was 13 times greater than for non-Indigenous Australians in 2015. The year 2016 marks a grim milestone in the numbers of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people being held in custody. Under current projections, for the first time over 10,000 will be in custody on the night of the annual prison census, 30 June 2016.
We believe that incarceration must become one of the issues covered in the Closing the Gap reports. Here in the ACT, we have had a surge in the prison population. The Alexander Maconochie Centre population has risen from 322 a year ago to 413 in the latest numbers, with an increase in the Indigenous share of that population.
In the brief time remaining, I would like to acknowledge the work being done in the Wreck Bay community part of the electorate of Fraser. I recognise the importance of that community, which occupies 403 hectares in the Jervis Bay Territory. Looking out over the ocean, it is a part of the world which is as beautiful as any other you will visit. I acknowledge the board members who served in 2014—Craig Ardler, Annette Brown, Julie Freeman, Tony Carter, Joseph Brown-McLeod, Beverley Ardler, Leon Brown, George Brown Jr and Jeff McLeod; those who continued to serve in 2015—Craig Ardler, Annette Brown, Julie Freeman, Tony Carter, Beverley Ardler, George Brown Jr, Jeff McLeod, Justine Brown and Clive Freeman; and Mal Hansen, the CEO of WBACC. Their work is critical to making sure that that great community continues to do well.
I also want to acknowledge the work of the Indigenous Marathon Foundation, a terrific grassroots leadership program with which I had the pleasure to be involved last year. I ran the New York Marathon alongside 10 Indigenous Marathon Project participants: Daniel Lloyd from South Australia, Chris Guyula from the Northern Territory, Dwayne Jones from the Northern Territory, Aaron West from New South Wales, John Leha from New South Wales, Jessica Lovett-Murray from Victoria, Harriet David from Queensland, Jacinta Gurruwiwi from the Northern Territory, Alicia Sabatino from Queensland and Eileen Byers from New South Wales. I would love to spend more time talking about each of them, but I should acknowledge in particular Eileen Byers, the toughest woman I have met and an extraordinary inspiration to chat with; and John Leha, whose picture with an Aboriginal flag has literally made him the poster boy for the Indigenous Marathon Project. Coach Mick Rees and founder Rob de Castella are extraordinary Australians. It is three decades since Deek ran 2.07 in the Boston Marathon, and no Australian has yet run faster, but his greatest inspiration is what he is doing for Indigenous Australians in helping to close the gap.
My electorate is on the land of the Dharawal and Gundungarra peoples and this parliament rises magnificently upon the lands of the Ngunawal people. I would like to acknowledge these people and pay my respects to elders past and present. This was, and always will be, Aboriginal land.
Closing the Gap is our annual report card—the assessment of how we are going as a nation in reducing inequality between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. Of course, we know that inequality as a whole is growing within Australia—between rich and poor, between town and country and between black and white. When inequality grows, those who are already at the greatest disadvantage are left even further behind.
I want to focus on life expectancy for a moment. We are not on track to close the gap in life expectancy between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians within a generation—that is, by 2031. There is currently a 10-year gap in life expectancy. The average Aboriginal male will not make it to 70 and the average Aboriginal woman will not make it to 74. We have come a long way since 1901, when the life expectancy for the general population was 55 years for men and 58 years for women. Today, it is 83 years for women and 80 for men. We are, in fact, ranked second in the world, behind Japan, for life expectancy. But, if we were to rank Aboriginal Australians on that same list, men would be ranked 95th in the world and women 113th. I will say that again: if we rank Australia as a whole, we are number two, behind Japan, for life expectancy; but, if we were to rank Australian in terms of Aboriginal life expectancy, we would be 95th for men and 113th for women. In life expectancy, Indigenous men are on a par with Vanuatu, Nicaragua and Samoa and rank behind the life expectancy of men in Tonga, Palau, Jordan and Albania. Indigenous women are on a par with Egypt and Iraq but rank below the life expectancy of women within Cambodia. I think most Australians would be surprised to learn of this league table.
Increases in life expectancy since the turn of the last century have occurred because of significant improvements in infectious disease control, infant mortality, motor vehicle accidents and, of course, reducing the rate of deaths through coronary heart disease. When we look at all of these great accelerators for increasing life expectancy, we know that they do not apply evenly across all Australian groups. Take coronary heart disease as an example. We know that this is a great cause of the difference in life expectancy between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Australians.
I look at the smoking rates. Forty-two per cent of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people smoke, compared with just 16 per cent of non-Indigenous Australians. I argue that one of the most significant things that we could do to ensure that we close that gap is reducing that rate. There have been some good programs. Regrettably, some of those programs were put on hold during the first two years of the coalition government's time in office. I believe that the Tackling Indigenous Smoking program had started to reduce and was an important program for reducing Aboriginal Australians' rates of smoking. The Liberal government has cut it—very significant cuts. Over $130 million over five years was cut by this government from the program tackling Indigenous health. This budget measure was one of the worst of the 2014-15 budget.
Another significant cause of the gap in life expectancy and health outcomes not only between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians but between Indigenous Australians living in urban settings and those who live in remote Australia is access to decent quality food. For Indigenous health to improve, we must be able to address food security. We saw the Australian National Audit Office report from last year highlight the difficulty that remote Aboriginal communities face in getting reasonable and ongoing access to a range of food, drink and grocery items. I have experienced this myself in my own trips to outback Australia, where it is far easier to get access to deep-fried foods or high-sugar-content foods than it is to get access to fresh fruit. I pause to ask: if we are seriously contemplating that in my children's lifetime we could send a manned spacecraft to Mars, why can't we get fresh apples and fresh produce on the shelves of a community store at an affordable price in rural and remote Australia? We can do better as a nation.
I want to talk a bit about eye health. I was very proud to sit behind the Leader of the Opposition when he gave his reply, on behalf of the Labor Party, to the Closing the Gap statement. He gave some emphasis to the importance of eye health to the overall health of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians. He committed that a Labor government would fund $9.5 million to close the gap in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander vision loss. I think it is an indictment upon all of us that a disease such as trachoma, a disease that is associated with Third World nations and that has been eradicated in most nations that we like to compare ourselves with, is still afflicting people in remote communities throughout Australia. It is curable. It is beatable. It is something that can be done within two years if we apply the right programs and the right resources to it.
My friend the member for Fraser has talked about the importance of education to closing the gap. There has been some progress in this area but sadly not enough. Attendance rates and completion rates in higher education between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians are still lagging at a rate of about 10 per cent. We can do much better. That is why Labor is committed to putting in place specialist programs and providing schools—blind to the variety of school systems throughout the country—additional resources to assist in specialist programs which will help the completion rate, help the gaps in literacy and numeracy and ensure that we have culturally specific and appropriate education, particularly in some of those remote communities.
In the time that I have left, I want to say something about Labor's announcement for ensuring that we have justice targets in the annual Closing the gap report. It has been said in previous contributions that 25 out of 100 Australian prison inmates are Aboriginal Australians, compared to only three out of every 100 Australians. Indigenous Australians comprise three per cent of the population and 25 per cent of the prison population. In 2012, the rate of imprisonment of the non-Indigenous community was 124 per 100,000. The Indigenous offender rate is 19 times that at 2,302 per 100,000 people. We know the impact that incarceration can have over a lifetime on health, on learning, on family, on employment, on recidivism, on lifestyle and on the children of those who are incarcerated. I believe, and Labor values dictate, that we must have a justice target that aims to reduce the rate of Aboriginal imprisonment.
Having a target will focus our minds on diversion, on rehabilitation, on early intervention programs, on proper and decent schooling, on languages and on much more. There is much more that can be done, and the member for Fraser has pointed out that right across our prison populations, in every state in the country, we have seen an explosion in prison numbers. It is true; it is doubly true for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander programs. When we have people who are being locked up for seemingly petty—I do not say significant, but for relatively petty—crimes and we look at the cost of that incarceration we have to ask ourselves whether this is the best spend of Australian taxpayers' money. I would argue that it most certainly is not.
It is in the nation's interest that we review our approach—this 'tough on law and order' approach to so many of our social maladies—and start thinking about whether a better approach is needed. The campaign in New South Wales that has been run against bail laws is an example. Much more can be done, and I have not spoken about the importance of constitutional recognition. We are going to have a referendum next year, apparently, if the government is returned. I suspect many of us would be arguing that a referendum on constitutional recognition would be a far better spend of taxpayers' money.
I acknowledge the traditional owners of this land and pay my respects to elders, both past and present, and also indicate that the electorate of Chifley sits within the land of the Darug people. This area is one of the largest urban populations of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders, of any electorate in the country, and we are proud of that fact. Closing the gap acknowledges that improving opportunities for Indigenous Australians requires intensive and sustained effort from all levels of government, communities and individuals. It is an important framework that builds on the foundation of respect and unity provided by the 2008 national apology to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.
Earlier this month we marked the anniversary of this apology made by former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd. These words are proudly hung in my electorate office in Mount Druitt. This significant speech was the first concrete step that moved the goal posts in the national conversation on reconciliation and closing the gap, but we always recognise there is much more work to be done to ensure that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have the same simple rights and opportunities as any other Australian. The apology states:
A future where all Australians, whatever their origins, are truly equal partners, with equal opportunities and with an equal stake in shaping the next chapter in the history of this great country, Australia.
The day we see this equality is the day we will finally close the gap. An Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander life deserves to be as healthy and prosperous as any other and deserves to be recognised in our nation's founding political and legal document. These words were echoed by the opposition leader, Bill Shorten, in his address to the House of Representatives, where he said:
Equality in our Constitution must be twinned with a real world of equal opportunity in housing, health, employment, education, justice and, perhaps the most basic right of all, empowering our First Australians with the right to grow old.
I am always appalled to hear that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people can expect to live up to 17 years less than a non-Indigenous Australian an d that they can experience high rates of preventable illness , such as heart disease, kidney disease and diabetes. This is not simply not right or just , especially in a country as prosperous and modern as Australia. The s e are huge concern s in the area I represent , along with the increase in out - of - home care , adult mortality , unemployment and incarceration , especially with females ; this is something that the local community has noticed more and more of.
This year's Closing the gap report saw little improvement. Although we saw positives s uch as child death rates declining by 33 per cent , again a lot more needs to be done. The life expectancy gap is still around 10 years . It is unacceptably wide and it is not on track . E ach year at least one new study , survey or report confirms that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are imprisoned at higher rates than any other racial or ethnic community in the developed world . While Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander adults only make up 2.3 per cent of the population , they account for nearly a third of all prisoners . F ederal Labor is committed to reaching the targets involved in C losing the G ap by closing the life expectancy gap within a generation , by 2031 ; halving the gap i n mortality rates for Indigenous children under five within a decade , by 2018 ; halv ing the gap in reading , writing and numer acy achievements for children within a decade ; h alv ing the gap for Indigenous students in year 12 attainment rates ; and halv ing the gap in employment outcomes between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians within a decade .
I share the disappointment felt by members of the Aboriginal community in my area that the f irst people remain fundamentally separated from our nation's c ore document. The Australian Constitution underpins our federal laws and system of government . W ritten over a century ago , it was shaped by the values and beliefs of that time. I cannot fathom a period in which respect for our land ' s f irst p eople would not be recognised. The nation's pre-eminent legal foundation stone should absolutely recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the f irst p eoples of Australia's lands and waters . W e are committed to constitutional recognition on this side of the H ouse . Labor will incorporate community consultation and recognition . T hat will be a process that will ensure we get these things done together.
The federal government needs to ensure that all services , support and funding are accessible to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities . Wh ile this C losing the G ap speech indicates the work that is being done , I certainly urge that more be done. In particular , when I think in this contribution of what needs to be done , I a m particularly mindful of the fact that , where we had tried to reform and revolutionise the method of school funding in this country , we thought very much , within the report that was brought down by David Gonski and his colleagues , of breaking down clusters of disadvantage and the way in which they entrench disadvantage , particularly in neighbourhoods in the e lectorate I represent. We tried to fundamentally rewrite school funding by focusing on need and , in particular, the need that would be experienced by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students and especially the Aboriginal communities in my area. The fact of the matter is that the Chifley electorate , as a result of th e failure of this government to honour the full funding of the Gonski plan , would have been $270 million worse of f. This failure would , in particular , have denied those communities of need in my area , particularly Aboriginal communities , the targeted support required to ensure a much more so lid foundation of education.
I stand here to say that one of the proudest moments I ha ve had in this term of parliament is to see the federal L e ader of the Opposition announce that we wou ld fund, in full, the Gonski r eforms. That single decision will ensure that , in particular , Aboriginal communities in my area , as with other students of great need in an education context , would receive the support and resources to ensu re that their full potential could be reached through an educational pathway that supports them. You cannot close the gap if you cannot tackle some of the fundamental flaws that exist in the way that school funding denies the ability of our schools to particularly focus and target support to students in need, especially Aboriginal students in our area. I have seen, time and again, that they have a lot of potential sitting there, but they need this to be expanded and to be brought out fully through a greater level of support.
If we are concerned about incarceration of Aboriginal people, we cannot have a situation where the legal aid that can be extended to people in need is cut. We have seen constant threats during this term of parliament by this government to legal aid funding in this country. We had to fight hard to ensure the restoration of funding to the Mount Druitt community legal aid service, in our area. How can you ensure that you will reduce incarceration if people in need are denied the legal support that might prevent them being incarcerated in the first place?
There are a lot of groups in our area that are working hard to ensure, particularly for Aboriginal communities within the electorate of Chifley, that they perform and live their lives to the fullest and best. I want to mention some, though I do not have the time to mention all. I think of the Butucarbin group; the Aboriginal Catholic Services Aboriginal Resource Centre, in Emerton; Marrin Weejali; the Baabayn Aboriginal Corporation; and the Mount Druitt and District Reconciliation Group. They are all, in their own ways, looking at the economic, social and cultural needs of communities in our area. I want to thank that small selection of groups for what they do in our area to make Aboriginal communities, particularly, better and fuller and for making a greater contribution more broadly.
I think it is important that, when we look at closing the gap, the targets that I have mentioned and the other ways in which we can support groups in our area be explored to their fullest. I certainly hope, and I think it is the sincere wish of many, that we see a greater improvement in these targets in years to come.
The Closing the Gap report always delivers a feeling of disappointment to me and many members in this House. When I was first elected to this parliament, the first inquiry on a committee that I was involved in was into Indigenous health in Australia. It identified that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people were sicker; they died earlier; and their access to health services and support in their communities was second to that of the rest of Australia. No matter where an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander lived in Australia, they were sicker than their counterparts and they died earlier than their counterparts. As much as I hate to say it, that is still the same. There have been some improvements in relation to infant mortality. There have been some improvements around the edge, but it is really sad to say that Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders are still sicker and have poorer access to the health care that other Australians have. That is one area where I think we are not delivering on the targets and the priorities that we should as a government and as a nation.
The proudest day that I have spent in this parliament was the day of the apology. It was a time when I felt that there was going to be renewed hope, and it was very, very special. Many members of this parliament had walked across the Harbour Bridge on Sorry Day, and it had culminated a little later in a different parliament with the apology to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians. I saw that as a starting point: from there, maybe the recommendations of the report that the then Standing Committee on Family and Community Affairs had brought down, and some of the issues that it identified, would be acted upon, and maybe there would be real change. Unfortunately, it has not happened.
It is hard, and I will acknowledge that you cannot make changes overnight. But you can make some changes, and you can address systemic problems—and there are so many systemic problems in this area.
Bringing down a nice glossy report, looking at that report and trying to put the best possible spin on it is not really going to solve the problems, because Indigenous Australians are sicker; they have less money; they have a poorer level of education. The access to the things that other Australians take for granted is not available to them. They have a higher rate of imprisonment—and I was pleased to hear the Prime Minister mention that as something that needed to be addressed. The previous Prime Minister did not come to terms with that or did not address that or did not accept that as something that was of significance and importance. But we need to see what action takes place in that space. We need to hear more than words. We need to see some action.
It is true that there will only be real change when there are real partnerships and everybody is addressing the issue together and with a common goal. It is true that we need to do it in partnership with Indigenous Australians. We do not need to do it to them or for them; we need to do it with them. Some of the words that the Prime Minister used indicated an inclusiveness and a partnership, but we need more than words.
We need action, and we need to make sure that the referendum on Indigenous recognition actually happens. Labor is committed to the referendum in the first year of taking office, and I want to see some action by the Prime Minister. I want to see what he and his government are going to do in that space.
As to education, the member for Chifley's contribution around education generally was outstanding, but especially the point he made about the Leader of the Opposition committing to fully fund Gonski in the next term of parliament if elected. Prior to Christmas, I, like most members of parliament, visited my schools, and the one thing that every school emphasised to me was how important the funding has been—particularly in disadvantaged schools—and how important it had been in those schools in the Shortland electorate that have a high number of Indigenous students enrolled. If we are serious about addressing educational disadvantage in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and allowing them to enjoy equal access to and equity in education, then Gonski is a must. Without Gonski, they are not going to be offered the assistance and the extra programs that are needed to address that imbalance and inequity that exists.
The Closing the gap report is all about addressing inequity, injustice and inequality. It is about saying to Indigenous Australians, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians, that they are important and that we believe the entrenched disadvantage that exists in our community needs to be addressed. It is much more than fine words. Words are good, but actions are better. The high imprisonment rate of Indigenous Australians cannot be considered in isolation from disadvantage and the lack of education—for instance, the number of people in our jails who have poor literacy skills is somewhere around the 80 per cent mark. Access to legal aid and legal assistance is also part of the pie. The one thing that the government can do straight away is restore funding so that Aboriginal legal services can provide the services they need to provide and go some way to addressing that inequity and injustice. Without proper legal representation, a person is much more likely to end up in jail.
The final thing I would like to touch on is that we need to address the fact that racism exists in our society. We need to recognise it, we need to address it and we need to make sure that our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are not subject to that racism. One of the ways we can address that is by joining together, working together and trying to close the gap that exists. It is not easy, it takes real effort and it takes actual funding, action and a government that is committed to doing it.
Like other speakers, I acknowledge the Ngunnawal and Ngambri people as the traditional owners of the land on which we are gathered now, and I pay my respects to elders past and present. I have been reflecting over the past few minutes that this is my third opportunity to participate in this debate on the closing the gap statements. It has been important to me to reflect on the purpose of this debate as part of our parliament and as a driver of progress towards equality and reconciliation in Australia. It has been a great privilege to sit in the parliament and be part of what are very significant setpiece debates involving what have been moving speeches from the Prime Minister and the opposition leader. They have been great setpieces of hope, reflecting a bipartisan commitment to closing the gap.
This bipartisanship is important if we are to close the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians, but it is not something that we should prioritise over getting the policy settings right about really engaging with the problems and challenges before us. Similarly, I see this closing the gap process that we are participating in now, this debate on the Prime Minister's report, is necessary and important, but we should not regard it as a sufficient driver of change in marking our progress towards closing the various gaps and, indeed, in highlighting those areas where we have failed to make progress.
I will touch very briefly on the Aboriginal population of the electorate of Scullin, which has been small but is growing. It reflects changes in the distribution of Aboriginal people in Melbourne as people are moving more to the suburbs—in particular, to the northern suburbs. These changes have not yet been adequately in access to services and to community facilities. I take this opportunity to draw the attention of the House to the critical importance of ensuring that Aboriginal people right around Australia have access to community facilities that are not only owned and governed by community but also readily accessible to community members. This is important in our major cities, where the population has often been dispersed but where health centres and early childhood education centres have traditionally been located in the inner city.
In this regard, the significance of the Bubup Wilam children and family centre is absolutely critical to the Aboriginal communities that I am proud to represent in this place. This centre, unfortunately, has been under enormous pressure with the federal government's failure to carry on the national partnership which led to its foundation. That a centre such as this, which has been achieving extraordinary outcomes for Aboriginal young people and families, is under threat causes me great distress and is a great shame for all of us in Melbourne's northern suburbs. We have seen the impact of the programs led by community, driven by community and formed by culture have been making in the increasing school attendance, which is obviously a critical new Close The Gap target under this government. To see that at risk would be a terrible, terrible shame. I again take the opportunity to implore the government and the minister to reconsider their attitude to that national partnership.
I was pleased to be in the House for the contributions of the Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition in the last sittings. I noted with pride and interest the Prime Minister's respectful use of language. Deputy Speaker Claydon, you will forgive me for not seeking to emulate the Prime Minister's linguistic talents in this place. I was concerned though by some aspects of his contribution to this debate. I am concerned in particular that the Prime Minister moves far too quickly when he speaks critically of closing the gap as being 'described as a problem to be solved—but more than anything it is an opportunity.' This is characteristic language of our Prime Minister, but in this case, in this context, it is far too glib, far too dismissive, of the challenges that face Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in Australia today, challenges highlighted by the report he was speaking to and which I am addressing today. It was just too glib in tone. Of course we must celebrate successes, we must deliver and strive for hope through our contributions in this place, but we must also squarely acknowledge our failures—there are many. I will turn briefly to some elements of the report in this regard, shortly.
I will touch on the contribution in the main chamber of the Leader of the Opposition, who in a tremendous speech built on what I thought was a very significant contribution to some of these debates at the University of Melbourne some months ago, when he spoke on some of the great challenges of Indigenous justice, challenges which this report highlights. Indeed, the statistics are terribly shocking and bear repeating. If you are an Aboriginal man you are 15 times more likely to be imprisoned than a non-Aboriginal man. Half of all Aboriginal prisoners in custody are under the age of 30. The re-imprisonment rate for Aboriginal young people is higher than the school retention rate. In the last decade, while we have focused our attention on closing the gap, imprisonment rates have more than doubled, grown considerably faster than the crime rate, which goes to some of the complexities and challenges in our justice system. We see for Aboriginal women very, very troubling large increases in the prison rate. They make up one-third of our female prison population, despite being slightly into three per cent of the overall population. These are shocking and unacceptable statistics, and I commend the contribution of the Leader of the Opposition in this regard. I also draw attention to two other aspects of his speech, which I think he made very powerfully and which bear reflecting upon: his contributions on health and his call for us to focus on closing the political gap as a critical component of addressing the wider challenges of closing the gap between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Australians.
One other matter which should be mentioned but which has perhaps not got the attention it needs to, and was touched on by the member for Griffith earlier, is that of the great challenges in family and domestic violence, violence against women in Aboriginal communities, urban and regional. This is another area where we have failed to make the progress that people, women and children in particular, deserve.
On the whole, the 2016 Closing the gap report shows that we are failing on too many key indicators. Eight years after the first report we are on target to meet only two of the targets. This is unacceptable. The life expectancy gap is too wide. It is a challenge that we in this place, working with professionals and working with community, must face head-on.
I note and acknowledge that the report does show that we are on track in two important areas: child mortality to be halved by 2018, and to improve year 12 completion by 2020. However, while we are on target with the latter achievement, we are looking at only 60 per cent of Indigenous children finishing high school. In this regard, we can and must do much better.
The rate of Indigenous employment has fallen significantly. As we on the Labor side of politics can attest, having a job is the key for most of us having dignity. It is shameful that Indigenous employment today is lower than it was in the 1990s.
Responses on literacy and numeracy goals for children are also mixed. In this regard, it is important to reflect on Labor's policy alternative, the Your Child, Our Future policies. Needs-based funding clearly is the best way to address this gap. When this government took half a billion dollars out of the social services budget, clearly this has made these targets harder to meet. It is simply the case that we cannot cut our way to Closing the Gap.
This should be an area for bipartisanship but, again, bipartisanship is not a goal in and of itself; it is a driver to enduring progress. The targets of Closing the Gap, bipartisan targets, are ambitious, but without having ambitious targets we have no prospects of reaching parity. In order to continue the progress that we have made, we need to better engage in partnership with Indigenous communities. This involves listening to hard truths without flinching.
What we must do—going back to the contribution of the Leader of the Opposition—is to commit to a target to lower Indigenous incarceration. We know that any incarceration leads to increased likelihood of recidivism. In a time when Indigenous people make up 26 per cent of the prison population, this is an unacceptable statistic.
I am very proud of Labor's commitment to invest $9 million to close the gap in Indigenous vision loss. I note that Indigenous Australians are six times more likely to experience vision loss in cases that are treatable or preventable. This is a tiny investment for a very significant outcome.
Finally, as others have spoken about, we do need to recognise the first Australians in our Constitution. This is important symbolically and practically. Prime Minister Rudd began the process of healing when he apologised to the stolen generations. This is the next step. It is the chance to continue the process of eliminating racism in Australia and to complete our Constitution—the one three-word slogan of the former Prime Minister I agree with and echo in closing my contribution on responding to the great challenge posed by this Closing the gap report. I hope that next year we will have more progress based on sounder policies and greater investments to show for our efforts.
I was on a government committee and it went up to the Torres Strait, and I did not want to go back there, because I had seen paradise and knew what I was going to see afterwards would be less than what I witnessed in those days. The meetings up there started with the singing of a hymn and the acknowledgement of the coming of the light—the coming of Christianity, which was brought by bike priests in the Anglican Church. Coming out of Vanuatu, they brought Christianity to the Torres Strait.
I think the best way is to quote the late Joey Mosby—who was not a fan of mine when I was minister. He was very much looked after by the department before I came along and introduced democracy, for the sake of a better word, and private ownership, and he was very hostile because he was getting a dream run before that. But Joey got up and he said, 'Bobby'—I do not think he had ever called me that before—'they are murdering our people.' He screamed at the top of his voice, 'They are murdering our people.' Every person in this place: when you go to bed tonight and you examine your conscience and you speak to the good Lord, ask yourself what you have contributed to stop what is going on in the Torres Strait. They have put 60 full-time employees in to close down all of the market gardens. I exaggerate; there are market gardens still up there. But the argument is, 'Oh, we have to close down all these farms because otherwise disease will get into the mainland.' Oh, so, we starve to death in the Torres Strait—I identify as a first Australian, so please excuse me for saying 'we'—because disease might get into Australia.'
To those ignoramuses who run this country: for heaven's bloody sake! The canoes have been going backwards and forwards, from New Guinea to islands to the mainland and back, for 40,000 years. Any disease that was going to come in would have come in over that 40,000 year period. There are good reasons why disease will not be carried that way. To the same people that did that we said, 'There are only two ways in from New Guinea into the Torres Strait through to Australia, and they are the Horn Island Airport and the Jardine Ferry. Put an inspector at Horn Island and the Jardine Ferry.' But they did not put an inspector at Horn Island and the Jardine Ferry. They had 60 full-time employees go out there and close down the market gardens.
As the minister I was probably up there at least once, or maybe twice, a month for a period of something like seven years, and I cannot remember ever having a meal up there that was not totally local produce: taros, yams, bananas, mangoes—whatever was in season. And, of course, most of all, there was seafood: dugongs, turtles, fish and crayfish—crayfish mainly. They were magnificent meals—all local produce and all fresh fruit and vegetables. With the closing of the market gardens, one-seventh of the space in one of the supermarkets—and I measured it; I paced it out—was rice. This is a third-world country. These people are dying of malnutrition. Their diabetes rates are 100 times higher than the average for Australia. What are we doing about it?
Mabo was supposed to have delivered private ownership to us, but we cannot get a title deed. There is no such thing as a title deed. If you want the answers as to why—and I have heard some grovelling drivel about being sorry and having treaties and everything else—why don't you just simply give the people the right to own a piece of land? Give to us the right to own a piece of land.
I will give a very specific example. I will not use the gentleman's name without his permission, but I will just say his name is Tony. He is an outstanding footballer and a bloke I know really well. He dropped in to see me. He said, 'Bob, I've got one of those 50,000 acre blocks.' I said, 'How's it going, mate?' He said, 'I can't get any money to get cattle.' I said, 'Have you been to see the banks?' He said, 'Of course I have.' He has trucks working with one of the mines. He had a reasonable quid rolling in. His complexion is very dark. He is very much 100 per cent an Aboriginal person—a First Australian. I said, 'Have you been to the banks?' and he said, 'Yep. They need security. They want a mortgage.' I said, 'Have you been to see the lands department?' He said, 'Of course I've been to see the lands department.' I said, 'What did they say?' He said, 'There is no such thing as title deed on blackfella land,' which there is not. He said, 'What about your legislation?' I said, 'That was overturned and abolished by the incoming Labor government in 1991.' It was abolished on a promise that, 'We will give you even better title deeds.' That was 1991. It is now the year of our lord 2016.
When the Liberals went in they said, 'We're going to give you good title deeds. We're going to overthrow the Labor legislation and we're going to give you good title deeds.' Everyone was telling us that they were going to give us good title deeds.
There were nearly 800 title deeds issued by the great and famous Eric Laws and the late Lester Rosendale—two blokes of First Australian descent from community areas themselves. They issued something like 800 title deeds in the space of 3½ to four years. In the 25 years or so since 1991, I doubt whether there have been a dozen title deeds issued.
You cannot get any money to have a service station. You cannot get any money to have a supermarket. You cannot get any money to have a takeaway food place. You cannot get any money to do anything, because you have not got title deed. It is the building block of an economy, and we—the First Australians—are told we are supposed to own 20 per cent of Australia. We do not own anything. We cannot get a title deed to an acre of land.
Each government has come up with some sort of process. The process is so complicated that no-one could possibly fulfil it in a lifetime, and consequently no-one has. So there were 800 in the space of about 3½ years when us blackfellas were running the thing. There were 800 title deeds that went out. When the white fellas—you people—were running the thing, you could not get two dozen out in the space of 25 years, because you do not care about us. You do not care that the diabetes rates are 100 times higher than the average for Australia. The last speaker went through the other horrific statistics.
I tell you: if the rest of the world find out what is going on here, there will be shock, horror and revulsion by the rest of the world. I am not hesitating to say these things, and I would like to speak a lot more strongly. But some of the damage to my country could be colossal if what is really going on here gets out. No-one on earth now is deprived of the right to have a title deed. In China, you can get a title deed. You can go in and apply for a title deed.
I left university at 23 years of age—or whatever it was—to float my own mining company. I took out 23 leases and I floated a company. I was in the process of floating a company when the mining collapse came. I would get $6 million for those leases. I will tell you how complicated it was to take out a lease: you got a block of wood, you carved your initials on it—'RCK,' in my case—you put it on the ground, got out a compass, and said, 'In that direction, 200 metres; in that direction, 400 metres; in that direction, 200 metres,' and you went in and filled out a form which took you about 20 minutes at the local magistrate's office, which also doubled as the mining warden's court. It took me about 20 minutes and it cost me 40 bucks per lease. Why can't that be done here? Six million dollars worth of value could be created by me going in, filling out a form and putting a peg in the ground, which was exactly the same as BHP did to take a mining lease up. Whether it was little tiny nobody Bobby Katter or a big great giant, it did not matter. Millions of dollars were created by simply putting a peg in the ground. For those of you who know the history of Australia, we are from goldmining. All of us that were here before the war are from goldminers, convicts or First Australians in our background. That was the way it was done all the way up until about 25 years ago.
Let me be more specific still. At Pormpuraaw, a brilliant young bloke called Lindsay Kimber went in there. He did no work himself; it was all First Australians. He provided profit incentive, ownership incentive, title deeds et cetera. We mustered 263 head of cattle, the most ever to muster down there. Lindsay Kimber and his team there, Jackson Shortjoe and Eddie Holroyd—I have a big picture of them on my wall in my office—mustered 6,000 in 2½ years. So you provide the incentive of private ownership and commercial operations, and these people can get the cattle in—don't you worry about that. Put them in a saddle, and they know what they are doing. Put them in a yard, and they know what they are doing. We can do that job. There were 12,500 on Aurukun, the community area north of Pormpuraaw, and 12,000 south.
Member for Kennedy, your time is running out.
So $30 million a year should have been coming in. It is not coming in. There are virtually no cattle there now at all.
It is a pleasure to speak on this very important issue before the House. I suggest that each year, as we annually hear the report on the Closing the Gap progress—or, sadly, lack of progress in too many of the targets—it is an opportunity for each of us to take our responsibility up and to participate in this chamber on those matters. I want to recognise firstly, in my contribution, the original inhabitants and custodians of the land on which we meet today and to pay my respects to their elders past and present, to pay my great respect to the resilience of our first people and to also acknowledge the great contribution that they make to the Closing the gap report and to the consideration of it as we go forward.
I want to cover just three areas of this year's Closing the gap report. There are many significant issues for us to confront in it, but I would like to particularly focus, firstly, on education and employment—obviously, with my shadow portfolio of vocational education, it is an issue that I watch closely and take a great interest in—secondly, on the issue of constitutional recognition and, thirdly, on the issue of the justice system and incarceration rates.
The Closing the gap: Prime Minister's report 2016 makes it very clear that postsecondary education—in fact all the stages of education, but postsecondary education in particular—is intrinsically linked with Indigenous opportunities for employment. In fact, the report tells us that Indigenous graduates have strong employment outcomes. In 2014, around 77 per cent of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander graduates were in full-time employment following completion of their award, compared with 68.1 per cent of all graduates, so there is an even stronger link for Indigenous people between completing a postsecondary qualification and achieving employment. In particular, I want to draw the House's attention to the fact that in 2014, 55 per cent of all higher education students in Australia were female, but among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students, 66 per cent were female. This contrasts with the Indigenous participation in vocational education and training, where the majority of Indigenous students were male—that is, 55 per cent.
That comes from the NCVER report. If we look at that report in some more detail—if people are interested, it is Equity groups in total VET students and courses 2014, their most recent publication—it tells us that in 2014, there were 146,500 Indigenous students. They made of 3.7 per cent of all students. That has been an improving outcome. It had a slight dip in 2013, but over the years the participation rate of Indigenous students in vocational education and training has sustained. There is a worry in the figures. The success rate, if you like, which is called the 'subject load pass rate', was 83.4 per cent for all students in the sector. However, for Indigenous students it was 74.4 per cent. That in particular indicates, I have to report to the House, the lowest completion rate. Students with a disability were slightly higher at 74.6 per cent. Students from a non-English-speaking background were 80.7, and students from rural and remote localities were 85.6. So whilst we have sustained the participation rates, we really need to focus on improving the success and completion rates for Indigenous students.
The reason for that is clear from the 'closing the gap' report itself—that that would directly indicate the success and opportunity for Indigenous Australians to get employment, and we all know that employment is one of the key factors for addressing broader disadvantage, including many other areas such as health. The higher a person's educational attainment, the greater their connection to the workforce, then all the other factors show improvements as well, so it is an area where I think we have to give a great deal of focus and attention. I do want to just mention the factors many of you in this place would know. Sadly, there were quite a number of media reports last year about some of the less-ethical private providers in the vocational sector who were out in Indigenous communities particularly targeting Indigenous people to sign up for diploma-level courses that were inappropriate to their needs and left them with very large debts. They were using really unscrupulous inducements to get people to sign up. I am pleased that significant changes have been made by the government in their requirements for those sorts of courses, and we have been happy to support them. But we have to remain vigilant, because these sorts of sharks find a new way to swim around the new regulations, and they target the most disadvantaged.
I also wanted to acknowledge the significant importance of constitutional recognition. There is a chapter in the report on that. It makes it very clear that part of the 'closing the gap' effort has to be achieving constitutional recognition for our first Australians. As the Leader of the Opposition said:
Including the first members of our Australian family on our national birth certificate should be the shared goal of all Australians.
Indeed it is. I think that it is very important. I commend the proposal first put forward by former Prime Minister Tony Abbott, which Labor supports, that May 2017, being the 50th anniversary of the 1967 referendum, would be a very appropriate time in which to hold the referendum for a national vote of recognition. I am pleased that Bill Shorten, the leader of the Labor Party, has indicated that, if elected, a Labor government would deliver a referendum in that time frame. It is a really important step that we should also pursue.
Finally, in the few minutes left to me, I want to make the point that there is a continuing tragic story in the justice system for Indigenous people. To be honest, I first became deeply aware of it when I worked in the juvenile justice system in New South Wales with an alternate program, which was the Youth Justice Group Conferencing Program. We had a lot of Indigenous young people go through that program. It remains the case, as the Australian Institute of Criminology points out, that Indigenous Australians experience contact with all levels of the criminal justice system as both offenders and victims at much higher rates than non-Indigenous Australians. They are very overrepresented in prison populations. The imprisonment rate is around 12 times that of the rest of the Australian population. Despite making up less than three per cent of the overall Australian population, our Indigenous brothers and sisters make up 40 per cent of those imprisoned for assault offences. Rates of overrepresentation are even higher in juvenile detention. A 10- to 17-year-old Indigenous person is 24 times more likely to be in detention than a non-Indigenous young person of the same age. That is a tragedy. We know that, as people become more caught up in the justice system, their opportunities for breaking out of that cycle become much more difficult.
Bill Shorten, in his contribution, made an important commitment for Labor in terms of addressing this issue. He made the point that, at the first COAG meeting under a Labor government, the first item on the agenda will be setting new targets to close the gap in justice—tackling the appalling incarceration rate amongst Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and focusing on preventing crime, reducing violence and victimisation, and boosting community safety, not just in remote communities but in our cities, our suburbs and our regional towns. The scourge of violence is something that is on all our minds when we look at all of our communities, but Indigenous people being caught as either perpetrators or victims has become a cycle that must be broken. It should be taken up, as the Leader of the Opposition has indicated, with specific targets and specific efforts to address it, in particular to save another generation of young people from either suffering from violence or being part of the cycle of violence. I commend the Closing the Gap report to everybody for good and close examination.
Mick Gooda was being extremely kind when he commented, 'We are heading in the right direction.' In a country where in 1875 Inspector Foelsche could speak of 'going out on nigger hunts' and in South Australia the Premier's policy in 1878 until 1910 was to shoot Indigenous Australians rather than to arrest them and try them, it is understandable that we have a long way to go. I certainly recognise some of the positive stories in this year's Closing the Gap report: Aboriginal health workers in northern Queensland with the Baby One Program, Jericka Mungatopi from the Tiwi Islands, Ryan D'Souza in Western Australia with his completion of certificate III in civil construction et cetera. There are certainly indications of individuals who are succeeding and, on some fronts, such as attendance at school, there are positive signs. However, overall, one must be alarmed at the failure to really make decisive progress. For all the apologies in the world, there needs to be, as the report indicated, a national commitment and a resolve across Indigenous, Pacific and mainstream programs.
I will go to some of the figures without reciting the whole document. There is the proportion of babies born to Indigenous mothers. The low birth rate has remained around 12 per cent over the period of 2003 to 2013. Regarding the situation over the long term, there have been improvements in the apparent retention rates of year 12, but with the unemployment situation, whilst there has been a decline nationally in employment for everyone, the decline for the Indigenous community has been disastrous.
Today I want to specifically concentrate on incarceration. The situation in this country is quite alarming: Indigenous Australians constituted 28 per cent of prisoners in the nation in 2015; 30 per cent of all incarcerated women in Australia were Aboriginals in 2010; 48 per cent of juveniles in custody are Indigenous; and 58.6 per cent is the percentage by which imprisonment rates increased for Aboriginal women between 2000 and 2010. In the Northern Territory we are seeing some of the realities as to why people are incarcerated, get a record and then face the obvious outcomes of incarceration with regard to mental health, isolation from community, health issues et cetera. In large parts of the Northern Territory you cannot locally get a driver's licence. Trainers are very scarce. The language tests are in a language which is not very available in the community. So we get into a situation where unlicensed people are driving uninsured and unregistered cars—the trifecta on court lists—and people do end up in jail.
There are mandatory sentences. We have a situation where legal representation is abysmal, and this government stands indicted with regard to the actual retraction of the right of representation. We read about this in the United States, where people are on capital charges and facing death because of very poor legal representation, with legal representatives sleeping in the courts, totally unable to handle their cases. This is happening in our country. We have a situation where there is no attempt to warn people or to basically understand that in many of these outgoing settlements the dangers of actual accidents et cetera are extremely minimal.
We also have a situation in the Northern Territory where the government is increasingly moving towards contributions from residents of very poor communities to keep programs going. The Northern Territory is an outcome of this. We have a situation where it is costing $100,000 to keep people in jail and yet the government thinks the solutions to the world's problems are to construct a 1,400-person prison in Darwin, to expedite the construction of the Alice Springs prison for 500, and to institute a work camp at Tennant Creek. There is no training and no rehabilitation.
Is it any wonder that on the national front we have these figures where, even compared to the internationally acknowledged problems of black Americans, the actual overall rate is alarming? The figures here show that in Western Australia, for instance, the rate of Indigenous incarceration is 3,700 per 100,000. In Australia as a whole it is 1,900 per 100,000. In the Northern Territory it is 843 per 100,000. That compares with, for instance, the United States overall rate of 716. New Zealand, on our door, is 192, and the United Kingdom is 148. So this is a situation where those rates are, by any international comparison, of grave concern.
We must face up to the interrelationship of these outcomes with other situations in this country. We have the issue of police behaviour. People are thrown into prison basically because of the use of the f-word or the c-word, and if you look at the rates in which people are convicted for those offences there is a very stark race difference with regard to the way those offences are utilised.
As I said, a lack of language skills is an issue: Aboriginal people are sentenced to jail without fully understanding the court processes. In this country, this multicultural society, we even have an interpreting service for a language spoken by approximately 200 people in New Caledonia, and yet we cannot ensure that Indigenous Australians have the same right in the court system.
Regarding reoffending, across Australia about 70 per cent of prisoners—Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal—are reoffenders and 38 per cent are back in prison in two years. With that actual first charging over minimal matters—often, as I say, in the areas of car offences, driving licences et cetera—we have to ask ourselves whether that is really of any value to the society in the long term.
Of course it is not only the very serious matter of the incarceration rates; it goes across a broad plethora of issues. School attendance rates, despite improvements, are still an alarming difference. The 33 per cent decline in infant mortality from 1998 to 2014 has not been balanced in real gains in life expectancy. In actual fact the gain for men was only 0.8 years from 2006 and for women only 0.1. We are not on track to close the gap by 2031.
Speaking of the incarceration rate and the very serious problems there, I refer to the document A brighter tomorrow by Amnesty International. This details the need for action on many fronts: take immediate steps to become a party to the Third Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child; ensure that ongoing funding is made available so that the managing and coordinating role played by the NATSILS can continue; work with state and territory governments to quantify the level of unmet legal need currently experienced by Indigenous young people and their families; immediately withdraw the reservation to article 37(c) on the Convention on the Rights of the Child; and ratify the Optional Protocol to the Convention Against Torture. All of these are matters that need to be dealt with in moving against this very serious problem.
The overall picture is indeed of some grave concern. In summary, we can each year come back and say that on one or two criteria there was a minimal gain, that there has been improvement, but overall it is extremely depressing. We know that some of the goals have had to be abandoned on the education front over this period of time. I certainly endorse the recognition that has been called for by the opposition but certainly on a broader front this does require, as we said, a national effort. In a society which has historically been very much at the forefront of marginalisation of First Nation peoples much remains to be done.
I rise to make a contribution to this year's closing the gap report, which was presented to the Australian parliament by the Prime Minister about two weeks ago. Australia can never be the country it wants to be—a strong country, a truly multicultural country, a cohesive country—until we address this extraordinary national shame of the gap in life chances between Indigenous Australians and the rest of this country. It is simply not possible for us ever to reach that goal that so many Australians have for this country.
It is great to make a contribution to closing the gap because this policy itself—just the very act of saying that we are not going to stand still and we are not going to allow these gaps to continue—is a really important thing that the Australian government has done. It is absolutely extraordinary to think that before Kevin Rudd was Prime Minister that no Australian Prime Minister had stood up before and said we must close this gap, we are going to set targets and we are going to measure our progress so we can keep ourselves honest on this. I want to say to the Abbott and Turnbull governments: for all of the faults and flaws in their Indigenous policy, I am very grateful that they have maintained these closing the gap targets because, without them, this debate would not be happening in the chamber right now, Australians would not have the information that we have today about the direness of some of the statistics that came through in this report and, most importantly, the parliament would not be coming together to discuss this.
One thing that really bothers me as a member of parliament is that, despite the professed keenness and interest from many members of parliament from all sides of politics on this issue, it is something we hardly ever discuss in the national parliament. It is a real source of pride for me to see that the closing the gap statement just of itself requires the Prime Minister of this country and the opposition leader of this country to stand before the Australian people and to take some ownership and responsibility of the many problems we have in this area.
What we learnt in the close the gap speech for this year was sobering again, and it has been sobering every year that these targets have been in place. I want to start by talking about some of the things that are positive in the report and then some of the policy issues here because too much in Indigenous policy we dwell on what a terrible problem this is without talking about the things that we can do about it—and there are lots of things we can do about it.
Firstly, it was really terrific to see that Australia is on track to meet two of the seven major Closing the Gap targets. The first of those is child mortality—such an important one. All we are saying here is that Indigenous babies should have the same chance of getting to their first birthday as babies who were born of families of different origin. It is a pretty straightforward thing and I am so pleased to see that we are progressing on that gap. In year 12 attainment, we see the same thing. We are seeing slow progress, for sure, but we are making gains there.
But that is really the best of it because, when we look to the other areas of Indigenous disadvantage, we see that we are just not making progress towards those targets. Some may describe them as ambitious; I would not. Halving the gap in life expectancy between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians should not be too much to ask, but it seems that is too much to ask of our policy environment today. When we look at really fundamental things—the access Indigenous children have to early learning; the access that Indigenous people have to the health services that they need to maintain a good life expectancy—one thing that I know is quite important to all sides of politics is that we are not making the progress we want in Indigenous employment. I think that most people agree that the pathway to a lot of other improvements in the lives of Indigenous people is to make sure that Indigenous Australians have equal access to jobs—and today we are failing on that.
One of the things that Labor has tried to highlight in the Closing the Gap speeches over the last two years has been the importance of including a justice target in the Closing the Gap targets. What that really means is that we see shocking differences in the rates of incarceration of Indigenous Australians and non-Indigenous Australians. Indigenous Australians represent around three per cent of the Australian population, but they represent 27 per cent of our prison population. It gets even more gutting because half of those Indigenous people who are in jail today are under the age of 30. This is shocking, and it is related to every other of these indicators. How can we get the life expectancy outcomes that we want when there are so many Indigenous young people wasting years of their lives in jail? It is simply not good enough. One of the things that Labor has proposed in response to this very clear need for us to introduce a new target is just to say, 'Let's include it in Closing the Gap so it's something that we can track and monitor with the same vigilance that we look at these other key areas like life expectancy and child mortality.'
There are some other really important things that Labor wants to do in this area. One of the things I was really proud to hear Bill Shorten, the Leader of the Opposition, announce during the Closing the Gap speeches was that there will be an additional $9 million committed to trachoma treatment for Indigenous Australians. We know that Indigenous people, on top of all these other issues, are six times more likely to be blind than Australians who come from other backgrounds. It is not good enough, and treatment for eye disease needs money—it is actually that fundamental. We need doctors to be funded to go out to these communities and help Indigenous people get the eye services that they need. Something else that I was really proud of was to hear the opposition leader announce that Labor has set down a target date for the referendum which will consider whether there should be constitutional recognition of Indigenous Australians. I am hugely in favour of this. I have spent some time living in north-east Arnhem Land and quite a lot of time working in Indigenous communities, and, despite seeing the very practical nature of the problems faced by people in those communities, I do believe that these big-picture reconciliation things really matter. We cannot fix more than 200 years of violence and dispossession just through improvements to government services. There is a deep wound at the heart of this relationship and it is not going to be fixed unless we see some real giving on the part of other Australians and some real sympathy and empathy in how we talk about Indigenous people and how we acknowledge them as our First Australians. So I am really pleased to see that the opposition leader is putting his money where his mouth is, in a sense, and saying that we are going to work towards a date here, because we have been talking about constitutional recognition in this country for a long time and it is time to do something about it.
I want to move away from Labor policy a little and just talk about some of the things that I think are really important in this area and that I hope to work on in the time that I am a member of parliament. One of the things I really believe, having worked with Indigenous communities, is that we must help Indigenous Australians have their own voice in this national conversation. One of the things that really devastate me is the fact that ATSIC—Indigenous self-government—was shut down quite a long time ago, and nothing has been built in its place. What we have now is three, four or five per cent of our population who are dispersed with such different interests and such different life experiences all over the country but who have no voice. What we see happening as a result is that politicians can pick Indigenous leaders who are saying the things that they want to hear and anoint them as Indigenous leaders. That is not good enough. I think that Indigenous people need their own voice and have a right to their own democracy, and I believe that means creating a structure that is similar to ATSIC.
We see problems with democracy in lots of other parts of our country. Mr Deputy Speaker Conroy, I know that in your state of New South Wales we have seen a few issues over recent years. But we do not shut down democracy. We do not take away people's right to be represented. I am really shocked that that has been allowed to happen to Indigenous Australians. We cannot solve this problem without them being our true partners in this discussion.
I want to briefly mention the important role of Indigenous girls and women in this discussion. One of the things that are guiding principles of our international development policy is that we invest in women and girls overseas because women and girls are shown to use the additional resources they have to invest in the health and welfare of their children, and that grows their own community in a really positive way. Yet we have not done the same thing for Indigenous women and girls. This is an obvious place for us to improve. I am pleased to see that Labor is supporting the Stars Foundation program, which is effectively like the Clontarf program but is for women and girls. It is doing great things up in Darwin, and I really want to see that rolled out more across the country.
I want to say one more thing to ordinary Australians about this problem: government is not going to solve this problem unless you work with us to express your outrage and your utter unwillingness to accept the situation as it is today. Sometimes people in this parliament say: 'Don't politicise Aboriginal issues. Don't politicise Indigenous issues.' Well, that is just ridiculous. This is a political problem. This is about who has power and resources in our community. Until the majority of Australians are willing to stand up with one voice and say, 'We have to do better; we must do better,' this problem is not going to get resolved. I want to encourage Australians to say, with me, that this is not good enough. I hope to see something better in next year's Closing the Gap speech.
I begin my remarks on this statement by acknowledging a person who devoted her life to closing the gap for Indigenous Australians. I refer to Josephine Marjorie Agius, who passed away on 30 December 2015, aged 81. More widely known as Auntie Josie, she devoted almost all of her life to closing the gap by lifting health and education standards amongst Aboriginal people throughout South Australia and the Northern Territory. She worked in schools across the Adelaide metropolitan area, teaching the Kaurna language and Indigenous culture. She also worked in the health sector. In more recent years, she was quite often the smiling face that welcomed people to country at community events. Auntie Josie was farewelled by what I estimated to be thousands of people who came from across South Australia and gathered at the Port Adelaide Football Club to show their respects when she was farewelled at the service held for her. I think that was a fitting tribute to a person who not only was a much loved South Australian and a wonderful person in her own right but had done so much to close the gap, the very issue that we are talking about today. I knew Auntie Josie well. She attended many functions which I hosted when I was the Mayor of the City of Salisbury, and I know just how passionate she was in working for the people of her own heritage and culture.
It seems almost contradictory that, in such an advanced nation with one of the highest life expectancies, one of the best health systems and one of the best education systems, we can simultaneously have, after decades of effort, so much disadvantage across one sector of this country. Whether it is education, employment, health, crime rates, incarceration or drug and alcohol abuse, and perhaps other measurable statistics, there is no question at all that we have failed as a nation when it comes to the Indigenous people of Australia.
I also accept that when we look at all those statistics, quite often if we could address one—if we could resolve one—then it would have an important flow-on effect to many of the others. By fixing one problem we can perhaps fix a whole range of them. Again, we have not had that much success. I have quite often asked the question, 'why?' I ask that as someone who actually understands the Indigenous people pretty well. I have come up with some conclusions which I think need to be considered when we look at what the solutions are, what the strategies are that we need to adopt. I accept that many Indigenous people live in outlying, remote, rural areas, but I also accept that there are non-Indigenous people who live in those same regions who do not suffer the same level of disadvantage. I also accept that there are a lot of Indigenous people who live in metropolitan parts of Australia who equally suffer much greater disadvantage to their non-Indigenous counterparts. It is not just a question of remoteness, and being isolated and the like.
I have come up with some views which I think need to be factored in. Firstly, I note that the injustice that was perpetrated against the Indigenous people for almost 200 years—right through to 1967, and even beyond, until land rights in 1992—much of that injustice still causes resentment within many Indigenous people and we need to find a way of overcoming that. Secondly, I also accept that there are vast cultural differences between Indigenous and Western cultures. We cannot expect that people of one culture will necessarily and automatically embrace the values of another culture. That will take time and needs to be considered. Thirdly, I have noticed what I call 'the manifestation of political correctness', which I believe at times inhibits open and honest conversation about the problems, their causes and possible solutions. Maybe we need to be a bit more honest and truthful about what needs to be done and what the real problems are.
When it comes to values, I also note that we have a society driven by what I call 'the worship of wealth', which is in stark contrast to the values of the Indigenous people, where ownership of material wealth was not an issue at all—it was non-existent. Fifthly, there are unique characteristics between the Indigenous people right across this country, just as there are unique differences in the cultures of people in India, Italy and in most countries of Europe if you travel across the nation. So too, is the case with the Indigenous people. There is not one solution that fits all of the Indigenous cultures either and we need to understand that. Sixthly, what I see as one of the most difficult problems—and it has been for years—is this relationship between state and federal governments and the responsibility as to who is responsible for what services, what programs and so on.
It is not surprising that we have seen little progress in closing the gap. In fact, I sometimes wonder whether the progress that has been made would not have equally been made with or without a particular policy—simply through the passing of time and the changes that we see in society in a more general way. I do not know—none of us ever will—but it seems that the progress we have made has not been sufficient and commensurate with the effort that has been put in for many, many years. I can well recall in the 70s, when the Whitlam government came to office, Indigenous issues were elevated in terms of their importance and commitments were made in a way that they had never been made before—and we are now talking 40-odd years ago. We still have so much to do, given the efforts that have been committed to over those last 40 years.
It is my view that the best solutions and the most effective solutions will come from the Indigenous people themselves. When I look back at the history and I look at people like William Cooper, who in 1934 led the Aboriginal people in the formation of the Australian Aborigines' League. That movement exists today and we recognise it each year as NAIDOC Week. William Cooper was a standout Indigenous person of the time. We then go to Vincent Lingiari and the Wave Hill Station walk-off. Again, initiated by an Indigenous person. Later, when Vincent Lingiari had the red sand poured into his hand by Gough Whitlam, it was another wrong being undone and the recognition of ownership of country by the Indigenous people. That was later upheld by the High Court, in 1992, with the Mabo decision. Again, Eddie Mabo drove that. The point I am making is that the Indigenous people have very capable leaders amongst them, and we need to listen to what they have to say.
In fact, when I look at some of the standout Indigenous people of this country, over the last couple of hundred years, the list is endless. They have excelled not just in sport, which quite often people talk about, but also in politics, the professions, business and the arts. We need to recognise their abilities and understanding of their own culture and take note of what it is they believe we ought to do.
The other point I want to quickly make is this: I have noticed that over the years there have been programs initiated and, then, they have stopped. We have just heard about the council that was abandoned by the previous government or one of the earlier governments. We cannot ever be in a position to properly evaluate a program if we do not give it a chance to run its full length. This idea of making programs and funding available and, then, cutting them serves no purpose whatsoever and, quite frankly, wastes resources. We need to allow programs to run their course. We also need to ensure that programs are carried out and developed in consultation with the Indigenous community that will be directly affected by them. Some of those programs need to be tailor-made for the particular communities we are trying to deal with.
We have, effectively, overcome—in the last 50 years, in particular—previous legal discriminations and barriers. I accept that. But we still have to overcome the most difficult barrier: the change in mindset required, by Indigenous and non-Indigenous people, for working towards solutions to the problems we read about in the Closing the gap reports each year. Each report is important—if nothing else, it keeps the focus and discussion going—but is, in itself, not the answer. The answer is to work with the Indigenous communities of Australia and see how we can as a nation best address the problems that should not exist.
I would certainly like to begin tonight by acknowledging the traditional owners of this place, the Ngambri and Ngunnawal peoples, and pay my respects to their elders, past and present, and to their future leaders. I also want to acknowledge the traditional owners of my hometown, Newcastle, and the wider electorate, the Awabakal, Worimi and Wonnarua peoples, and pay tribute to their extraordinary resilience in the face of more than 200 years of dispossession and injustice.
The annual Prime Minister's report on closing the gap and the Australian parliament's acknowledgement of our progress is, as many speakers have pointed out, a symbolic yet extremely important reminder, in this parliament, of the collective effort and shared responsibility that is required if we are to seriously redress the entrenched inequality faced by Australia's first peoples.
There are a number of achievements worth noting, and I will do so in this speech, but it is important at the outset to acknowledge that there are serious challenges requiring our sustained commitment and resources—if this parliament is serious about making inroads into closing the gap. This year's Closing the gap report provided an updated snapshot of the inequality that remains for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. There were some bright spots in the report, as has been noticed, but it is clear that we really do have a long way to go in so many of the targets we have set ourselves as important markers for closing the gap.
The report shows some progress in the target, for example, to halve the gap in child mortality by 2018. We are on track to meet that target. Since 1998 Indigenous child mortality rates have declined and the gap is narrowing. In part, this is due to the greater proportion of Indigenous mothers attending antenatal care and to reduced rates of smoking during pregnancy. To continue to make progress, however, and meet that target, we must continue to ensure that the high-quality prenatal and postnatal care and education programs that have been available to parents and carers continue to be in existence. That will help those families and those kids to thrive.
The target to halve the gap for Indigenous Australians aged 20 to 24 in year 12 attainment or equivalent by 2020 is also on track to be met. The attainment rate was improved from the 32 per cent in the late 1990s—a truly appalling rate—to 60 per cent in 2014. New data is due to be released in April this year, which will give a greater and more accurate indication of the progress that has been made in this area.
However, of the seven Closing the Gap targets, these are the only two targets that are on track to being met. I think it is worth reminding ourselves in this House that meeting those targets or being on track to meeting those targets does not mean that we have addressed social inequality. What it means is that we have managed to reduce its occurrence by half. The targets, when eventually reached, are really about us only getting to the halfway point. We still have an enormous road to travel, even meeting these targets.
As I said earlier, the report really does highlight the many other areas of challenges that remain. We have made little progress in really key areas like education, life expectancy and employment outcomes. On the target to halve the gap in reading and numeracy for Indigenous students by 2018, across eight measurable areas in years 3, 5, 7 and 9, just four have had national standards being met. The increase in school attendance rates has now stagnated, with just a 0.2 per cent increase from 2014 to 2015, with the current rate of 83.7 per cent still well below the non-Indigenous student attendance rate of 93.1 per cent.
In regard to life expectancy, we are not on track to meet the target in any way, shape or form. The gap of 10.6 years for males and 9.5 years for females still exists, and accelerated progress is absolutely essential if we are to go anywhere near meeting this target that we have set for ourselves.
Finally, when it comes to those employment outcomes, no improvement has been made towards those targets since 2008. That is utterly shameful. Those of us on this side of the House understand fully the dignity that is afforded to people through work, and it is shameful that as a nation we cannot meet those targets for employment for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.
The brutal reality is that in Australia today an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander person is still likely to die younger, receive less education and indeed, as I said, find it much more difficult to find work. Clearly, greater effort is required for us to improve this situation. As many speakers before me have noted with distress, we have failed to meet these targets year after year after year. I utterly concur with the comments of the member for Hotham earlier when she said we cannot underestimate the power of insisting that our Prime Minister and our Leader of the Opposition—whoever might occupy those jobs at the time—and indeed this parliament, each and every year, must have this discussion. Certainly there is no more sweeping under the carpet that we have failed to meet even our own very modest aspirations in these areas. What is abundantly clear is that for many, many years, whilst not meeting those targets, we have been able to spend a little bit of time reflecting on why that might be. I would like to quote Dr Tom Calma, who I think has really nailed the point, over consecutive years I have to say. He stresses:
… governments can’t make progress in Indigenous affairs unless done “with and by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people”.
“It's about mutual respect and having the faith and confidence—
to work together. Indeed, this remains one of our nation's greatest challenges. There is so much unfinished business in our relationships with Indigenous peoples in Australia that is yet to be seriously addressed by not only parliaments but the whole of our community.
I welcome the commitment by the Leader of the Opposition and Labor to adding new targets in to the reporting mechanisms of this parliament. I absolutely agree that nothing could be more important than adding a justice target into the reporting mechanisms of this parliament. I am sure I am not alone in recollections of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody back in the 1980s and the frustration that many of those recommendations have not been implemented. We have failed really to adequately address those issues that are now decades-old and that we have seen played out again here in Australia with the obscenely high incarceration rates for Indigenous peoples in Australia. It is a national disgrace. I do not know how the government thinks it is going to meet these targets when at the same time it enables cuts of $3.6 million from family violence and protection legal services just last year alone and has of abandoned its bipartisanship that we had previously to reduce Indigenous incarceration rates and improve community safety.
There is much work to be done. There can be no more important social, economic and cultural commitment than closing the gap that this parliament and indeed our nation can make to address the gross entrenched inequality that continues to exist in Australia today.
I would like to begin by acknowledging the traditional owners of this land on which we meet and pay my respect to the elders past and present, and I extend this respect to all the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people who are present today and to those traditional owners and custodians of country within the electorate that I have the privilege and honour to serve of IndI.
Every year brings continued challenges for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island communities, including those in my electorate. We have heard about many of them today and they are outlined in the 2016 Closing the gap report. Each year also brings a new generation into our communities and takes another generation from us. Babies are born accompanied by great joy and with the same hope that all families have for their children for a happy, healthy and purposeful life. But every year, we also record with deep sorrow the passing of the elders that new generations will only know through the continuation of community connection, crafting and sustaining of contacts within country and maintaining a relationship with culture and heritage. There have been many good leaders that I have had the privilege to know during my time as the member for Indi, and I acknowledge them.
During the 2½ years that I have held this honoured position I have been very proud and excited to know many elders and Indi community groups, the Gadhaba, Dirriwarra, Duduroa and Wodonga Aboriginal networks, the Taungurung, the Bunurung and the Bangerang people, and I have had the opportunity to be a guest at the Mungabareena Aboriginal Corporation during the wonderful visit by the Governor-General and Lady Cosgrove. I have had the pleasure of meeting and learning from the Koori First Steps Pre-School in Wodonga about the many health activities taking place.
It has been a time of great achievement. I was so proud to come into this place and make an apology on behalf of the stolen generations. I was really pleased to meet up with the various advisory groups right across the electorate, particularly to work with them on mental health, jobs and education. I was really pleased to meet with the Hon. Ken Wyatt when he was chair of the committee for constitutional recognition and to talk to him about the issues facing the people of north-east Victoria. I have been pleased to be part of the many celebrations of NAIDOC Week and to meet the many communities involved during that very important time. I have been pleased to welcome to this place, Parliament House, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander groups, particularly some of the women's leadership groups that are taking their place in leading their communities. I have been very pleased to be part of the local Indigenous network movement around Victoria and to have opportunities to meet with the workers, staff and community groups that are linked in those networks.
I was very pleased recently to have the privilege of going to the Burraja Indigenous Cultural and Environmental Discovery Centre on the causeway between Albury and Wodonga, juxtaposed between our two cities. The Burraja centre offers educational and general interest programs that focus on Aboriginal culture, heritage and environment, particularly for visitors and tourists. It acknowledges the role that Aboriginal people have played in this really important part of the country, on the banks of the Murray River, for so many years. At Albury-Wodonga, the two big rivers the Kiewa and the Murray come together, and just east of us the Murray and the Mitta come together, so these are major fertile places that Aboriginal people have clearly inhabited for a very, very long time. So it is fantastic to be part of the Burraja community and see how life perhaps was lived then. I would particularly like to acknowledge the support and guidance of Alicia Wheatley in showing me around this centre and giving me the time to understand how it worked.
The centre was set up in 2002 with funding from the philanthropic group the Ian Potter Foundation, and it was supported by the Community Development Employment Program, the CDEP, and also in partnership with Parklands Albury Wodonga. It operated really well for a while but now is being supported by volunteers and is not nearly reaching its potential. Nevertheless, the partnerships still exist with the North East CMA, Gateway Community Health and the SEED Project, and there are relationships with the Cape York Natural Resource Management Board, Landcare groups, Albury Wodonga Aboriginal Health Service and Murray Wildlife. So they continue to work to hold this space between the two rivers as a place where visitors like me can go and learn about the rich culture.
So, over this period of time, I have been blessed with the opportunities to gain an improved understanding of the importance and value and the commonality of past, present and future with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. I am very grateful to them for their patience and their tolerance in bringing me with them on the journey. But there is still really important work to do, as we know from the Closing the gap report.
There is one particular project that I would like to bring before this House, and it is supported by the elders and others in Indi. It remains to be completed, and the area that we are looking at is central north-east Victoria. The aim, the cry, the interest and the want, I think, is to establish a gathering place which has accessible reach right around the central area of north-east Victoria. Elders and other community leaders have long recognised that connection, community, culture and country all work together to secure happier, healthier and more purposeful living. We understand that the central north-east of Victoria has a gap: it is missing this gathering place that can provide a wide range of cultural, educational and health-related services and activities which other regions enjoy, such as what I have talked about in Albury-Wodonga.
Sitting somewhere between Shepparton and Albury-Wodonga, Wangaratta and district is a significant gap that more than 300 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have commenced a journey to close. The strength of the invitation in having access to such a gathering place, which would provide cultural, health and education resources needed to close this gap, is undoubted. People talk about having a place where we can eat good food, exercise together, be healthy and happily be together but also welcome others into our midst.
Initial scoping has been done, and funding is now being sought via local government and Victorian state programs for the necessary detailed feasibility studies. In the longer term, with confidence that the viability and need of a gathering place will be recognised, I invite the community to approach the office of the federal member for Indi to seek my support in obtaining funding that will also be required to complete the vision of the elders and the many others who share this goal of a local gathering place.
In bringing my comments to a close, beyond the importance and the rich reality of being able to stand here and say, 'Sorry,' and to acknowledge the history and the hurt, it is now time to build a place to draw the past into the here and now, to dream and to create a place that can close the gap in the central area of north-east Victoria. Thank you to the people who have helped me to prepare for today. Thank you to the many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders who have undertaken this journey with me. I look forward to being your representative when this parliament returns and in the years to come. Thank you.
Debate adjourned.
by leave—I move:
That the orders of the day Nos. 1 and 2, Committee and Delegation Reports, be postponed until a later hour this day.
Question agreed to.
It certainly gives me great pleasure to stand and speak tonight on this report, Empowering women and girls: The human rights issues confronting women and girls in the Indian Ocean-Asia Pacific region. But I would, firstly, like to put on the record that my thoughts this evening—and, indeed, those of many others in this chamber, I am sure—are very much with the people of Fiji and Tonga as they begin to deal with the utter devastation that has been caused by Tropical Cyclone Winston. While the full extent of that cyclone's impact is still emerging, there are reports that entire villages have been destroyed and critical infrastructure has been damaged.
Fiji and Tonga are, of course, very close and dear neighbours and friends of the Australian people, and Labor will support the Australian government to do all it can to help with the recovery efforts. I welcome the Australian government's initial $5 million package of assistance to Fiji as an immediate response to the devastation that has been caused. I also note that in December last year I joined a cross-party parliamentary delegation to the Pacific with the then minister for the Pacific and other members of this House and saw firsthand some of the remarkable work that was being done in the region through Australia's involvement in a number of the development projects there.
One of our site visits that I wish to bring to the House's attention was the visit to the Tonga Red Cross Society emergency centre. It was a centre—a shipping container; not a grand facility by any stretch of the imagination—that enabled a range of stores to be immediately available during times of national natural disasters. The grant to enable stores to be strategically stored around Tonga was from the Australian government following Tropical Cyclone Ian back in 2014. I know that the people of Tonga will be especially thankful that those assistance packages are in place, because I understand that over the last two days the Tonga Red Cross Society has distributed the Australian funded pre-positioned supplies from those facilities, such as tarpaulins, hygiene kits, buckets, cooking equipment and mosquito nets. So I am very glad that the Australian-funded facilities that I—and members with me during that delegation visit just last December—saw have been put to extremely good use during this time of terrible need. I wholeheartedly offer my support, of course, to the very resilient Tongan and Fijian communities as they recover from this most recent natural disaster.
I also welcome the opportunity, as I mentioned earlier, to speak today on the tabled report, Empowering women and girls: the human rights issues confronting women and girls in the Indian Ocean-Asia Pacific region. Whilst I am not a member of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, which undertook the inquiry leading to this report, these are issues in which I have a deep and personal interest. Indeed, I have an interest in matters that need to be addressed by this parliament and members of this region.
The human rights and empowerment of women and girls in our region and more broadly across the world is a key issue in the fight for gender equity. I acknowledge the member for Ryan, who joined me on that delegation I was referring to just a little earlier. Indeed, much of the focus of that delegation was on these issues of gender equality and how the Australian government might be able to assist our closest neighbours in doing increased work on these issues.
I have spoken many times in this place on the issues faced by women and girls here in Australia. But, as identified in the report, the issues faced by hundreds of millions of women and girls across the Indo-Pacific region are enormous. For some women and girls the situation is dire. Their lives are blighted by incredible levels of violence and extreme experiences of poverty and ongoing exclusion from economic, social and political participation. These are issues that are very telling, I would suggest to the House, in terms of how nations are seeking to address not only what is good for their own nations but also how we, collectively, as a region, seek to ensure that all our citizens—and that certainly includes the 50 per cent or more of our citizens who are women or girls—get to enjoy full participation in their political, social and economic lives.
As I said, whilst many countries in our region are indeed making progress in advancing the human rights of women and girls, a great deal more progress is required. Women make up, for example, less than four per cent of parliamentarians across the Pacific Island countries—the lowest rate in the world, and well below the global average of 20 per cent.
However, I do note that the people of Samoa will be going to their federal elections next month, in March, and they have really led the way in the Pacific in terms of ensuring increased representation of women in their parliament. They have introduced legislation that requires a quota to be met of women parliamentarians. They have some especially terrific women already in parliament, but I expect them to be electing even greater numbers of terrific women into their parliament next March. I will be watching that election very closely, and I send my good wishes to each and every woman candidate in those upcoming elections in Samoa.
Across the Pacific, men outnumber women in paid employment outside the agricultural sector by approximately two to one, and women occupy only a third of formal sector jobs. Somewhat frighteningly, I would suggest, more than 60 per cent of women in the Pacific have experienced physical or sexual violence. This is an issue that is of great concern, and not only to Australian governments—it is an issue that we had many discussions about with political leaders in Fiji, Tonga, the Solomon Islands and Samoa, just last December. I know these issues are pressing on the minds of all of the leadership in the Asia-Pacific region.
The levels of physical and sexual violence are intolerable, but when we were having these discussions in the Solomon Islands—particularly when their minister for education was expressing the challenges before them as a parliament—I made very clear that Australia does not travel to the Pacific with a clean sheet of paper for ourselves in this regard. Our rates of violence against women and children in Australia are also intolerable. Indeed, we are trying desperately to combat the level of violence in our own culture. So it is something that we need to work in close partnership on in the Pacific region. There is much that we can teach and learn from each other. I note, however, that we cannot continue to see the level of cuts in the Australian aid budget that we have seen over the years, if we are to make real progress on this front.
Debate adjourned.
John Legge passed away on 4 February 2016, aged 94. In the words of the former president of the Asian Studies Association of Australia, Elaine McKay, 'John Legge, more than any other, was the founder of modern Asian studies in Australia.' He spent time in the 1960s at Cornell University, then the pre-eminent centre of South-east Asian studies in the United States. He was inspired by the work of George Kahin and, in John's words:
At the end of my Cornell semester came the next part of the plan—fieldwork in Indonesia focusing on local government. Across the United States by car, over the Pacific by Dutch cargo ship, to Singapore via the Philippines and then by KPM ship to Java. That six months was to be the first of what became more or less annual visits to Indonesia.
As Tony Milner noted in his obituary of John Legge, he worked in that era in which there was a broad recognition that 'the age of European empires had ended'. John Legge was central in developing the Monash Centre of Southeast Asian Studies, working with the other South-east Asia specialists in Monash and throughout Australia: Herb Feith, Cyril Skinner, Ian Mabbett, Michael Swift, Jamie Mackie, Milton Osborne and, of course, my father, Michael Leigh.
It is testament to John Legge's work at Monash that the John Legge Study Space at Monash opened last year. He contributed a number of important works, including a biography of Sukarno published in 1972 and a general history of Indonesia published in 1964. He was engaged in the teaching of Indonesian at a school level, serving on the Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Board. He was a member of the Academy of the Social Sciences in Australia from 1964 and became a Jubilee Fellow, and he was an Officer of the Order of Australia. As Ian Hancock noted:
He had the gift of being 'one of us' while never letting 'us' think he was other than the boss.
Elaine McKay noted of the Monash Centre that:
The Centre rested on the conviction that it should be built on the disciplines and should carry forward the values and perspectives that the disciplines could bring to interdisciplinary discourse.
and said of John that he was:
… instrumental in the establishment of the Asian Studies Association of Australia …
He served as its founding president.
In a eulogy for John Legge, Bob Elson noted:
My new professor was small and wiry of stature, wearing a tweedy kind of jacket and a bow tie. But his punchy walk to the lectern was without affectation and betrayed a high level of energy and purpose. … His gaze married penetrating steeliness and a playful, chuckling humour bursting to emerge.
Bob Elson said of John Legge that he was 'the best teacher I have known,' and said:
John taught me that history is not about the past so much as it is about the analysis of historians' debates and disputes about the significance of the past …
Yes, he loved Indonesia, but, as Bob noted:
I never formed the impression that John romanticised Indonesia or its people.
John will be greatly missed by his children Colin, Kate and David; their partners Gai and Greg; and his grandchildren Max, Jack, Tom and Harry.
John Legge was a friend of our family. He stayed in our home in Jakarta for a couple of weeks in 1980 and was ever the perfect gentleman. He had a back problem and was off for a swim to ease the pain every morning. As my father Michael Leigh summed it up: 'The triumvirate of John, Herb and Jamie really anchored the study of South-East Asia at Monash University. I recall graduate students listening intently to comments on their papers, first from Herb, then Jamie, and waiting somewhat fearfully for John's finale. Even his most devastating demolitions were phrased in such a way as to embody some words of encouragement and suggest a pathway toward academic redemption.'
To conclude: Saya mau mengucapkan terima kasih banyak-banyak atas kesempatan di Parliamen ini untuk menjelaskan kontribusi yang luas dan kaya oleh Professor Dr John Legge almahum.
I also want to acknowledge the passing of historian and public intellectual John Hirst, who passed away recently aged just 73. John Hirst was at the La Trobe University history department from 1968 to 2006—a history in itself. He was head of the department, and author of 16 books which have shaped our understanding of Australia. Among them are The Oxford Companion to Australian History, Australian History in 7 Questions and The Shortest History of Europe, which has sold more than 100,000 copies—more than 10,000 copies in China alone.
Chris Feik, John's editor—and, thankfully, mine too on two books—said:
He had a sociological imagination of great originality, and the historian's gift of synthesising vast amounts of material and seeing new patterns and meanings. His work will surely endure, for its originality, scholarship and deep intelligence.
In a beautiful obituary, Frank Bongiorno described John as 'a fiercely independent intellectual'. He talked about how John challenged orthodoxies created by some of the profession's biggest names:
So Geoffrey Blainey thought distance shaped Australia? Hirst was doubtful, and he outlined his case to his colleagues … Russel Ward reckoned that the noble bushman … was the typical Australian? What about the pioneer, asked Hirst … .The federation of the Australian colonies was a mere business deal? Hirst wrote a whole book, and a very good one … putting that one to rest …
Frank Bongiorno said of John Hirst, 'Australia never quite lived up to his ambition for it.' He recognised John Hirst's belief:
… that historians should be public intellectuals grappling with difficult things that mattered.
As Frank Bongiorno put it:
Hirst was a frequent contributor to newspaper opinion pages not because he particularly enjoyed the limelight … but because it was part of his ideal of engaged citizenship.
National Museum of Australia Director Mathew Trinca paid tribute to John Hirst as 'one of the leading historians advising the museum in the years preceding its opening,' and a member of its governing council from 2003 to 2009. He said:
Dr Hirst believed that understanding the past helps us make sense of our present and future, and that we are all the better for having a keen-eyed historical view.
The great Stuart Macintyre said of John Hirst that he was 'an accomplished and strikingly original historian'. I do not agree with the member for Warringah very often. But he put it beautifully when, in describing John Hirst, he said:
Australia has lost a fine mind, clear thinker and good bloke.
Robert Manne said:
He was extraordinarily independent, had a penetrating intellect, and was courageous and very generous.
And Ben Wilkie's tribute to John Hirst in the Spectator noted his observation that:
… if you believe there is no national identity, for instance, the Japanese from Australians,
try going to Japan and acting like an Australian, and see how you get on.
John Hirst's writing is too broad, vast and important for me to try to do any justice to it in the time I have here, but I would recommend to honourable members his wonderful piece, in The Monthly in 2008, on what it was like to write the official history of Australia to be given to new migrants. The section on diggers opened with the following:
Except for small-scale battles between settlers and Aboriginal people, Australia has been a remarkably peaceful country. There have been no civil wars or revolutions. It is strange, then, that it has a very strong military tradition and that the ordinary soldier, the digger, is the national hero.
Sense and nonsense in Australian history ends with an envoy in which John Hirst talks about a Vietnamese busker playing a didgeridoo. I would recommend that to honourable members too.
As Franklin Bongiorno said, 'He did not jump on and off bandwagons.' He was an egalitarian, a social democrat and a Republican.
Not long after I was elected, John and I had lunch in the members dining room. He had been kind enough to include an extract of Imagining Australia in his book The Australians, talking about mateship. He had liked that my first speech argued that Labor should claim the Deakinite small 'l' liberal tradition, though he thought I had undersold George Reid. I always think of John when I drive past the suburb of Reid in the centre of Canberra.
As the saying goes, a man dies twice: once when you stop breathing and once when you are forgotten. Thanks to John's books, many a significant figure in Australian history will be better understood by generations to come and they too will ensure that Australians will not quickly forget John Hirst.
Tonight it is my sad duty to inform the House of the passing of two exceptionally fine gentlemen in my electorate of Braddon in the last few weeks.
There are those people in the community who everybody knows. Every community across Australia has them. They are those people who everyone seems to have a connection to; everyone seems to have a story about. These people are woven into the fabric of our local communities and they are more often than not the lifeblood of our towns. They are often not the mayor, not the local member of parliament, but, dare I say it, they are the real leaders on the ground who people turn to in good times and bad. They are pillars of our community. They are the members of our local football teams, they are Rotarians, they are volunteers, they are parents and friends, they are committee members, they are presidents of service clubs and other organisations, they are servicemen and they are carers.
I want to pay tribute tonight firstly to Mr Lance Cox. I am confident that if I were to stand in the Devonport Town Hall in my electorate and make the remarks I have just made, many in the room would immediately think of Lance Cox. Lance Cox passed away on 31 January in Hobart Private Hospital. Many in the Devonport community would remember Lance from the Devonport football scene. He played 389 games of footy in his career, 187 of which he played for Devonport. Through his long and distinguished football career he in fact played seven games for Richmond Football Club in the VFL as well as winning the Devonport Football Club best and fairest award in 1965. He was in the Devonport Football Club team of the century—in fact, Lance was voted vice-captain. While I have no doubt his football skills were what got him into the team of the century, it was Lance as a man of great character that led his peers to elect him vice-captain. Another local legend in my community, Paddy Martin, remarked, 'There wasn't one person in the combined sides that had something unpleasant to say about him.'
I also recall Lance's exceptional sportsmanship and contribution to the game. It was recognised in 2007 when the Lance Cox and Neil Conlan Medal was created to be awarded to the best on ground from the Devonport club for the first ever NTFL Boags heritage game against South Launceston. The story of Lance finding out that he was to have the medal named after him is one that truly reflects the his character. When Lance was asked to comment on having the best-player medal named after him he said, 'It's a great honour to have a medal named after me, but especially because it is with Neil.'
There are many in the community, I am sure, who would have similar stories of Lance. He was a humble man, a funny man, always looking to pull others into the spotlight with him rather than to bask in any glory himself. Lance's involvement in the Devonport Football Club was just one of the many roles he held and contributions to the community he gave. I know he was a large local figure, but it was not until I read all of the tributes to Lance that I realised just what an enormous contribution he had made to the north-west coast of Tasmania.
As a life member of the parents and friends committee of Our Lady of Lourdes Catholic School, Lance dedicated hundreds of hours, if not thousands, to education and the Catholic faith. Outside of education, Lance was a founding member of the NWFU 200 Club and served as their treasurer for the past seven years. In his 35 years as a member of the Rotary Club of Devonport North, Lance was a president and Paul Harris fellow. Lance was also a member of the Mersey Regional Sub-Branch of the National Servicemen's Association and, dare I say it, he was a member of the Mersey dance group called The Wrinklies.
The most significant group, though, that Lance was a member of and most proud of and most committed to was that of the Cox family. Lance was the family rock. Those in my electorate would have seen the many tributes to Lance from his closest family and, of course, friends. He was a man of principle and integrity and had a strong work ethic. Lance will be remembered as an outstanding member of the community, but most of all as a loving father, grandfather, family man and husband of Jan, who was always there to help out a mate. To quote from one of the many tributes to Lance: 'The world is poorer for your passing, but the kingdom of heaven is richer. A life well lived.'
The words I spoke earlier about the pillars of our community not only describe Lance Cox but also Laurie House. Perhaps far better known on the north-west coast as Mr Betta, Laurie passed away on 3 February after many years as an icon in the Tasmanian dairy industry. There are very few people in Braddon—very few people in Tasmania—who have never heard of the iconic Tasmanian milk brand Betta Milk. Whether they saw one of the infamous 'Tassie As Tour' ads with Frank and Nikki from the Betta Milk Protection Squad or had it every morning for breakfast, almost every Tasmanian knows the iconic milk brand Betta. The man behind the milk, Laurie House, became well-known as the man who build the Betta brand and became better known as Mr Betta.
Laurie grew up on Tasmania's east coast, in the small town of St Marys. As a young man, Laurie worked as an administrator with the Postmaster-General, where he travelled around the state taking up various postings in this role. After all the time on the road Laurie found himself on the north-west, where he took up the role with what was then the local dairy cooperative in Burnie, Betta Milk. With his background working for the Postmaster-General Laurie was a highly skilled administrator, and after he came on board Betta Milk grew and grew. By the mid-1990s Betta Milk was trading state-wide and Laurie had convinced the Betta Milk board to establish Hellyers Road Distillery, a legendary local distillery—and I make sure that I have plenty of their stock in my office.
Hear, hear!
As the member for Bass will attest—and I make sure that any ministers or visitors get a chance to have a taste of that earthy Hellyers Road Distillery whiskey that is a part of the dream and vision of Laurie House. You would be forgiven, though, for thinking that milk and whisky production does not go hand in hand. Hellyers Road Distillery, however, is an award-winning distillery and is the world's bestselling Australian crafted single malt whiskey. Anyone who has come into my office, will know of that, and will have seen the top shelf of my Braddon produce display dedicated entirely to produce from this distillery. Laurie never got to come to Canberra to experience that, but he knew full-well that I was a great advocate for the Hellyers Road brand.
That man behind the milk had a side that far fewer Tasmanians saw. That side was dedicated to his family and local community. Laurie served the north-west through the Burnie Emu Bay Lions Club for over 28 years. He was a laugh a minute. He had a great sense of humour, was always up for a prank and was a great man to spend time with, and he loved spending time with people and enjoying their company. Laurie also used his standing in the business community to help others, supporting and sponsoring the McKenna Park Regional Hockey Complex, just to name one.
I remember that my father, when we had a local business, had a lot to do with Laurie House. He had such high regard for the man, and that was passed on to me. I have known nothing else than a gentleman and a man of great integrity and character who was always a great support to me. He always had something to say and always had some advice to give, but always delivered it with a smiling face.
Though Laurie will undoubtedly leave an enormous hole in the community on the North-West Coast, it is his family who will obviously feel the loss the most. Laurie and his wife, Pat, had four children together: Genevieve, Caroline, Eloise and James. Laurie was an uncle, a brother, a father and a deeply loved member of the House family. I pay particular tribute tonight to his wife, Pat. Laurie did not enjoy much of the best of health over many years. In fact, his health took a great toll physically some years ago when he lost both of his legs and he spent a considerable amount of time in a wheelchair. But his smile never left his face and his wife never left his side. Their companionship continued to leave a mark on all of those who watched on. What a tremendous couple and what a tremendous testimony to commitment and marriage Laurie and Pat were.
Both of these men, Lance Cox and Laurie House, shaped the North-West Coast in their own way and in their own lifetimes. It is with great sadness that their community farewells them, but they will both be remembered into the future for the role they had in changing our place and impacting our future on the North-West Coast of Tasmania. My thoughts and prayers, and this testimony of their lives in this place, go out to the families of both men. May they both rest in peace.
Since the opening of the training provider market to the private sector and the extension of student loans to the vocational sector, we have seen a massive number of registered training organisations set up shop right across the country. Currently, according to the Australian Skills Quality Authority, there are about 5,000 RTOs in Australia offering certificates I to IV, diplomas, advanced diplomas and vocational education and training courses in hairdressing, beauty services, community services, digital media, English language classes, aged care, and child care services, to name a few.
In 2014, I was asked to attend and officially open an RTO, Keystone College, which opened in Broadmeadows. My electorate has very high youth unemployment, as high a 25 percent in some suburbs, and we also have a very large number of long-term mature unemployed people on disability support looking for work, as well as many new migrants and refugees who are seeking opportunities to skill or reskill themselves in the hope of getting a job. So Keystone came offering training opportunities for people in my electorate. Instead, in less than two years of operation, they have provided nothing but stress and frustration and have now left many students with large debts and no qualifications following Keystone's decision last week to enter into voluntary administration.
My grievance, therefore, is about the manner in which my most vulnerable and disadvantaged constituents have been treated by Keystone. I begin with Ms Birsel Akbulut, who began a hunger strike on Monday, 26 January outside Keystone College protesting the ruthless recruitment tactics and subsequent unacceptable treatment and exploitation of students, who have now been left high and dry without qualifications but with significant debts. I visited Birsel during her hunger strike and it was she who first told me about the conduct of Keystone College. Birsel had initially been employed by Keystone's now defunct marketing arm, National Training and Development, to effectively spruik for students. In turn, she would be paid $300 for each student at the sign-up stage and another $300 once the student passed the census date. 'Good money,' she thought for a worthwhile service. Birsel knew many people in the local Turkish-speaking community and was happy to promote the Keystone College's training courses. She was successful in recruiting 61 local residents to undertake a community services diploma and a diploma of beauty services. Of course, many of them were not proficient in the English language. In the case of the community services diploma, Birsel was told by Keystone that English language proficiency would not be an issue as the college would provide a Turkish-speaking teacher. When she asked about the job prospects for a non-English-speaking person with a diploma in community services, she was told that English language skills would not be necessary because graduates would be working in the Turkish-speaking community. Students commenced the community services diploma, but no Turkish language teacher was provided, so the college asked Birsel to be the interpreter. She agreed, and the course began. No Turkish language teacher was ever appointed, however, and eventually, after a period, many of the students dropped out because they could not cope. But this was not before the census date kicked in, so to their horror many students were left with a debt they were not aware of. Birsel herself has never been fully paid for the work she did.
With Birsel's help, my staff and I met with some 70 people from my electorate last Thursday to hear their experiences at Keystone College in Broadmeadows. Many were studying a diploma of community services. A number of the women had enrolled in this course, including Farida, Nancy, Golda, Samira, Antoinette, Intisar and Basima. They all told me that they were doing the course to help the community. They had been told that within the next five years Australia would need 50,000 community services workers, so they believed that the demand was there for them to get a good job.
Nancy and Golda told me that when they enrolled they were studying the 2008 diploma of community services course, which the government changed in December last year. Therefore, the course that they had been studying was no longer relevant, even though they were well into the course itself. In January this year, after much lobbying, they were told that they could continue with the 2008 model but would have to complete the course by July 2016 in order for their diploma to be nationally recognised. Now that Keystone has gone into administration, Nancy and Golda have no idea how they are going to finish the course by July. They have effectively been left high and dry.
Samira, a Syrian refugee, was also due to complete the diploma by July this year. The course she signed up for cost a total of $18,800, although Nancy and Golda were told it was $19,500 and others again were told it was $17,990. On Keystone's website the cost was advertised as $17,990. Intisar, a 64-year-old woman enrolled in the diploma, only has 1½ units to complete before she finishes her diploma. Last Thursday she went to class and was told to pack up her things and go home. There was no explanation given. Intisar has not received any correspondence from the college or the administrators and has not yet received any statement of her liability. Nor have a number of other students. The inconsistency has added greater frustration for my constituents.
Another student, Antoinette, told us that she had enrolled at Keystone College because she believed that, as a government registered training organisation, Keystone would be regulated and aboveboard. This has not been Antoinette's experience. She asks, 'Why is the government giving money to these organisations?' Others asked why they should incur a debt for a course that they cannot complete and that is no longer recognised.
I also met with students studying interactive digital media courses. One student, Ahmet Uzuner, told Keystone from the outset that his English language skills would not be good enough to do the course. However, the manager there, Mohammad, reassured him that his English was sufficient for the course. After Ahmet had enrolled and the census date has passed, it was suggested that he either drop out or improve his English or they would freeze his enrolment. This 64-year-old grandfather now has a debt of roughly $8,000.
Another group were enrolled in a diploma of beauty services at Keystone. Five women enrolled in this course—Serap, Sarnia, Iktimal, Meral and Ozlem. They initially went to Keystone College but were escorted to Aspire College, which was in the same building, and were made to enrol there. They were told that they would each be provided with food, a tablet, a full make-up kit and transport costs for travel to a salon in Moonee Ponds for the practical component of the course. In reality, they got the tablet, a few nail polish bottles and no transport money. The theory component of the course was all done online and provided by a distance education teacher in Queensland. The practical part of the course was conducted at the Athena Institute of Health and Beauty in Moonee Ponds, but the students recently received an email from the salon telling them not to come in for the usual sessions that week because the salon was being renovated until further notice. Ozlem then received a letter from the administrators advising that the college was likely to be placed in liquidation and that they would try to place the students in other colleges. None of the other enrolled students have received any letters.
Serap has called Athena College, as well as the Queensland trainer, but all numbers are disconnected. She printed out a withdrawal form from the Aspire website but there is nobody to submit the withdrawal form to. Serap has now enrolled in a similar course at the Meadows Education Centre, paying a further $3,000 upfront, and has been told that the course she was taught at Aspire was out of date and would not count towards a Diploma of Beauty Therapy.
When signing the VET FEE-HELP form a number of students were told not to fill in the date and, in fact, to leave it blank. I have met with other former employees of the now defunct National Training and Development. They gave me numerous examples of unconscionable recruitment activities and practices, such as a student who signed up to a Diploma of Interactive Digital Media. When asked by the district manager, Robert Ninness, 'Why do you want to do the course?' the student responded, 'I want to learn how to use the computer for my grandchildren.' Clearly the course was not suitable for this particular student, who was signed up anyway and has now incurred a debt of some $22,000.
An investigation in 2015 by the Australian Skills Quality Authority found problems with two-thirds of the private training providers it audited. Such a result indicates there is an undeniably very serious problem in this industry. This is especially disturbing as the courses are government funded through VET FEE-HELP. The ASQA report revealed that vocational education training cost the state and territories $5.9 billion in the 2014-15 financial year. This amount included $1.8 billion of Commonwealth money, which was partly to fund VET FEE-HELP. How many more colleges have to go into administration and how many more vulnerable people have to be left with debts before something is done about the systemic rorting and exploitation within registered training organisations?
I have an excellent TAFE in my electorate—the Kangan TAFE—which is capable of providing the courses that RTOs currently provide without the exorbitant fees and without engaging in ruthless and unethical practices. We should stop wasting taxpayers' money. We should get rid of RTOs and restore the delivery of these courses to the TAFE sector. (Time expired)
It is timely in an election year and nearly 2½ years since the 2013 election to reflect on the progress in my home state of Tasmania. I was pleased to once again hear the Prime Minister refer to this in question time today. There is no doubt that, on any objective measure, Tasmania in 2016 is in a much stronger position that it was in 2013. Tasmania's economy is growing faster than at any stage during the last six years. Premier Will Hodgman and Treasurer Peter Gutwein report that our state's finances are under control and they forecast that at the state level Tasmania will be back in surplus in 2017 and in every following year of the forward estimates. Major national surveys provide an increasingly upbeat message about Tasmania's business confidence and we are rated in those surveys as the most confident place in Australia to invest. The most recent Sensis business index rated Tasmanian small- and medium-sized enterprises as the most confident in the country.
Compare the situation I have just described with the situation reflected in the Governor-General's speech to open the 44th Parliament. It was with mixed feelings that I heard her speak about Tasmania. We were the only state singled out by Her Excellency for special and urgent attention. I recall a feeling of sadness that, after 16 years of Labor and Labor-Green government in Hobart and six years of Labor and Labor-Green government in Canberra, we were in such a predicament that urgent action was needed.
At the time of that speech just over two years ago Tasmania lagged the nation on almost every objective indicator that measures growth in our federation. Our unemployment rate was the highest, our participation rate was the lowest and 11,000 full-time jobs had been lost in Tasmania since 2010—coincidently, the year that the Bartlett Labor government and the Greens began their political alliance. We had the lowest proportion of private sector employment compared to public sector employment. We had the longest elective surgery waiting times and the highest proportion of people without superannuation accounts. Recall this quote from an editorial in The Examiner on 16 February 2012:
A predicted underlying surplus has been revised as a big deficit … economic growth is expected to decline … the Government will fail to meet savings targets … unemployment will continue to be relatively high … on top of this gloomy set of numbers, the forestry peace process has collapsed … Ms Giddings and her Greens cabinet colleague Nick McKim are at war … cabinet solidarity has been so bastardised as to be unrecognisable.
It was a very sad situation indeed, culminating in an unemployment rate above eight per cent, the worst in the nation. It got so bad that, on the front page of The Examiner of Friday, 12 July 2013, just before the 2013 election, then Prime Minister Kevin Rudd announced that he was leading 'a rescue mission, on the back of the state's worst unemployment figure for a decade'.
So it was no surprise that Tasmanians resoundingly voted for change on 7 September 2013. I am pleased to see my wife, Christine, who helped me in that very successful campaign, in the chamber this evening. Indeed, after that election the Labor Party was reduced to only one House of Representatives seat, having held all five in Tasmania only three years prior. As King John said, we cannot paint the lily. Economically and on social measures, Tasmania was in terrible shape. The Greens party were off with the fairies at this time, telling us that niche industries were the answer: woodcraft, movie-making, electric cars—even a blueberry-led economic recovery was proposed by one Greens MHA. The Labor-Greens government had strangled industries like forestry, with approximately half the state locked up. Yet Australia imports $2 billion in forestry products every year—or $4 billion if paper products are included—often from countries where environmental policies are nowhere near as good as they are in Australia. And still the Greens clamour for even more 'preservation'. Their definition of preservation, of course, means no use at all. There is a world of difference, as we know, between preservation and conservation, the latter allowing natural resources to be used in a sustainable way. As Bill Gammage has written, unmanaged forests are dirty forests. They are also dangerous forests, with residue build-up only making the fire hazard much worse—as Tasmania has found out, to its regret, over the last four months. Gammage points out that the Aboriginals regenerated the land through fire. The Greens' dogmatic policies to lock up forests vastly increase the fire hazard and, ironically, the potential damage to flora and fauna. The Greens' unwillingness to use biomass for productive purposes only adds to their culpability.
That is why I am pleased to report that the coalition's economic growth plan for Tasmania, announced by former Prime Minister Tony Abbott on 15 August 2013, has made a real difference. As promised, we established a Tasmanian Major Projects Approval Agency in Launceston as a one-stop shop. We provided incentives for employers to take on the long-term unemployed and set up a Joint Commonwealth and Tasmanian Economic Council. We concluded Productivity Commission and ACCC reviews into Tasmania's shipping costs, the competitiveness of our freight industry structure and improving the equity of the Tasmanian freight and passenger vehicle equalisation schemes. Two hundred and three million dollars was subsequently committed to the Tasmanian Freight Equalisation Scheme. That which the Fraser government established, the coalition has so substantially enhanced. Sixty million dollars was allocated to irrigation schemes, enhancing $30 million of state government investment and $30 million of private sector investment.
The economic strides forward we have made in Tasmania have been driven by the real economy, the private sector. I am proud to say that the level of private investment in the last two years has increased by more than 10 per cent. In the 12 months to September 2015, Tasmania had the third fastest growing state economy in the country, behind only New South Wales and Victoria. There has also been strong growth in jobs. When I went to the 2013 election, the unemployment rate in Tasmania was 8.6 per cent; today, it is 6.6 per cent, substantially lower, with around 10,000 new jobs created. Importantly, we are no longer at the bottom of the national unemployment benchmarks, with our jobless rate now lower than South Australia and Queensland and about the same as Western Australia and Victoria. Dwelling investment was up 12 per cent in the September 2015 quarter. Completed construction work had its highest quarter on record, up 32 per cent in the year to September 2015. Tourist visitation is growing off the charts, and our retail spending is at record levels. Encouragingly, the value of exports has also increased by 3.4 per cent in the 12 months to September 2015, and there is more to come from that trifecta of free trade agreements with South Korea, Japan and China, negotiated by our outstanding former trade minister Andrew Robb.
Indeed, a Deloitte Access Economics Business outlook report last October has given this report on the Tasmanian economy:
The economic pain of the past decade is … dissipating.
Relative to other states, the Business outlook says:
Tasmania is still a bright spot in Australia's investment outlook.
The results I have described are the result of hard work, discipline and policy coherence between Liberal-led governments in Hobart and Canberra. As always, there is more to do, but the trend is moving in the right direction.
On the to-do list are a residual range of priorities, including doing something about the collapse in Australia's coastal shipping following the disastrous coastal shipping laws of the Labor-Greens government in 2012. Two more ships have recently withdrawn from plying the coastal shipping routes after commercial decisions by the two operators, Alcoa and CSL, having determined that it is no longer viable to operate the vessels in coastal trade. Over the first two years of Labor's coastal shipping legislation, the coastal shipping fleet halved from 30 to 15 vessels, demurrage rates tripled and freight costs doubled compared to regional rates. The number of vessels with a transitional general licence dropped by more than half, from 16 to seven. With the most recent decision by CSL, that number will, sadly, soon drop to six. There has been an almost 70 per cent decline in the carrying capacity of the major Australian coastal trading fleet, and the Australian shipping industry is simply not competitive and is costing Australian jobs. That is why I will do everything I can to ensure that coastal shipping legislation is brought back to the parliament this year. There is also more to be done to secure a brighter future for our forestry industry by developing value-added uses for our timber resources.
The contrast between Tasmania in 2013 and Tasmania now should give rise to even greater confidence and investment growth and more local jobs, and that is why I will devote every effort, as the member for Bass, to strengthening those laudable objectives.
The New South Wales Liberal government, the Baird government, is attacking the rights of apartment and unit owners in our area, and many members of our community are deeply concerned about these reforms. In October 2015, the New South Wales Liberals amended the state's strata laws. Under the new laws, the percentage of owners required to agree to sell a complete set of units for redevelopment has been reduced from 100 per cent to 75 per cent. This means that if 75 per cent of owners in a strata unit complex agree to sell then the remaining 25 per cent, who may be opposed to that sale, are forced to sell also, and the 75 per cent majority can include the developers who are seeking to knock down and redevelop that unit block.
This is an unfair reform that attacks people's property rights, particularly those of the vulnerable and elderly in our community. I am standing up in our area against these reforms. Recently I ran a petition campaign in the community, calling on members of the community to express their opposition to these dastardly reforms to our strata laws, and 1,075 people in our community have signed the petition, and signatures are continuing to roll in, calling on the New South Wales government to reverse this disgraceful decision.
This reform is unfair. It is unfair because it changes the rules on the sale of a person's property—their homes that they have invested in, that they may own and that all of their memories of their family growing up are part of. This takes this decision about when a person sells their own home out of their hands and may place it in the hands of developers, and that is unreasonable and unfair.
This is a particularly worrying attack on the rights of elderly people in our community. Let us say, for instance, you have a block of units; say there are 10 units in the block. Say two of the people who own those units are elderly—maybe widows or retirees—and have lived there for decades. It is their home—the place of all of their memories. They do not want to move. They are comfortable and happy where they are. They have called it their home for many, many years. Under these new Liberal laws, if eight of the unit owners in that block agree to sell, then the two elderly unit owners will be forced to sell also. They will be forced to lose their right to determine when to sell their home and how they sell their home and whether or not they pass it on to their kids.
Eighty-eight-year-old Kingsford Smith constituent Vern Philpot spoke to the ABC about the changes late last year, and he said that he was very concerned that his Randwick apartment could be sold out from under him. He said:
I don't see why they should be able to change your status just because they want to make a lot of money …
I could not have put it better myself, because that is what this change is all about. It is about allowing developers to come in and override the property rights of individuals—to make a quick buck out of potential developments.
Even the experts who work in this field have poked holes in this flimsy reform. Speaking to the media, University of New South Wales strata title expert Dr Cathy Sherry said that the change would result in people being forced to sell their homes. She said:
It's the Government empowering private citizens to take other people's property …
And that is exactly what is occurring here. The New South Wales Liberal government is empowering citizens to take other citizens' property off them and take away their say in when they sell their homes.
These laws are expected to take effect from 1 July 2016. However, typically, the Liberals have rushed this reform from the get go, and the detail on how it will operate is still to be determined. The regulations associated with this legislation are yet to be written.
On behalf of our community, I call on the Baird government to listen to the people—to listen to the opposition that there is in our community to these dastardly reforms. It is not too late to reverse these horrible changes that have been made to strata laws in New South Wales. Reverse this decision. Remove the 75 per cent rule which allows developers to come in and buy properties from people without them having a say in their future. Do the right thing by strata owners in New South Wales. Reverse these dastardly laws.
Foreign land ownership has long sparked debate in our country. Those in favour say foreign investment is needed to ensure established and emerging industries can meet their full potential. But others say there needs to be greater scrutiny of those buying up Australia's prime pastoral and residential land. I wish to contribute to the debate and to explore the broader issue of foreign land ownership at length and the action the government is taking to strengthen foreign investment rules.
Since being elected, this has been a topic often raised with me, with the major concern directed at land purchases. It is no secret that people are worried about the buy-up of Australia's agricultural land by foreign entities, and about where the produce and profits will go.
In the 1980s, we were told we must end the onslaught of Japanese investment in Australia, in our hotels in particular. Now we are hearing similar concerns in other areas. So I think it is reasonable and necessary to explore this matter in some depth.
I strongly believe it is important to look at this with a very open mind. There are definitely two sides to the argument when it comes to foreign investment.
Firstly, the government welcomes foreign investment, and governments—whether Liberal or Labor—have welcomed foreign investment over the decades. Australia was built on foreign investment, first from Britain, then the United States and then, more recently, Japan and China.
What I find most surprising is the level of fear, given the real facts and statistics. The United States and the United Kingdom are the two top sources of investment in Australia, making up some 45 per cent of total investments, ahead of Belgium, Japan and Singapore. Over the decades, the United States and the United Kingdom ranking very high up in terms of the foreign investment in Australia has been fairly similar. China, in comparison, is ranked seventh. Yes, levels of Chinese investment have grown since 2005, but the total value does not compare to that of other countries—particularly the United States.
As the former Minister for Trade and Investment stated:
History teaches us several important things about foreign investment. It shows that Australia has always needed foreign direct investment to supplement its own thin capital markets and savings.
Foreign investment provides significant benefits for Australia. But why do we need foreign investment? Foreign investment has played a crucial role in driving productivity and economic growth, and contributing to the employment opportunities and living standards of Australians. It provides additional capital for economic growth, creates employment opportunities, improves consumer choice and promotes healthy competition—something every Australian would agree is important. It can also deliver improved competitiveness and productivity by introducing new technology, providing much needed infrastructure, allowing access to global supply chains and markets, and enhancing Australia's skills base. Without foreign investment, production, employment and income would all be lower. Investment equals jobs and growth. Without investment, we would not have been able to create the strong national industries that underpin our economy, and each of these industries is a creator of Australian jobs.
When we have an economy challenged as it transitions, jobs are so important. I want to go through a couple of examples to illustrate this. Take the British investment in our defence and aviation sector through companies like BAE Systems, who employ around 1,000 people in South Australia, and Cobham, who employ hundreds in Adelaide and around Australia. There was the Japanese investment in hotels and tourism in Queensland during the 1980s. We could go on with other examples, such as United States investment in defence in our country and in our industry, including by the technology companies, whether it is Google or Facebook, among others.
Investment means innovation, skills development and entrepreneurship—some of which the American investors bring in spades—and all are important drivers of job creation. The link between investment, jobs and growth is real. The evidence is here and it is strong. As Andrew Robb has told this place before,
… new research from the Economist Intelligence Unit … confirms foreign direct investment has a positive, causal impact on employment in Australia. In fact, modelling based on data since 2000 shows that a $1 billion increase in FDI would result in around 1,000 Australian jobs being created.
For those interested, Australia attracted over $140.1 billion in direct, new foreign investment in 2014—up 17.8 per cent on the 2013 figures. Based on the previously mentioned modelling, this investment supports 140,000 jobs throughout our country.
The Business Council of Australia recently released a report titled Foreign attraction: building on our advantages through foreign investment. The report states that research shows that foreign investment inflows increase our capital stock, lift productive capacity and output, raise demand for labour and boost real wages. Specifically, a 10 per cent increase in foreign direct investment inflows over the next decade is estimated to increase GDP by 1.2 per cent, or $16.5 billion, by 2020. Yes, they are big numbers. Yes, they are significant, but they help our economy.
The benefits of foreign investment in Australian agriculture were explained by Martin Newnham, CEO of AgCAP, to The Australian on 11 December 2014. In addition to managing farms owned by the Sustainable Agriculture Fund, AgCAP also manages two properties leased by SAF from US global agricultural fund, Westchester. He says:
They own the land and provide the capital and we effectively lease it from them and provide the local expertise and management. We have our own local farm managers and use local contractors so there is a real benefit for rural communities; but it's their money that ensures the properties are beautifully presented, maintained and run to the highest occupational health and safety and governance standards—that's what capital brings.
Foreign and other institutional investment also brings the advantages associated with corporate management. This includes discipline and a wider range of resources in production, planning and marketing. This benefits the assets in the long term. Investments managed by AgCAP benefit from their deep local operating expertise, experience working with Australian and foreign institutional investors, and strong knowledge and access to opportunities in the Australian agricultural sector.
The resource sector is another one that has greatly benefited from foreign investment. Since the gold rushes in the mid- to late-1800s, when London and New York invested in Bendigo here in Victoria and Coolgardie in Western Australia, Australia has welcomed foreign investment in resource projects from around the world. In 2014 it was $265 billion. The investment comes from all across the globe—Canada, the United Kingdom, the US—and increasingly from our key commodity trading partners like Japan, China, Korea and India. Australia has also experienced considerable investment from countries such as Switzerland, Brazil and South Africa. We have a strong history of welcoming foreign investment in the resources sector, and this has benefited our country in terms of tax revenues and in other areas.
But it is important that we look at the national interest, and that is where the government has focused in recent terms. The current government has implemented a number of measures, which were election commitments, to strengthen our foreign investment rules. From 1 December 2015 we saw the government's robust new foreign investment regime come into force, providing stronger enforcement and a better resourced system with clear rules for foreign investors. Changes now in effect provide greater compliance powers to the tax office and introduce strict new penalties for those breaking the law. We have given the ATO full responsibility for enforcing residential real estate purchases by foreign citizens, and existing criminal penalties have been increased.
While foreign investment in agriculture provides important economic benefits, we have acted to improved scrutiny and transparency around foreign ownership of Australia's agricultural production. The average farming business is smaller than other businesses in the economy, and applying the general business threshold of $252 million excludes a large part of the agriculture sector from foreign investment screening. Hence, from 1 March 2015 the screening threshold for foreign purchases of agricultural land has been lowered from $252 million to $15 million, based on the cumulative value of agricultural land owned by that investor. The government has also introduced a $55 million threshold for direct investments in agribusiness. Australians can have confidence that investments into agriculture will be scrutinised to ensure that they are not contrary to the national interest. The government is also expanding the agricultural land register to include residential land and water entitlements. This package is long overdue and includes modernising the foreign investment framework, reducing red tape and providing greater certainty for investors and the community.
Since coming into force, this government has played an active role. Recently the government blocked the sale of Australia's largest family owned cattle property portfolio, S Kidman and Co, to foreign buyers on the basis that it was not in the national interest. I have raised this matter with the Treasurer and the Minister for Agriculture. We know that a few years ago the federal government also turned down a bid by US grain giant Archer Daniels Midland for a takeover of Australia's biggest grain handler on the eastern coast, GrainCorp. This was also deemed contrary to the national interest. The government has ordered the sale of a number of residential properties, including a mansion in Point Piper owned by a Hong Kong based group and others.
The coalition government's measures represent the most significant reforms to Australia's foreign investment framework in forty years. We are committed to strengthening the system so that Australians can be confident that foreign investment will not be contrary to the national interest. Foreign investment has underpinned the development of our nation, and we must continue to attract the strong inflows of capital, but it must be in the national interest.
There being no further grievances, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
I move:
That the Federation Chamber do now adjourn.
Question agreed to.
Federation Chamber adjourned at 20:53