I present report No. 40 of the Selection Committee, relating to the consideration of committee and delegation business and private members' business on Monday, 29 February 2016. The report will be printed in the Hansard for today, and the committee's determinations will appear on tomorrow's Notice Paper. Copies of the report have been placed at the table.
The report read as follows—
Report relating to the consideration of committee and delegation business and of private Members' business
1. The committee met in private session on Tuesday, 23 February 2016.
2. The committee determined the order of precedence and times to be allotted for consideration of committee and delegation business and private Members' business on Monday, 29 February 2016, as follows:
Items for House of Representatives Chamber (10.10 am to 12 noon)
COMMITTEE AND DELEGATION BUSINESS
Presentation and statements
1 Standing Committee on Procedure:
Consideration in detail of the main appropriation bill.
The Committee determined that statements on the report may be made—all statements to conclude by 10.20 am.
Speech time limits—
Dr Southcott 5minutes.
Next Member speaking—5 minutes.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 5 mins]
2 Standing Committee on the Environment:
Report on the visit to Singapore and Malaysia, 25-30 October 2015.
The Committee determined that statements on the report may be made—all statements to conclude by 10.30 am.
Speech time limits—
Mr Zappia 5minutes.
Next Member speaking—5 minutes.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 5 mins]
3 Standing Committee on Indigenous Affairs:
Statement on the progress of the Inquiry into educational opportunities for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students.
The Committee determined that statements may be made—all statements to conclude by 10.40 am.
Speech time limits—
Dr Stone 5minutes.
Next Member speaking—5 minutes.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 5 mins]
PRIVATE MEMBERS ' BUSINESS
Notices
1 MS O ' NEIL: To present a Bill for an Act to amend the Industrial Chemicals (Notification and Assessment) Act 1989, and for related purposes. (Ethical Cosmetics Bill 2016)
(Notice given 22 February 2016.)
Time allotted—10 minutes .
Speech time limits—
Ms O ' Neil 10 minutes.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 1 x 10 mins]
Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes—pursuant to standing order 41.
2 DR LEIGH: To present a Bill for an Act to amend the law relating to taxation, and for related purposes. ( Tax Laws Amendment (Tougher Penalties for Country-by-Country Reporting) Bill 2016 ):
(Notice given 22 February 2016.)
Time allotted—10 minutes .
Speech time limits—
Dr Leigh 10 minutes.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 1 x 10 mins]
Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes—pursuant to standing order 41.
3 MR CHRISTENSEN: To present a Bill for an Act to amend the Flags Act 1953, and for related purposes. (Flags Amendment (Protecting Australian Flags) Bill 2016)
(Notice given 23 February 2016.)
Time allotted—10 minutes .
Speech time limits—
Mr Christensen 10 minutes.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 1 x 10 mins]
Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes—pursuant to standing order 41.
4 MS T. M. BUTLER: To move:
That this House:
(1) notes that International Women's Day will be observed on 8 March 2016;
(2) recognises that the day has its origins in the labour movement, and that March 8 was the date of the New York garment workers' strike of 1908, in which women called for an end to sweatshops and child labour;
(3) acknowledges that International Women's Day is a day to seek further progress in advancing the political and economic welfare of women at home and across the world;
(4) recognises:
(a) the publication of the shared framework for the primary prevention of violence against women and their children, by Our WATCh, the Victorian Health Promotion Foundation (VicHealth), and Australia's National Research Organisation for Women's Safety (ANROWS), in November 2015; and
(b) that that framework, Change the Story, states that violence against women and their children is preventable, and makes clear that gender inequality is the core of the problem, and the heart of the solution; and
(5) in marking International Women's Day, recommits to achieving gender equality, and to advancing the political and economic welfare of women, domestically and internationally.
(Notice given 22 February 2016.)
Time allotted—remaining private Members ' business time prior to 12 noon.
Speech time limits—
Ms T. M. Butler—5 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes. each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 10 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
Items for Federation Chamber (11 am to 1.30 pm)
PRIVATE MEMBERS ' BUSINESS
Notices
1 MS L. M. CHESTERS: To move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) the Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency (the agency) revealed in recent reports that more than 64 building sites across Australia contain illegal asbestos;
(b) it is unclear how many building sites have asbestos that has not been detected; and
(c) the agency advised the Senate Economics References Committee, for its inquiry into Non-conforming building products, that building products containing asbestos are being imported to Australia, contrary to Australian law;
(2) acknowledges that:
(a) Australia has one of the highest rates of asbestos related death and injury in the world; we know that 33,000 people have already lost their lives to asbestos; and
(b) around 700 Australians die each year from asbestos related diseases, and without proper management experts worry that tens of thousands of Australians could be diagnosed with asbestos related diseases in coming decades;
(3) condemns the Government's inaction and silence on the dangers of asbestos, despite warnings provided to the Senate Economics References Committee; and
(4) calls on the Government to give greater importance to stopping asbestos importers at the border and immediately increase the penalties for illegal asbestos contamination on Australian building sites.
(Notice given 22 February 2016.)
Time allotted—30 minutes .
Speech time limits—
Ms L. M. Chesters 5minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
2 MRS MCNAMARA: To move:
That this House notes that:
(1) May is Crohn's and Colitis month, designated to raise awareness of these lifelong gastrointestinal disorders that commonly present themselves in children, adolescents and adults;
(2) the conditions, collectively known as Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD), are an emerging global disease, with Australia having one of the highest rates of prevalence in the world;
(3) IBD is a chronic and largely hidden disease affecting approximately 1 in 250 people aged 5 to 49 years nationally;
(4) more than 75,000 Australians live with these conditions, with numbers expected to increase to more than 100,000 by 2022;
(5) IBD cannot be cured as yet, but it can be managed effectively, especially with the use of medications to control the abnormal inflammatory response; and
(6) the Government has acknowledged the need to improve the quality and consistency of IBD care in Australia and has announced an historic $500,000 matched funding agreement to kick start the Crohn's & Colitis Australia programme.
(Notice given 22 February 2016.)
Time allotted—40 minutes .
Speech time limits—
Mrs McNamara 5minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
Orders of the day
1 PENALTY RATES: Resumption of debate (from 22 February 2016) on the motion of Mr Champion—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.
Time allotted—40 minutes .
Speech time limits—
All Members—5 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
Notices—continued
3 MR ENTSCH: To move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) the Tibetan Plateau is:
(i) the largest source of freshwater beyond the Arctic and Antarctic;
(ii) a major driver of the global climate;
(iii) the source of most of Asia's major rivers; and
(iv) an area of great significance to the global environment; and
(b) traditional nomadic herding has provided Tibetans with resilient livelihoods and ensured the health of Tibetan grasslands, including maintaining biodiversity and soil carbon;
(2) expresses concern that:
(a) Tibetan nomads are leaving the grasslands and that their displacement will have harmful impacts on their livelihood and culture as well as on Tibet's fragile environment; and
(b) construction of large dams and water diversion projects in the headwater regions will impact the environment and the livelihood of millions of people in the region;
(3) notes China's many positive steps towards addressing the challenges of climate change, including reducing dependence on coal; and
(4) calls for acknowledgement of the:
(a) important role Tibetan nomads play in ensuring the health of Tibetan grasslands; and
(b) importance of Tibetans having a say over decisions that affect their land and livelihoods.
(Notice given 10 February 2016.)
Time allotted—30 minutes .
Speech time limits—
Mr Entsch 5minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
Orders of the day — continued
2 MARRIAGE LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2015 ( Mr Entsch ): Second reading—Resumption of debate (from8February2016).
Time allotted remaining private Members ' business time prior to 1.30 pm.
Speech time limits—
All Members 5 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
THE HON BRUCE SCOTT MP
Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives
24 February 2016
I have received three messages from the Senate informing the House of the appointment of senators to certain joint committees. As the list of appointments is a lengthy one, I do not propose to read the list to the House. Details will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Today I introduce into parliament two bills that will continue the Australian government's commitment to reforms for Norfolk Island.
Despite being an Australian territory, Norfolk Island has been excluded from many of the national reforms and developments that this parliament has enacted since Norfolk Island's self-government in 1979.
This situation has contributed to the Norfolk Island community being left behind in the standard of government services being delivered, and excluded from the frameworks around which our economic prosperity has been based.
Last year, the government announced a broad reform agenda to rectify this situation, and the parliament passed reforms that would extend federal taxation, social security and Medicare to Norfolk Island from 1 July 2016. Both sides of parliament recognised the urgency and importance of these measures and they were passed with bipartisan support.
I was pleased to have the opportunity to visit Norfolk Island in January this year and meet with a wide range of island residents. This visit reinforced my views about the importance of the reform process.
The bills I am introducing today continue this reform agenda by extending a broad range of Commonwealth laws to Norfolk Island.
The Territories Legislation Amendment Bill amends the definition of Australia to include Norfolk Island, as it currently includes the external territories of Christmas Island and the Cocos (Keeling) Islands. This amendment will have the effect of making the default position for all Commonwealth legislation be that it applies to Norfolk Island as it does to other parts of Australia.
The bill extends legislation that is vital to growing the Norfolk Island economy, including the Fair Work Act and other employment laws.
It amends the Commonwealth Electoral Act to ensure the Norfolk Island community is properly represented in this parliament.
It also makes a range of other changes to ensure certain Commonwealth laws apply to Australia's external territories as they do on the mainland.
Extension of Commonwealth laws
The bill continues the reform process for Norfolk Island by ensuring most Commonwealth laws extend to Norfolk Island.
It amends section 18 of the Norfolk Island Act, as well as including Norfolk Island in the definitions of 'Australia' and 'the Commonwealth' in the Acts Interpretation Act.
For the first time, the default position will be that laws passed by this parliament apply to Norfolk Island unless expressly stated not to apply.
In considering this change the Australian government has examined each piece of Commonwealth legislation.
Where it was determined that a piece of Commonwealth legislation required further consideration or consultation with the community before being extended to Norfolk Island, it has been excluded.
For example, the telecommunications legislation and the corporations legislation have not been extended to Norfolk Island in this bill, as they will require complex transitional arrangements. They will be considered in a future reform bill.
Planned extension of the Fair Work Act
The bill extends the Fair Work Actand other federal employment legislation to Norfolk Island.
Currently, workplace relations on Norfolk Island are regulated under Norfolk Island employment laws. These laws differ considerably from those that apply in the rest of Australia.
For example, the minimum wage on Norfolk Island is $10.70 per hour, compared with the current national minimum wage of $17.29 per hour.
There are protections under the Fair Work Act, including national minimum employment standards and modern award wages and conditions, which do not currently cover employees on Norfolk Island.
I understand many in the community acknowledged the need to improve conditions and protections for workers.
I also know many businesses wanted to see a phased approach to these changes, to give business a reasonable chance to adjust and to avoid a negative impact on employment.
The Department of Employment and the Fair Work Ombudsman visited Norfolk Island and consulted with businesses and stakeholders in August 2015.
To address the concerns of the business community, the bill will insert rule-making powers in the Fair Work Act and other legislation which will allow the Minister for Employment to make transitional arrangements.
The Minister for Employment has advised me that she will use this power to facilitate a phased extension of specific provisions of the Fair Work Act. This will ensure employment protections are in place for workers and employers are given appropriate time to adjust to the changes.
We will continue to consult with the Norfolk Island community to ensure the extension of these laws is as smooth as possible.
Electoral arrangements
Federal electoral arrangements applying to Australian citizens on Norfolk Island are unique.
Australian citizens residing on Norfolk Island are able, but not compelled, to enrol to vote in federal elections.
Residents who do choose to enrol may self-identify as a 'person of a state' where they have an existing connection to determine which electorate they will vote in. If they do not choose an electorate, they are enrolled in the default electorates of either Canberra in the ACT or Solomon in the Northern Territory.
The effect of these unique arrangements is that many Norfolk Islanders do not participate in electing federal representatives. In a community of 1,800, the Australian Electoral Commission advises that only 232 people were enrolled to vote federally in the last election.
Those that are enrolled have their representation scattered between members and senators in all states and mainland territories except for South Australia.
There is no single member of parliament who is formally tasked with representing and advocating for the community of Norfolk Island.
The single electorate with the largest number of Norfolk Islanders enrolled is Canberra and I acknowledge the work of successive members for Canberra and ACT senators who have informally represented the Norfolk Island community.
This bill provides dedicated representation for the Norfolk Islander community in the parliament by including voters in a single federal electorate—the division of Canberra.
Voting will be compulsory as it is on the mainland and Norfolk Islanders will have Senate representation through the senators for the ACT.
Other changes
Finally, the bill makes a range of other changes to Commonwealth legislation to ensure it applies equally to Australia's external territories.
The bill repeals a provision in the Norfolk Island Legislation Amendment Act 2015 which inadvertently restricted access to social security payments for New Zealand citizens living on Norfolk Island.
This anomaly was discovered by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights and I thank the committee for drawing this matter to the government's attention.
The amendment in the bill will make sure New Zealanders on Norfolk Island receive the same level of access to social security payments as New Zealanders living on the mainland.
This is a positive outcome and demonstrates the commitment of the Australian government to ensure New Zealand residents who are an integral part of the Norfolk Island community are able to access government services and payments where they are eligible.
The bill will extend child support arrangements to the Christmas Island and the Cocos (Keeling) Islands, correcting another anomaly. This will align those territories with the arrangements that apply on the mainland and which will commence on Norfolk Island on 1 July 2016.
The bill makes a minor change to the definition of 'Norfolk Island Regional Council' to remove the requirement that the council be a 'body corporate'.
This change will provide flexibility in the reform of Norfolk Island's governance arrangements, and ensure that the regional council can be properly constituted under the New South Wales local government framework.
Conclusion
In combination, these reforms will continue the government's commitment to improve services on Norfolk Island and provide a strong foundation for economic growth.
I would like to thank the people of Norfolk Island for their active engagement with the reform process and their spirited commitment to placing Norfolk Island on a more sustainable and robust footing.
I will continue to work with my ministerial colleagues to ensure that Norfolk Island does not continue to be disadvantaged through its exclusion from Commonwealth laws, and that Australian citizens on Norfolk Island have the same rights and responsibilities as those on the mainland.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
This bill forms part of the package of measures that the government is bringing forward, as I explained in the speech I gave a few moments ago. The Passenger Movement Charge Amendment (Norfolk Island) Bill 2016 relates to the broader Norfolk Island reform legislative package, which is being implemented through the Territories Legislation Amendment Bill 2016.
The Passenger Movement Charge Act, together with the Passenger Movement Charge Collection Act, applies a financial charge upon the departure of a passenger from mainland Australia to another country.
The charge also applies to departures from the Indian Ocean Territories to another country.
This bill, together with the Territories Legislation Amendment Bill, will extend these arrangements to Norfolk Island so that people departing Norfolk Island for another country will also be liable to pay the charge.
Debate adjourned.
On behalf of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works I present report No. 2 of 2016 of the committee, relating to the referral made in September 2015.
In accordance with standing order 39(e) the report was made a parliamentary paper.
by leave—On behalf of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works I present the committee's second report for 2016. This report addresses the AIR5431 Phase 2 and 3 project, which was referred to the committee in September 2015. The Department of Defence is seeking approval to undertake infrastructure works at 18 air traffic management centres across Australia. Defence and Airservices Australia have partnered to develop a single civil-military air traffic management system. The unified air traffic management system will allow Defence to conduct various operations while enabling the civil aviation industry activities to continue in a safe and flexible manner.
The objective of the AIR5431 Phase 2 and 3 project is to upgrade air traffic control towers and airfield system facilities that were constructed in the 1960s and which are no longer fit for purpose. The project will supply training, support and maintenance facilities in order to allow air traffic control services to continue uninterrupted throughout the system rollout and operation. The estimated cost of the project is $409.9 million. Construction on the projects is expected to commence in mid-2016 at RAAF Base Amberley. Works at other sites will commence progressively from late 2016, with all works to be completed by the end of 2021.
During the inquiry, the committee received evidence regarding contamination at RAAF Base Williamtown. The contaminants, known as PFOS and PFOA, were fire-retardant foams commonly used in aviation rescue firefighting operations up until the mid-2000s—and also used in training, obviously. The committee learned that Defence first detected PFOS and PFOA on the base at Williamtown in 2012 and that it was aware of the risk that the contaminants could migrate beyond the boundary of the base in stormwater run-off and then through the water table. In 2015, Defence confirmed there was contaminated water outside the base. The detection of PFOS and PFOA in areas around RAAF Base Williamtown has been a cause of anxiety for local residents. It has also had significant financial impacts for local farmers and for fisheries in the vicinity. The committee notes that Defence's original submission included only one line referring to potential contamination at the project sites. It was submissions from Hunter Water and the New South Wales Environment Protection Agency, plus media articles and the input of a local member on the committee—the member for Newcastle—that brought this issue to the forefront of the committee's considerations. Although Defence advised in its submission that no significant issues were raised in its community consultations that would impact on the proposed works, the committee is aware that, at the time, Defence and the community were engaged in robust and extensive public meetings regarding contamination issues at RAAF Base Williamtown.
The committee believes Defence should have been more forthcoming regarding contamination issues at Williamtown—not only for this project but also for the two previous projects referred in 2014 and 2015, which included significant works at Williamtown. In a supplementary submission, Defence assured the committee that it intends to comply with a range of contamination management strategies proposed by Hunter Water and the New South Wales EPA and that it had adopted measures to ensure that any current and future works at Williamtown would not exacerbate the contamination issues,
PFOS and PFOA are referred to as 'legacy contaminants'. They were used extensively at Defence and civil airfields around Australia for a 30-year period starting in the 1970s. This issue has the potential to be broader than Williamtown, involving Defence bases and other airfields across Australia. The committee notes that the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee is conducting a broad inquiry into PFOS and PFOA contamination. Its first report, tabled on 4 February 2016, was directed to contamination at RAAF Base Williamtown. The Senate committee is continuing its inquiry into PFOS and PFOA contamination at Williamtown and at other sites in Australia. I look forward to seeing the recommendations when the Senate committee tables its final report.
However, having regard to the role and responsibilities of the Public Works Committee as set out in its establishing legislation, the committee is satisfied that the AIR5431 Phases 2 and 3 project has merit from the perspectives of need, scope and cost. The committee therefore recommends that the project proceed. But the work must be managed appropriately so as not to cause or exacerbate contamination issues. To this end, the committee requires that Defence, by June 2016, provide it with an update detailing the status of contamination at RAAF Base Williamtown. The committee also requires that Defence adhere to all the recommendations made by the Hunter Water Corporation and the New South Wales EPA in association with works at RAAF Base Williamtown. Further, the committee requires Defence to work closely with Hunter Water and the New South Wales EPA on the works at RAAF Base Williamtown, including seeking input from both agencies when developing and finalising environmental plans; providing relevant information, including results from testing for contaminants, in a timely manner; and allowing adequate onsite access for monitoring and inspections. I commend this report to the House.
I rise to speak in support of the Parliamentary Entitlements Amendment (Injury Compensation Scheme) Bill 2016 because it implements longstanding commitments made to parliamentarians from both sides of politics over the course of the last 15 to 20 years. Parliamentarians are not employed by the Commonwealth and, therefore, the Commonwealth is currently unable to provide workers compensation insurance to parliamentarians without an express legislative authority. The importance of this cannot be understated.
I rise to speak on this bill as a parliamentarian who enjoyed travel around the north of Western Australia courtesy of the Royal Flying Doctor Service after a cardiac event. The cardiac event was brilliantly managed by the hospitals at Fitzroy Crossing and Broome and then at Royal Perth Hospital. But the cost of being flown around by the Royal Flying Doctor Service to attend those very urgent appointments had to be borne by me personally, even though the cardiac event had occurred while I was attending a function representing the Prime Minister at a very significant community cultural event—in fact, a funeral in the Kimberley district.
That event taught me the importance of needing to have appropriate schemes—what I would call a workers compensation scheme and an occupational health and safety scheme—for parliamentarians. I then spoke to parliamentary colleagues who had broken an ankle, a leg or an arm while doing the work of the parliament, and they simply were not covered. Of course, as I look across at the other side of the chamber, I now see the rose in place of the former member for Canning who died while in office and who would not have been subject to any parliamentary injury or compensation scheme.
One of the very good measures in this bill is a measure that provides, in addition to the standard Comcover insurance which a public servant would have, a benefit for funeral expenses. That is critically important because when a parliamentarian dies, although not all parliamentarians should be afforded a state funeral, their funerals are very, very big affairs. They are signature events in their regions and the cost borne by the family is immense. I am really pleased that this bill attends to that matter.
Prior to the introduction of the Parliamentary Entitlements Act in 1990, senators and members were covered for personal injury and disease sustained in the course of their duties of office by the scheme for payment of special compensation for injuries in exceptional circumstances. Between 1990 and 2002, four compensation payments for injuries to senators and members were made by way of act of grace payments. No payments in relation to workers compensation type claims have been made to federal parliamentarians since 2002, following legal advice that any such payments needed explicit authorisation under the Parliamentary Entitlements Act or regulations. A number of reviews of parliamentary entitlements, including the 2010 Belcher review, have acknowledged this oversight.
This legislation we are dealing with today implements a 2012 Labor government commitment to implement three forms of insurance. The first is public liability insurance to cover those members of the public who attend forums that we might hold in our electorate, forums that may provide electors with information and an opportunity to meet us. This might be at a local show or at some local community event, and an injury may occur at that event. But we put in place public liability insurance to cover that. We also put in place what we called management liability or legal liability insurance to cover some of the legal exposures that parliamentarians had created for them by an unfortunate and imprudent decision of the former Labor government in 2011.
This workers compensation scheme completes the third of those commitments and it does it in a particularly good way. The Parliamentary Entitlements Amendment (Injury Compensation Scheme) Bill 2016 amends the Parliamentary Entitlements Act 1990 to give the minister the power to establish this parliamentary injury compensation scheme. The scheme would apply retrospectively from 1 January 2016 and would provide compensation benefits to parliamentarians in relation to:
… an injury or disease, or an aggravation of an injury or disease, suffered by a member, arising out of, or contributed to by, the member's activities as a member, Parliamentary office-holder or a Minister …
We have seen parliamentarians leave with a range of medical conditions either aggravated or created by their service in parliament. I do not say that as a whinge or as a complaint, but it was with great pain, as Special Minister of State, that I watched that happen on at least one occasion and, with no legislative authority, could not help that senator, who desperately and properly needed support and would ordinarily, in any other work environment, have been compensated by her employer, the parliament. For an injury or disease, or an aggravation of an injury or disease, suffered by the spouse of the Prime Minister and arising out of the person's official activities as the spouse of the Prime Minister, this is self-evidently a good and proper thing to do, and I am so pleased that the parliament is acting on this now.
The loss or damage to medical equipment used by a member or the spouse of the Prime Minister arising in the course of their respective activities is also covered, and services, facilities and equipment intended to eliminate or minimise the risk to the health or safety of members or the spouse of the Prime Minister arising in the course of their respective activities are all covered. The bill will also allow the parliamentary injury compensation scheme to provide for preventative work and health and safety services, facilities and equipment. The spouse of the Prime Minister is also covered under this scheme, as I said, when performing official duties in connection with the role of the Prime Minister. This proposed act provides compensation benefits, including for medical treatment, incapacity to work, permanent impairment, household and attendant care services, rehabilitation programs, alteration of place of residence and place of work, modifications to a vehicle or article, aids or appliances, death benefits and funeral expenses.
We do have some concern about a lack of definition around what constitutes a member's activities. One of the reasons I have concerns around that is that, in my view, members' activities start from the moment a member is elected to parliament. They finish the moment the member is no longer elected. I do not know a member of this place who ever clocks out or checks out from their work. Even on a holiday with family and friends, they are still on duty, either responding to phone calls, talking about their work or absorbing information that is valuable to their work. So, in my view, this job is a 24/7 job—proudly so. I do not complain about that, and none of us in this place complain about it. But it is 24/7 work, and it does continue for the entirety of the term. I think we need to acknowledge that.
Members and senators should also be aware that all claims are subject to investigation by Comcare and would therefore be subject to FOI requests. I do not necessarily think that is the most prudent way of dealing with accident compensation insurance for parliamentarians, and there is no provision to allow members to be able to cash out their entitlement with Comcare. Most members will currently cover their insurance through their superannuation scheme. Consequently, because of that payment through their superannuation scheme, their superannuation scheme returns are measurably lower. If we had a capacity to cash this benefit out, it would be identical to the cost faced by the taxpayer and would provide the ability for the member to tailor a level of insurance for their own specific circumstances. I hope that will come, but I am really pleased that we have this measure. It implements a requirement that is long overdue, and it will provide members of parliament in the future with a better level of care, a better level of insurance and a better level of assurance that, should something happen, there is a better safety net to catch them. I commend this bill to the House.
I would like to thank members who have contributed to the debate on the Parliamentary Entitlements Amendment (Injury Compensation Scheme) Bill 2016. As noted previously, senators and members have had no protection for workplace injuries and illnesses for the past 14 years. This is out of step with the vast majority of professions in this country. There have been numerous attempts since 2002 to address this gap in workplace protection. Passage of this bill is an important step towards removing this anomalous situation for parliamentarians by providing the power necessary for the minister to make a legislative instrument to formulate the parliamentary injury compensation scheme. Once again I thank all members for their contribution and commend the bill to the House.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
The dairy industry has asked the government to remove the statutory requirement to hold a levy related poll of producers each five years. The Dairy Produce Amendment (Dairy Service Levy Poll) Bill 2016 gives the sector what it has asked for, and the opposition supports the bill. The purpose of the poll is to secure the views of levy payers in the industry about the adequacy of the levy from time to time. The new arrangement will require a poll only when the industry is proposing a levy increase. There is a safeguard: if 15 per cent of producers get together, they can request a poll in the event that they disagree with the decision not to conduct one.
The key objective is obvious: polls are very cumbersome and quite expensive. The dairy sector estimates that every five years the poll costs them around $750,000. That is $750,000 that could be going back to research and development rather than on the conduct of a poll which has no real purpose in the event that the industry is not looking for a variation in the levy.
The key players in this equation are the industry representative body, Australian Dairy Farmers, and the industry research and development corporation, known as Dairy Australia. Industry R&D and marketing are the reasons levy moneys are raised in the case of industry owned corporations. R&D plays an important role in enhancing the productivity and competitiveness of Australia's agriculture, fisheries and forestry sectors. It can provide various other benefits, including better and lower priced food for consumers and improved environmental and animal welfare outcomes.
Australia's spend on agricultural R&D is around $1.5 billion annually. Three-quarters of that money comes from Australian Commonwealth and state governments. The public funding is delivered through an array of general and sector-specific programs, with the research in turn conducted by a mix of government and private research providers. A sizeable part of the Australian government's R&D efforts is provided to the rural research and development corporations—the so-called RDCs—and they have been the subject of some public debate in recent months. These corporations commission rural research on behalf of primary producers, some processors and the government. Producers typically contribute to the cost of this research primarily through statutory and voluntary levies, with most of the government's contribution provided on a matching dollar-for-dollar basis up to a value of industry input.
This is a bill which is very important to the dairy sector. I am advised that the dairy sector has consulted very broadly with levy payers, and levy payers are comfortable with this new arrangement. On that basis, the opposition also is comfortable with the arrangement. We want to ensure that the sector is able to work as efficiently and as profitably as possible. Research is a very important component of that, particularly on the productivity front, and we are happy to do what we can from opposition to allow them to do so.
Levies are never without controversy. Levy payers—producers, growers and farmers generally—are often key to ensuring that their levy money is well spent. They do not always believe that it is, but in my almost three years in this portfolio I have been able to come to the conclusion that, while things are not always perfect, our RDCs do a good job of making sure that the money is well targeted, spent efficiently and leads primarily to enhanced productivity in the sector.
There is no shortage of literature making the direct link between investment in research and development and, indeed, extension and productivity in the agriculture sector. That is why it is important that we continue not only to invest heavily and wisely but also to invest as efficiently as possible.
The industry broadly was very pleased that prior to the election the then opposition and now Turnbull government promised to spend an additional $100 million in R&D over a four-year period. But the industry was then disappointed when after the election they cut at least $100 million and probably more than that from agriculture research and development in other areas. I include in that cuts to CSIRO and cuts particularly in forestry, but there were cuts across the board in agriculture. There were cuts to cooperative research centres and, very sadly, a significant cut to the Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation.
On the other side of the ledger, in terms of the additional $100 million promised, the government almost at the end of its term, if we believe election speculation, has spent some $26 million. So more than $100 million has been taken out of R&D in the range of areas that I have noted and some $26 million of the $100 million in additional funding promised has gone back into research and development corporations. I note that we had one round of the government's new R&D scheme which was supposed to be funded by the $100 million. This is where the $26 million comes in. But the second round closed on 1 December 2015, and here we are almost in March 2016 and no information at all has been provided as to where the second round of funding will be spent, who might be successful and therefore what agricultural R&D pursuits might benefit from the money under round 2.
By any measure, this government's pre-election promise on research and development funding has been broken. By any measure, that promise has been broken at a time when productivity in the agriculture sector in Australia has, at best, plateaued and probably is falling. This is at a time when we are facing enormous structural issues, including the ageing of our workforce. This is at a time when a variable climate is putting new and additional pressure on our natural resource base—water and soils, in particular. This is at a time when there are a number of issues facing the industry. The ageing of the workforce is an example. We should be investing more money in research and development, not less money.
There are a couple of other things floating around this issue that are of great concern to the opposition. First of all is Minister Joyce's bullying of research and development corporations. He is bullying them into moving from Canberra to locations they do not want to be in. One of the key ingredients in a successful research and development corporation is quality staff. At the moment the staff of the Grains RDC, the Fisheries RDC and the others that Deputy Prime Minister Joyce is forcing to move are based in Canberra. My prediction is that the overall majority of them will continue to stay and live in Canberra as their home and to send their children to Canberra schools.
This is a big mistake. I remind the House that research and development corporations, despite their names, do not do research. Research and development corporations collect research moneys through the levies we are talking about this morning and they then contract out the research to various organisations—and they might be universities, they might be governments and they might be CRCs or whatever. But they do not do research themselves. So for Minister Joyce to say that it is important that we put these RDCs close to the growers or producers because that is who they need to talk to is just rubbish. It is just rubbish!
But there is another very important point: it is important, if we are going to spend R&D money most efficiently and effectively, to have competitive tension in the market. So when an RDC takes levy-payers' money and farms it out—excuse the pun—to a researcher of some sort it is basically putting something out to tender. The RDC is basically putting something out to tender. Various universities might be interested in doing the research required, and so might a private sector organisation, a government instrumentality or body—a department, even—be interested in doing the research. This competitive tension amongst researchers gives the RDC the opportunity to secure the best deal on behalf of the levy payer.
Now, Minister Joyce says, for example, 'No—the RDCs should be up next to UNE,' in his electorate. 'They do great work in agriculture,' he says—and they do. UNE does do extensive work in agriculture, and good work in agriculture. But cosying the RDC up to one particular university—
Ms King interjecting—
Yes—lots of universities. The member for Ballarat has just noted that her local university does good work too. But cosying the RDCs up to one university does not create the competitive tension we require for this project. The member for Ballarat's university might be interested in doing the same research work that Minister Joyce now wants to give exclusively to a university in Wagga, for example, or, indeed, the university at Ballarat. This is not the way to conduct public policy. This is Minister Joyce, again, always putting his own political ambition ahead of good public policy. This decentralisation program, as he sells it, is about him and the National Party, not about good R&D for agriculture. It is going to dismantle these RDCs. These RDCs do not want to move.
It is interesting: there are two categories of research and development corporations—some are statutory bodies, over which the minister has substantial control, and some are industry-owned bodies, over which he does not have such control. Minister Joyce is forcing the statutory RDCs out of Canberra for no good public policy purpose. But I find it interesting: he has not had any consultation with the industry-owned corporations. He does not have the same power to force the industry-owned corporations out of the capital cities, but if he were so intent on this public policy prescription and if he were so sure that pushing RDCs out of our capital cities was going to provide a better outcome for the agriculture sector, why has he not been talking to the industry-owned corporations? This is an inconsistency. It makes no sense—there is no rationale here. If he is so sure that this is a good idea, why is he only using his extensive powers to bully the statutory corporations out of Canberra? It makes no sense.
Still on these issues: the government also promised that it would provide $13.8 million to somehow encourage and help farmers, producers and growers to form cooperatives. Minister Joyce, at a time when CBH—the most notable operative in this country—is talking about demutualising and forming itself into a corporate entity, is spending $13.8 million of taxpayer's money to tell farmers what sort of corporate structure they should have. If that is good public policy then I have been in the wrong place for 20 years. Farmers, growers and producers—and it has been nice to be with Mr Billson all that time!—will make their own astute decisions about their structure: sole trader, partnership, company or cooperative, or whatever they like. They will look at the various tax advantages, possibly—what suits them best. They do not need Minister Joyce to provide $13 million of taxpayers' money to help them work that out in this 21st century, surely?
But it gets worse than that, because Minister Joyce took $200,000 of that $13.8 million and he gave it to the Rural Industries RDC and said: 'Give us the scoping work. Tell us how we might spend that $13.8 million.' I have no problem with that, because I have no idea how he is going to spend $13.8 million instructing or teaching farmers how to become cooperatives, so I at least welcome the fact that he decided to spend $200,000 of it asking RIRDC to tell him how he might spend it. So RIRDC did the work. They did their scoping study. They delivered that to the minister.
But the minister was not satisfied with that. He decided he would appoint a task force. He would ask the member for Page to go out and find out how he might spend $13.8 million. The member for Page went out and consulted with the sectors, allegedly—probably most of the consultation took place in Page, which of course is a razor-edge marginal seat for the government. What we want to know now is what Mr Hogan, the member for Page, learned and what he delivered as a result of his consultation.
So we asked this question in estimates. We asked the secretary of the department, 'Can we have Mr Hogan's work, because this $13.8 million is sitting there and we want to know how it's going to be spent.' The department secretary, with greatest respect, said: 'Well, we couldn't release that, because we'd have to ask Mr Hogan. You know, it's his work. It might be considered a private document.' So we let that matter pass and moved on to the next subject. Five hours at least later, we were advised by the officials that they had been unable to find Mr Hogan in this building. For five hours or more, they could not find the member for Page in this 21st century, with all of our technology, in this closed building. So we are still trying to find out—
An honourable member: Couldn't they just ring him?
Well, I thought they could have just called him. So it is suggested that, if I just called the member for Page, he would have handed it over to me. I think the point has been missed. The government did not want to hand over Mr Hogan's report, and I suspect the reason the government do not want to hand over Mr Hogan's report is that it is now the government's intention to spend the $13 million in the electorate of Page. That is my advice: it is the government's intention to use the $13-plus million they allocated to tell farmers what corporate structure they should embrace in the electorate of the leader of the task force, Mr Hogan, the member for Page. No wonder they could not find Mr Hogan in the building on estimates night.
Mr Pitt interjecting—
The member for Hinkler is yapping at the table, rejecting this proposition, expressing mirth at the idea that they could not find Mr Hogan in the building. Well, I am expressing mirth too. I cannot believe they could not find Mr Hogan in the building. But this can be easily fixed now. The minister or the member for Hinkler, his assistant minister, can close this debate by tabling Mr Hogan's report. The assistant minister is nodding, so I am assuming that is an affirmative. The assistant minister will table Mr Hogan's task force report when he closes on this debate, and we look forward to reading it. We look forward to finding out where the $13 million is going to be spent and whether or not it is consistent with the recommendations of the Rural Industries RDC.
Mr Quinlivan, the departmental secretary, or one of his officials—I will qualify that; it may have been one of his officials—conceded in Senate estimates that there had been a departure from the white paper program. 'Departure' might not have been the word, but it was something very similar. So there was a concession in Senate estimates that the $13.8 million as set out in the white paper is not going to be spent for the purposes expressed in the white paper. So I invite the assistant minister, in addition to tabling the member for Page's report, to tell us what that means. If that $13.8 million is not going to be spent as set out in the white paper, how will it be spent? That is a very important question.
On the issue of levies and how they are spent, I made the point that there is a difference between statutory research and development corporations and industry owned corporations. The difference, in addition to the minister's capacity to direct and appoint the chair and all of that, is that statutory RDCs spend money on R&D only, but industry owned corporations have the brief to also spend money, if they like, on marketing. We have seen some of those big campaigns—on beef, for example.
Lamb.
Yes, that is another example. Anyone else?
Eggs.
Pork.
I stand with the grain growers who have expressed concern about the current activities of the Grains Research Development Corporation. I have the highest regard for their chair. In fact I appointed Richard Clark as chair of the Grains RDC, so he enjoys my confidence, as does the team there. It is of course one of the RDCs being bullied out of Canberra, which will cost them a lot of money and, in my view, severely undermine their effectiveness.
The Grains RDC is spending a lot of money on marketing. They are sponsoring the Global Food Forum; they are running, as a complement to that, ads in The Australian; and they are doing a roadshow, which is headed by Alan Jones. I have heard the ads on 2GB: 'Come to the roadshow—Alan Jones—fantastic. Come along and hear about the bright future of the grains industry.' I trust and hope that the grains industry does have a bright future. I just do not know whom they are telling. I have had a look at some of the panellists. They are great people—big players in the sector. But I do not know how levy payers are benefiting from these Alan Jones led roadshows.
These are serious questions for this parliament and for levy payers, but Minister Joyce will not ask the question. I have asked him to ask the question. I have publicly required him to ask the Grains RDC, a statutory body, why they are spending this money on Alan Jones and this roadshow—when they do not have a marketing remit from either this parliament or this government. I invite the assistant minister to address that issue as well. Surely he has been briefed? Surely he has been briefed about one of our statutory RDCs spending a lot of levy payer money on newspaper ads, sponsorships and Alan Jones led roadshows?
I have not been invited to the roadshow, by the way. That is not the reason I am offended by it of course, but you would have thought that, if the government were interested in working on a bipartisan basis, I might have been invited—I suspect Barnaby Joyce may have been. Surely these roadshows are not going to include Minister Joyce preaching the gospel of the National Party alongside Alan Jones? I wonder what the assistant minister thinks about that prospect? Maybe he has been invited to speak at some of the roadshows too. It is a pretty clever way to produce some cheap campaigning—have the GRDC hold a roadshow with Alan and just turn up! It will be interesting to see whether Minister Joyce does turn up. I might have just put the kibosh on it—that is the risk in making this contribution. It might have been better to just let it go and then see what happened. But surely the assistant minister will have something to say about that when he closes this debate? It is a great shame the Deputy Prime Minister is not closing the debate, by the way, but I will be very welcoming of the assistant minister's contribution.
Still on levies: recently the minister announced that he would be supporting an industry request to place levies on chestnuts and sweet potatoes. That is a good thing. What is happening there of course is that the growers and the producers themselves are saying, 'We would like the opportunity to have a government matched levy. We will use that for R&D and possibly marketing purposes.' That is a good thing and we support that. The interesting thing is that at the same time the minister was considering levies for chestnuts and sweet potatoes he was considering a levy for thoroughbred breeders. I proudly represent the horse capital of the nation, part of which, by the way, is going into Minister Joyce's electorate as a result of the redistribution in New South Wales. Sadly, Minister Joyce declined the request of the thoroughbred breeders to strike a levy, notwithstanding the fact that—as you would expect—the thoroughbred breeders produced a very sound plan for how they would spend that levy on genetics, workplace safety, horse safety et cetera. It was a very good plan.
Why chestnuts and sweet potatoes but not thoroughbreds? I do not know. Minister Joyce has made no attempt to explain. Maybe the assistant minister, when he closes, can enlighten us on this too. Unfortunately, when some people think of thoroughbreds they think of racing—of course they would, because the two are incontrovertibly linked. They are one and the same in many senses. But thoroughbred breeders are as much primary producers as are grains producers, beef producers, lamb producers et cetera. They are primary producers. I suspect they are being discriminated against because they are part of the racing industry and that this minister fears that maybe someone will resent the government funding what is seen as a wealthy elite part of our society. Let us push the importance of the racing industry aside for a moment, although it is a very important economic contributor to this country—many in this place like a punt, no doubt. But putting that aside, the thoroughbred breeding sector should not be penalised because of where their end product plays a role. They are primary producers like all the others. Minister Joyce wants to discriminate and give the levy to two commodities in addition to all of those who already have a levy—and there are many of them; name pretty much any commodity and there is a levy attached—but not to the thoroughbred breeders.
To make it worse, the equine industry is potentially facing a crisis. It is facing a crisis, sadly, because of a thing called equine herpes—I think that is the technical term. There is no vaccine in this country at the moment for this terrible herpes, and it poses a very significant risk to the sector.
From promiscuous horses!
I am going to let that interjection go through to the keeper.
I am glad you will!
But I thank the member for her contribution. There is no vaccine, and it is no-one's fault that there is no vaccine. What happened is Zoetis, the manufacturer and producer of the vaccine, changed the location of their manufacturing plant in the US, and somehow the transition caused the new vaccine to fall outside of the approvals of the APVMA. It is no fault of theirs; it just happened. It is a very technical science and approvals are very complex. But there is a way of fixing this. Zoetis make another product that is used in New Zealand and in other countries as we speak. What Zoetis need to do is apply for an emergency temporary permit so that the additional vaccine can come out quickly. Zoetis are somewhat reluctant because it is a very expensive process, the market here is relatively small and they do not necessarily see the return on their investment. It is an arduous, complex and expensive process.
The government has a role here. Minister Joyce is very happy to get involved in all sorts of issues in the agriculture sector when he wants to—and I have given some examples here today—but in the three months since I raised this issue with him last year, has he picked up the phone to Zoetis?
Had he expressed any concern about this terrible tragedy which could fall upon the equine industry? No. Finally, when we had some breeders in this place a fortnight ago, he decided to see them and he made some promise about talking to Zoetis. I trust he has, I hope he has and he may have, and I welcome that. How hard has he tried? What public comment has he made? What assistance is he offering Zoetis in an attempt to induce them to quickly pursue that emergency vaccine permit? I have seen nothing. I have seen nothing from the minister, who is most likely to intervene in this place when he sees political opportunity. For some reason, whether it be the levy or the vaccine, he sees no political opportunity in the equine industry, in the thoroughbred breeding industry in particular, so he has done nothing. He says nothing and will do nothing and it is a disgrace.
Unlike the previous speaker, I am actually going to talk about the dairy industry. I support the Dairy Produce Amendment (Dairy Service Levy Poll) Bill 2016 that is before the House today. Let me say at the outset, I am a dairy farmer and definitely have a vested interest in this bill. Equally, I want to say hello to every dairy farmer in Australia, who was probably up before dawn this morning milking cows. Local farmers all around Australia, I just want to say hello to them too. They do an enormous job and they are part of that Australia's well earned international reputation for producing clean and green food. It is our competitive advantage and one we need to protect.
I have repeatedly said that in my opinion many Australians take our locally grown food and amazing quality food for granted. The Western Australian dairy industry is a prime example of this. Western Australian milk has been identified as some of the highest quality in Australia. Western Australia is an efficient producer of high-quality milk sold to both South-East Asian and domestic markets. It is a very important industry in Western Australia, particularly in the south-west of my state and in my electorate. WA has a very high herd health status, free of any disease like foot and mouth or bovine spongiform encephalopathy.
Farmers in my part of the world milk all year round, twice a day every day of the year. WA's dairy industry may be relatively small in size but it is highly reputed for its innovation and high-quality products—that goes back to the farmers, it goes back to research and it also goes back to organisations like Western Dairy. The local farmers keep a very close eye on the research and the strategic work of Western Dairy. They do some great work in the implementation of dairy research and extension back to farms. Their Greener Pastures and feed based integration projects are both examples of what Western Dairy does. Rumen8, a software app to help manage dairy cow diets, is also a useful tool for local farmers. We have internationally competitive production costs in Western Australia. Our processors have modern processing facilities owned by local and international companies. The state's fast and efficient transport links are also vital in delivering high-quality fresh products in the shortest amount of time to both our domestic and international customers. I look forward to the freight out of the Busselton airport being a part of that process.
The Dairy Produce Amendment (Dairy Service Levy Poll) Bill 2016 will amend the Dairy Produce Act 1986 to remove the requirement for the dairy industry to hold a dairy levy poll every five years. There are around 6,000 dairy farmers who pay this levy, with around 160 in Western Australia. Under the Dairy Industry Services Reform Act 2003, Dairy Australia Limited is the declared industry services body for the Australian dairy industry. Dairy Australia has two categories of membership. Group A members are dairy farmers, who pay the dairy levy. Membership is voluntary and entitles members to vote at Dairy Australia Limited annual general meetings. Group B membership covers the peak dairy organisations. Australian Dairy Farmers and the Australian Dairy Products Federation are Group B members.
In accordance with the Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Act 1999 and the Primary Industries (Customs) Charges Act 1999, dairy farmers pay a dairy service levy to Dairy Australia based on the fat and protein content of their milk. Section 9 of the Dairy Produce Act 1986 requires Dairy Australia to make recommendations to the minister in relation to the amount of the dairy service levy. Before making each recommendation, Dairy Australia must conduct a poll in accordance with the regulations and the recommendation must accord with the results of the poll. The regulations stipulate a dairy levy poll must be held, currently every five years.
The dairy industry was concerned about the regulatory and financial burden associated with a poll every five years and where that funding could be better spent in research, regardless of whether a change in levy rate is to be sought. So if there is no change, the poll is still required. ADF and Dairy Australia commissioned an independent review and it recommended simplifying the levy poll process. In November 2015 the dairy levy payers, the dairy farmers, supported simplifying the dairy levy process including removing the requirement to hold a dairy levy poll every five years. The poll process costs up to $1 million every five years. Imagine the additional research and development activities that this could fund. There is a range of subordinate legislation in the instrument to require the industry services body to do a poll on the levy rate every five years and require a poll if a variation to the rate is recommended to the advisory committee—an advisory committee will be a part of this. It also includes a mechanism for Group A members to request a poll if they disagree with the advisory committee's decision not to convene a levy poll. It must be supported by 15 per cent at least of those in Group A so there are checks and balances.
When we look at the dairy industry, we know that our dairy farmers need incredible skills in feeding and nutrition, herd management and reproduction, genetics and livestock health and diseases. Wrapped up in this is needing to calve cows at any hour of the day or night and dealing with all forms of herd health. You need the skills to be able to manage your pasture to produce that fat and protein that pays the levy. That is what you are paid on as well. You need to know the correct fertiliser regime for your particular property, the necessary cattle management skills and how to manage irrigation systems.
There is the machinery—you have to know your machinery. You really need a very good ear if you are operating machinery. You need to know if you are working it too hard in the particular gear you are in. You have to be able to build your own equipment if you are a dairy farmer. You have to know how to cut your costs, and you really need to be able to weld. If you cannot weld you are in all sorts of strife. You need good mechanical skills, staff management skills and business management skills, and you need to be across finance and taxation issues—all the same things that affect small businesses. Of course, you need to be at the cutting edge of technology, which the industry is very good at.
Dairy farmers manage one of the most perishable products in any form. That also exposes us as dairy farmers to the market. Having a perishable product exposes us to the constant vagaries of challenging and changing weather, water shortages, dry winters, an increasing cost base and the challenges of having just two major supermarkets with their control in the marketplace and the use of milk as a loss leader in that grocery marketplace.
The dairy industry, through Dairy Australia Limited, is ready to co-invest in the continuing future of this very important industry. We need to ensure, however, that this investment represents value for money and provides tangible benefits for dairy farmers. Dairy farmers want to see on their properties and in their herds that the research done by Western Dairy and others is actually making a difference and adding to what they do and their businesses. This is and must be the prime focus of the minister, the government and the industry.
In the few minutes that are left me in this debate I want to mention another contribution that dairy farmers have recently made in my electorate. Everybody knows that we have had very serious bushfires in Waroona, Yarloop and in the Uduc area of Harvey, perhaps one paddock away from our own property. In each of those fires and in other fires our local farmers—and particularly, in these two fires, the dairy farmers who were affected—were front and centre in that fire effort. Pretty well most of them have fire units that they put on the backs of their utes. When they see a neighbour in strife, as we did at Uduc only two weeks ago, the first people on the ground were the farmers themselves, first seeing that there was a problem and where it was, and then not only contacting our local fire brigades and emergency services but then getting out there with their own equipment to help.
There were about 13 or 14 individual farmers' units running on the face of that fire recently around the Uduc area and in the paddock of our neighbour, Graham Manning. They were doing an extraordinary job on this fire. Added to that, we had farmers, including my own son, who had their tractors out discing all around our neighbours' houses. There were several instances where a combination of the farmers working with the discs on the tractors and the local fire brigades were able to save people's homes. This is something that often we do not necessarily see. We have wonderful fire and emergency services—DPaW and DFES in WA and our volunteers—and we also have this particular interface, which is our local farmers.
These same dairy farmers have lost a significant amount of fencing. Hundreds of kilometres of fencing have gone as part of this. People who milk cows know that you have to be able to keep them in a paddock to be able to feed them, keep control of them and milk them. These were some of the things that they could not do, which caused huge pressure and stress. I have seen it in some of my own farmers. When I was out on the ground in those early days they were covered in ash and dust, and I could see the whites of their eyes. One, it was shock; two, it was stress; and three, they were working their hearts out to try to save not only their cattle but also their homes, their dairies, their communities and their neighbours. They did a huge job. This was replicated over and over.
I also want to acknowledge the two farmers, one of whom was a dairy farmer, who, after the Uduc fires, got that group of people together, those fantastic dairy farmers who had helped to control the fires on their property and stop even more loss and stop the fire running into Harvey. They got those guys together, took them down to a local hotel and bought them a few drinks and a meal as a way of saying thank you for the work they had done.
This is replicated right across Australia, I would say, but in my part of the world in the south-west it has been a huge effort. There were other farmers, not just dairy farmers. There were beef farmers and those who grow fruit and vegetables as well, on the ground with their fire units helping their fellow farmers.
We have some great young people in the gallery today, and I would say to you that when you are out and see your farmers and the work they do on the land with their animals and their produce, they are producing fabulous food and fibre for you, for Australians and for other people around the world. Sometimes when you see them working you do not even consider what it is that they do. They have a multifaceted job and they are very, very skilled people. In my view they are often are underestimated for their intelligence and their manual capacity. Most farmers I know, particularly my dairy farmer friends and colleagues of all these years, can fix anything, anywhere, any time. They can make it work and they will never, ever go short of a feed. They are often people who are not only dairy farmers but grow their own fruit and vegetables as well and are almost self-sustaining. They are very focused on environmental management. That is one of the key focuses as well of Western Dairy and the research. So I commend this bill and the work of the dairy farmers of this nation to this House.
I thank the Chief Government Whip and I take the opportunity to acknowledge the support that you and your husband, Charlie, gave the farming community during the Yarloop fires. It was a magnificent effort. Thank you.
I would also like to congratulate and acknowledge that lovely speech by the member for Forrest—well said!
In speaking to this Dairy Produce Amendment (Dairy Service Levy Poll) Bill 2016 I would like to take the opportunity to talk about the great success that is the dairy industry in my electorate of north-east Victoria, and I would also like to take the opportunity to report on some of the actions that I have been able to do in the 2½ years I have been the member for Indi.
There has never been a better time to live in north-east Victoria and to be involved in agriculture. Our future is bright, with new trade opportunities, excellent water and rain supply readily available, access to skills and training through La Trobe and CSU universities, excellent TAFE services and great high schools in Tallangatta, Rutherglen, FCJ College in Benalla and Mansfield, all offering wonderful courses to young people. Agriculture in Indi is ready for the next really big transition. Our farmers and businesses are already leading the way.
In my electorate of Indi, ag is worth over $600 million per year. It is the fifth-largest employer, with over 5,000 businesses across eight local government areas, and food based manufacturing that value-adds to our produce employs over 2,200 people.
I have been very proud to represent the diversity of the agricultural businesses in my electorate for the last 2½ years. In this time I have been an active member of the agricultural standing committee. We have undertaken and are still doing an inquiry into what we need to do in the future to make agriculture more innovative and to help us keep that cutting edge. I had great pleasure in taking the committee to Wodonga in north-east Victoria earlier this month and also on tours up to the dairy industry in the Kiewa and Mitta valleys.
I have had the privilege of representing the chestnut industry in its efforts to get a levy for the industry and to work with Horticulture Innovation Australia. I am really pleased at the success there. And there are other, smaller industries that I have been able to work with as Horticulture Innovation Australia does its organisational transfer work.
I have been absolutely delighted to represent many constituents, particularly those concerned about animal welfare issues—from animal welfare, to live exports to halal—to take their issues to Canberra and to be a strong voice for them. I have been a participant in, and have encouraged many of my communities to be involved in, the Senate inquiries that have taken place. And I was very pleased to be part of the process of making sure that the voices of Indi came right to Canberra. I have arranged deputations for farmers and farming businesses to come to Canberra, to meet the relevant departmental staff and ministers.
I have supported legislation in this House right across the spectrum, but I have been particularly pleased to support the private member's legislation calling for the legalisation of industrial hemp for human consumption. This legislation is still on the table. It is a really important issue and I hope that it gets addressed before we go to the election.
I have lobbied fiercely for regional provision of higher education, particularly for agriculture, and to make sure that we have centres of excellence in the country—not just the big eight in the city. I have supported continual funding for CSIRO's research—particularly for one of my all-time favourites, which is the dung beetle project. Across summer, as we were having our barbecues, many of us noticed that there have been no flies this season. One of the reasons for why there have been no flies and that we have been able to eat outside is because of the fantastic work of the dung beetle. Sadly, that research has been curtailed, but it is one of those really important issues where the community comes to their local member and they can then bring it to Canberra.
I have been really pleased to make representations to and get support from the Minister for Health for continued funding for the National Centre for Farmer Health. I am delighted that centre is now up and running again. I have been a great supporter of the Murrindindi Shire, and was delighted that they were able to get funding to revamp the Yea Saleyards. I have represented farmer concerns, particularly concerning the constraints management strategy—part of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan—and the impact this is going to have on farmers in the upper Goulburn. I have brought farmers to Canberra, getting their voices heard, and lobbied the government. I think we have done some really good work on that one.
I have been able to support local food manufacturers, particularly in their lobbying around cross-border issues related to training. I have met with many delegations and have been happy to bring them to Canberra. One of the ones that I have been most proud to support was by hosting a deputation of members of Australian Women in Agriculture as they came on their regular lobbying trip to Canberra. It has been great to see them here. That process has been going on now for well on 15 or closer to 20 years. Women from Australian Women in Agriculture come from right across Australia with their issues, and they bring the voice of agriculture—particularly women's voices—to this parliament.
In the electorate it has also been a very busy time. We have established a water advisory group; we have had forums on food manufacturing; we have supported agricultural education, particularly encouraging young people to go to university or to TAFE to get the skills they need; and we have hosted the Australian Farming Forum at Wodonga, together with TAFE and major industries—a terrific turn out. I was delighted to welcome my parliamentary colleagues, Bob Katter and Senator John Madigan to that event. And we have had CSIRO come to talk to local farmers about their research and opportunities for much closer collaboration between those on the ground and CSIRO.
But perhaps the biggest achievement of my time in this parliament has been getting the 40 NBN wireless towers and the 30 mobile phone towers, because all of us know that if we do not have really good, strong, effective, reliable and affordable communication the business of agriculture just cannot proceed. So I am really pleased that we are actually now at the cutting edge of where we need to be for the future of my area.
In that case, I would now particularly like to address my remarks to the importance of the dairy industry. It has played a major role and is doing some absolutely fundamental work to take all of agriculture to the next century, particularly in the Kiewa and Mitta valleys. In this House at other times I have spoken about the Alpine Valleys Dairy Pathways Project, but today I would particularly like to talk about the work they are doing on succession planning and acknowledge the work of Patten Bridge and the pathways team in this regard.
In 2011, ABS census data showed that over 60 per cent of dairy farmers, owners and managers were aged over 50 years, making it the oldest farming cohort in Australia. So we have families who have been in the community for a long time, getting older and thinking, 'What am I going to do with my dairy farm?' As part of this Alpine Valleys Dairy Pathways Project, the community undertook a study to see what was actually happening and what we needed to do to unlock the barriers that farmers were facing, because as farming families got older they would move out of dairying—perhaps they would move into beef—and the amount of milk coming out of our valleys was decreasing. This has an impact on our production facilities—particularly at Tangambalanga—and, eventually, if we do not have the milk coming then we do not have the industry.
So this research project was really important. It looked at farm succession planning, what was currently happening, what the barriers were and what we needed to do. Clearly, it is a very complex process of passing the farm from one generation to another to bring new, young players into the industry.
One of the issues that the survey shows is that it is a really hard topic to get people to talk about. It is emotional, it involves money, it involves land, it involves relationships and it involves intergenerational communication, so it is really hard to get the topic even talked about as well as being a hard topic to address. They found that there was not much documentation. Some of the farming businesses had in their head the plans for what they were intending to do but did not necessarily put it on paper, talk to their accountant, talk to the farm adviser or, really importantly, talk to their children. They found that, while professional help is available—we have good lawyers, solicitors, accountants and mediators—it is often not used. There is a huge opportunity to introduce these professional accountants to the farming community and explain how the process works.
And of course timing is critical. If you leave your farm succession planning too late, it just might be too late. Do it while you are well, healthy and have a next generation interested and able to do it. It takes time. You cannot just do it overnight. Often it takes years to get all your ducks lined up so you can do what you need to do.
The Alpine Valleys Dairy Pathways Project set about talking to people and working out what was currently happening. They designed and trialled a practical intervention and they now have plans to engage professionals. The conclusions they reached were that we really need to understand much better the impact that failing to do succession planning is having on agriculture—not only on the dairy industry but all of agriculture—with the blockage it is causing in our ability to move on and absolutely be more innovative.
We need to improve the agricultural education system and particularly interaction with new technology: using our mobile phones and our internet to bring that enormous capacity to our farms so that we can really get the cost savings and the benefit we can through that new technology. But we need the education to do it. We need direct intervention with farming families and teams of people to go work with families and help them through this process. The study showed that fewer than 25 per cent of farming businesses had a clear direction for the future but over 73 per cent were really interested.
I am committed to continuing to work with the dairy industry and the other agriculturals in Indi to bring about the potential we have got for major increases in productivity, production and, importantly, profitability. To the beef, the prime lambs, the wool, the horticulture, the wheat and grains, the oilseed, the nurseries, the flower farmers, the fishing, the turf, the wine growers, the honey, the hops, the grass seeds, the berries, the mustards, the alpacas, the horse breeders and all the other agriculture industries in Indi: know that you have got a champion with me. I know the industries, I know the circumstances and I know what we need to do to absolutely make Indi one of the most productive, profitable and wonderful places to do agriculture in the whole of Australia.
I will make a couple of comments about the legislation before the House. This proposed bill is a really interesting one for me because in my prior life I was actively involved in the dairy industry and this whole conversation about levies and how they work. I have a little note of warning to my colleagues in the dairy industry: be careful what you wish for. The proposal to remove the requirement to have a dairy poll, which is what this legislation does, will actually take away the requirement. In its place, rather than having to do it every five years—and let me say wool does it every year, so five years is not a big ask—the industry has suggested that we set up a consultative committee. I have not got the details of how that consultative committee is going to be set up but I do hope it has good gender balance as well as age balance on it. This advisory committee is actually going to provide advice on the levy. So let's just check how that is set up and how you get elected to that—or do you get nominated?
Then there is a fallback position where, if 15 per cent of the group-A levy payers decide they do not like it, they can actually call on a levy poll. The major advantage—and I think we have to be really careful with this—we see is that we are going to reduce red tape and make it easier and quicker, but the whole reason for having this poll every five years was to have a direct connection between the people who pay the levy and the people who spend our money. This legislation is removing that direct connection. We are putting a third party in place. If I know anything about agriculture, I know that, when you have got a direct connection and the people who spend my money have to tell me how they are spending it, they have to come to my community, they have to justify it, they have to have the meeting and they have to argue the case, then they are much more considerate about how they spend my hard earned dollars.
I say to the dairy industry: in getting rid of the levy or changing the arrangements, pay particular attention. We in the wool industry, the beef industry, horticulture and the other industries that pay prize our ability to have regular polls and to set how much our levy would be.
In closing, I am going to support the legislation because it has come from the industry and I am a great believer in representing the industry and doing what it needs to do, but I say to my constituents: keep an eye on it. If you think the industry is not doing what it needs to do, I am very happy to pay some attention to it.
I say to my dairy industry colleagues and to my friends in the agriculture industries: I remain committed to working for you. I am absolutely dedicated to being the voice of agriculture, agribusiness and manufacturing in north-east Victoria. To the families, to the businesses, to the students, to the educators, to the service industries, to the stock and station agents, to the truckers, to the saleyard attendants: it has indeed been an absolute privilege to be your representative in parliament, and I look forward to seeking your support at the coming election.
I look forward to participating in the debate regarding the Dairy Produce Amendment (Dairy Service Levy Poll) Bill 2016 and associate myself with the comments particularly of the member for Forrest, who is an outstanding advocate for the dairy industry. I also welcome the comments from the member for Indi, my neighbour. There is only a mountain range between us. I congratulate the member for Indi on her advocacy on behalf of agricultural industries. I also note while I have the opportunity that she has a very strong candidate running against her from the National Party at the next election: a fellow by the name of Marty Corboy, who is an equally strong advocate for regional Australia and agricultural sectors. I assume it is going to be a strong and fair fight and I am confident the best man or woman will win when the time comes.
I associate myself with the comments of my colleagues who have spoken so strongly on behalf of the dairy industry, because the dairy industry is such a vital industry to Australia. It is important to reflect on the number of dairy farms in Australia—there are more than 6,000 dairy farms—and, as the member for Forrest, correctly remarked in her contribution: getting up every day, early, milking cows twice a day, providing food for not only Australians but also throughout the world makes the national dairy herd of 1.7 million cows an incredibly important asset to the Australian agriculture sector.
In Gippsland alone, the agricultural total product in terms of dairy product from the farming sector, manufacturing and export industries is in the order of $3 billion per year. There are about 6½ thousand people directly or indirectly engaged in farming and processing in Gippsland associated with the dairy industry; and over 1400 dairy farms across the broader Gippsland region, which includes the electorate of Gippsland but also the electorate of Macmillan so strongly supported by my colleague, the member for McMillan, Russell Broadbent.
It is a very important industry for the future of Gippsland, and there are huge opportunities for the future, which I will reflect on in a moment's time. In particular, the opportunity for us in the dairy industry in the Gippsland electorate relates to the Macalister Irrigation District, which is the heart of dairying in my electorate. It is a powerhouse for the dairy sector not just in Gippsland but also for Australia. The Macalister Irrigation District also has a significant vegetable production industry, creating more than $500 million for the Victorian economy each year and underpinning the growth and security of Gippsland's rural communities.
What I am working on at the moment, as the member for Gippsland, is the effort by the community, Southern Rural Water, the dairy industry and the horticultural industry to further modernise the Macalister Irrigation District—a project which will deliver benefits in the order of $45 million to $50 million per year, and cost in the order of $60 million to modernise. The food related activities depend on the Macalister Irrigation District are calling Australian governments at both state and federal level to modernise and carry out the next stage of the irrigation infrastructure upgrade.
I have been very fortunate in my time as the member for Gippsland to have had visits from Labor members of parliament who were interested in the agriculture sector and the former Labor parl sec Sid Sidebottom but also, in more recent times, the former Deputy Prime Minister, my great friend the member for Wide Bay, Warren Truss; and the current Deputy Prime Minister and minister for agriculture, Barnaby Joyce. They visited Gippsland, because they appreciate the value of the agriculture sector to our community but, in more recent times, it is about giving them the opportunity to see what we could do with a little more government investment.
We are working as a community to secure funding for the major upgrades of the Southern-Tinamba project and the irrigation infrastructure supply system, which will help us meet future growth in global dairy demand. It will help us create a healthier environment for the Gippsland Lakes, which I am particularly passionate about. It will promote high-value land use and increased farm productivity.
On the issue of the Gippsland Lakes, it is worth noting in today's debate that our farmers have been very active in reducing the amount of nutrients that flow into the creeks and rivers which feed the Gippsland Lakes system. This helps reduce the likelihood of algal blooms, which have been so devastating in the past for the tourism industry. It has worked, because governments have been prepared to provide some seed funding for the farmers to do whole-of-management plans and nutrient reduction work. The farmers, having secured that seed funding, have then capitalised and put their own money into reducing the amount of nutrients leaving their farms. They are not only benefiting from increased productivity on their own farms but also the environment clearly benefits with the reduction in nutrients going into the Gippsland Lakes system.
What we are keen to see in Gippsland and the Macalister Irrigation District is the investment between state government, federal government and the farmers themselves in a joint effort to improve the supply system. It will provide in the order of 9,700 megalitres in savings from the current system. These water savings can obviously be used to further support growth and expansion in the dairy and horticultural sector in Gippsland.
We have had some level of interest from the state government, which has been good to see. Unfortunately, the state government has tied its funding commitment to the Port of Melbourne sale process, so it remains to be seen whether that goes ahead. However, I still think the Victorian agriculture minister and water resources minister should be making the commitment untied to any asset sales just on the basis of the economic value it will provide to the Victorian and Gippsland economy.
As I mentioned, I have had the Deputy Prime Minister and agriculture minister, Barnaby Joyce, visit the region. He appreciates the importance of this project, and it has been recognised as one of those projects that may be available to seek funding under the government's water infrastructure plans—and more detail will be forthcoming in the weeks and months ahead.
Regarding the bill specifically, it is important to note that the dairy industry supports the legislation that the government is bringing to the House. It has the support of dairy farmers across New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, Western Australia and Tasmania, and United Dairyfarmers Victoria are on board. So it is important that the industry is supportive of the measures being put to the House today.
The bill implements a request from the Australian dairy industry to introduce some flexibility into the dairy levy process. The dairy levy raises in the order of $34½ million, and the Commonwealth funds to support Dairy Australia for R&D are in the order of $22 million. So it is a significant sum of money we are talking about.
The dairy industry has expressed concern about the regulatory and financial burden associated with holding a dairy levy poll every five years as required under the Dairy Produce Act. This bill will remove that requirement, so it is a measure that reduces red tape. It reduces a cost that has been imposed on the dairy industry. It is in the order of a million dollars to hold that levy poll every five years, and the industry is keen to have that flexibility in the arrangements into the future. So the money that is being used to run an election as such will then be available for the R&D work and other activities that are associated with the use of the farmers' dairy levy.
The dairy farmers—and I take the point raised by the member for Indi—do not lose their democratic right by any stretch. In circumstances where the majority of dairy farmers support the current rate of levy and where there is no widespread demand for a change to the levy, it makes sense to allow the dairy industry to avoid holding a poll, enabling those funds to be put to productive use. So this bill will require there to be a dairy levy poll only when a change in the rate of the dairy levy is proposed, and this will provide the industry with the flexibility around the timing of levy polls. So the bill entrenches the democratic power of dairy farmers themselves to control and determine any changes in the rate of the dairy service levy.
I note the concerns raised by the member for Indi but can offer her reassurance that the democratic power of dairy farmers across Australia has not been eroded in any way, shape or form under the bill put before the House. They still retain control in the way that the dairy service levy is utilised and, in the case of it going to be increased, if they want to have a vote on it, they certainly may, as the time comes.
In closing, I wish to acknowledge the important work being carried out by the Minister for Agriculture in support of the dairy industry in Gippsland. I will continue to lobby him, as you would expect, to secure funding for the Macalister Irrigation District upgrades. He would expect me to do that at every opportunity.
Since I have taken over the role of Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, I have found I have a lot more friends in this place that I realised. I have many friends from both sides of this House who have taken the time to have a chat with me about their own infrastructure projects in their electorates, as you would expect they would. I certainly will be amenable and open to those discussions, just as I will, as the member for Gippsland, continue to extol the virtues of the Macalister Irrigation District to the Minister for Agriculture and encourage him to come good with some funding at the appropriate time. That is what we do as members of the House of Representatives. We come here to argue our case as fiercely and parochially as we can to try to ensure that our communities receive a fair share of government funding whenever it is available to us.
I congratulate those opposite for supporting the changes as proposed by the Minister for Agriculture and I commend the dairy industry for the work it is doing in supporting jobs growth and prosperity, not just in Gippsland but throughout Australia. I commend the bill to the House
I thank the minister for his contribution and note that I have been his friend for some time.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I may not have been a friend of the minister for as long as you have been, given we have not known each other that long, but I am pleased to hear that the new Minister for Infrastructure and Transport is keen to talk about infrastructure projects.
Ensuring we have good regional roads and rail networks is one of the many issues that are raised with me by farmers, whether they are retired farmers or current farmers. This is not just in my electorate, but also throughout regional Victoria. Whether it be my listening post at Strath Village or catching up with Greg Toll or any of the other farmers who have established themselves in Bendigo post being on the land or looking to retire to Bendigo, what they raise with me is what is still going on in their farming communities, communities that they are very proud of. They raise with me the issue of roads and how critical it is that we see investment go into roads. They raise with me the cost of transport and freight and how they want to see a revival of funding for our rail system, to give farmers and producers that option.
They raise with me the crisis of water, the importance of water and how critical it is that we have a mature, constructive debate on water. They raise with me the issues around energy costs; despite this government's great fanfare about abolishing the carbon tax, they are seeing their gas bills and electricity bills skyrocket. They are issues for a lot of our farmers. We have some farmers who have disconnected themselves from the grid if they can. It is a lot harder for dairy farmers to do that because when they need energy it is before dawn; it is before the sun is actually up. So it is harder for the dairy farmers to look at that as an option.
They raise with me the need to keep young people in their community; how critical the NBN is to modern farming; how they desperately want the ability to connect and how this government has, quite frankly, dropped the ball when it comes to the rollout—the delay of two years in actually getting on with a decent NBN plan. The problems with the NBN satellite program that has been oversubscribed—towns like Queenstown in Tasmania have been offered satellite even though they are a community of 3,000. That could be part of the problem about the clogging up of the network. These are the issues that farmers raise with me when they want to talk about what is going on on the land.
Not one of them has raised the issue of levies. They just expect governments to do it. They welcome what we have done here. They welcome what is being put forward. The industries are vocal about it and Labor has, through consultation, agreed with the government to these amendments. But I have to say I have spoken on quite a number of levy amendment bills that have come before this House. It appears to be all this government is doing in this space. It is bill after bill on levies. Quite frankly, there is so much more going on than just levies. It needs to be more than just levies.
What about the free trade agreements?
We talk about the free trade agreements. What I am hearing from people on the farms about the free trade agreements is that they actually need water. They need water to be able to grow the produce. They need water. They need decent water policies to ensure they have a product to sell. They need decent infrastructure policies to ensure that they can get their product to port to be able to sell it. When it comes to the free trade agreements, they need a government that is going to focus on the secondary trade barriers, on what is going on in the countries of transit. I have had a number of heartbreaking conversations with producers who have said, 'My product is stuck on a port in China and I am not getting the support I need to get it released.' Where is the government's focus on that?
What we did have come through my part of the world and through regional Victoria was a great roadshow telling them what is great about the free trade agreements. But there was no practical support on how to develop those industries so that they can actually get into those markets and no practical support about what to do when it goes wrong. That is the disappointing thing about this government: we stand up time and time again to talk about levies and to talk about amending levies when that should just be part of the function of government: listening to the industry, addressing the levy issue. But what we do not see is a really concrete plan, a reform and a mature discussion that can actually help build a strong, sustainable agricultural community going forward.
I mentioned the water issue and just a couple of the experiences that I had just in relation to the dairy industry. I can tell you what these dairy farmers will say to me when I go back and say, 'Great news, we have done the amendments around that dairy levy.' They will roll their eyes and say, 'That's great, Lisa, but what about water? I'm still having to pay a ridiculous rate on the temporary water market.'
And how bad is the water issue when it comes to Victoria? I am not the only MP who has been vocal about this; I acknowledge that there are other regional MPs who are vocal about this issue. In our south-west the dairy farmers are saying that there is a water issue, that there are not a lot of good bores out there, that the water is too deep and we just cannot get it. They are saying that we just have not had the rain that we have needed to help our dairy farmers. In warm weather, lactating cows require 150 litres of water per day, and it is literally not there. The farmers are working with the local council, but they are saying that it is getting very tough.
In northern Victoria changes to water policy in the past decade have led to a massive reduction in the available water for irrigation. This has dramatically changed dairy farming in the Murray region. It is the reality. I am not for a moment standing here advocating for a change to environmental water. I believe that is a misdirection about what is happening in the conversation about the Murray-Darling Basin Plan and water. One farmer who I know has made some comments on Facebook that really sum up the crisis and the challenge for some of our dairy farmers:
… due to an unsustainable temp water prices Kyle and I made the extremely tough decision to sell our farm … to our neighbour, this was a very sad day for me as I thought—
this—
… would have been my forever home but sadly not owning any permanent water meant we were at the mercy of the temp water market and we could not make any money buying water at $300 a meg. We are selling the farmer in the north and moving to where it rains in the South West.
This is the real experience of a dairy farmer. They are not talking about levies. They are talking about water.
As I said, I am not for one moment speaking against environmental water. What I am talking about is the lack of a mature conversation about the temporary water market and how it is impacting water prices around the Murray area. I am not trying to argue that all the water woes being experienced by our dairy farmers and other farmers are because of environmental water allocations. They are not.
Earlier this year the new Murray-Darling Basin Authority boss said that recovery of water for the environment is 'the largest single structural adjustment an industry has had to go through'. They are working closely with industry. He also said that it appears the Basin Plan is delivering improvements for native fish, birds and vegetation throughout the Murray-Darling, according to a new report they have just released. This is good news, because it is about getting the balance right between the environment and irrigation water.
But what we have not seen and what this government is only flirting around the edges of is a genuine discussion about temporary water. We need to start asking questions. Is it appropriate to have speculators in the water market? Is it fair and right to have a water market that is structured to maximise the profits of investors before the agricultural and environmental interests of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan? We need to talk about whether it is a free and fair market that we have established in water.
Think about the structures of market based economies. If you are an investor, it is a great deal. You can play the numbers. You know exactly how much the government must allocate in terms of environmental water. You know that figure. You know exactly how much water some industries will need—for almonds or any of those other crops—so you are able to run the numbers and work out what price point you can push farmers to. That is the problem I see that we have with the water market. Yet, rather than having a bold discussion about this issue, the government instead is flirting around the edges of the issue.
Yesterday the federal government released further details of its plan to introduce a national register of foreign ownership of water entitlements. We are not seeing any bold, mature discussion about water. We are seeing the government release a consultation paper on a proposal to introduce a national register of foreign ownership of water entitlements. You could not get further from action. That is saying, 'All we're going to do is talk to you about setting up a register of who owns water.' That is not good enough. That is not bold enough. This is a government that claims to be the voice for the bush, and all it can do in this critical space, when it wants to see us grow our ag industries, to build on the free trade agreements, is to talk about setting up a national register of foreign ownership of water.
A bolder move of the government would be to ask for feedback on whether it is right that we have foreign ownership of our water entitlements. That would have been a bolder move by this government—to go to the question of whether it is right to have foreign ownership of our water and our water entitlements. These are the issues that this government is not willing to tackle head-on and have a mature conversation about. Probably it is because of the split within their own ranks between the city based Liberal MPs and the country based MPs. But your rhetoric will bring you undone. If you are serious about maximising profits in the bush, if you are serious about building the ag industry, if you are serious about ag being the new black and the growth industry that will bring us forward into the next age, where we are going to have a boom, then you need to get serious about the critical infrastructure that will help not just our dairy farmers but our other farmers.
We need to start a mature conversation around water infrastructure. We need to start a mature conversation about energy costs and production costs. This government instead has just dropped the ball. It has stopped talking about energy costs, because they have skyrocketed. It is not serious about an NBN plan, which is another thing that our dairy farmers are crying out for. Only last year in this place, when I was talking to some dairy farmers at a couple of functions that we had up here, one of them said to me: 'Lisa, what I need is the NBN. What I need is to be able to do my farming business, to run my farm and connect to the NBN.' That is not what this government is prioritising.
What this government also needs to prioritise is coming up with a genuine plan on how they can help our dairy farmers develop their markets overseas. Standing up and rattling off the price of milk and farm-gate prices is, quite frankly, not enough. Our farmers and farming communities do want to hear from their government. They do want to make sure that when it comes to building the ag industry, and about staying on the farm, that this government is going to get serious. Legislation after legislation that focuses on levies is lazy ag policy. It needs to happen but it is not the genuine reform that will give legs to the white papers that have been released over and over again.
Whilst Labor supports this bill and congratulates the work that the dairy farmers have done—in the broad consultation that they have done—we advocate that the levy dollars be spent as effectively as possible. We would like to see, and want to see, this funding go into research. We know that a number of our dairy farmers are active in this space because they do want to be the best producers that they can be. It is great to see that partnership going on between industry and our industry research. This levy will help. Let us get serious about infrastructure that will really help our dairy farmers.
For those out there listening, the Labor Party support this bill. You would not think it after hearing that from the member for Bendigo. I do not know what it is I have done in a previous life, but it seems I am so often in the chamber listening to the member for Bendigo as I am about to speak. That might be because she is the go to person for agriculture on that side of the chamber—she is, pretty well, the only person on that side. Very few members from rural, regional or remote Australia find themselves ensconced in the federal parliamentary Labor Party. That might have something to do with the recent decision on live exports and their decision to ban that trade when they were in government. A harm, thankfully, we have undone and that you know so well, Mr Deputy Speaker Scott.
I was not going to address her contribution but I have to. It seems to be that the thrust of it was that farmers do not mind levies and that the coalition has no concrete plan for stronger sustainable rural communities. There was the inevitable attack from the member for Bendigo on foreign investment and, then, there was a throwaway line about NBN. I will go to these issues.
I live in a farming family and I have never met a farmer who likes a levy. They tolerate them. I must say, they are not cheering for them. They have not sent me to Canberra to say, 'Tony, the first thing you do is talk to your colleagues about higher levies because that is something we want.' Maybe I need to spend some time in the member for Bendigo's electorate—they might be a different cohort of farmers, but I do not expect that they are.
In terms of a concrete plan for a strong and sustainable rural community, one of the best things this government has done is acknowledge the need to expand markets, globally, and we have done a lot of good work—thanks to the now former Minister for Trade and Investment—in establishing free trade agreements and I will talk to those. There was the inevitable attack on foreign investment. Whilst it is an issue that needs to be debated, in detail, and is a topic for conversation in my electorate, as in hers, I make the point that very many of our processes that underpin the price of commodities in rural Australia are, indeed, products of foreign investment. I would hate to see fewer buyers on the rails because we took a deleterious position with respect to foreign investment.
With respect to the NBN, I am pretty well prepared to back the fact that there are more NBN connections in the member for Bendigo's electorate today than there were in early September 2013. There certainly are in my electorate. Sky Muster will be in the sky, soon to be operative, and there will be fixed wireless towers and other opportunities.
The most deplorable suggestion we heard from the member for Bendigo was, effectively, an attack on the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. She was very careful in couching her submission, but I think she needs to quickly go and speak to the leader of opposition business, who was the chief architect of the plan. I want to say to those people listening to this contribution in Barker that this side of the House is committed to ensuring the plan is delivered in full and on time and that no amount of windbagging from the member for Bendigo will change that attitude. I have taken far too long. It is a serious issue and the people of my electorate understand the need for water security.
I support this bill. I welcome any change that supports the dairy producers in my electorate. It will ease the regulatory burden placed on the industry through cutting costly and unnecessary bureaucratic processes. According to information compiled by the Australian Dairy Farmers association, in the last financial year the Australian dairy industry farm-gate value totalled $4.7 billion. In anyone's language that is a whopping sum. That national milk production increased 3.8 per cent. That is 360 million litres to a total of 9.7 billion litres. I think that is more milk than you can fly a rocket over. In any event, the dairy industry continues to be one of Australia's major rural industries. Based on a farm-gate value of production of some $4.7 billion, it ranks third behind beef and wheat.
Reports suggest that over 40,000 people are directly employed in the sector. Related transport distribution activities, and research and development projects, represent further employment associated with the industry.
Dairy is also one of Australia's leading rural industries, in terms of adding value through downstream processing. In my home state of South Australia there were some 252 producers last year who produced some 516 million litres. Many of these world-class farming enterprises in my electorate of Barker are located in the south-east where I also find my home. Barker is particularly important to South Australia's milk production as a significant proportion of the milk produced is exported abroad.
There have in recent times been some significant announcements regarding investment into dairy producers in my electorate. In December last year, Beston Global Food Company announced the reopening of two milk processing factories at Murray Bridge and Jervois, with some 100 associated jobs. Building on this investment in the dairy industry of Barker, Beston announced that it has formed a joint venture with Hong Kong's Sunwah Group to distribute its food into Hong Kong, Macau and southern China. This will serve to increase the demand for Australia's world-class milk from the dairy cows who graze throughout Barker. The coalition government is providing unprecedented opportunity for our agricultural sector through the free trade agreements we have recently signed, along with the Trans-Pacific Partnership. The TPP will provide significant new access for dairy into all 10 of the TPP countries, some of which are the most heavily protected markets in the world. Alongside greater access to Korea, Japan and China, the TPP will foster growth in our dairy exports across our region as the emerging Asian middle class turn to Australia for quality dairy produce.
I welcome this opportunity for producers in my electorate and I know it will have a transformative effect on the industry as it drives a new era of jobs and growth across the Australian dairy industry. Yet it is not enough that we simply open opportunities for our producers; we must also respond to their concerns and remove unnecessary regulation that impedes their growth. Measures in this bill will free up capital in our dairy industry to be used in research and development, which will enable those in the industry to leverage their existing reputation for quality and to grow their businesses. This bill implements a request from the Australian dairy industry to introduce flexibility into the dairy levy poll process. The dairy industry has expressed concern about the regulatory and financial burden associated with holding a dairy levy poll every five years, as required under the Dairy Produce Act 1986. This bill responds to that concern by removing that requirement. The dairy industry estimates that the cost associated with holding a dairy levy poll every five years is up to $1 million—money that would be much better spent either in the hands of hardworking dairy men and women of Australia or in research and development.
The government has absolute confidence that the dairy producers of Australia have the capacity to make the most of the opportunities this government has delivered through the free trade agreements that I have mentioned. The money that is currently wasted in running the dairy levy poll process would be better spent investing in the industry.
Through industry led innovation and development, Australian producers have an unprecedented opportunity to increase productivity, drive new growth and create new jobs. This bill will ensure that a responsible and reasonable approach is taken to the dairy levy. In circumstances where the majority of dairy farmers support the current rate of levy, and where there is no widespread demand for a change in the levy, it makes no sense at all that the dairy industry should be forced to undertake a poll. This bill will require that a dairy levy poll be held only when a change in the rate of the dairy levy is proposed. This will provide the industry with flexibility around the timing of levy polls. The bill will require that Dairy Australia periodically establish an independent poll advisory committee to review the levy rate. The committee will recommend whether there should be a change to the levy or not. The industry have proposed that the poll advisory committee be independently chaired and include representatives of Dairy Australia, dairy farmers as nominated by Australian Dairy Farmers, and a representative of the Australian Dairy Products Federation. If no change to the levy is proposed, there would simply be no poll. If a change to the levy is proposed, a poll of all dairy farmers will be called. If dairy farmers representing 15 per cent of levy payers disagree with the recommendations of the poll advisory committee and request a poll, then a process will be put in place to enable a poll to take place.
This bill delivers a more democratic result to our dairy industry and delivers to them better autonomy. The bill introduces enabling clauses. The detail of the procedures for conducting the poll and forming the poll advisory committee will be in legislative instruments once the bill is passed. There has been extensive industry consultation in the lead-up to the preparation of this bill. In 2014 and 2015, Australian Dairy Farmers, as the peak national dairy farmer representative organisation, and Dairy Australia, the industry services body, undertook an independent review of the dairy levy poll process following the 2012 dairy levy poll. This review recommended the reforms proposed in this bill.
This bill is consistent with the coalition's commitment to cut red tape and unnecessary regulation. Today the coalition is delivering to the Australian dairy industry the autonomy that it has requested and that it needs to remain globally competitive. There are many challenges that face our dairy producers both in my electorate and across the nation. This reform will not solve all of those challenges but it is a step in the right direction to deliver a freer, less restricted industry.
I thank the dairy industry and their peak bodies for their honest and open consultations in this matter. I take this opportunity to thank the dairy men and women in my electorate who get up at the crack of dawn and do very difficult, very hard work—in many parts of my electorate it is very cold work—to supply this globally recognised product to the world. An indulgence: my very first job in life was to work on a dairy farm at Tarpeena. My parents sent me there in my scholastic holidays to work with good family friends of ours. In subsequent discussions with my parents, my father told me he was keen to ensure that I toughened up a little bit. I must say, those early mornings and long days—aside from shedding 15 kilograms one particular summer—taught me something about life, and that is: there is no reward without effort and we must all work hard to achieve our goals. I thank the chamber for that indulgence. This bill ensures that we as legislators are making the right decisions in responding to industry and working for a better agricultural Australia.
I came to this place committed to lower taxes and greater opportunities for constituents throughout Barker. I am glad to say that today I can stand here happy that this bill takes a very small step in that direction. It is a message that I hope my electorate hears loud and clear. I commend this bill to the House.
It never ceases to amaze me how people who speak in this House speak without any reflection, intelligence or thoughtfulness whatsoever, and the last speaker was a good example of that. He lauded the TPP. He lauded free trade and thanked the government for its help in free trade. Mr Deputy Speaker, I will tell you what—
Order! I remind the member for Kennedy that to reflect on another member in this chamber is unparliamentary and I warn him that if goes down this path, he will—
I take the warning.
No, you will not reflect on another member in this chamber. Your comments in your opening words bordered on a reflection on all members of this chamber. The member for Kennedy has the call.
I am counting how much time you have taken off me, Deputy Speaker. If I could disagree with what you have just said. This is a parliament for debate between those people and those people and these people and that person and that person, and I disagree with what he was saying then I am entitled to say that. If that is a reflection upon him, that is your interpretation. If you are saying to me that I am not allowed to say something which reflects upon him then I would disagree with you strongly. If my remarks are pejorative or personal then I withdraw those remarks and I accept what you are saying. But if you are saying to me that this is not a place for debate between one person and another then I disagree with you very, very strongly indeed.
To back up what I just said about the previous speaker, he said that he thanked the government for the free trade regime which they have introduced. Well, we are talking about the dairy industry. We will have a look at what free trade has done for the dairy industry. Don't these people do any homework at all? Before this wonderful free trade regime of his was introduced, we have 2.2 million dairy cows in Australia—2.2 million milkers in Australia. We now have 1.7 million milkers. That is the loss of three-quarters of a million dairy cows. Free trade has helped us!
Acting Deputy Speaker Broadbent, surely he knows that we were on around 59c a litre for fresh milk before deregulation and after deregulation we were on 42c. Thirty per cent of our income was taken off us, and he talks about these hardworking people. Well, hardworking they are and you took 30 per cent of their gross income off them. These poor people do not understand a lot of these things that are happening to them. All they know is the banks are ringing them up. Well, there were 13,000 of them before this wonderful free trade regime was imposed upon them. There were 13,000 of them; now there are 6,000 of them. This has been good for them, has it, the loss of 30 per cent of their income, which basically went to Woolworths and Coles! This has been good for them!
What is wrong with the parliament of Australia? What is wrong with the government of Australia? What is wrong with democracy in this country that a person who may be a good member of parliament can get up and put out a statement that is so colossally out of keeping with reality? Does he know nothing about his own electorate?
I had to watch the horror in my own electorate, and I did not watch it as a National Party member because that was the final straw for me. The LNP wrecked the sugar industry, wrecked the maize industry, wrecked and completely closed down the tobacco industry of Australia and wrecked the fishing industry. The ALP completely shut down the timber industry of North Queensland. You wrecked all these industries and the final straw for me was the dairy industry. There were 15 members in the party room that day. I know should not say what was said in the party room, but this is flattery for them, I suppose. Every single one of them got up and said that this will be worse disaster in Australian history. Julian McGauran said that it will be the worst train smash in agriculture in the nation's history if the deregulation goes ahead. He said that in the public arena. He also said that in the party room and everyone said, 'Here, here, we agree' and they all got up and spoke and said that it will be the greatest disaster. What did they do? They straightaway went ahead with it. What is the point of being in a party room that is a joke? We unanimously say, 'We're going to go this way' and then unanimously go the other way—then you join reality land in here.
The result in the area I represent is that we had about 240 farmers and the last time I looked we have 38 farmers. That is all that is left. That is arguably the worst area in Australia for an outbreak of a certain disease—the s-word I do not want to use anymore in this place or elsewhere. Heartbreak and misery were imposed. People keep talking about farmers. For every dairy farmer there were nine other people who worked in the industry as contractors, suppliers of feed, haulers who carted the milk in and out, workers—not that there are a lot of employees in the dairy industry—and the factory workers from the very big factory in the Kennedy electorate behind Cairns. That carnage was reflected all over Australia. There were 13,000 dairy farmers; now there are 6,000.
We stand here today to talk about some little irrelevancy in the greater scheme of things. But there is one party in this country that are the true standard-bearers with pride from the old pre-war Labor Party and the standard-bearers with pride from the Country Party. We have already had the sugar industry reregulated in Queensland. For the first time in 29 years, the farmers have been able to get a fair go. They have a monopoly situation in the situation, exactly the same as in the dairy industry. If my farmers cannot sell to the local factory, they have to put the milk in a milk wagon and take it all the way down to south Queensland—nearly 3,000 kilometres.
Similarly, in South-East Queensland now—unless they go across the border in New South Wales to Norco and carry it many hundreds of kilometres—the local dairy factory has a monopoly, because of the destruction of the dairy industry by the people in this parliament. It was a magnificent and viable industry. Atherton was the only branch of the three major banks that had no farmers in trouble, until this parliament destroyed their livelihoods—and then we probably had more farmers in trouble than anywhere else in Australia. We had 240 farmers and now we have 38 farmers. That is happening right across the board in rural Australia.
When farmers go broke they have to sell their shares in the local factory. So now the factory is owned by a corporation that can pay them whatever they feel like paying them. If that is not bad enough, the ultimate buyer of the fresh milk is Woolworths and Coles. One of the worst countries on earth for concentration of market power is the United States, and Costco and Walmart have 23.1 per cent of the market, the last time I looked. Woolworths and Coles have around 90 per cent of the market in Australia.
If you doubt me, go and have an argument with ACNielsen, who did the series, or go and have an argument with the Australian Bureau of Statistics, who did the series. In 2002 one series said that Woolworths and Coles had 72 per cent and the other series said the two had 68 per cent. There was another big player in the field at that point in time who is not there now—it was not Davids; it was another very big player—and most of that is now owned by Woolworths and Coles. In any event, they had two per cent market growth each year. So, from 2002, at two per cent market growth, that is another 20 per cent of the market—and they had 70 per cent then. Both series said 70 per cent and both series said two per cent. The net result of this is that Coles make a big hero of themselves selling milk at $1, but they are selling it, quite literally, over the dead bodies of the farmers. They are making big heroes of themselves with the public at the cost of the farmer—the greatest cost that anyone could suffer.
The Australian economy has lost some half a million dairy herd. That is $1,000 million a year. The Australian economy has lost $1,000 million a year. And the cost and the heartbreak of 6,000 farmers and some 60,000 workers losing their jobs, well, you can figure that our for yourself. If you lose your job, pretty typically you lose your car and you lose your home. In about 40 per cent of cases, you lose your family as well due to the heartbreak, tension and trauma that set in, and in about two per cent of cases you lose your life. Those are the ugly statistics that are out there.
There is no-one to blame for the situation in the dairy industry, except the people in this place. The previous speaker lauded the TPP agreement and the free trade with China agreement—as I am quite certain every other speaker in this place will do. It was so good that the government had to put advertisements on three and four times a night on every television channel telling us how wonderful it is. Those advertisements went down so well that the polls for the Prime Minister fell to such a degree that the Liberals threw him out—and their polls are plummeting once again. Well, that is what happens if you get up in this place and laud a decision to deregulate this industry—a decision which destroyed the industry. If you are so stupid as to laud those sorts of policies, you will get thrown out. The other mob over here, who are no better, were almost totally to blame for what happened due to the deregulation of the sugar industry. Members in here get up and preach free trade. Where is the free trade when you have got two people in this country to sell food to? Where is the free trade within Australia, when you have two people to buy food from and two people to sell food to? It is worse still in the sugar and dairy industries because we can only sell to the local factory and sugar to the local sugar mill. So they have a monopoly.
So it has been left to the KAP, our tiny little party and, I have to say, the LNP under the leadership of Lawrence Springborg in Queensland. We thank them very much for their support in this area. We have a bit of joy there at the moment on some of these issues with Mr Springborg in there. So it has been left up to a tiny-weeny, miniscule little party like the KAP. What are the government doing at the present moment? They are spending all their time trying to eliminate the tiny, miniscule parties—and the people will have no voice at all, because the only voice in this place that opposed the deregulation of the dairy industry was the voice of the party that I represent, the KAP. That was the only voice we had in this place. And the forces on that side of the chamber and those on the other side want to extinguish that voice, so that they can free trade everything.
Let's have a look at where we are going. By far and away, the biggest cattle-owning company and the biggest landowner in Australia is Macquarie Bank, under Terra Firma, which was Great Southern—which they purchased. I need confirmation of this, because I am only going on media reports that say that they own 320,000 head of cattle. That would be a significant proportion of the land surface of Australia. When the last survey was done 11 per cent of Australia was owned by foreign corporations. That does not sound too bad but, when you take out 52 per cent of desert and 20 per cent which is supposedly owned by the first Australians—but they own a glorified national park—and then you have the national park with another seven per cent, with 11 per cent they owned more than 50 per cent of the available land back in 2006. Uruguay, the biggest wool producer outside of Australia, is one of the 20 poorest countries on earth. Why? Because 72 per cent of Uruguay was owned by the United States. They got no benefit for their great product, their wool. It was in its heyday then and was a bigger export in Australia than coal. That is where Australia is going. (Time expired)
I am just catching my breath after that contribution from the member for Kennedy. I am not sure whether anyone in the chamber understands where the honourable member, who just resumed his seat, actually sits with his intention on how he might vote on this bill. I am surprised that he went for a full 15 minutes and, yet, I have no idea whether the honourable member will be supporting the Dairy Produce Amendment (Dairy Service Levy Poll) Bill 2016, because he chose to take his time to address a whole range of other issues. I may come to some of those if time permits, but I will get to the substance of the bill first so that I do not fall for that same trap.
As we say over and over again in this House, this government is absolutely committed to supporting small business and farmers, and reducing red tape. We have listened to industry and to the people who are impacted by the legislation we create. As a result, this bill will introduce flexibility into the dairy levy poll process following a request to do so from the Australian dairy industry. The dairy industry has shown some concern regarding the regulations that mandated a dairy levy poll be held every five years, as required by the Dairy Produce Act 1986. There is a regulatory and financial burden associated with this poll being held every five years. The dairy industry estimates that the cost of holding this poll at the current frequency of every five years is up to a potential cost of $1 million. This $1 million burden comes out of a fund that is paid into by farmers in the form of a compulsory levy. Where farmers are obliged to pay this compulsory levy, it is important, I believe, to ensure that farmers have the ability to make sure that the money is being spent in a way that benefits them the most and to ensure that every single dollar gains the most benefit.
Without the need to hold a levy poll every five years, this is going to be an extra $1 million that can be spent on vital research and development or other investment directly for the farmers' benefit in the dairy industry. Whilst research and development often sounds like an intangible good, the benefit of research and development in the dairy industry is something that can assist the farmers in my electorate and all over Australia enormously. With research and development in dairy production, I think there is much more potential for innovation to improve efficiency and the production of milk or to create new management strategies or technologies to deal with drought.
As many farmers around Australia will know, as will the members of this parliament who represent rural and regional Australia, as I do, the lack of rain has been seriously affecting farmers in the dairy industry. In my home state of Tasmania, milk production will be down by approximately 2.5 per cent by the end of the year. This, of course, has obvious flow-on effects impacting the financial situation of farmers in Tasmania and in my electorate of Braddon. With the money saved by not being obliged to conduct levy polls, these kinds of issues could be addressed—something of benefit to farmers in the present and in future years.
As with all changes to regulations, there are the obvious questions of whether it will expose farmers to added risk or unfair changes that diminish their say in the matters of their industry. In situations where the majority of dairy farmers support the current rate of the levy, and where there is no widespread demand for change in the levy, it just does not make sense to spend so much money on a poll of farmers when it is completely unnecessary to do so. This is the obvious rationale behind this legislation. It is only when there is a change in the dairy levy proposed that a poll is required. This gives the industry the flexibility and autonomy to hold polls only when needed, rather than on the obvious five-year rotational basis, as is currently mandated by legislation.
Whether there should be a change to the levy or not will be determined by an independent poll advisory committee, which will be established periodically by Dairy Australia, as required by this bill. If no changes to the levy are proposed, then no poll will be held, generating significant savings to be used to benefit the dairy industry. There are safeguards in this bill to protect farmers. The poll advisory committee cannot become a tyrannical overhead recommending against polls to stymie the voice of farmers. If dairy farmers, who collectively represent 15 per cent of levies paid, disagree with the poll advisory committee in its recommendations, then a process is able to be put in place to enable a levy poll to be held.
This legislation is not the dairy industry or the government telling farmers what is good for them in some paternalistic way. This legislation has come about as a request from the industry to improve the way that those farmers' levy funds are used. In 2014 and 2015, Australian Dairy Farmers and Dairy Australia, as the primary national dairy farmer representative organisation and the industry services body, undertook a review of the dairy levy poll process. This review process took place following the 2012 dairy levy poll. The reform proposed in this bill comes from recommendations by that review.
This legislation has also been consultative. Six thousand two hundred and eighty eight Australian dairy levy payers received an information pack, 1,221 dairy farmers attended 30 separate presentations and 785 telephone conversations were had with dairy levy payers. In addition to this, a vote on the proposed changes was held, with almost 90 per cent of voters in favour of these changes. Every single dairy levy payer has been contacted in some way, in relation to this change, and was given the opportunity to provide feedback during a wide and extensive consultation process.
In talking about the legislation that will impact the dairy industry, it gives me a good opportunity to paint a picture of the dairy industry in Tasmania for members of this House. There are approximately 150,000 dairy cows in Tasmania spread across about 500 dairies. These cows produce hundreds of millions of litres of milk per year. In 2010, Tasmania produced 7.5 per cent of the Australian milk production total. The dairy industry in Tasmania is a very significant part of the Australian agricultural sector. For a state that accounts for just over two per cent of our population nationally, I think it is fair to say that, once again, in yet another industry, the great state of Tasmania is punching well above its weight in the dairy production sector.
As such, this legislation will be of enormous significance to Tasmania. I am sure it will be welcomed by the dairy farmers in my electorate of Braddon and across the state. This legislation will remove some of the red tape and give dairy farmers the ability to collectively determine when they need levy polls and how often those polls should be. This government is continuing to be committed to small government and is giving those in industry the power to determine their own destiny without unnecessary regulatory burdens. It is on that basis that I have no hesitation this morning in supporting this bill that is before the House.
I would like to use some of the time remaining to talk a little bit more about the dairy industry in Tasmania and take a few moments to pay public tribute to the contribution that all farmers make. On this occasion, given we are focused on the dairy industry, I want to publicly thank the dairy farmers of my electorate for the way in which they are going about their business, for the way in which they are growing in their belief in their industry, for the way in which they are growing in confidence about the future of their industry and for the way in which they have unilaterally embraced the exciting potential that will be coming from the free trade agreements that have been signed and that will more than likely be signed.
I found the contribution from the member for Kennedy a few moments ago quite extraordinary. He talked about a previous speaker lacking reality. I thought that was quite ironic. I encourage those people who listen on a regular basis to the member for Kennedy to put that in some context about who in this House may hold a firm grasp on reality. He talked about the fact that we killed off the dairy industry—collectively the Labor Party, the Liberal Party and anyone else in this House except the honourable member himself. He talked about the number of farms being down from 13,000 to 6,000 but he made no reference at all to the way in which the industry has shifted significantly over the last decade or two. Obviously the smaller farms have come under enormous pressure—that goes without saying—but it has given them an opportunity to sell their properties, to sell their businesses. We now have more productive farms, more efficient farms, more economies of sale within those farms. It was an inevitable outcome that I think everybody in the dairy industry knew was coming and probably in their heart of hearts knew had to come. The traditional model of small farming was coming under enormous pressure with the growing influence of the dairy sector.
I think it is fascinating to understand a little bit about where the whole dairy industry has gone. I mentioned in my maiden speech a quote from Dr John Tanner, who was talking about the timber industry in fact when he said that wood fibre is the new milk solids. What he was really saying was there is still a lot to be discovered about the by-product of wood fibre if you look at the way in which the dairy industry of the last few decades, maybe 30 years in fact, has just grown so much by producing alternative products and consumer desired products out of milk. It was not that long ago that milk was just milk, a white liquid in a bottle. We got a bit of it at school. There were a few different flavours if you were lucky back in my day but really milk was milk and there was not a lot of excitement to it. But look at it now. It forms the basis of a whole range of saleable and exportable products. I think this is at the essence of the dairy industry—how it has rebirthed itself over the last 20 or 30 years. It has taken a natural product produced by tremendous producers across the country and has seen its way into a whole new future. Just the Asian markets alone, never mind anywhere else, want so much of our product. They want our cheese, they want our yoghurt, they want these products that their children can take to school in their lunch breaks and the list just goes on. What an exciting future that we have.
There is technology now in the whole dairy sector. I get the opportunity regularly to visit dairy farms, to walk out and about and to go into the new milking sheds of the 21st century. Gone are the old days. Dairy cows now are producing so much more per cow per year. It is an incredible story. It is really hard to believe that we can get so much more milk out of an animal than what we did 10 or 20 years ago. The husbandry and the care and the condition of these animals is exceptional. I dip my lid to those dairy farmers in my electorate and across the country for the way in which they are embracing the huge potential of the industry.
I want to spend the last two minutes on a very contemporary issue when it comes to dairy farms—that is, the approval yesterday by the Treasurer in accepting the recommendations of the Foreign Investment Review Board to allow the sale of the VDL company in Woolnorth in my electorate. It is the biggest dairy farm in the southern hemisphere. There has been a lot of chatter about it. I was quite disgusted really with the interview transcript I read from last night—I did not hear it live. Ben Fordham interviewed the Treasurer. I thought it was very rude interview and showed a complete lack of understanding of the industry or, in fact, the feelings of those who live in my electorate where obviously this sale has taken place. The reality is this property has been on the sale list for a number of years. It has never been owned by an Australian company. It is currently owned by a council in New Zealand. No-one wanted this farm. No-one wanted to buy it and then at the last minute we had two bidders come into play. One was TasFoods, which Jan Cameron has some involvement in, and also another investment company called Moon Lake Investments, which is the successful bidder.
Can I just say, for everybody listening, particularly in Sydney and Melbourne, stay out of the interests of the people in my electorate. Get on about your own business. Stop using us as some social experiment because we do not need your opinion. The people of Tasmania, the people of Braddon quite accept that foreign investment is a part of our life. The original offer was well below the final offer. Not only that but the final offer had attached to it tens of millions of dollars of further infrastructure development. Then when a Chinese company identified as pretty well an unconditional buyer, Jan Cameron and some of her ilk like Andrew Wilkie and these sorts of people came in to make heroes of themselves when a contract was already in place, cashed-up, ready to go, subject only to approval. We do not want Jan Cameron or her like trying to lock up Tasmania as they have done in the past. We are quite happy. It would obviously have been better if somebody had bought it with Australian content. We understand that. (Time expired)
I remind the member that he must address other members of this chamber by their correct titles.
Like who?
The member for Denison. You can shake your head, but those are the rules.
I apologise.
I rise to speak on the Dairy Produce Amendment (Dairy Service Levy Poll) Bill 2016. The current legislation requires the dairy industry to have a poll held every five years to obtain feedback from the relevant dairy farmers who pay that levy about whether changes should be made to the rate of the services levy. This levy funds the activities of Dairy Australia to undertake research and development to support dairy farmers' sustainability, including systems to improve farm management practices and dairy industry forecasts.
The bill amends the Dairy Produce Act 1986, removing the need to conduct a dairy levy poll every five years. It is a simple act then, in a sense, but it is a sensible move. This piece of legislation has been developed in very close consultation with dairy farmers throughout the country. Dairy farmers had expressed concerns about the money spent on conducting a levy poll every five years. They estimated that to be up to $1 million. Dairy Australia, therefore, commissioned its own independent review of the levy poll process last year. This review, carried out in conjunction with state dairy farmer organisations, came back after extensive consultation with an overwhelming interest in the content of the legislation we have before us today. The result of the discussions will be that dairy farmers will have a simpler process and additional legislation will be enacted to remove the requirement to have a five-yearly dairy levy poll.
As well, there will be a dairy advisory committee set up to review the levy every five years. There will also be a mechanism by which dairy farmers can request a poll if they disagree with a decision of the advisory committee. That seems to me to be very fair and reasonable, and I know my dairy farmers support it.
What are we talking about when we refer to the Australian dairy industry? I think it is important to put its size and value into perspective. The national dairy herd is now at 1.74 million cows. While the average herd size is 284 cows, there are many much larger herds, many herds of 400, 500 or 600. We have milk production at nearly 10 million litres. We have some very high figures for average annual milk production per cow, compared with international figures.
Dairy is Australia's third-largest rural industry. It is a $13 billion farm manufacturing and export industry. It generates a huge volume of well-paid and varied employment: approximately 39,000 people are in the dairy industry workforce, but there are multipliers there which make that employment even greater, including into metropolitan areas.
A big proportion of our milk is manufactured, and that is where a lot of the industry employment is generated. Drinking milk is only about a quarter of the production; the rest goes to cheese, milk powders, butter, whole milk powders and another nine per cent of other varied outcomes. The major export industry that dairy represents is six per cent of world dairy trade. Australia represents six per cent of world dairy trade. I wish that were more. When I was writing my thesis on the Australian dairy industry and its export history and potential, we were a bigger proportion of the world dairy trade, neck and neck with New Zealand. Now New Zealand has substantially overtaken us. But our major export industry value is some $2.88 billion in the last financial year, which is not at all inconsequential. The percentage of our milk exported was 34 per cent in 2014-2015. As Deputy Speaker Mitchell himself, a member from Victoria, would know, one of the biggest exports out of the port of Geelong is Victorian dairy milk powders. We are proud of that.
Our major markets for Australian dairy products are, of course, Australia, which is our biggest market. That includes our drinking milk. Then it is China, Japan, Singapore, Indonesia and Malaysia. You will see that in that list of where our dairy products go to we include China and Japan, and we are very pleased to say the newly signed free trade agreements are going to facilitate even greater exports and greater value exports to China and Japan, but also to South Korea, in the coming years.
As a nation, our per capita consumption of drinking milk is 105 litres and of cheese is 13.6 kilograms. That is way above the consumption of our near neighbours in the Indo-Asia-Pacific, where we are very aware that there is a growing interest in the consumption of dairy products. Indeed, it is often said in export circles that Australia is sitting in the right place at the right time to substantially influence the consumption of dairy products in India and in the Indo-Asia-Pacific region. We can seriously grow not only the consumption of whole milks, infant formulas and cheeses, but also other products like the yoghurts and ice-creams and even pharmaceuticals which are derived from dairy products.
We have an enormous future and great potential in the dairy industry in Australia. One of our major advantages is the fact that we do not depend on what some will refer to more commonly as industrial farming for our dairy production. Many of our cattle are free range. They graze in the great outdoors on pastures. So, for example, the golden colour of our dairy products is often remarked upon. That is a natural consequence of betacarotene, of cows being able to live outdoors in moderate climates and eat green pastures. The goodness of that grazing system is translated into the value and nutritional status of the milks. Other countries have tried to simply dye their cheddars and cheeses a golden colour to mimic what our dairy cows do naturally.
I have to say, though, that not all is well in the dairy industry of Australia. We have a huge issue with being able to attract and keep sufficient labour or workforce, from both those who milk the cows—the most basic labour needed for milk production—through to highly skilled workers in herd management and farm management, through to our manufacturing sector.
I am pleased to say that we have recently introduced a special visa to facilitate dairy farm workers coming to Australia. They must have at least several years of relevant dairying experience or a relevant qualification in on-farm dairy management. I was very interested recently to meet in Saudi Arabia a lot of Filipino dairy workers in one of the biggest dairies in the world, doing their two years of dairy experience in that country in order to qualify to come to Australia to work in our dairies at, of course, much more reasonable wages. And I have already met some of those Filipino workers doing a great job in our dairy industry in northern Victoria.
While the labour supply is a challenge, so also the margins for our dairy producers are not always adequate. We are always under pressure in our domestic market, given the duopoly of Coles and Woolworths owning some 80 per cent of the retail grocery sector. Clearly, they are then in the position to exert major power on their suppliers, in this case the dairy producers and manufacturers. They have their generic, or 'home', brands produced by the same manufacturers, often at a substantially lower price. It is then put onto the supermarket shelves in direct competition with their own branded product.
Coles and Woolworths do not play fair. Of course, we have had the dollar-a-litre milk enticement—a loss-leader-pricing strategy. In effect, a lot of people said 'No, no—this is just Coles and Woolworths taking a small hit to entice people in to buy a litre of milk at $1.' Let me assure you—it was the dairy industry itself which took the hits in having thinner margins on their dairy farms when milk was offered at a dollar for a litre.
We have also had other experience with the supermarkets. When a big dairy manufacturer refused to have generic product come out of its factory system with a much lower price, in direct competition with its own branded product that it had invested a lot of money into researching and developing to be a premium brand, they were removed from the supermarket shelves. That was a very salutary lesson for that particular great Australian dairy company. I hope that the recent strengthening of the spine of the ACCC will continue and that there will be more action taken to curb the unconscionable behaviour and abuse of market power that has been observed for so long with Coles and Woolworths in particular.
We also have in Australia a lot of competition from imported dairy product. Now, there is nothing wrong with competition: long live competition! But when that dairy product is produced with subsidies in Europe, that is not fair. It is certainly also a very good thing to observe that we have now had a recent strengthening of the national interest and the spine of our Australian Anti-Dumping Authority. In the recent decision about imported canned tomatoes from Italy, we have finally—after what had to be an appeal against the first decision—seen all of the product from Italy on our supermarket shelves with an anti-dumping set of duties placed on it to overcome what was, of course, long-term cheating. In the case of Australian-grown tomatoes, they are, of course, not produced by slave labour—refugee forced labour—as we have found is now the case too often in Italy. Even though we have in Australia our own home-grown magnificent tomatoes, we still have Coles and Woolworths with a huge price differential. That suggests that they have their stores filled to the ceiling with imported, cheap and sometimes slave-labour-picked product. I urge Coles and Woolworths to be fair about this and also to look on their supermarket shelves at imported dairy product, and ask themselves, 'Has this product been produced without subsidies and in a humane environment, in terms of animal welfare?'
Dairy farmers in my area are particularly stressed now, given that they were once water safe and water secure—being located in the biggest irrigation system in Australia, the great Goulburn Murray Irrigation District. Unfortunately, that irrigation system failed for the first time in its 100-year history during the Millennium drought. That would not be a long-term problem if, during that long-term drought, some half of my irrigated dairy farms were forced to sell all or most of their water to the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder, via a tender—an untargeted, uncapped tender—which was offered by the then minister, Penny Wong. At the end of the day there was up to $2,400 per megalitre paid for permanent sale of high-security water to the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder.
Tragically, those farmers had no option. They owed double and triple their normal debt to their lenders. The banks said to them, 'You sell down your debt by selling your water or we will sell you out.' At the time, temporary water was only $30 to $40 a megalitre. Today the 50 per cent of dairy farmers in my area who have been trying to continue to farm, relying on that temporary water market, are faced with $300-plus per megalitre prices. That is beyond the capacity of the most efficient dairy farm to pay. So, weekly, I see magnificent dairy enterprises evaluating the costs now of Goulburn Murray Water's delivery of irrigation to them. The fees and charges are extraordinary. After all, they have some 800 permanent Victorian public servants working in that system—a hugely overmanaged and inefficient system.
My dairy farmers need their irrigators' water market to be evaluated and reviewed. They need it to become transparent, regulated and fair, with transmission losses calculated in the sales. And they also need the carry-over entitlements of the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder and other non-primary-producing players in the market, like the state governments of Victoria and South Australia, evaluated so that our dairy farmers, amongst other food producers, can continue to prosper and to thrive.
There is an enormous future for dairy in Australia. We are one of the world's best, cleanest and most nutritious producers of dairy product, but a lot of that is now in jeopardy in northern Victoria—not because of drought but because of failed state and federal government policy and ineffective management of the system. I commend this bill to the House.
The Dairy Produce Amendment (Dairy Service Levy Poll) Bill 2016 amends the Dairy Produce Act 1986 to remove the legislative requirement for a dairy levy poll to be conducted every five years. This bill is consistent with the Australian government's commitment to creating a stronger business environment for the agricultural sector by reducing regulatory burden.
After extensive consultation with industry, Australian Dairy Farmers and Dairy Australia Ltd have requested the preparation and introduction of this bill into parliament on behalf of dairy farmers. The introduction of this bill will not have a negative impact on the dairy levy. Dairy levy payers demonstrated support for these changes by voting in favour of simplifying the levy process. If the bill is passed, it is expected the saving to industry would be up to $1 million every five years, when a poll is not required to be held. These funds could be redirected towards further investment in marketing or research and development activities.
On the subject of research and development, this coalition government is investing strongly into agricultural R&D. I note the government and industry invest around $550 million annually through the rural R&D corporations. New government initiatives will increase this investment and provide better targeted results. The government's $1.1 billion National Innovation and Science Agenda was launched on 7 December 2015. The agenda is aimed at supporting innovation and entrepreneurs in businesses across the economy, beginning in the 2016-17 financial year. More than $260 million has been allocated this year in Commonwealth matching funds for rural R&D corporations. This represents a $30 million increase on matching funds provided in 2012-13 by the former government.
Total rural R&D payments, including RIRDC, are budgeted at almost $269 million. This is up from $241.5 million in 2012-13. The government has invested $200 million over eight years for the Rural Research and Development for Profit program. The government has more than delivered on its election commitments in this regard. The first round of $26.7 million in R&D grants was announced in May 2015. These grants will be matched by more than $32 million in cash and in-kind contributions by the successful applicants. Further announcement on the second round of R&D-for-profit grants will be made in due course.
Recent GRDC activities have been raised in debate. The type of events referred to by the member for Hunter are not marketing as defined under GRDC's enabling legislation. The GRDC has an obligation to engage with its levy payers and to disseminate the findings of its research and development. Ultimately, the GRDC needs to answer to its levy payers for its expenditure in how it goes about communicating with those levy payers.
The bill is deregulatory in line with the government's policy of reducing red tape and lifting the regulatory burden on industry and will provide for a flexible, streamlined levy poll process consistent with the other agricultural sectors.
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.
Our country was formed through consensus and was built by the ballot, by the free ability of Australians to vote in favour of our federation. We created a federation that honours both the democratic right and also the importance of the ballot process. How we vote and that we vote are critically important, and that our voting process is fair and transparent is essentially taken as a part of that.
My view on electoral matters of the ballot and on the essential nature of a vote have been known to this place for many years. The Commonwealth Electoral Amendment Bill 2016 deals with Senate reform, changing the way in which we vote for the Senate. I have written about it, I have spoken about it, I voted for it and here I am again today speaking in favour of Senate reform.
Why do we need Senate reform? It is very simple. I have here documents which I will table that are actually Senate ballot papers on the first occasion from the state of Queensland and on the second from the state of Victoria. As you can see, Deputy Speaker Mitchell, they are unwieldy and massive, but in New South Wales these ballot papers have become so big, so complex and so cluttered that in fact we need a magnifying lens to see and to read the names of candidates put forward for election. It is self-evidently the case that our parliament needs to act on electoral reform. It is self-evidently the case that our parliament needs to act to make sure that our voting system is transparent, effective and understood and that the voting process itself is a process where the voter is empowered to deliver a vote to the person that they wish to elect. The system needs to be fixed. Fixing the Senate voting system is as important as one vote, one value. It is as important as the franchise itself.
Senators are elected for long terms and they represent whole states and territories. Their election is guided by principles enunciated in the Constitution. Section 7 of the Constitution demands that our senators be chosen directly by the people, so Senate reform is about upholding the integrity of the Constitution.
For the Senate voters can cast their votes in one of two ways. They can vote above the line by putting a No. 1 in the box of the party or group of their choice. Preferences are then distributed through a voting ticket registered by parties at the Australian Electoral Commission. Alternatively, under current laws votes can be cast below the line by numbering every square on the ballot paper in order of preference. This bill does not fundamentally change that. Few voters choose the second option of voting below the line. It is more complex, and an error can void the whole ballot paper under the current rules. Consequently, 96.5 per cent of all voters in 2013 voted above the line in the Senate. This bill actually makes that process safer by having a better threshold for formality. This bill amends the current Electoral Act, which was first introduced over 30 years ago to reduce informal voting. Unfortunately, that system of ticket voting is now being manipulated and has begun to create unintended outcomes. The report of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters makes this clear.
In the last few years, at both state and federal level, pop-up parties designed to attract small numbers of primary votes have manipulated the system through preference harvesting and vote transfers to produce end results that do not reflect the wishes of voters. This is not to cast aspersions on the integrity or capacity of the current independent and minor party senators. While I may not always agree with their positions, it is clear that they are each engaging diligently in the process of policy, discussion and debate, and each of them has been properly elected under the current rules.
My view is that the current rules do need to be changed; the Labor Party's view is that those rules do need to be changed. A fundamental principle of voting systems is that a voter should actually intend to vote for the candidate or party with whom their vote finally rests. Because of the ability to manipulate the current system, the present Senate voting process now fails this test.
The federal parliament’s independent Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, of which I have been a member, found that many microparties are manipulating the system to harvest and direct preferences to each other. The result is that hundreds of thousands of votes cascade to parties that the voter would not deliberately have chosen to vote for. The current Senate electoral process allowed a candidate with only 0.51 per cent of the formal votes to get elected ahead of a candidate with 11.56 per cent of the votes. This was an actual result in the 2013 Senate election where a Senate seat was won and lost with just this primary vote. The winning party received only 17,122 of the 3,499,438 votes cast. Liberal Senator Helen Kroger received 389,745 votes and failed to get elected over a candidate who was in receipt of just over 17,000 votes.
If the 2013 Western Australian Senate result had been upheld, the Sports Party, on 2,974 votes, would have defeated Labor Senator Louise Pratt on 160,141 votes. Fortunately, there is a clear—and the joint standing committee's view was unanimous—way out of the current dysfunctional mess. In May 2014, the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters in a unanimous and multiparty report recommended that: the system of registering political parties be rigorous; group voting tickets be abolished; and a new system of optional preferential voting be introduced. These recommendations would see the power to allocate preferences given back to voters and stop opaque preference swaps between parties. More specifically, under the recommended optional preferential voting system, voters would be able to expressly preference parties or candidate groups above the line rather than having their preferences distributed for them under a registered group voting ticket. So those reforms are important.
The changes recommended by the report received strong support last year. Antony Green, the respected ABC commentator, supported them, because they significantly strengthen our democratic process and restore transparency. These changes that are proposed in the joint standing committee report, a version of which are being implemented in this bill, are important—and Labor remains committed to electoral reform. These reforms are not intended to stifle or prevent the formation of new parties. These reforms simply mean that political parties, including my own, will have to convince the public rather than backroom dealmakers that they deserve their votes.
There have been many pieces of misinformation spread about the bill that is currently being debated. Some have said that this bill will deliver the coalition a 38- or 39-member controlling majority in the Senate. I will also table another document, which is modelling carried out by the Parliamentary Library on this bill. It conclusively demonstrates the result under this bill.
None of us can predict the outcome of future elections, but this modelling is based on the current bill and was carried out by the Parliamentary Library. We have been told that this bill will increase informality. Informality is a scourge and the better the lower threshold for formality that is in fact enshrined in this bill is a good measure. It allows in the below-the-line voting a better savings provision; and above the line, it also allows a better savings provision.
We are told that three million-plus voters will be disenfranchised by this bill. We are told that their votes will be wasted or voided. I do not agree with that any more than I would think that a person who voted Liberal in the seat of Brand had wasted their vote. I wish they had voted Labor but, because they voted Liberal and voted for a losing candidate, they did not waste their vote. Their vote was not voided; their vote was not wasted.
Votes count, and I am astonished by the kind of dumb view that if you vote for someone who loses then your vote is wasted, which has taken some hold during this discussion. We are told that, if you do not vote in all six above-the-line boxes, the vote is informal. We are told that 800,000 votes could be informalised as a consequence of this bill. It is simply nonsense.
The vote-saving provisions in this bill are actually better than those that are currently in place in the Senate. Vote saving is important, and I would like to see the current vote-saving principle that is enshrined in this bill extended to the House of Representatives, where informal voting in New South Wales and Queensland has become a substantial issue. We need to grapple with the issue of vote saving in the House of Representatives as it has been grappled with in the Senate on this occasion.
I lost the argument in my party room on Senate reform, so Labor will oppose the substantive reforms that are enshrined in this bill. I think that is sad, but it is a reality. My party has moved that it will be opposing this bill and therefore I oppose this bill. We will seek to amend this bill or move future amendments to implement key elements of Labor's longstanding policy to enhance transparency and accountability in relation to political donations. These amendments would enact key elements of the reforms proposed by the previous Labor government in the Commonwealth Electoral Amendments (Political Donations and Other Measures) Bill 2008. Labor was unable to proceed with this legislation as it was blocked by the coalition and the crossbench in the Senate.
The main objects of that bill were to reduce the donations threshold under the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 from the current, in the order of $13,000, down to $1,000, not indexed—by prohibiting foreign donations to registered political parties, candidates and members of Senate groups, preventing the use of foreign donations for political expenditure; prohibiting anonymous donations of over $50 to registered political parties and candidates and by limiting the potential for donations splitting with the intention of evading disclosure requirements.
We will also move amendments to link public electoral funding to genuine electoral expenditure, to prevent pretenders from standing as candidates in an election purely for the purpose of gaining a windfall from public funding. We will extend the range of electoral expenditure that can be claimed and prevent existing members of parliament from claiming electoral expenditure that has been met from their parliamentary entitlements. We will introduce an accelerated disclosure framework in place of the current annual returns system and introduce new offences for noncompliance, and increasing penalties for a range of currently existing offences.
For Labor, the issue of Senate reform is an issue for the future. The issue of Senate reform remains important. It remains important for our parliament. It remains important for the Senate. It remains critically important to the people of Australia. In speaking to this bill, I represent the position of my party. In speaking to this bill, I speak frankly to the House in that I lost the internal debate to meet the government and to negotiate a better bill. I think we could have had a better bill. I think if this bill reflected 100 per cent the recommendations of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters it would be a better bill. But it still would not have won the support of my party.
Senate reform remains an issue for the future. It remains a vital issue for our nation, a nation that was built on the sanctity of the ballot and on the integrity of the ballot. We, as parliamentarians, need to keep that central fact in mind and the principle in mind that how an elector marks their ballot paper is how that ballot paper should be counted. The counting of a ballot paper should reflect the intention of the voter and not the desires of ballot manipulators.
The Labor Party will be opposing this bill.
I welcome the opportunity to make a contribution on the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment Bill 2016. This important bill acts to address significant public concerns about the Senate voting system in the aftermath of the 2013 federal election. I agree very much with the member for Brand that it is self-evident that parliament needs to act on electoral reform—in part, to uphold the integrity of the Constitution. I am sorry that he lost the vote in the Labor caucus on this matter. I am sorry because most Australians saw the practices revealed at the last election as scandalous. They saw elaborate preference harvesting, shady deals and the establishment of multiple entities to share those preferences. Antony Green, commenting on a report in The Australian Financial Review earlier this month, said:
A cottage industry has built up of preference whisperers offering advice to 'micro' parties on how to make the system work to their advantage.
The strategy these so-called preference whisperers use is illuminated by this typical media quote:
That advice was to stand as many candidates and parties as possible, and to insure that micro-parties preference each other first ahead of all larger parties. To have a hope of election, the advice is for micro-parties to ignore ideology and political affinity and instead think entirely strategically, to make the system a lottery where by using group ticket votes to aggregate micro-party votes together, one of the parties might draw the lucky ticket and win.
By way of example, a Victorian Senate candidate became a senator in this parliament despite receiving around one half of one percent of Victorians' first preferences. The required 14.29 per cent quota was reached via complex preference-harvesting deals involving a dozen other entities via group ticket votes.
This is not what the vast majority of Australians expect democracy to be, and it is clear from the many comments expressed to me that it shook public confidence in the integrity of our Senate voting system. So great were public concerns that this matter was referred to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters following the 2013 election. The committee made a range of unanimous recommendations to improve the Senate voting system. At the time, I congratulated the Chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, now the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and Labor's deputy chair for a welcome outbreak of common sense.
At the time, Labor's deputy chair of the committee, the member for Bruce, said this about the committee's recommendations during a press conference on Friday, 9 May 2014: 'This is a positive step forward to take into account what occurred at the recent Senate election: a set of problems which are very much unique to the particular facets of the Senate voting system as it currently stands, and deal with those particular issues. The consensus on the committee pretty much represented the consensus overwhelmingly on the submissions that were received. We think they're the sorts of steps that government should be considering very seriously to actually ensure that the sorts of events that occurred in the Senate election of September 2013 don't happen again.' And I say 'hear, hear' to those words of impeccable wisdom from the member for Bruce, who embraced the committee's key conclusion that retaining the current Senate voting system was not an option.
Recommendations on Senate voting reform were made by the committee to guide the legislative change process, including a recommendation to abolish the current system of Senate voting above the line, and its reliance on group voting tickets. Instead, the committee called for a replacement system that puts the power of preferencing back in the hands of the voter, via an optional preferential voting system, where it is the voter who decides whether to preference and how many parties or candidates to preference.
The member for Brand illuminated how, under the current system, almost 97 per cent of voters at the last election voted '1' above the line. But, at that point, they lost control of their preferences. Parties then, through insufficiently transparent group and individual voting ticket arrangements, direct what happens to the voter's preferences. It is incumbent on us to respect the voter's right to choose, to ensure that it is the voter, not the shady backroom operator, who determines where their preferences go—not just their first preference but also their second, third and subsequent preferences.
The committee also expressed the unanimous view that party registration rules needed to be enhanced to ensure that parties are real and genuine, rather than vehicles for electoral manipulation. It is worth noting that the committee received over 200 submissions and extensive evidence from many parties during its inquiry. Since the committee handed down its report, the government has carefully considered those recommendations and consulted widely. On Monday, based on the outcome of those consultations, the government put a proposal to the parliament designed to implement the committee's recommendations about voter empowerment and improving the transparency of Senate voting arrangements.
Key aspects of the government's proposal were as follows: the introduction of optional preferential voting above the line, with advice to the voter on the ballot paper to vote above the line by numbering at least six of the boxes in the order of the voter's choice; second, the introduction of a related provision to ensure that a ballot is still formal where the voter has numbered one or fewer than six boxes above the line; third, in relation to voting below the line—and, as I said, a very small proportion of the Australian public do that—a proposal was put into the legislation to reduce the number of informal votes by increasing the number of allowable mistakes from three to five, as long as 90 per cent of the ballot paper below the line is filled in correctly; fourth, the abolition of group and individual voting tickets; fifth, the introduction of a restriction to prevent individuals holding relevant official positions in multiple parties; sixth, to reduce voter confusion between parties with similar party names, a proposal to allow political parties, at their discretion, to have their logo included on the ballot paper.
Yet despite the Labor Party's unanimous endorsement of many of these measures in committee, through the member for Bruce, and publicly, through the member for Brand—including in his very good speech just prior to mine—Labor is now opposing them, for rank political reasons. It is not only false but nonsensical to say, as a number of Labor members have asserted in the last 48 hours, that these changes will lead to 800,000 additional informal votes. That is because there is a specific provision in the legislation to ensure that any voter who numbers just one box above the line, for example, will still have their vote counted. So Australians will be very surprised at the news that Labor will be voting against the proposed overhaul of Senate voting.
I note media reports yesterday that there were those in the Labor caucus who warned against delaying this long-overdue action, and I respect the member for Brand for being one of those active voices in the Labor caucus, because he and the other members that spoke against the Labor position know how poorly this change in sentiment will be seen by the Australian people.
For those calling for more inquiry, more delay, more talk, I would direct them to the comprehensive inquiry undertaken by the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, with Labor members unanimously endorsing the committee's recommendations. I would refer them to the well-established precedent of above-the-line optional preferential voting in New South Wales, where it has worked very well since being introduced in the aftermath of the scandalous 'tablecloth' ballot paper of 1999, which the member for Brand brought into this chamber and highlighted in his speech. That change in New South Wales has not decimated small parties, with the Christian Democrats and others still in parliament. What it achieved in New South Wales was to more accurately reflect the people's will. And why shouldn't we elevate the people's will, in a democracy, to decide where their preferences are directed and when they exhaust? Constitutional law professor George Williams, whom members opposite are often fond of quoting, has reflected negatively on the current system in media comments recently, saying:
… in the current system … you cast a vote and you don't even know who it is.
There is of course an urgent imperative for these changes, given that the next general election is due in the second half of this year. Given the lead times involved in implementing these changes, this is the appropriate time to pursue them. It is necessary to give the Australian Electoral Commission sufficient time to adjust their processes, or we risk another general election where the system and the Senate result are disproportionally influenced by those shady backroom operators and their shady preference deals.
Let us implement these reforms and empower voters to clearly express their preferences above and, should they choose, below the line. I think it is fair to say that there is coalescence across the political divide around the need for Senate voting reform. A bipartisan report of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters proves exactly that. Let us not fall at this legislative hurdle and impose the same flawed system on the Australian people at the 2016 election.
What this bill proposes is laudable. It reduces the complexity of the Senate voting system, by providing for partial optional preferential voting above the line, including the introduction of advice on the Senate ballot paper that voters number, in order of preference, at least six squares. As I said earlier, this bill provides appropriate provisions to capture voter intent and reduce the risk of increased vote informality. It improves transparency around the allocation of preferences in a Senate election, by abolishing group and individual voting tickets, noting that this does not change other provisions relating to candidates nominating to be grouped on the Senate ballot paper. The bill introduces a restriction that there be a unique registered officer and deputy registered officer for a federally registered party. And it reduces the sort of confusion we saw the 2013 election, around political parties with similar names, by allowing party logos to be printed on ballot papers for both the House of Representatives and the Senate. What these changes do is end party control over preferences between parties. If this legislation is enacted, and I hope that it is, the only way a vote can transfer between parties or groups is if the voter decides that is their preference.
I plead with those opposite to elevate the will of the individual voter in our system above the shady backroom operators, to say to the voters of Australia, 'We will put your needs and your will above all other matters.' Australians should be entitled to that right. To expect that when they vote for the Senate the outcomes will reflect faithfully what each and every voter intends as they exercise their democratic choice. As the member for Brand so beautifully said, 'It is self-evident that parliament needs to act on electoral reform, in part, to uphold the integrity of the Constitution.' On that basis, I strongly commend this bill to the House.
I rise to speak on the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment Bill 2016. One of the questions that I am most often asked as it gets closer to election day is, 'If I vote for you, or if I vote for another party, where do my preferences go?' They are usually not questions about policy or questions about where you stand on a particular thing. It is a question about, 'If I vote for you, and I place a mark on a ballot paper, where do my preferences go?' People are right to be asking that question and to be concerned about it because what we have seen in the past is—and I am talking less about the current Senate than we have seen in various instances in the past—parties get elected on the basis of preferences even though that party's initial vote was very low. That has caused people in Australia, in my electorate of Melbourne, to be quite surprised and, therefore, quite concerned about whether, when they voted, they played some unwitting part in getting someone else elected on the basis of preferences.
What I like to tell people is, 'You, the voter, are in control of your own preferences.' It is a little understood fact—and there is often misinformation spread by people who do not want to educate voters about it—that voters are in control of their own preferences. When you are voting in the lower house it is very easy to say to people, 'We'll hand out a how-to-vote card,' but, at the end of the day, it is up to you how you want to number preferences in that box. It's up to you. Vote 1 for whoever you like and, as long as you number the other boxes, you can order them in whatever preference you want. Parties do not control your preferences in the lower house, you do.' For many people that is often a revelation and a reassurance.
The difficulty has been that we have not always been able to say that when it comes to the Senate. We have not been able to say that when it comes to the Senate because if you vote 1 above the line in the Senate—and the Senate is a place where there are lots of individuals and parties who run—you do not get to allocate where your preferences go. They get allocated by the party. Your only alternative is to number all the boxes below the line, which, for many people, is a quite a task when you consider the very large size of the Senate ballot paper and the number of people who run.
What should happen is that the same principle that applies in the lower house—that the voter is in control of their preferences—should apply in the Senate as well and that is the principle behind this reform. It is a reform that was supported by all parties on the joint standing committee, including Labor, because it is a sensible reform and it puts power back in the hands of the voters. It gives the voters in the Senate the same power that they have currently in the lower house. In my mind, anything that gives voters more power over where their vote goes is a good thing.
In supporting this reform it is worth noting that this is a reform that has been pursued, for some time, by Greens predecessors. There were two bills introduced by our former leader Senator Bob Brown. It is often said, 'Sometimes the Greens have benefited from this and so what are you doing now?' It is worth remembering that Bob Brown for many years campaigned for this reform. He campaigned, from the Senate, from a position of having only one or two senators there. He said, 'We've got to do this because we have to give power back to the voters, so that preferences are allocated the way the voter wants them to be rather than according to some deal.' This is something that we have been advancing regardless of what it might mean for us, or other parties, but as a matter of principle.
As a matter of principle it is right that voters have power over where their preferences go. It is for that reason that when this first was looked at everyone supported it. It is disappointing that some people have now walked away from it, but you cannot walk away from the basic principle. As I said, the principle I tell voters in the lead-up to the election and on election day is, 'Only you are in control of your vote. You are in control of where your preferences go.' That is now something we will be able to say about the Senate as well as about the House.
When people step back from the hurly-burly they will be pleased about the principle behind this reform because they will be able to be confident now knowing that when they go in to mark their Senate ballot paper—they might have to mark a few more numbers above the line, but that is what you have to do in the House of Representatives and now you just do it in the Senate as well—they will be absolutely confident that their preferences have gone where they want them to go. For that reason, it is a reform that did enjoy the support of everyone and should still enjoy the support of everyone.
I rise to obviously support the government's position in relation to this important bill, the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment Bill 2016. As the minister has pointed out, it is necessary that people across electorates, including my electorate of Dickson, are given the opportunity to direct their vote in the way that they want. It is a complicated process in this country in terms of voting in the upper house, but it is a very important process and people want to know that they have the ability to know where their vote is going. There has been a lot of concern in Queensland, in particular, with the rise of Clive Palmer and the influence he has had over a number of senators—which has, of course, fallen away quite dramatically in recent months. It does concern voters in my electorate. In fact, on many occasions people have raised this concern with me and that is why I have strongly supported the work of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters and note the recommendations of the committee.
I also pay tribute to Gary Gray. As he said, he was rolled by his own caucus on this but nonetheless he still provided support over a long period of time for significant and sensible change. On that basis I strongly support the bill before the House and I hope that at some point the Labor Party will see beyond their own political point-scoring in this matter and come together with the government, because a very significant effort is required to clean up this system and that is what the government is proposing here.
I rise to make a contribution to this critical debate on the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment Bill 2016, which has been rushed through the parliament and which will change the makeup of future parliaments for years and potentially decades ahead. There has been a dirty deal between the Greens political party and the Liberals to rush through legislation without any proper scrutiny. I note that the Greens' deputy leader, the member for Melbourne, could not get through 15 minutes speaking on this legislation in defence of this deal and sat down after less than five minutes. That is a pathetic attempt, and I am not surprised that the member for Melbourne is not keen to have scrutiny of what exactly is going on here.
Let us be clear: this legislation does not relate to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters—which undertook a process in public, which looked at submissions, which considered evidence and then came down with recommendations. This legislation is a direct result of a very different process: a process whereby the Liberal Party and the Greens political party have come to a deal behind closed doors with absolutely no scrutiny whatsoever. This legislation was introduced into the parliament on Monday, after an emergency caucus meeting of the coalition on Monday morning. It was introduced into the parliament, debated in the same week and carried in the same week.
As you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, I was leader of this House for six years. The process for ordinary legislation is that you introduce legislation on the Wednesday or the Thursday, it lays on the table to enable proper scrutiny to occur, the parties have their meetings the following week, and then debate usually commences in the sitting week after that. You then have appropriate Senate committee processes and examination of legislation to make sure that there are not unintended consequences of legislation, even beyond the ideological differences that might be represented in this chamber, to make sure that it is right. But what we have here is an abuse of process. What we have here is legislation that has not been subject to any proper scrutiny. It is legislation that is a fix to advantage the Greens political party and the coalition. It is a fix in which the Greens show themselves to be complete hypocrites when it comes to democratic processes. This is the political party that is very interested in having long, drawn out processes, Senate committees and public meetings. There was none of that with this legislation, and it is legislation that will change the very make-up of the parliament, particularly the Senate of Australia.
In Australia's political system, the coalition tend to have the highest primary vote in terms of any of the parties because they combine the Liberal and National parties in terms of the Senate tickets. This legislation—on the cursory examination that has been possible in the last two days—is likely to ensure, more times than not, 38 votes over a period of time for the coalition in the Senate. The Greens say that they object to the privatisation of Medicare, the privatisation of our education system, the failure to fund public transport and the failure to have proper processes with regard to foreign policy, but the Greens are assisting a process that will advantage the coalition because of short-term opportunistic means.
When you are dealing with something as important as Senate reform, you need to make sure that you get it right. I do not support the gaming of the system with regard to Senate preferences, but there are a range of ways in which you could deal with this. One is that you could make sure that there is a threshold beyond which you could be elected. That is just one that has been suggested and I believe is worthy of support. Of course, it is a problem if people get elected with less than one per cent of the vote. We acknowledge that and we support change to ensure that that does not happen. But what we do not support is going down the road of the optional preferential system, which this would provide in terms of the Senate. What we do not support is having reform which will see an increase in the informalities of ballots cast in the Senate.
For a political party that does not try to appeal to working people and does not try to engage with anyone except for the elites that might be okay. But the truth is if you have a look at the sorts of levels that occur for informal votes, which you can see from the figures in the House of Representatives and in the Senate, they tend to be, by and large, in Labor held seats. We want to make sure that everyone is given the franchise, that everyone's vote is counted. This will see massive amounts of votes excluded both through the informality process and through the exhaustion process.
In terms of the solutions to it, you cannot solve a political problem with a political fix, and that is what this is. If we are going to be honest with ourselves as the major parties, the political problem is that, increasingly in recent times, more and more Australians have chosen to give their votes to smaller parties—microparties, as they are called. That is a challenge for the Labor Party and for the coalition. It is a challenge for us to reach out to people and make sure we secure their support, not to introduce legislation that seeks to exclude people's right to do that. Effectively, that is what this legislation does and that is what I am very concerned about: any process that will reduce participation in our political system. That is precisely what this legislation will do.
The hypocrisy of this. The Greens spokesperson on these matters is, of course, Senator Lee Rhiannon, who goes on about participation and democratic processes. Let us have a look at what the result of this legislation will be. It is very likely that the result of this legislation will be that the government will give increased consideration to a double dissolution election after or, perhaps, before it introduces a budget. Perhaps they will say, 'We'll make a major economic statement just after the budget' and they will not really put their plans out there before the Australian people, because we know that their economic narrative is a mess.
A double dissolution election will reduce the quota. Instead of having to be one out of six, they will become one out of 12. What happened in the New South Wales Senate return at the last federal election? The Greens did not get a quota; did not get anyone elected. The only Greens sitting from New South Wales in the Senate is Senator Rhiannon. So if this legislation is passed and there is a double dissolution, Senator Rhiannon goes from needing to be one out of six to one out of 12. This is someone who has stood for preselection again and again. But the hypocrisy is there.
Of course, prior to being a senator, Senator Rhiannon was a member of the New South Wales Legislative Council. As a senator, she still gets a vote in the New South Wales caucus, by the way. She can go along and they change the rules, because they run a pretty tight regime in New South Wales. This is what Senator Rhiannon had to say when she was seeking to knock off the New South Wales MLC Ian Cohen, a genuine environmentalist from the North Coast of New South Wales, in a preselection back in 2002. She said:
My experience as a Green member of the NSW Legislative Council has convinced me that one term, which in the upper house is eight years, is what we should be adopting for our elected representatives in this house.
She went on:
If we do not adopt some form of limited terms we will most definitely limit the number of Greens members who will have the chance of serving as an MP.
She went on to say that the Greens were committed to grassroots participation. And she said this—remarkable, a direct quote:
Indeed I believe that if we do not take this path we are breaking our principles and negating our roots. As the Greens grow stronger we will inevitably have people join us purely as a means to enter parliament as a career. A limit on the number of terms would serve to discourage careerists from exploiting our party.
Well, the careerist is still sitting over there in the Senate, having argued 14 years ago, when she was already a sitting MP, that there should be a limit of one term. She sought preselection multiple times in the Legislative Council and has now sought multiple times in the Senate from New South Wales, and has sought preselection again. Their internal processes are if you are not a part of the faction that dominates the New South Wales Greens and who refer to people like Bob Brown and Christine Milne as 'Liberals on bicycles'—that is the attitude that they have—the group who proudly call themselves 'watermelons', green on the outside and red on the inside, are seeking another term, but now with this process will be one out of 12 not one out of six.
For goodness sake, to Senator Rhiannon, the member for Melbourne and the rest of the Greens, don't you dare stay on your so-called high horse—the unctuousness that we have to put up with in the Labor Party from the local Greens in my electorate and others who carry on. I will make this prediction, Senator Di Natale has been asked about preference negotiations with the coalition. He has been asked very clearly, and clearly it is going on. And here is the fix: the Greens get preferences from the Liberal Party in seats where they think they might have an opportunity of winning—spontaneously—and they will not give them preferences back in those seats, because that would be a bit crude and a bit obvious. They will either do that or run split tickets in other seats, just like in Victoria during the last state election, when they produced a different how-to-vote card on polling day in some of the seats where they were handing out at prepoll—a different how-to-vote card on polling day, and they talk about transparency and wanting people to know where the votes are going.
The fact is that people will know that the Greens have been prepared to sit down with the coalition and enter into an alliance in order to secure passage of this legislation being rushed through. It will be interesting to see whether they are prepared to vote for the amendment moved by Senator Day, which he has foreshadowed in the Senate. It will be interesting to see whether they are prepared to vote for things like a reduction in the disclosure provisions for donations—something Labor has campaigned for for a long period of time; that has been our position and is something that was changed by the coalition. It is entirely inappropriate that we have legislation being rushed through today so that it can get across to the Senate. The Senate committee is already being established before we have even had the debate in this House—quite extraordinary provisions designed to undermine democracy. It shows the hypocrisy that is represented by this dirty deal between the Greens and the coalition.
I rise to speak in favour of the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment Bill 2016, as it makes the Senate voting system more transparent and restores the democratic principle of more votes delivering more representation in the Senate. The unrepresentative nature of the Senate voting system has needed addressing and sensible limited reform for some time. The gaming of preferences is encouraged and established by the multitude of microparties who have their microvotes counted literally hundreds of times in backroom preference deals registered with the Australian Electoral Commission. The member for Grayndler, who spoke previously, mentioned thresholds. This is not in this legislation, but our current system is broken, and this reform will improve transparency and restore the ability for voters to have an understanding of where their votes end up.
With the current system, in the last election, for instance, if you go to the AEC website and look at the votes, you can see what I mean. In the Senate voting in Victoria, two senators were elected with 0.2 per cent and 0.5 per cent of the quota, which for everyone else required 13.4 per cent. Literally one vote, according to the website, was changed and recounted, with endless preference deals, 285 times.
How can this be a reflection of voter intent? The whole system obscures and makes it near impossible for the voter to understand who the real recipient of his or her vote really is. In my own electorate of Lyne I held 10 surveys and sent a mail-out to all the voters asking for suggestions and advice on fixing our federation. Many people turned up at the forums and over 1,000 people replied to the survey. One of the most common things they spoke about was the Senate voting system. The voters in the Lyne electorate, particularly those who took the time to respond, are dismayed and frustrated by the appearance of senators who have seemingly microscopic primary votes yet have held the nation to ransom as a result of their lack of ability to make difficult decisions or their tendency to vacillate and change their minds and who have no structure or philosophy behind their political analysis.
It is not only people in the Lyne electorate who have looked at this. We have had two reports—an interim report and a final report—of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. The inquiry unanimously recommended these changes of reducing the complexity and obscurity. In effect, that is the problem. The solution with this amendment bill is to introduce partial optional preferential voting above the line as well as including advice on the ballot paper to number from 1 to 6. Unless there are fewer people than six, obviously that will simplify things and make them very clear.
There is a savings provision in place, and by 'savings provision' I do not mean a monetary savings provision but provisions under the act to make sure that the voter's intention, if that does not occur, is still noted. So there will not be, as proposed by the member for Grayndler, and other commentators have also made an assertion that is not the case under these amendments, a lot of informal votes, because the savings provision will allow people who do not do the full 1 to 6 to have their voting intention recorded and a valid vote recorded. Most importantly, it also abolishes group and individual voting tickets. It does not stop the candidates from having their names clustered together on the ballot paper, but the voting tickets for individuals and groups have been abused time and time again. For instance, there were people at the inquiry who were asked about having pop-up and single-issue parties registered, with one officer being the representative for all these pop-up microparties. His comment was that he had set up five and that if he had had time he would have set up 20. The group voting tickets, with all the details of where the preferences go registered with the AEC but not apparent to the voter, mean that you can start voting for a microparty that advises one thing as their cause for existence, only to have your vote end up with a totally unrelated party in the end.
This legislation also amends a giant loophole. It will require one unique registered officer and one unique registered deputy officer for each party, so that one person cannot manipulate the scheme by having multiple puppet pop-up parties all heading preferences in the one direction. This vote harvesting is what really annoyed people in the Lyne Federation forums. They were quite clear. These are not complex electoral analysts; these are average people who have some insight into seeing that the system is being gamed.
The amendments in this bill will also help with the confusion and ambiguity that exists in some names of political parties that have surprisingly similar names. It will allow the logos of the parties to be adjacent to the name of the candidate. But there will also be control on the registering of the names on the logos, so that you cannot have knock-off brands and names appear on the ballot paper.
The member for Grayndler was disturbed that it might change the system so that a party or coalition of parties that has the most votes ends up with the most senators. I am flabbergasted by that comment because that is basically how I and most of Australia understands that democracy works, as opposed to the current complex and opaque system that has been worked out by preference whisperers and used to confuse the voter and get absolute microparties in a position to control Senate voting. This is not democracy.
The only people who will benefit from these amendments are the voters, and the party that will benefit the most is not necessarily the coalition. If the ALP has the most votes they will get the most senators. This will benefit the party with the most votes. There is scrutiny in this process. We have had commentators and electoral analysts look at this for years, particularly after the last vote, in 2013. We have had a standing committee to look at everything, and we have had unanimous recommendations. So I cannot see why, all of a sudden, after a unanimous recommendation from the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, the members from the other side are now objecting to the recommendations being enforced. In essence, this is a win for democracy and a win for the voters. I commend this bill to the House.
There comes a time when fundamental change, revolution if you like, comes along. In America, the two people who were leading the last time I looked were Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. They are saying that all of this free market rubbish has resulted in Americans ending up being cut back and cut down. Their jobs have been transferred overseas and their economy is languishing, and we are playing the game by certain rules which place us at an enormous disadvantage. The only people who are making those remarks in this place are the people who have been elected by this system. We had outrage from the previous speaker that the people should have a say. These people are there because a majority of people in that last sixth of the voting wanted this person to be there, and you say, 'Well, they didn't really know or understand any of it.' The net result of the democratic system is that they are the only people in the Senate who have voted against the free market policy.
Adam Smith put forward and illustrated magnificently an economic mechanism, not a policy for government. He put forward an economic mechanism that should be understood by government and used intelligently as a tool of understanding the economy. This is so relevant because the only people who are voting against the sell-out of Australia to foreign corporations are those people. Do the major parties reflect the will of the Australian people? In every single opinion poll that I have seen, 80 per cent of the people oppose tenaciously the selling off of the country and 80 per cent of the people oppose tenaciously the removal of tariffs and subsidies and the other protections. These enable our workers and farmers in Australia to get a decent income. They enable our industrialists to get a fair go. We can have a fair go, and Mr Keating proposed this—if we go down to slave labour wage levels which prevail in Africa and Asia and South America, we can compete. We can have our people working for nothing, but if we are not going to have our people working for nothing then we need protection. No protection, then no industry. So we now live in a country with no manufacturing base.
The only people voting that we should have a manufacturing base are the people who are going to be eliminated by this 'there will only be two parties' project. As for the Greens and Senator Xenophon—I am deeply disappointed in his behaviour here. To me, and for those of us who have read the terrible George Orwell, the pigs on the Orwellian farm are starting to walk on two legs. From where I sit, it is the Greens and the Xenophons. From where I sit, the pigs on the Orwellian farm are starting to walk on two legs. The only people who have spoken for that 80 per cent of Australia, through the machinations of the democratic system drawn up by our forebears, are those people, and they are being eliminated here today.
Everybody knows what this is. It is a sneaky little trick to make sure that the majors have all of the say and the rest of us have none of the say. The majors are controlled by their party machines. Their party machines are answerable to the people who pay them: the giant corporations. Robert Hogg, the federal secretary of the ALP, upon resigning from that position—he did not say it before he resigned—said the majority of money coming into the ALP comes from big corporations, big corporate donors. There is the man himself saying it. Is there anyone in Australia who would not believe that that is infinitely more true of the Liberal Party and their lapdogs the National Party?
We watch today the muzzling of the people, the taking away of the power of the people, the taking away of their right to be able to vote the way in which they want to vote. We will vote now in the way which the major parties want us to vote. I have to single out the ALP in this case. Whether they are acting out of self-interest or whatever their interest is, they are most certainly on the side of the angels in this debate. History will pass a very harsh judgement upon the Greens and upon the Xenophons on the decision that they have made here. They have got themselves a little bit bigger than the rest of us, and that little bit bigger has resulted in them making this decision.
If Australia is placed under the control of the two major parties, members of the two major parties—every member in this parliament on both sides of the parliament—depend for their place in this parliament upon their endorsement by their political party. In fact, before I went as an Independent, I researched and found out that not a single Independent from any state in Australia had ever got re-elected in Australian history. Not a single person had ever got re-elected. So, when I made the decision to walk and become an Independent, I was walking into my open grave. But I felt I owed that to the people that I represented and the money that they paid us—
You're a martyr, Bob!
Well, I was not really. I was getting to the end of my run. I do not want to be acting like I am some sort of hero. I was getting to the end of my run, and I just could not stand any more of the sort of vitriolic hatred that I encountered in the electorate, which I knew was totally justified. I knew it was totally justified. When I went up to the Atherton Tableland, the tobacco industry had been closed down—2,000 people lost their jobs—by the government. The dairy industry had been closed down—1,500 people lost their jobs—by the government. The fishing industry on the coast at Innisfail had been closed down—by the government. The timber industry—we had a huge timber industry, with 2,000 employees—was closed down by the government. We had 8,000 jobs gone as a result of government action.
These are the only people speaking up against that—which has been the policy for nearly 30 years in this country. As one person said, 'The trouble is that we're in the 30th year of the Gough Whitlam era.' He cut tariffs across the board by 25 per cent. If that was going to help the working man of Australia, I am the abominable snowman from Boulia! If that was going to help the workers of Australia—a 25 per cent cut in tariffs! The unions claim that 150,000 jobs have gone in manufacturing. That is before the demise of the car industry, which takes down with it, according to all reports—government reports, I might add—72 per cent of what is left of Australian industry. We were told in this place that there would be 20 per cent attrition. Well, there has been 100 per cent attrition.
We are not lied to; this is just the policy of the majors. And it appears that the Greens and the Xenophons have joined the majors. Their interests have aligned with the majors. When I say that, this is on policy. In this particular vote, we praise the ALP for taking the stand that they have taken.
On the elimination of the smaller voices: Australia is an interesting country because it is the only country on earth to my knowledge that has a two-party system without a constituency based electorate. The Americans have a two-party system, but they have a constituency based electorate. The honourable member from Victoria behind me here, for example, got elected because she goes to the people to ask for their support. Everyone in America, every single congressman, has to ask for that support. You have what is called a primary for your congressional seat, so you are answerable not to the party machine but to the people in your electorate who are registered Democrats or registered Republicans, depending upon which party persuasion you are of. The American system is entirely different than any other system on earth.
If you take that out, this is the only country on earth that I know of that has a two-party system. New Zealand does not have a two-party system anymore; England does not have a two-party system—not that they would be good examples of a successfully operating democracy. Most certainly none of the Europeans or Japan or any of those other people have two-party systems. Every single system allows for a smaller voice to be heard.
In the same two weeks that the Liberals are taking away the voice of the people they are changing the media laws so that everything in Australia can be owned by two or three people—every single vision that you see on television, every single image that you see and every single newspaper you read. In Queensland I think 95 per cent of the readership already lies with the Murdoch empire. Whether you think that is a good thing or a bad thing, I do not think anyone would agree that 95 per cent of print media should be owned by one person. Through the arrangements with Foxtel almost everything we will watch on television will be controlled by the same overseas corporation—and that is what it is, an overseas corporation.
What sort of a country closes down its entire manufacturing base consciously knowing that it is doing it? You cannot not know that what you have done is close the manufacturing base. The last whitegoods factory closed in Orange last year. The last motor vehicle factory will close this year. With the closure of the motor vehicle industry 72 per cent of what is left of Australian manufacturing will vanish. The OECD economic statements on countries have a column called 'elaborately transformed'. That exists for OECD countries—advanced economies, if you like—where they transform product.
At a meeting recently I was quite pleased to hear a very young engineering fitter say: 'Don't say we are a mining country. We are not a mining country. Mining is when you take it out of the ground and sell a metal. We take it out of the ground and sell the ground. We do not do any processing any more. We just sell concentrate.' We are going to lose the great refineries of North Queensland: the nickel refinery, the zinc refinery and the copper refinery—three of the most magnificent processing plants in the entire world, and there are very few mineral processing plants in the world. We are going to lose them as sure as the sun rises. With the continuation of these policies we will lose them. Most mines in Australia now simply send out the ground, not the metal.
So we have got no manufacturing and no mining—we are a quarrying country, not a mining country any more. In the agricultural sector our biggest export item was wool until Mr Keating announced that he was going to deregulate it and then proceeded to deregulate the wool industry. It was a bigger export item than coal in 1990 when Mr Keating inaugurated our wonderful free market policies that have served us so well in Australia. So our greatest commodity that carried the country for nearly 200 years was wiped out in 2½ years. Seventy-five per cent of the entire sheep herd have now gone, and they will never come back.
Today what little voice the people have left is being extinguished, and I hope the people who were doing it are very proud of themselves. They can look at the economy of Australia and look out at the vast horizon of destruction and human misery and they cannot blame anyone else except themselves. The destruction is continuing today with the lights going out on democracy.
I rise to speak in support of the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment Bill 2016. I speak in support of this bill as both a former Chairman of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters and a member of parliament with one of the largest populations of first-time voters in their electorate. This bill is about one thing only: democracy—that is the process of selecting representatives by majority ballot. It is about nothing more than that. It is not about what is fair or unfair; it is not about what might advantage one party but disadvantage another. It is about the process—the process of selecting representatives by majority ballot and reflecting, to the greatest extent possible, the true intention of the voter. Whatever others may submit to the contrary, either in this House or in the other place, is, with respect, irrelevant.
Protestations against the spirit and intent of this bill are motivated by self-interest and self-interest alone—the self-interest of those who owe their elected positions and the money and prestige that come with them to the vagaries of an opaque and confusing preference system, which lends itself to manipulation by so-called preference whisperers to produce perverse electoral outcomes. Let me make this crystal clear: anyone who argues against the spirit of this bill is arguing to retain a system that deliberately or otherwise permits the intention of the voter to be obscured in accordance with the backroom deals of political parties.
The Commonwealth Electoral Amendment Bill is informed by the recommendations of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matter's Interim report on the inquiry into the conduct of the 2013 federal election: Senate voting practices, with which the committee agreed unanimously. In the interests of transparency and in the event that any of the committee members seek to refashion themselves as latent objectors to the recommendations of the report, I will read into Hansard the membership of the committee at the time the report was tabled and universally supported: the member for Casey, who is now the Speaker of the House; the member for Bruce; the member for Moore; the member for Brand; the member for Mitchell, who is now the Assistant Minister to the Treasurer; Senator the Hon. John Faulkner; Senator Helen Kroger; Senator Lee Rhiannon; Senator Anne Ruston; and Senator Mehmet Tillem.
The bill, inter alia, seeks to do the following: first, introduce an optional preferential above-the-line voting system, which will include advice on the ballot paper instructing the voter to number at least six of the boxes in order of their preference; second, introduce a savings provision that stipulates that a vote is still formal where the voter numbers at least one box but fewer than six; third, reduce the number of informal votes by increasing, from three to five, the number of allowable mistakes, so long as 90 per cent of the below-the-line ballot paper has been completed correctly; fourth, abolish group and individual voting ticket deals; fifth, introduce a restriction to unique registered officers of a federally registered political party, to prevent an individual holding office in more than one political party; and, sixth, allow political parties, at their choosing, to display their party logo on the ballot paper to avoid voter confusion between similarly named political parties.
The combined effect of these measures is to reflect and preserve, to the greatest extent possible, the intention of the voter. The introduction of an optional preferential above-the-line voting system provides the voter with more choice—not less—in how they cast their vote. To cast an above-the-line vote, the voter can mark one box, or six, or three, or 12—or they can continue to vote below the line, if that is their preference. Any of those votes would be treated as formal. The bill gives voters more choice and, through the savings provisions, errs on the side of voter enfranchisement to a greater extent than the act currently does. The abolition of group and individual voting tickets gives the voter certainty about where their vote is going, and, by prohibiting people from holding office in more than one party, we reduce the instance of sham feeder tickets. And, with political parties being allowed to display a party logo on the ballot paper, voters will know that the party they are voting for is the party they intended to vote for.
The people in my electorate have lives outside politics. They are mums and dads, professionals, retirees and university students. When it comes time to vote, they do not expect to have to independently research dozens of group voting tickets just to know where their vote is going. They simply want to indicate who they are voting for and to have sufficient choice in how they cast their vote. That is not much to ask of this House. To support this bill is to support the rights of the voter. To support this bill is to support democracy. I commend the bill to the House.
The question is that this bill be now read a second time, and I call the honourable member for—
Grey.
Grey.
Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is indeed an honour to be the member for Grey, let me say, and I rise at the moment to speak on the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment Bill 2016.
The vagaries of upper house voting systems around Australia—in the Senate in particular—are long and large. I hazard a guess that, outside people that work in the Electoral Commission and those addicted to politics, there are very few that understand the voting system. It has always been the case that on many occasions Senate elections have thrown up winners that no-one expected and that managed to be, if you like, the last repository for optional votes that were avoiding the major parties. I can think of a couple of quite prominent ones, and I mean no harm to either of these particular members of the Senate. I do not believe, for instance, that Senator John Madigan would be in this parliament now if it were not for those vagaries, because, for all intents and purposes, even the people of Victoria thought the DLP had disappeared before his election. I do not reflect in any way on his contribution to this parliament, but it was a surprise.
Perhaps an even bigger surprise, and someone who has made an even bigger impact on this parliament, is someone who was not first elected to the Senate on a very small vote but was elected by a very small margin to the South Australian Legislative Council, which is, by and large, a reflection of the voting system that we use. That is Senator Nick Xenophon, who was first elected as a No Pokies campaigner on, from memory—and I did not look it up—about two per cent of the vote. It was a surprise to everyone. I think it was a surprise to Nick. He certainly built on that opportunity to turn himself into a substantial politician, but it has to be said that no-one really expected that result, and probably he did not either.
It is difficult even to explain the Senate voting system and, as I said, I think very few understand it. But, to give the people of Australia some idea of the way I understand it, at least, if I stood for the Senate as the Rowan Ramsey Left-Legged Party and I scored—
Oh, I'd vote for that!
I am very pleased that the shadow minister would vote for me on that basis. But, not to make a fun point out of this, if I were to score 200,000 votes in South Australia, that is about 50,000 spare for a quota. My 50,000 spare votes then go on to the next preference. But which 50,000 do you use? Which 50,000 votes go to the next preference, given that some people may have followed a below-the-line voting pattern? What that means, in effect, is that those votes that are passed on are devalued by a factor of about 75 per cent and averaged back over the candidates, and then they are deflected to the various options chosen by the voters. That is about as clear as mud, it must be said, but it just shows how complex this system is.
These reforms before us today do not actually address that individual issue, but they do address some of the complexities of voting for the upper house, and they do address some of the vagaries that have been brought to our notice by the last election. What that little story I told you about where the preferences go shows is just how important people's preferences are. Our system is designed so that our preferences will flow down so our vote is worth a value somewhere in the system. Yet so many people voting in the last election, and probably the last 20 before that, have very little idea where their preferences are going, so they might have voted for the Rowan Ramsey Left-Legged Party and, if I were an unsuccessful candidate, they have very little idea where that vote has gone, because Rowan Ramsey determined where that vote should go. And so it was the case with the last election. As I said before, we have these vagaries before but they were not occurring on a regular basis. Last election we had a fellow called Glenn Druery, the vote whisperer, who realised that if he could get all these groups together and if he could get them to deflect their votes to each other around this group then they could ensure that one of that group would become the lucky recipient, the last port of call, of all these votes—but they were not too sure who that person was. So they all threw their hats in the ring together in this lottery, if you like.
On the last New South Wales Senate ticket there were 110 candidates. While is it not the subject of this debate today, in the 2015 New South Wales Legislative Council vote there were 394 candidates—no wonder people vote above the line. We presume that most people can get to 394, but they are going to need a cut lunch, a waterbag and somewhere to sit down while they do it. Whether we originally intended people to vote above the line and whether that, in turn, has led to the proliferation of candidates, I am not sure but that is certainly where we are. And yet these people voting above the line have very little idea where their vote is going. In the last election Glenn Druery worked with the Shooters and Fishers Party, the Sex Party, the Multicultural Party and the Liberal Democrats; more than 30 small groups in fact. In Western Australia his most spectacular success was the Sports Party. They had a candidate elected to the Senate with 0.2 per cent of the vote—gee the Australian people knew what they were doing there, didn't they? You could assume that, apart from his family, hardly anyone knew they were voting for that particular candidate. As it turned out the Senate vote in Western Australia was disallowed because of some problems the Australian Electoral Commission had with some votes going missing and the Sports Party candidate was unsuccessful in the run-off.
The next one was the Australian Motoring Enthusiast Party, where Senator Ricky Muir was elected on 0.5 per cent of the vote. To me this clearly flies in the face of an intelligent and informed democracy. It was never envisaged that the system would be gamed in this way and for this purpose. I think the Australian people woke up with a hell of a shock after the 2013 election. They said, 'How did this happen. What is going on here?' The members of this place have heard loud and clear, and it has been expected right throughout the electorate, that before the next election we would do something about this so that it could not be done again. As I said earlier, these vagaries have thrown up a situation where we have had people elected on very slim votes before but the gaming of the system has almost ensured that the last place in every state will go to one of the minor parties, to someone with a very low vote. If you multiply that by six that gives you about 12 on average, and we did pretty close to that in the last election.
These reforms allow for an optional preferential voting system above the line. The great advantage of this is that the voters get to say where their preferences go. They will be encouraged to vote to six places, which should, with any kind of a fair system or any kind of average, make sure that their vote is counted—to make sure that their vote is exhausted, if you like. We will allow for people who do not elect to fill in those six spaces and so there is a savings measure that says that your vote will not be declared invalid if, in fact, you fill in only one or two spots above the line. But they should fill in the six spots, because it is important that their voice be heard. At the moment when they check '1' in the box their voice is being heard but they are not sure who it is being heard by or who that vote is being harvested by. Part of that is the abolition of group party voting tickets, meaning that we cannot do this any more and I think that would be a very great improvement.
The other thing I will touch on briefly in the time I have left is the use of party logos. There would not be many commentators in Australia—those people who watch politics with some interest—who believe Senator David Leyonhjelm would have been elected in the last election were not the name of his party and the name of the Liberal Party of Australia confused. Senator Leyonhjelm, I have heard, believes differently and he is entitled to that view. I think it was a bad mistake the day that the Australian Electoral Commission allowed his party to register that name, which sounds so much like the Liberal Party of Australia. But it is done. In recognition of this fact, in an effort to supply clarity to voters, this legislation proposes that parties can put their logo alongside their group voting ticket, or alongside their group of candidates—we do not have a group voting ticket as such—alongside their recommendations. I think no-one could be against that move. Anything that supplies clarity to the voters must be an improvement to the system.
With these reforms, already we have seen some sabre-rattling from the Senate suggesting we will get non-cooperation from some of those aggrieved parties who feel they will be disproportionately affected. But I say to them and I say to the Australian people: how could this place possibly be against their views being properly interpreted by the electoral system? How can we possibly support a system that was so clearly distorted at the last election? As I said, as I walked down the streets immediately after the last election and it became apparent that we had in the Senate a significant grouping of people we had never heard of before, people who were complete strangers to Australian public, complete strangers to the voters, and complete strangers to those who voted for them. I support this legislation. (Time expired)
The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour.
I would also like to acknowledge and say welcome to the students from St Augustine's Primary School in Wodonga who are in the gallery today. It is lovely to have you here.
In my presentation today I would like to acknowledge the work of the Murray Rowing Association and to congratulate them on the fantastic rowing regatta that they organised in January. This regatta is Australia's oldest regatta and dates back to 1860. In fact, in 1861, over 3,000 people travelled to Wahgunyah to be part of it. The Murray Rowing Association is a joint venture between the Corowa Rowing Club, Wahgunyah Rowing Club and the Rutherglen Lake Rowing Club. This area has the highest density of rowing clubs per head of population anywhere in Australia. I particularly want to acknowledge the committee for their fantastic work: President Paul Somerville, Vice Presidents Robert Eyers and Phil Culhane, Secretary Eloise Seymour, Treasurer Stacey Whitechurch and committee members Wes, Neville, Maurice, Neil and Stuart. You did a fantastic job. Your professionalism, the way you coped with the number of people and organised the sequence of the races and the huge community involvement is to be commended.
This regatta was originally run as a professional rowing regatta, and the initial prize was 70 pounds—so it was quite significant. The regatta is now run as an amateur rowing regatta and over the past two years there have been over 1,000 entries. Bearing in mind that an eight is counted as one entry, we had over 6,000 people turn up at Lake Moodemere. (Time expired)
We are lucky in Gilmore. We have three local councils working very hard for their residents. So, as their federal member, I cannot sit back and not comment on the proposed amalgamations for our local government area, threatening the councils of Kiama, Shellharbour and Shoalhaven.
An opposition member interjecting—
For more than two years I have worked in tandem with these three organisations, and I am impressed with the work they do and the outcomes they achieve—and the support from the other side of the House. All three councils represent very different areas and community needs. So the suggestion that a merged council would offer greater services to its residents appears counterproductive in this large geographical area.
The local communities have rallied behind their councils to protest the proposed amalgamation of Kiama Municipal Council with Shoalhaven City Council and the Shellharbour City Council with Wollongong City Council. Community meetings, concerts and public information sessions have all been well attended, and residents were out in force at the public inquiries held across the region to present their statements and views to the NSW Boundaries Commission delegate. The community spirit and sentiment shows just how important these local councils are to their respective residents and the importance of them retaining separate identities.
I understand there is a need for some council mergers in urban areas; however, I do not believe this to be the case for the regional councils in Gilmore. They are great community catalysts. Amalgamating our local Gilmore councils seems to be both unpopular and unnecessary. It is not supported by the local residents. They are fighting to stay independent, and I support them every step of the way. I commend them for all the work they have been doing to retain their own identity.
Another day, another tax shambles from the Abbott-Turnbull government. Yesterday, members were treated to one of the most spectacular ventriloquist acts you will ever see. The member for Warringah projected his voice, threw his voice, across the chamber 50 feet into the mouth of the Prime Minister at the despatch box. I even saw the member for Warringah drink a glass of water at one point, but still Tony Abbott's words and his baseless political scares continued to flow from Malcolm Turnbull's mouth.
The Abbott-Turnbull message was: forget what the independent experts say; under Labor property prices will go down. Yet this morning, the Assistant Treasurer, Kelly O'Dwyer—presumably taking her lead from the gaffe-prone Treasurer—told Australians on breakfast television viewers that property prices would go up under Labor. As my colleague the member for Rankin noted this morning, while neither Malcolm Turnbull nor Tony Abbott is capable of running a government, at least Tony Abbott could run a scare campaign. It is true: you did not see shadow ministers out their warning about the prices of lamb roasts falling under a Labor government when Tony Abbott was leader. No! Under Tony Abbott the Liberals picked one baseless scare campaign and they stuck with it no matter how implausible it was.
But the pickle the Prime Minister has gotten himself into is that, without a tax policy of his own, no-one—not even his cabinet ministers—knows what the government's economic message is. For the sanity of his ministers, the PM should pick one scare campaign and stick with it. Even better, he should announce a tax policy so that the ministry have something to talk about other than the policies of the Labor Party. (Time expired)
On a much brighter note, last week, I was thrilled to join with the Norwood Sporting Club, Ringwood U3A and community members to officially opening the Kevin Pratt Pavilion at Mullum Mullum Reserve in Ringwood. This new facility will serve as a home base for the Norwood Sporting Club, which includes the Norwood football and cricket clubs, the Norwood Junior Football Club as well as the Norwood Netball Club and the Norwood Social Club. Importantly, it will also serve as a home for the Ringwood U3A, which is a wonderful complement to the sporting club.
Highlights of the new pavilion include a new multipurpose room on the first floor, which will provide a very big space for social functions. It also includes a viewing deck; media room; new kitchen and canteen; and a new gym, which will provide enhanced training facilities for all the players, as well as refurbished and additional change rooms, which will cater for the increasing levels of female participation in all sports but, in particular, football.
I am delighted to have been able to assist in making this project a reality through securing a $400,000 grant from the Commonwealth's Community Development Grants Program. But, really, all substantial credit should go to the amazing members and supporters of the Norwood Sporting Club and in particular to President Mark Etherington and his committee, whose passion and dedication ultimately made this project a reality. I would also like to thank local state members Ryan Smith and Dee Ryall as well as Councillor Nora Lamont and everybody at Maroondah City Council for helping Mark and the Norwood members make this a reality. (Time expired)
Congratulations Ellie Carpenter, Western Sydney Wanderers W-League team central defender on her win as this year's Parramatta Advertiser Junior Sports Star. She won the award over a talented field of dozens of other local rising stars. Ellie's decision to leave her family and friends in Cowra and move to Sydney to further her footballing ambitions has certainly paid off for her and for all of us who have watched her play.
But the accolades for Ellie go far beyond the local. At only 15 years of age, Ellie has already played in the under-16 and under-20 national girl's football teams. Her consistent form and flair has seen her selected to attend training camps with the senior women's team, the Matildas, and was named Best W-League Newcomer of the year by the Women's Game website—an award chosen from all players in all teams who play in the W-League competition. That is good work from our Pemulwuy local.
Our national team, the Matildas, has enjoyed great success at World Cups and won the coveted Asian Cup in 2010. The team is currently in Japan playing for qualification at the Rio Olympics. Continued broadcast of the W League competition on free-to-air TV and the scheduling of games as double-headers with A-league fixtures are bringing many new fans to the women's game. Young girls and women are being inspired to take up the world game by the confidence on the ball, drilling skills and exciting style of play exhibited by players such as Ellie Carpenter. Registrations are now open at football clubs across the Parramatta electorate for anyone who wants to sign up. You will not all be future starts like Ellie, but it will be worth it and the benefits will last a lifetime.
I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the team at headspace Meadowbrook on their first year of operation. I visited headspace, recently, to share their first birthday celebration and to hear about their success in our community.
The headspace brand has gained enormous acceptance among the young people and families in my electorate of Forde. They have been very successful in reducing the stigma surrounding mental health and in providing better access to important mental health services. An example of their success would be the headspace Youth Early Psychosis Program, which has provided support to some 106 young people in the region between July last year and December. The program seeks to ensure continuity of care and reduce clinical risk for consumers. It provides tremendous support to young people, including through multidisciplinary case coordination, evidence-based interventions, outreach support, home-based care, specialised vocational support, group programs and physical health and wellbeing programs. This program is about preventing young people from falling through the service gaps so that they can arrive at the right service and support for them.
I commend headspace for their success in the Forde community over their first year of operation. I look forward to continuing to work with them in the future.
On budget night, without any warning or consultation, the government introduced a new backpackers tax. It was a cash grab which has been condemned by the agriculture sector and its leadership, and by other industries which rely heavily on backpacker labour. The government did not even offer a policy objective. It just wanted the money. Sadly, it did not take into account any other economic impact. For example, in my experience backpackers spend all of the money they earn in Australia on meals, drinks and accommodation.
If it was the government's intention to improve the 417 and 462 visa classes, we would be keen to work with it. We in this place must make absolutely sure that backpackers are not taking the jobs of Australians. Possibly, an agriculture specific visa class may be part of the solution. But, of course, there are other sectors, including tourism, which also need to be taken care of. The key objective must be to give growers and produces the labour they need while protecting Australian jobs. Sadly, that is not what the government's new tax is about. Sadly, National Party MPs in this place and Liberals representing regional electorates have gone missing on this subject. Once again, they have been unprepared to stand up to their conservative partners. They should come in here today and do just that.
I rise to talk about two recent multicultural celebrations in my community that I attended last week. It was an absolute honour to attend both the Sri Lanka Australia Friendship Association's celebration of the 68th anniversary of the Sri Lankan Independence Day and the Filipino community's annual Valentine's Day celebrations. Both community groups were absolutely amazing. It was wonderful that I was able to be there. They were very happy that I was able to be there.
It was great to see the Sri Lankan community and the young people in the community getting involved in the celebrations by doing some traditional dancing. I was very privileged to join President Priya in the lighting of the candles at the beginning of the commemorations. The celebration is very important for the Sri Lankan and Australian communities, as our long history of cooperation and friendship is nearly as old as Sri Lanka itself. I am proud to be able to provide some support to the community. I look forward to working with them in the future.
As I said, I joined the Filipino community and its annual Valentine's Day celebration. Unfortunately, my valentine was sick. I was able to enjoy the evening with our Lord Mayor Katrina Fong Lim and the Country Liberal's candidate— (Time expired)
On behalf of the opposition, I express deep condolences for the 29 lives lost as a result of the devastating Tropical Cyclone Winston, which struck Fiji on Saturday. Winds of 330 kilometres per hour flattened and flooded homes across the Fiji archipelago, leaving about 14,000 people displaced in 274 evacuation shelters all around the country. Local officials have confirmed that more than 1,000 homes were destroyed in the major towns of Rakiraki alone, with another 500 partially damaged. Despite the storm having moved on, serious threats remain, with the ongoing danger of Zika virus and dengue outbreaks, coupled with shortages of food, water, shelter and medicine.
Labor does welcome the $5 million assistance package announced by the government, which will include military helicopters to assist with aerial surveillance and air transport relief supplies for 1,500 families. It is our sincere hope that the assistance provided rapidly makes it to the Fijians living on the outer islands, particularly the island of Koro, that have not yet been reached and are believed to have been severely affected by the terrible cyclone.
Australians have a deep affinity with the people of Fiji. Forty thousand people of Fijian descent live in Australia. As the recovery begins, and the damage and loss is realised in coming days, our thoughts and prayers are with the Fijian people. I also thank the Australian NGOs that are working on the ground. If people wish to make a donation, they can visit the Australian Council for International Development website.
I recently attended the CanRevive Chinese New Year event to celebrate the Year of the Monkey and to acknowledge the dedicated work CanRevive makes to my electorate. CanRevive is a specialised support service for cancer patients and carers in their time of need, when hope seems out of sight. CanRevive restores hope and provides cancer patients with an array of support networks that deliver information, people and services all in one. Their services are offered to people of English and non-English speaking backgrounds, vital to the multi-lingual community in my electorate of Barton, and provide care to those who may not ordinarily be able to access these services.
Hospital visits across Sydney are part of CanRevive's services to cancer patients and carers who are in and out of hospital, a service that I am proud to see operate in my electorate at St George Hospital in Kogarah. CanRevive also runs support meetings for patients to help deal with the emotional turmoil that is felt on a daily basis. Support meetings are tailored to address different stages and experiences of cancer. It is a fantastic service delivered to ensure a safe environment where people can relate to others in the same situation and gain the right level of care.
We all know someone who has or is currently struggling with cancer and it is important that emotional support is always there. I thank CanRevive for their humbling service to the community as they continuously strive to improve the lives of those suffering with the effects of cancer.
This week staff at the National Library in my electorate of Canberra were faced with the grim reality of looming job cuts. Twenty-two jobs out of a total 415 full-time positions will be cut—that is, over five per cent of the workforce—thanks to this government stripping $4.4 million from the Library over four years. Director-General, Ms Anne-Marie Schwirtlich, said that these cuts will have grave impact on the library's operations and services.
In addition to job losses, the Turnbull government's cuts will affect: public exhibitions; the collection of international subscriptions, including Asian-language texts; the vital task of digitalisation of our massive collections, necessary so that publications can be kept safe for future generations; Trove, which is a fantastic searchable online database of Australian texts. Trove will stop collecting content from museums and universities until it receives more funding.
The National Library is the repository of our collective identity. It provides a vital service by keeping every publication released in Australia and making reams of information easily accessible to all Australians. To make matters worse, we know that the Library is just the first of our flagship cultural intuitions to cut staff and services thanks to the Turnbull government's shameful funding cuts. The Prime Minister must immediately reverse these disgraceful cuts to the National Library and to our other cultural institutions to ensure Australia's heritage is protected and preserved for generations to come.
Allowing children to grow and thrive socially and academically in a safe school environment is a fundamental requirement of every school in this country. We all want safer schools. Yet the incongruence between the title and objectives of the Safe Schools Coalition program and what is actually taught and, importantly, how it is taught is remarkable and confronting.
In partnership with groups like minusl8, the so-called safe schools program encourages schools to do away with boys and girls uniforms, remove boys and girls toilets, remove gendered personal pronouns from the classroom and even teaches girls how to bind their chests and boys how to tuck their genitalia. This is state sanctioned and state funded social engineering at its worst.
Rather than creating safer schools, the safe schools program potentially creates damaging confusion of gender among children as young as 12, at a time when preteens and teenagers are developing physically, emotionally and psychologically. This is not done in order to deal with bullying or to stamp out gender inequality but to stamp out gender entirely, to create confusion and doubt in children's minds about their gender and to take the power and responsibility of educating children about these important social issues from parents.
This is an extraordinarily dangerous program. It has little to do with what its name suggests. It does not create safer schools.
An incredible team of more than 400 breastfeeding volunteer counsellors staff the National Breastfeeding Helpline 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Trained counsellors operate on a roster, answering some 6,000 calls in their own homes every month.
Last week I met with a number of women at my Mayfield and Stockton community offices who told me about the difference the helpline made for their lives. One mother told me she called the helpline at 11pm when she realised that she had early symptoms of Mastitis—a condition she had been previously hospitalised for. Rather than having to seek emergency health assistance in the middle of the night, she was able to get the support and guidance she needed from the breastfeeding helpline. I also met with volunteer counsellors, who highlighted the role of the helpline as an essential support base for rural and regional women, many of whom are often isolated with very few other avenues of support available. I thank Shellie, Jasmine, Sarah, Susanna, Michelle, Lauren and Aimee for their sharing their stories with me.
The service's future was in immediate danger when I met with these women. Thankfully it has been thrown a funding lifeline but it is only good for 12 months so perhaps it is more a stay of execution. The Breastfeeding Helpline is an invaluable service for tens of thousands of Australian mums, run at extremely modest cost to taxpayers due to the fantastic work of the hundreds of volunteer counsellors. They need security beyond 12 months, and I urge to government to guarantee long-term funding to provide certainty for this vital service for Australian mums.
I rise in relation to an accident-prone black spot on the corner of the busy Woy Woy Road and Langford Drive in Kariong that has been the scene of at least 16 accidents in recent years. It is just metres away from a community centre, a childcare centre, tennis courts, homes and small businesses. In the lead-up to the 2013 election, I pledged to fight to get this intersection fixed. Together with some great local residents such as Peter Pauling, Fiona Lloyd and Yvonne Hart, we gathered a petition of around 3,000 signatures calling for action. The funding required by Gosford City Council at the time was $675,000. I am proud to say that the coalition government delivered on this funding in the last two budgets.
But as I stand here today, the intersection still has not been fixed and council has now advised that the cost has gone up to $1 million. Last night, we saw some vital progress from council with a motion moved by councillors Bob Ward and Jeff Strickson and seconded by the deputy mayor, Councillor Craig Doyle, to ask what was happening. The outcome is that council will request that the New South Wales government's Roads and Maritime Services commit with council to a fifty-fifty funding of the shortfall to help build a mid-block signalised pedestrian crossing. It is welcome news and I thank Gosford Council for their decision last night. But what we really need to see are shovels in the ground soon before another accident happens. I look forward to continuing to work with council and fight for our Kariong residents to ensure this urgent upgrade at the Langford Drive intersection is complete.
The member for Tangney tells us he was driven around Broome by the local chamber of commerce, peering out the car window at some appalling conditions and asking his white host why Indigenous elders were not doing something about it. It is a pity he did not stop the car, end his self-imposed apartheid and actually get to know the Aboriginal people he is slamming; or meet Aboriginal leaders like the Dodsons and Watsons in the West Kimberley, June Oscar in Fitzroy Crossing or Ian Trust in the East Kimberley, who are working with their communities to create economic sustainability and social resilience; or go out to the remote communities he reviles and learn that many people are living there after their third displacement by white settlement, and understand that these places are their homes.
He could learn about the Aboriginal people who live on country, who drive in and out to work at the Telfer gold mines, or who fly in and out from red soil to the West Angelas iron ore mine. He could go to Punmu and experience the extraordinary merging of the old people with the land on which they had been raised without contact with Europeans until the 1960s, and at the same time he would see the bold steps that community is taking to turn around educational outcomes.
It is profoundly racist and counterproductive to demand Aboriginal people reject their culture to become part of Australia. (Time expired)
It is with some emotion that I rise to pay tribute to our former National Party leader and former Deputy Prime Minister, the member for Wide Bay, Warren Truss. A lot has been said already about Warren Truss, and I would like to add my gratitude for his work and counsel. He is among the noblest, most gracious and honest characters within this parliamentary chamber. After 25 years in the Australian parliament, he is a person with the utmost dignity and integrity and will be sadly missed. As a fellow Queenslander, he has always had time to listen to the needs of my electorate of Capricornia in Central Queensland. He took the time on many occasions to visit this region, including Rockhampton, Mackay, Eton Range and Yeppoon. Most recently, in his former role as Deputy Prime Minister, he visited Rockhampton to officially open the $170 million stage 2 Yeppen South flood plain project on the Bruce Highway south of the city. He helped to deliver $20 million for infrastructure projects in Yeppoon and Rockhampton and he helped me to deliver $166 million to fix the Eton Range to save lives on the notorious Peak Downs Highway. Warren Truss, I salute the contribution you have made to the nation and, most importantly, to regional and rural people.
Some time ago in Adelaide I had the great privilege of meeting with a young local resident by the name of Eleni Glouftsis. Eleni was being awarded a Young Citizen of the Year Award by one of our local councils. She had, in fact, become the first woman to be a field umpire at an AFL game of Aussie Rules. I am incredibly proud to stand here before the federal parliament to update you on the career of Eleni, the now 23-year-old, who had to move from Prospect in the electorate of Adelaide to Melbourne in order to pursue her umpiring dream. This weekend she will make history as the first female field umpire when Carlton and Essendon take each other on in the NAB Challenge match. I know that I represent so many people who are incredibly proud of Eleni and will be tuning in this weekend: her family in Prospect and around the Adelaide area, her friends and those that she went through school with, but also, indeed, our whole community.
This is an important day for Eleni and her family, but it is more than that. This is an important day for Aussie Rules football, but it is also more than that. This is an important day for Australian sport. We are so incredibly proud of this trailblazer. We wish her all the best, not just this weekend, but for the many, many games of AFL that she will see throughout her career.
I rise today to announce a much-appreciated funding boost from the federal government to enhance mental health services in a town in the northern goldfields of O'Connor. Leonora has been in the media for all the wrong reasons, with escalating alcohol-fuelled violence and a recent spate of Indigenous suicides. In such a small community no-one is untouched by these tragic events. Indigenous community leaders approached me late last year concerned about the deteriorating fabric of their community. I appealed to ministers Tudge and Scullion to visit as soon as possible. Both responded immediately. Minister Scullion released his Indigenous suicide response strategy in Kalgoorlie in late January, and Minister Tudge came twice to assess the situation for himself. In Leonora Minister Tudge participated in a community forum of shire representatives, Indigenous leaders and key community stakeholders. Jane Waterton, the town's only drug and alcohol counsellor, outlined the need for enhanced on-the-ground mental health and addiction support to help mitigate the ongoing issues that are driving Aboriginals to self-harm and even suicide.
To this end Minister Tudge, in his capacity as the assistant minister for social services, worked hard to secure an additional $510,000 in funding for the next two years. Centacare will use this extra funding to expand the scope and reach of their Family Mental Health Support Services, which provide non-clinical, early-intervention support to children and other young people suffering depression, anxiety, stress or other behaviours. It is my hope that Kalgoorlie-based Centacare will work closely with professionals like Jane Waterton who are resident in Leonora to provide a comprehensive in situ care and support program. I thank Minister Tudge for this extra funding to ensure that at-risk individuals across the northern goldfields have the best chance of a healthy future.
In the history of our federation there has never been an Australian government so determined to fly fewer Australian flags. For the last two years this government has been working as hard as it can to replace this flag with the flag of a foreign nation on the back of our maritime vessels. The flag, the Australian Red Ensign, is now seen as a flag of inconvenience to this Liberal government.
The member for Throsby will resume his seat. The member for Throsby has made his point with the flag. He will not continue to hold the flag.
Mr Stephen Jones interjecting—
The member for Throsby will address the chamber. He has made his point.
Ms Claydon interjecting—
The member for Newcastle will cease interjecting. The member for Throsby has the call.
The truth is this: the Liberal government has systematically dismantled Labor's shipping laws, which created a fairer market for Australian domestic shipping. The Senate estimates committee which is currently inquiring into flag-of-convenience shipping has found that there has been a 78 per cent increase in foreign-flagged vessels over the last decade. Joanne Kerin, a person in my electorate, knows the impact of this. Her entire crew of 36 workers, working on the Alexander Spirit
Mr Nikolic interjecting—
The member for Bass will cease interjecting.
was sacked overnight and replaced by a foreign crew. It is an absolute disgrace— (Time expired)
The member for Throsby will resume his seat.
Honourable members interjecting—
The member for Throsby has been asked to resume his seat. In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded.
The question is that the motion be agreed to. I ask all honourable members to signify their approval by rising in their places.
Question agreed to, honourable members standing in their places.
My question is to the Assistant Treasurer. Does the Assistant Treasurer stand by her remarks this morning, and I quote, about Labor's negative gearing reforms:
They have got a policy that is going to increase the cost of housing for all Australians, …
Really? All Australians?
Thank you very much for that question. I really relish the opportunity to have the chance to talk about Labor's policy to scrap negative gearing for established homes and, instead, limit it only to new housing, which will have very serious ramifications for homeowners, for small businesses, for renters and for the broader Australian economy.
It is a policy that has not been thought through, which is why the Australian Labor Party has resorted to these childish games—to try to distract the Australian people from properly examining what it is that they propose to do and its impacts. It is very clear that from July 2017, those opposite would remove around one-third of all buyers of established property. This would have a very significant impact on demand, and we know that in the property market when you reduce the demand prices fall.
Under the same policy, those buyers who are looking to invest and to negatively gear will be forced into new property. This has the impact of increasing demand for new property, and when you increase demand for new property you will push up prices.
It seems that those opposite find it very difficult to understand these pretty obvious concepts. They have a chaotic policy. It is one that will damage confidence, it is one that will damage growth and it will send shockwaves through the property market—a market worth over $5.6 trillion.
What those opposite forget is that Australians have their wealth tied up in that market. What they also forget is that so many small businesses will be affected. We have more than two million small businesses in Australia, and they employ more than 4.5 million Australians. Many of these small business owners and operators rely on their homes for their finance. Of the small businesses holding lending products, around 14 per cent have a mortgage over their property and these mortgages will be affected if housing prices fall.
What happens to those small businesses that employ people? What happens to the broader Australian economy if they cannot invest in their businesses? These are all questions that those opposite do not have the answer to. They would rather play childish games—word games—than look at and examine the policy that they are putting to the Australian people, one that will punish the Australian people, decrease their overall wealth and hurt the Australian economy.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister update the House on the government's plans to drive innovation right across the economy? How will this help to secure Australia's prosperity and promote jobs and growth?
I thank the honourable member for her question.
Ours is a government dedicated to supporting growth and encouraging the innovation and the enterprise that we know will generate the new jobs—the high-paid jobs—for our children and grandchildren. This is a critical part of the transition—
Tony Abbott wants his tie back!
The member for Chifley is warned!
from the mining and construction boom to a new economy—one that takes advantage of all the opportunities in the growing global economy, particularly here in our region. And it depends on innovation.
Tomorrow, the government will make another critical investment in innovation and the jobs of the future with the release of the Defence white paper. It will set out the plan for securing our nation decades into the future. It will set out how we will give our Defence Forces the resources they need and the capabilities they need to keep us safe. And, critically, this historic commitment is about jobs, innovation and regional Australia.
The Defence white paper will provide incentives for Australian businesses to drive advances in innovation and technology in many fields, including cybersecurity and aeronautics. It will deliver jobs and investment in advanced, high-tech manufacturing. It will generate new economic activity in many parts of regional Australia, where Defence communities and Defence industries are so often based. The Defence white paper will build upon and be utterly consistent with our National Innovation and Science Agenda, investing in our local Defence industries and putting them at the cutting edge of technology. The government tomorrow will provide full and fully costed details of why a significant increase in our defence expenditure is important—vital—to prepare for the emerging security challenges globally and regionally and why it is necessary to address the failings of recent Labor governments, under whom defence spending as a share of GDP fell to its lowest levels since 1938.
But key to this commitment is the priority we give to ensuring every available defence dollar wherever possible is leveraged to promote a strong, innovative, globally competitive Australian defence industry. We have to overturn the notion that a defence budget is provided simply to buy equipment, ships and planes from overseas. Our security depends upon a strong defence industry. We are committed to that. It is vital to our security. It is vital to our innovation agenda. It is vital to securing our safety and our prosperity in the decades ahead.
My question is to the Assistant Treasurer. In a train wreck of an interview this morning the Assistant Treasurer said the government had no plans to change 'capital gains tax arrangements with respect to negative gearing'. Is the Assistant Treasurer aware that these are two separate things? What on earth was the assistant Treasurer talking about this morning?
Before I call the Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Small Business: I have cautioned the member for McMahon before about some of the language in his questions, and I think the last time I cautioned I took the time to tell him I would not necessarily allow a rephrase. I am saying that, on that question, that language—the descriptions—at the start of the question is unnecessary. I am going to call the minister nonetheless but I am giving fair warning to the member for McMahon.
Mr Perrett interjecting—
The member for Moreton is warned.
I thank the member for his question because it gives me yet another opportunity at the dispatch box to talk about the policy that those opposite do not with to speak of: the policy that the Labor Party have to scrap negative gearing for established property and instead force investors into new property.
And it is not just our side of politics that has got serious concerns about the policy of those opposite. In fact, there are some sitting on the other side who actually share our concern. There are some who have expressed reservations about changing, scrapping and mucking around with negative gearing. Yes indeed, the professor himself, the shadow Assistant Treasurer—I withdraw. The member for Fraser.
Government members interjecting—
Members on my right will cease interjecting.
Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order on direct relevance. The Assistant Treasurer was asked about her confusion between negative—
The member for McMahon will resume his seat. There is no point of order. The Assistant Treasurer has the call.
I know that those opposite perhaps do not wish to hear what it is that the shadow Assistant Treasurer has said about negative gearing in the past but I think it is a good opportunity to share with those in the chamber his comments and his reservations about mucking around with negative gearing. The member for Fraser in the past has worried about the impact of changes to negative gearing. In 2013 he worried that the coalition might get rid of negative gearing for people who bought a house late last year 'and thought that that was an investment property that they could rely on'.
He said this because he was concerned about what the impact of that change may be. If he was concerned about the impact of the change, he was predominantly concerned about the value of their property—an established property—going down. He was concerned about the wealth and the investment that had been made by that individual in purchasing that property and in having that wealth eroded. I am really pleased to know that at least the Assistant Treasurer over on the opposition benches understands that there are serious concerns and serious impacts on the economy when you change negative gearing. I only wish that the shadow Treasurer had consulted him when they formed their policy.
Dr Leigh interjecting—
The member for Fraser I spoke to yesterday. The member for Fraser will not ignore my ruling from yesterday if he wishes to remain in the House.
My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Will the minister please update the House on the government's response to Cyclone Winston in the Pacific?
I thank the member for Petrie for his question and note his concern not only for the people of the Pacific islands but also for the constituents of Pacific island origin that he has in his electorate.
Tropical Cyclone Winston is the strongest ever recorded tropical cyclone to make landfall in Fiji. There were wind gusts of up to 325 kilometres an hour, causing widespread damage, flooding and power outages not just in Fiji but also in Tonga. The government of Fiji has confirmed that there have been 36 deaths and 35,000 people are still taking refuge in evacuation centres. Our thoughts are with the people of Fiji at this time.
About 350,000 Australians visit Fiji each year, and I can confirm that, thankfully, there are no recorded Australian casualties. We do have consular officers who are in Fiji at present and can assist any Australians in need. Prime Minister Turnbull has spoken with his counterpart, Prime Minister Bainimarama, and I have been in constant contact with my counterpart, Foreign Minister Kubuabola. We have offered our deepest sympathies and our support to the people of Fiji.
I can confirm that Australia's immediate response was to release prepositioned supplies in Fiji. It is a $5 million humanitarian package comprising food, water and sanitation supplies as well as shelter.
We have also been able to send four Defence helicopters. They are currently in Fiji and will be taking supplies to some of the outlying islands. We have also sent two P3 Orion surveillance aircraft, and they will be carrying out daily assessments of the damage, particularly in those outlying islands.
In coordination with the government of Fiji, we have also sent a six-person team of Australian medics who are currently carrying out life-saving treatments and other health and medical assistance. We have sent a 16-person crisis response team, working with the government of Fiji and coordinating the response.
We have also been in touch with other Pacific island leaders and are working with PNG, particularly, as the chair of the Pacific Islands Forum, so that there is a coordinated regional response.
The commercial airlines are back flying. We have two immigration officers to assist Australians seeking to leave or come into Fiji. We are also pleased to confirm that Australian businesses operating in Fiji—Telstra, Optus, ANZ and Westpac—are providing assistance.
We are longstanding and firm friends of Fiji and we are there in their hour of need.
My question is to the Prime Minister. This morning when speaking about Labor's negative gearing reforms, the Prime Minister predicted a decline in housing prices. But earlier this morning, when also speaking about Labor's reforms, the Assistant Treasurer predicted an increase in the cost of housing for all Australians. Prime Minister, if you cannot even get your scare campaign right, doesn't this just show that your government is in complete and utter chaos?
Mrs McNamara interjecting—
The member for Dobell will not interject.
Mr Morrison interjecting—
The Treasurer will not interject.
Mr Sukkar interjecting—
The member for Deakin will cease interjecting.
I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. Earlier today, his shadow Treasurer published a press release, which referred to an economic report on this subject by ACIL Allen last year. What they omitted to mention was this comment on what was understood to be Labor's policy, which is essentially limiting negative gearing to new dwellings. They described it as:
… likely to add considerable turmoil and volatility to rental property and housing markets.
… . .
… the main and lasting effect of the measure would be to add significant distortions to investment in different categories of residential property—
that is the bit they did not quote.
What the Labor Party proposes to do is administer two contradictory shocks, massive shocks, to the residential housing market. They are proposing to remove—
Ms Butler interjecting—
The member for Griffith is warned!
from the market for established dwellings one third of demand. All investors would be gone. When I say all investors, I mean all investors: even if an investor borrowed an amount of money such that the interest was less than the rent, they still would not invest after 1 July 2017, because the Labor Party proposes to eliminate the deduction of any net rental losses. So you might be an investor with a very modest loan, which is normally covered by the rent. But what if the tenant goes away? What if the tenant trashes the building? What if there is some damage?
Ms Butler interjecting—
The member for Griffith will leave under 94(a).
You cannot deduct that. The reality is: the Labor Party policy does not simply apply to net interest losses; it applies to all net rental losses. That is their document. This will eliminate all investors from the established property market. That naturally will cause prices to fall—how can it not? The market is subdued. We heard yesterday that it is forecast to grow at relatively low rates—and indeed in Perth it is going to decline, so it is estimated.
Into that subdued market environment—an environment most of Australians' net worth where resides—the Labor Party provides this enormous shock: removing a third of the buyers. They are putting Australians' savings at risk. They are putting the values of their homes at risk. At the same time, they then want to pour all of that investment interest into new properties which can only be designed—presumably, entirely contradictorily—to drive those prices up. It is the most ill-conceived, potentially destructive policy ever proposed by any opposition. How could you do something as destructive as that?
My question is to the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources. The government has announced funding of $25 million for water feasibility. This now brings to over $140 million the expenditure on reports and assessments, yet in our 25 years we have not had a shovel of concrete put across the gutter. Surely, Minister, it is better for the money to go into engineering work on ready-to-go projects like Hell's Gate dam, which will inject $2 billion each and every year into North Queensland's economy.
I thank the honourable member for his question. I thank him because, when we are talking about Hell's Gate and if someone were going to open the gates of hell, it would have to be the member for Kennedy.
I note that that is also a proposition that is well supported by those in Townsville where the business enterprises also want to see an expansion of the water infrastructure in that area.
I can assure the member for Kennedy that, on this side of the chamber, we are doing everything in our power to progress the water infrastructure program. In fact, we expect that, by the middle of March, all proposals will be in and we can hopefully start assessments by the end of March.
There are already a number of proposals underway in the north that we are looking at—the Ord; Nullinga Dam; on the Mitchell, which I think is in the member's electorate; and Darwin. These areas are all under investigation as we speak. There is a further $25 million on top of that for investigative purposes, and we have had well over 50 applications come in for that.
I know that the member for Kennedy is a person who is absolutely proactive in making sure that we get things built: that we do not just have the discussion, that we do not just have engineering reports but that we actually start rolling things out. The member for Kennedy is only too right to say: 'Show us the evidence that you're actually doing things.' I am happy to inform the member for Kennedy that we expect that Chaffey Dam will be complete by April. That was one of the first dams of the project, and we will be looking forward very quickly. The start of it was actually when I went up there and made the final announcement, and we finally got the money through the selection process.
Mr Fitzgibbon interjecting—
The member for Hunter will cease interjecting!
I think it started when I was serving as the Minister for Agriculture. We are also looking forward in Tasmania, as we roll forward water infrastructure projects there. It was only just in the last week, or a bit over—I suppose, a fortnight—that the Prime Minister and I were going through Central Queensland, observing other sites and working out what we could do. The member for Capricornia and the member for Flynn were very enthusiastic about the Eden Bann, Rookwood and Nathan dams in their area.
This is the side of government that will actually build these dams. That is the side of government that will take their instructions from the Greens, and nothing will ever happen. We are the people that stand behind the prospect of making sure that we alleviate some of those who are moving out of the mining industry, making sure that they can have a job and making sure that we progress the economy of North Queensland. I look forward to working with the member for Kennedy in making sure we get things done. (Time expired)
My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister outline to the House why housing values are the bedrock of certainty and security for Australian families?
I thank the honourable member for his question. I appreciate, as he does keenly, how important the value of housing is to the economic security of the people of his electorate, who are already dealing with the transition from the mining construction boom and the consequences of that. I note that, in the Mackay region alone, there are more than 5,700 property owners who claim net rental losses on their investments—who negatively gear their investments.
Mr Albanese interjecting—
The member for Grayndler will cease interjecting!
Honourable members know that housing represents about 65 per cent of the net worth of all Australian households. There is $5.56 trillion invested in housing—that is nearly three times the size of the total amount invested in superannuation. If house prices were to fall by just five per cent, that would wipe $278 billion off the national balance sheet, and it would disproportionately affect lower income households—71 per cent of the net worth of the lowest income households in Australia is in housing.
Ms Chesters interjecting—
The member for Bendigo is warned!
If house prices were to fall by just five per cent, it would leave households in the lowest income quintile, the lowest 20 per cent, just under $12,000 poorer.
The Leader of the Opposition likes to say that negative gearing—the ability to claim a net rental loss—benefits only the wealthy few. I know, as the honourable member does, that many of those people claiming net rental losses in his electorate are members of unions. I imagine many of them are members of the AWU. Of course, the Leader of the Opposition, when he was the national secretary of the AWU, said, talking about negative gearing:
These tools are not accessible to members of the Australian Workers Union and other ordinary working Australians.
Well, there are 82,290 fitters in Australia and 9,585 of them use negative gearing—that is 11.6 per cent. Their average net rental loss is $10,000. There are 109,000 steelworkers in Australia and 9,480 of them use negative gearing—that is 8.7 per cent. Their average net rental loss is $9,920. There are 104,000 metalworkers and 11,000 of them use negative gearing—that is 10.6 per cent. Their average net rental loss is $9,740. The honourable member knows full well what the opposition leader does not: Labor's attack on negative gearing is an attack on the savings of ordinary Australians. (Time expired)
The member for Bass will resume his seat. The Manager of Opposition Business has the call.
My question is to the Prime Minister, and I refer to his earlier answers. Is it now the Prime Minister's position that, under Labor's reforms to negative gearing, housing prices will go up, housing prices will also go down and Australians are meant to be afraid of both?
Mr Dutton interjecting—
Mrs McNamara interjecting—
The Minister for Immigration and Border Protection will cease interjecting. The member for Dobell will cease interjecting.
Mr Husic interjecting—
The member for Chifley can now leave under 94(a). He had his final warning before.
The member for Chifley then left the chamber.
The Labor Party's policy, as I said earlier, is confused, chaotic and contradictory. What it seeks to do is to make existing housing—established houses, which are obviously the vast bulk of the housing stock—less valuable by removing from the demand, from the buyers, in excess of one-third of buyers. From 1 July 2017, no investor could safely buy residential property in Australia if the Labor government introduces its policy, because, as I said, even if the level of interest or the level of debt that they have incurred to purchase that property is relatively modest—
Mr Watts interjecting—
The member for Gellibrand is warned!
and the interest bill in the ordinary course of events is less than the rent—
Not even Abbott would have tried that!
The member for Rankin is warned!
they run the risk that if, for whatever reason—the absence of the tenant, a big bill for repairs or some other misfortune—that property returns a loss in any given year, that loss will not be able to be offset against their other income. That is the consequence of Labor's policy.
Ms Henderson interjecting—
The member for Corangamite will cease interjecting.
It does not simply drive highly-leveraged investors out of the market.
Ms Chesters interjecting—
The member for Bendigo has been warned.
It drives all investors out of the market, other than those who are prepared to take the risk that a loss on the property cannot be offset against their other income, which would hardly be rational. That is calculated, it is designed, to reduce the value of every single home in Australia.
I ask honourable members to contemplate this. Let us contemplate a family whose mortgage is 70 per cent of the value of their home today. They look at the market. They see it is subdued. Yes, it has had a big run-up in Sydney, for example, but now it is jogging along a little bit below the rate of inflation. Labor comes along with this policy. Let us say house prices come down by 10 per cent. The honourable member for McMahon should well remember this, because in south-west Sydney prices came down, around the time of the GFC, by quite a bit more than that. But, if they come down by 10 per cent, that family have lost one-third of their net worth. And the honourable members opposite ask us to believe that that is not going to have any impact on their investment, on what they will spend.
No-one believes you.
Ms O'Neil interjecting—
The Manager of Opposition Business and the member for Hotham!
We all know what will happen. The honourable member opposite, the member for Watson, who interrupts so frequently, owns two investment properties, both of which are geared. I do not know whether they are negatively geared or not. But he is very well aware of the economics of this matter. (Time expired)
Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of clarification. I thought I was the member for Watson in this chamber, so I do not know who he is talking about. It is completely wrong and made up.
The member for Watson has other forms of the House available.
Honourable members interjecting—
Ms O'Neil interjecting—
Mr Pasin interjecting—
Members will cease interjecting. The level of noise is getting far too high. It was too high yesterday. The member for Hotham and the member for Barker are now both warned.
My question is to the Treasurer, representing the Special Minister of State. Will the Treasurer inform the House what support the government has received for its Senate voting reforms?
I thank the member for his question.
Honourable members interjecting—
The Treasurer can resume his seat.
Mrs McNamara interjecting—
The member for Dobell is warned.
Mr Swan interjecting—
The member for Lilley will cease interjecting.
It's a farce!
The member for Lilley is warned. I am going to address some remarks to all members—without interjections, if members wish to remain in the chamber. The level of noise, as I said, is now too high. It was too high yesterday. When I became Speaker, I said that the parliament should be a robust place. I also said that I would give a fair go to all but, in return, I wanted to see an improvement in the level of discourse. The Leader of the Opposition at that time made the point that it was a good time for all members to reflect on their behaviour, and he was right. There are many members who do not interject, and there are a large number who have not been sent out under 94(a). But there are some who have been frequently sent out. I accept, of course, from time to time there will be reactions and interjections—I am a realist—but continuing persistent interjections from those who have been continually ejected will not be tolerated. I want to give fair warning that I will be taking more severe action if necessary, which the standing orders allow.
I thank the member for the question. Two days ago in this House, representing the Special Minister of State, I introduced legislation that did something that the member for Brand rightly said would ensure that how an elector marks their ballot paper is how that ballot should be counted.
The members for Charlton and Gellibrand will remove those props and they will remove themselves under 94(a).
The members for Charlton and Gellibrand then left the chamber.
I am asked about who has supported this legislation. The member for Brand has rightly said in this place:
It is self-evidently the case that our parliament needs to act on electoral reform.
This parliament is seeking to do that through the bill brought forward by the government. The member for Brand said quite plainly that the counting of the ballot paper should reflect the intent of the voter and not the desire of ballot manipulators.
Ms Plibersek interjecting—
The member for Sydney is now warned.
That is what the member for Brand, a former Special Minister of State, said. The member for Brand, unlike those opposite more generally, has been entirely consistent on this point. He said in February of this year:
These reforms simply mean that political parties, including my own, will have to convince the public rather than backroom deal-makers that they deserve their votes.
He is not alone, because the member for Bruce, who sat on the JSCEM committee, Mr Speaker, with you and did joint press conferences with you in relation to the unanimous recommendations of the JSCEM report, said:
The government should be acting on these recommendations and, if they're going to, they need to hurry up because they're running out of time.
The current National Secretary of the ALP, George Wright, said:
… GVTs—
group voting tickets—
are so blatantly being abused to frustrate the democratic will of electors …
You would think that, with all of that support—from head office, from esteemed members of the opposition—the member for Brand, who has served as a Special Minister of State, would have got support in their party room. In fact, you can look at what some of them have said. The member for McMahon said this in December 2013:
I do think the rise of micro parties and the ability of people to be elected on very, very small preference primary votes—
Any chance of talking about economics at all?
The member for McMahon is warned.
through complex preference swaps, is something that committee should very justifiably be looking at and what steps can be taken to ensure that people's votes are properly reflected in the Upper House.
Where was the member for McMahon when this matter was discussed? I understand the member for Isaacs and the member for Batman went to bat for the member for Brand, but those opposite decided to welch on the JSCEM report. It is clear that the Labor Party's real principle—that your vote is always safer in their hands rather than in your own—is alive and well with the spivs that are now running the Labor Party. It is the backroom deals done in ski lodges in Thredbo that the member for Watson is very familiar with. That is the sort of spiv politics that we are seeing from those opposite in this House and in the Senate— (Time expired)
Ms Rishworth interjecting—
The member for Kingston is warned.
My question is to the Prime Minister. In this morning's interview, when asked about the government's tax debacle the Assistant Treasurer replied, 'There hasn't been confusion.' And in the very next answer the Assistant Treasurer said, 'On our economic plan there has been confusion.' So when the Treasurer is silenced from talking about the budget, when his Assistant Treasurer is confused about being confused, isn't it time that the Prime Minister admitted that he does not have an economic plan and his economic team does not have a clue?
Mr Sukkar interjecting—
The member for Deakin is now warned.
I thank the honourable member for his question. We return, again, to the question of economics and Labor's inability to understand the basic laws of supply and demand. Here we have the biggest asset class in Australia. Here we have the most important asset of almost every Australian family that owns a house. It is their biggest asset—
Dr Chalmers interjecting—
The member for Rankin has been warned.
and we are in a period when housing-price growth is subdued. In some states, in Western Australia, as we heard yesterday, prices are actually going down. That would be a cause of some anxiety: paying out the interest on your home and seeing the value declining or flatlining. That is a tough environment.
What Labor proposes to do is remove from the buyers for existing property any investor from 1 July 2017. At the moment, that represents in excess of a third of all of the buyers. How could that not affect the price of houses? How can Labor seriously ask the Australian people to believe that they are not putting their most important asset at risk? How can Labor seriously ask us to believe that by taking all of those investors out of the market, reducing the number of people who could potentially buy somebody's house, they are not putting that asset at risk?
What are Australians going to do? If they thought Labor was going to win the election, they could sell their properties. They might do that now, or they will save. They will not spend. They will save, they will pay down their loan and they will not consume. They will not be able to go to the bank and get a loan. They will not be able to get a loan to finance a business. Right across the board, when you undermine the largest asset class in Australia you undermine the largest single determinant of consumer confidence and of business confidence. Labor's policy is a profoundly dangerous one. It threatens families' biggest asset and it threatens our economy.
I should just add, in fairness to the honourable member for Watson, he is quite correct to pick me up. When the parliament began he did record three properties—one of which was a residence and two of which were investment properties—and he has, subsequently, sold them all. So I correct the record. I missed the honourable member's amendment—
Mr Mitchell interjecting—
The member for McEwen is warned!
He is a former rentier and has now retired from that class.
Ms Henderson interjecting—
The member for Corangamite is now warned. I am seeking to address the House. The member for McEwen, particularly in wake of the statement I have made, will not interject. I am well aware of the clock. The Manager of Opposition Business had raised a complaint that the Prime Minister was addressing.
Mr Albanese interjecting—
No. The member for Watson had raised it and I was—
Mr Albanese interjecting—
The member for Grayndler is warned. I was allowing the Prime Minister to do that for the benefit of the Manager of Opposition Business.
My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources. Will the Deputy Prime Minister update the House on the government's commitment to boost the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission's engagement in the agricultural sector? And how will today's announcement of a dedicated commissioner help to strengthen competition in agricultural supply chains, both in my electorate of Page and across the nation?
I thank the honourable member for Page for his question. The honourable member for Page has a very strong history and a very strong grounding in economics, being a person who was responsible for multiple billions of dollars at Colonial. He has also been a member on the Standing Committee on Economics, I believe, and has done a good job in that, especially in the investigation into domestic house prices regarding foreign investment.
What is also important is that the member for Page has had a strong involvement with cooperatives. One of the best cooperatives and one of the best examples is Norco in the member's electorate. In the last financial year Norco had an average price of over 57c a litre at the farm gate—an exceptional price that goes on the back of the work that we have been doing with free trade agreements and making sure that we drive those returns back through the farm gate.
What is also important is that people are treated fairly. Part of our white paper was to make sure that we had this dedicated commissioner. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission and Mr Mick Keogh, I believe, will do an excellent job at that. A person who is respected on both sides of the House, Mr Keogh OAM, with a staff of 12, will be able to make sure that people are treated fairly, especially in how they deal with the bigger retailers and bigger organisations.
We believe absolutely to our core in the capacity of the individual—whether on the farm or in business—to go through that economic and social stratification to go from the bottom to the top, especially within the prism of small business. We want to make sure that their opportunities are there by reason of their hard work and their entrepreneurship and that they not be limited by reason of a person knocking them out of the market because of their price or their product but just because the person knocking them out is bigger and is sometimes bullying them out of the marketplace.
I know that the member for Page is aware of this and understands and empathises with this, but this is an issue that you see so often in farming areas, whether in horticulture or so many areas of life and business in general, where people are always saying that we need to make sure that we have a government which is on our side to give some balance in the struggles and commerce that happen between the much larger operator and the smaller one. We also need to make sure that we have someone who understands the nuances and the peculiarities that exist within a certain industry that needs a particular type of knowledge and grounding in that industry, and we know that Mr Keogh is certainly a person who can do precisely that.
I welcome this and I welcome us landing yet another part of our agricultural white paper—something that talks to fairness, something that adds to the price at the farm gate, something that shows that we believe in the decency that mums and dads should be protected at the other end of the farm gate in the prices that they get. (Time expired)
My question is to the Prime Minister. After watching the Prime Minister's scare campaign on Labor's negative gearing reforms, the Guardian's Lenore Taylor has written:
The only problem for the prime minister who promised evidence-based policy making is that there’s no evidence to support his claim.
Isn't it clear that the Prime Minister's promise of evidence based policy has been completely abandoned? Exactly how is the Prime Minister's campaign different from a campaign that would have been written by his predecessor?
The shadow Treasurer is no doubt a man of great ability but he is not in a position to suspend the laws of economics.
There's no evidence.
He says there is no evidence.
I remind the member for McMahon that he has been warned.
We have a market—$5.56 trillion of assets, the most important single asset of every Australian homeowning family, which is most Australians. He proposes to remove one–third or more or more of the buyers from that market—
The Prime Minister will resume his seat for a second. The members for Hotham and Scullin need to reflect on the statement I made earlier in question time. I am not going to restate it over and over again. They have both been warned. I can utilise 94(a). I also have another possibility, which is naming. I am not going to restate the point over and over again. The Prime Minister has the call.
So the honourable member wants to remove one-third of the potential buyers for the most important asset that every Australian family has. He wants us to believe that removing one-third of the buyers will have no impact on prices whatsoever. This defies the fundamental common sense that every Australian knows: where there are more buyers than sellers, prices will go up. The more of those buyers that go, prices will go down. That is what happens in markets. I recognise that the Labor Party—
Mr Dreyfus interjecting—
The member for Isaacs is warned.
That was a brilliant interjection from the member for Isaacs. I have just described what could be termed economics 101—
Mr Dreyfus interjecting—
The member for Isaacs has been warned.
The member for Isaacs says, 'You're making it up'! This is funny in a tragically sad way. The Labor Party believe that the most fundamental principle of economics, supply and demand, is something that we have made up. Really—what is this? Are we going into some kind of soviet economics where markets are denied? Paul Keating would be ashamed of you for that! At least, if you are going to make a shock as big as this, the Labor Party should be the one that is producing the evidence. They should be the ones explaining why you can send a third of the buyers away and prices will not be affected. They are playing a reckless game with Australians' homes.
My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer explain how important maintaining housing values is to the confidence of consumers and the business community?
I thank the member for Mackellar for her question, because she knows how resilient and confident the Australian people are. She knows how confidence is so critical to the performance of our economy—
Mr Feeney interjecting—
The member for Batman will cease interjecting.
Mr Feeney interjecting—
and most recently we have seen—despite the shocks and volatility in global financial markets—
The member for Batman is warned!
Australians' confidence rebound in January, despite all of that. But Australians have their investments and they have their wealth in their homes, and confidence in the value of your home is central to Australian consumer confidence. That is why it is so important that you have policies that are consistent and stable to promote consumer confidence in the value of the home, in the importance and value of having a job—which is what this government is focused on: jobs, growth and confidence, and we are seeing all three as a result of the policies of this government.
It is true that negative gearing has been part of the mainstay of policy in this country for a hundred years. It is not unique to Australia and it does not provide any special treatment. It simply respects the principle, as the former Secretary to the Department of the Treasury, Ted Evans, was saying of the principle that if you are seeking to earn an income then the costs of earning that income can be offset. This is an important taxation principle. It is not a concession. It is not something that is somehow a special incentive. It is just the simple, plain facts of how our tax system works.
What those opposite want to do is trash 100 years of good tax practice and throw that out the window to engage in the politics of envy. What they do not understand is ordinary Australians, mums and dads, are the ones who invest in negative gearing. Two-thirds of those who engage in negative gearing have a taxable income of $80,000 or less.
Ms Plibersek interjecting—
The member for Sydney has been warned!
Ms Owens interjecting—
Mr Brendan O'Connor interjecting—
The member for Parramatta and the member for Gorton will cease interjecting. That is your final warning.
Let me tell you more. As a percentage of the occupation, some 22.6 per cent of police officers negatively gear. In fact, as a percentage, more police officers negatively gear than specialised tax accountants, management consultants and, even, university lecturers. As a percentage, more ambulance officers and paramedics negatively gear than—
Mr Giles interjecting—
The member for Scullin!
accountants, financial advisers and economists. As a percentage of people in an occupation, more train and tram drivers negatively gear than solicitors, real estate agents and veterinarians. So on an equity measure, it is a big fail from those opposite because they do not get it, that mums and dads are just investing to put themselves in a better position for their future. What do those opposite have against the ambulance officers, the paramedics, the tram drivers, the police officers? They are trying to get into housing market, but those opposite want to come along and rip one out of three property purchases out of the market. (Time expired)
My question is to the Prime Minister. When the Prime Minister deposed the former Prime Minister, he promised a new style of leadership. But writing about the Prime Minister's scare campaign on Labor's negative gearing policy, Paul Kelly in The Australian wrote:
Malcolm is starting to sound like Tony Abbott. This is a classic Abbott sound-bite.
What is the point of the Prime Minister's government if the policies, rhetoric and scare campaigns of the previous Prime Minister are all still with us?
Mr Nikolic interjecting—
The member for Bass has been warned!
I thank the honourable member for his interesting wander through the press gallery. We started off with Lenore Taylor; now we have moved on to Paul Kelly. We only have 15 minutes left in question time, he is going to have to hurry up because he will leave a lot of disappointed reporters and commentators if he does not get to them.
A government member: What about James Jeffrey?
Yes, what about James Jeffrey? What about Denis Shanahan? David Crowe? Samantha Maiden? Laura Tingle? Malcolm Farr—what about him?
A government member: Laurie Oakes.
Yes. He has left Laurie Oakes off the list. That is a very big call.
This is the fundamental issue: the Labor Party talk about evidence based policy—fair enough. Where is their evidence that reducing the demand for existing housing by at least a third is not going to affect prices? It beggars belief. There may be some strange new factor of which we are not aware, some sort of magical economics that only the shadow Treasurer is alert to. There may be something that the member for Fraser has come up with, as he has made his journey from rational economist to political apparatchik. There may be something that we do not know about but they really should produce it, because Australians are pretty shrewd about property prices. They pay a lot of attention to them. They should because it is their biggest asset. They know that if you take a third of the buyers out of the ring, prices will come down. Everybody understands that. That is what markets do. Everybody understands that except for the Labor Party.
And Mark Latham.
The current Leader of the Opposition, Mr Shorten, is following in the distinguished footsteps of Mark Latham, another great economic wizard who also proposed a similar idea, I am instructed.
Mr Dutton interjecting—
The minister for immigration!
The fundamental point is this: Labor are putting the value of Australians' homes at risk. If you remove a third of the buyers, a third of the demand, how can anyone seriously believe it will not result in lower prices? That is how prices are set. When there are more buyers and no more sellers, prices go up. When there are more sellers or fewer buyers, prices go down. What Labor do not recognise is that they are tampering with the most important asset of every Australian family. (Time expired)
My constituency question is to the Minister for Major Projects, Territories and Local Government. Will the minister update the House on the NBN rollout in Brisbane and explain the exciting opportunities presented by HFC technology?
Can I particularly thank the member for Brisbane, who is a very strong champion for her community. She is busy bringing broadband to Brisbane. That has been her priority: bringing broadband to Brisbane—and isn't she delivering on it.
Ms Brodtmann interjecting—
Let's look at the number of premises in the rollout plan for Brisbane—76,220 premises will have access to the NBN, or work will be underway, by 30 September 2018.
Ms Brodtmann interjecting—
The member for Canberra will cease interjecting.
As the member is fully aware, the coalition's multi-technology mix is particularly well suited to a densely populated area like the electorate of Brisbane. It involves an appropriate mix of fibre to the node, fibre to the basement, fibre to the home and, as she rightly says, HFC, or hybrid fibre-coaxial. All of these technologies are available to nbn co and this allows nbn co to make the right technology choice for the right location and, in turn to get the NBN rolled out quickly. Indeed, by 30 September 2018, nationally, more than nine million premises will have the network either completed or under construction.
Not in Canberra.
The member for Canberra I ask to cease interjecting.
The National Broadband Network is rolling out fibre to the node at a rate of 10,000 premises a week and, by the end of the year, it is on track to hit 25,000 premises a week. This is quite a change from the Labor years, when it was all about a customised bespoke service for just a small number of people. It was not a broadband service, actually; it was a political service. If you wanted a photo opportunity with Julia in the 2010 election, 'Yes, we can do that for you.' If you wanted a photo opportunity with Kevin in the 2013 election, 'Yes, we can do that for you.' If you wanted one of those photos of Stephen Conroy helping to feed in the fibre, 'No problem; NBN was just terrific at doing that.' If you wanted trucks driving around the country telling you how marvellous the NBN was going to be, Labor were very good at delivering those trucks. But what they were hopeless at was delivering a network.
By the time we came to government, after 4½ years, Labor had delivered to barely over 300,000 premises. Their track record of delivery was extremely disappointing. They could spend $6 billion and they could whack on the hi-vis vests and pose for a photo, but what they could not do was actually deliver a network. That is the difference with the Turnbull government. We are delivering the National Broadband Network. The member for Brisbane is delivering for her electorate.
Ms Brodtmann interjecting—
The member for Canberra is warned.
The Turnbull government is delivering for the nation. We are getting the NBN rolled out, while the other side simply dreams.
Ms Brodtmann interjecting—
The member for Canberra has been warned.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Yesterday the Prime Minister expected Australians to forget that his comments on capital gains tax referred to no increase whatsoever. Now, today, the Prime Minister expects Australians not to notice that, when the Assistant Treasurer spoke about housing prices going up, she said it would be for all Australians. Prime Minister, how did we get to a situation where, day after day, the Prime Minister keeps asking Australians to not believe what he and his ministers have said?
I listened very carefully to that question, as I am sure all honourable members did, and it was very, very hard to follow. It seemed almost as confused as their policy on negative gearing and capital gains. The real point here is very simply this: housing is the single biggest asset in Australia. We know that. It is the most important asset for Australian families. Their net worth is the difference between the value of the house and the level of the mortgage. As housing prices go up they feel wealthier—and they are wealthier—and they can spend. They can go and get another loan to start a business. They get another loan and give some money to their kids. They can afford to go on a holiday. But, as the value of their home comes down and that equity diminishes, so does their confidence. There is nothing more damaging to consumer and business confidence than declining asset values, declining housing values. Every Australian understands that. We all understand that, except, apparently, the economic wizards on the front bench opposite.
Labor proposes a policy that is apparently designed and calculated to reduce housing values, to provide a massive shock to an already subdued housing market where growth is expected to be modest, jogging along a little bit below inflation in some cities and actually going negative in others. In that environment, the Labor Party proposes to take a third of all buyers out of the ring. There will be no investors that would invest in residential property. So, under a Shorten government, when you want to sell your house or your apartment, there will be no investors there; only home owners. The consequence of that—
Opposition members interjecting—
Well, they will all be gone. That is your policy.
Opposition members interjecting—
It is there in black and white. That is what you want to do. Yet you want us to believe that that will not impact on prices. Every Australian knows that Labor have made another massive economic blunder. They have not thought this through. They could not think past the press release. They are putting at risk Australia's most important asset. They are putting at risk the fundamental asset base of our economy. (Time expired)
My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport. Will the minister update the House on the importance of the government's $50 billion infrastructure investment program to regional Australia and how this investment is creating jobs and employment in my electorate of Capricornia?
I thank the member for Capricornia for her question and note what a tireless worker she is for her community and what a great friend she has been for Queenslanders in her role. As I am taking my first question, it is appropriate that I thank another great Queenslander and great friend of mine, the member for Wide Bay, who has set the benchmark for the management of this portfolio over several years, and I wish him well in the future.
Opposition members interjecting—
As a new minister I seem to have a lot of new friends—mainly on this side of the House, but many over there as well. I worried that it was because they thought I was charming, but obviously it is not; it is the—
It is because you are building our projects.
Members on my left!
It is the $50 billion worth of infrastructure that this government has rolled out and will continue to roll out in the future. This government, the coalition government, is absolutely committed to ensuring that Central Queensland prospers into the future. The member for Capricornia is someone who is relentlessly optimistic and positive about the future of her community, unlike those opposite. We are investing record amounts in infrastructure. The Turnbull-Joyce government is investing $50 billion in infrastructure of the 21st century. That means better infrastructure, better jobs and growth and prosperity being delivered by the Turnbull-Joyce government, and this is especially the case in Central Queensland.
The member for Capricornia asked about federal government projects in her electorate. On this side of the House, we are concerned about jobs. We want regional communities to prosper into the future. I know that the member for Capricornia is working every day to achieve that in her community. Investment in infrastructure can change people's lives and, in many cases, save people's lives.
Ms Henderson interjecting—
The member for Corangamite will not interject.
Projects in Capricornia under the $50 billion infrastructure plan include stage 2 of the Yeppoon South flood plain project on the Bruce Highway south of Rocky, $29.4 million in Roads to Recovery grants to help local councils fix the roads and streets in five shires, $38 million to repair or replace seven old bridges in Isaac and Rockhampton shires, $166 million to fix up the Eton Range section on the notorious Peak Downs Highway west of Mackay. This is on top of a $20 million infrastructure package announced for Rocky and Yeppoon under the federal government's National Stronger Regions Fund.
I did mention that infrastructure can save people's lives as well. Investing in better roads through highway duplications, black spot intersection upgrades, road safety treatments—these are the sorts of things that can save people's lives. I know many members opposite share my concern and share my passion for making sure that the national government—the federal government—works with our state colleagues to reduce our national road toll. Our national road toll of 1,200 deaths per year, and the trauma of thousands of serious and minor injuries, is an enormous public health concern. In my role as the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, I will be making sure that we deliver better outcomes for our communities.
Like the member for Capricornia, I am proud to be part of this government, which is getting on with the job of delivering better infrastructure and better outcomes for our regional communities.
Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
Opposition members interjecting—
Every time this occurs, I can refer members to the practice, which is very clear. But I think it would be rather tedious. The Prime Minister can end question time whenever he chooses.
I present the report for 2014-15 on the Commonwealth Ombudsman's Activities under part V of the Australian Federal Police Act 1979. I call the Leader of the House.
I move:
That the report be made a parliamentary paper.
Question agreed to.
Documents are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable members earlier today. Full details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.
I have received advice from the Chief Government Whip nominating members to be members of certain committees.
by leave—I move:
That Mr C. A. Laundy be discharged from the Standing Committee on Economics and Mr Pitt be discharged from the Standing Committee of Privileges and Members’ Interests and that, in his place, Dr Gillespie be appointed a member of the committee.
Question agreed to.
I have received a letter from the honourable Deputy Leader of the Opposition proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:
The failure of this Government to provide the leadership that Australia needs.
I call upon all those honourable members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.
More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—
It looks like Valentine's Day is over for the government, doesn't it? There was a sigh of relief when Tony Abbott lost the prime ministership last year. I think Australians—
The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will refer to members by their correct titles.
When the member for Warringah lost the prime ministership, there was a sigh of relief across Australia, because they heard what the new Prime Minister said. They heard that there would be a new style of leadership, that there would be good government, that there would be sound policies, that there would be advocacy, not slogans, and that he would respect the intelligence of the Australian people. They heard him say that there needed to be new economic leadership in Australia. What we have seen is five and a half months of disappointment. Every time there has been a requirement for leadership, the new Prime Minister has gone limp and his government has gone limp.
If you think about the international expectations of the new Prime Minister, he came in at a time when Australia was preparing to go to the Paris climate change conference. All of those Australians who thought, 'Thank God; our climate change policies will change now. We have someone who said of this government's policies that they were a 'fig leaf' to cover up a determination to do nothing about climate change,' did we get the change of policy that they expected? We got nothing. We got no improvement. We were the only country to go to the Paris climate change talks going backwards—taking effective measures against climate change and reversing them.
Look at other areas. We had the Australia in the Asian century white paper when we were in government. Have we seen leadership from those opposite in replacing that white paper with a vision of their own? Nothing. We have seen the chaos of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, where one part of the frontbench was fighting the other part of the frontbench about the idea that we needed infrastructure investment in the Asia-Pacific region. So many people hoped that the new Prime Minister would be better than the old Prime Minister when it came to the aid budget. Not a single change.
But it is not just internationally that people's hopes have been dashed. Look at what has happened to Australia domestically. We had a Prime Minister who came in with such high hopes. People thought that he could not be much worse than the fellow that he replaced. He promised new economic leadership. He said, 'No slogans. We'll engage in the debate. Everything's on the table. We'll have intelligent conversations. We'll have debate, not slogans.' What have we had? We have had nothing but scare campaigns and slogans. Yesterday, we heard the Prime Minister say that our policies were going to send a wrecking ball through the Australian economy. What did that remind me of? I was actually expecting to hear today that Whyalla would be wiped off the face of the map. I was expecting to hear today that our negative-gearing policies were going to push up lamb prices to $100 for a leg of lamb.
We heard a few short months ago that everything was on the table. First of all, the GST was on the table because the government had to fix the debt and deficit disaster. This was the biggest priority for the Australian economy. The GST: squibbed it, fell over, puff of wind. Those opposite squibbed it at the first opposition from their own backbench. So then they said, 'Well, let's look at some of the other areas.' We heard from the former Treasurer as he was leaving that negative gearing, capital gains tax and the housing industry were some of the areas that the government should be looking at. The minute Labor made a positive and detailed policy proposal, those opposite went: no, it was on the table but not any more.
The government cannot even get their scare campaign right. We have got a Prime Minister who is saying that we cannot to do this because it will smash confidence and it will smash property prices. We have got an Assistant Treasurer who is saying that in fact property prices will go through the roof. People have to be frightened because their home values are going to go down and they are going to go up—they should be frightened of both.
What is so very disappointing about this is the reputations that these people came to the parliament with. The Prime Minister arrived with his reputation for supporting action on climate change, supporting real debate about the economic future of this nation, supporting issues like marriage equality. People thought that Malcolm Turnbull would change the Liberal Party but it is the Liberal Party that has changed Malcolm Turnbull. They have made him a carbon copy of the previous Prime Minister. But it is not just his reputation that has been dashed in the last few months.
The Treasurer came to the office of Treasurer after fighting and clawing and knifing his way into that job by betraying the former Prime Minister. When he finally got there, he looked around and said, 'I am here now. Oh oh, I have got no agenda. What am I going to do?' The man who was such a tough guy when it came to talking tough on refugees and not letting people attend funerals—you all remember the record there—then transferred that skill set to talking tough against disability pensioners and their carers. He came to the Treasurer's position with such a reputation for being a tough guy but today he is in witness protection. He did not even get Dorothy Dixers about the economy today; he got Dorothy Dixers about Senate voting reform because they do not want to let him talk about the economy. He had 46 minutes to talk about the economy at the Press Club last week. I do not know if anybody watched it but it was the most excruciating 46 minutes of nothing that we have ever seen.
The Assistant Treasurer also came with a little bit of a reputation, and people were delighted to see a bit of a restoration of gender balance on the front bench of the government. Oh my goodness, that press conference today. We all got the talking points. We get the talking points every day. The press gallery all get the talking points, don't they? They are widely distributed talking points. I am very surprised that the Assistant Treasurer does not get the talking points because she clearly did not. Instead of supporting her Prime Minister's scare campaign about housing prices, she completely undermined it.
We have got hopes dashed, reputations destroyed and the new leadership that was promised missing in action. You do not just see it in areas of economic leadership, where debt and deficit are up, unemployment is up and confidence is down. First everything was on the table and now nothing is on the table. First GST was going to happen and now it is not. Negative gearing and capital gains tax were on the table; now they are not. Tax reform in other areas was originally on the table and is now off the table.
What we have seen is a government in chaos, lacking leadership and failing the test of leadership at every stage. We have got a scare campaign about house prices. It is incredible to listen to a government that cares more about people buying their seventh home or their 30th home than it does about people buying their first home. We have heard not a single word from those opposite about housing affordability or what first home buyers might do to get into the market. In the 1980s, we saw well over half of 25 to 34-year-olds buying their first home. Since the 1980s, that proportion has fallen by 25 per cent. These are ordinary people with an ordinary job who cannot buy an ordinary home any longer, and we have got a government that has not got a single thing to say about those people. They do not want to buy their 30th investment property; they want to buy a first home—a part of the great Australian dream. The Prime Minister is talking about how important homeownership is to people's economic security. We agree that it is and we agree that young Australians who took the former Treasurer's advice, who went out and got a good job, still cannot afford an ordinary home. This government has got no answers for them.
We have a Prime Minister who talks extensively about the need for innovation. You cannot have innovation without education. We heard people saying to him at the beginning: what are you going to do about the Gonski school education funding reforms? What was his answer? The Prime Minister's answer was, 'David Gonski and I are very good friends. David and Gonski and I have known each other for 50 years—he was at my last birthday party.' It has not changed the decision to cut $30 billion from school education and it has not cut the decision to go for $100,000 university degrees, it has not changed the decision to attack TAFE and it has not changed the decision to undermine preschool funding, particularly for the poorest kids in Australia. We know what early childhood education means. And it has not changed the decision to sack 350 staff from the CSIRO doing some of the most important and most innovative work in this country.
You cannot have innovation without education and you cannot have innovation without supporting our scientists at world renowned institutions like the CSIRO. It has been a disappointment, a shambles. All of those people were sitting in middle Australia thinking, 'Thank God Tony Abbott is gone.' What have they been left with? They have been left with Tony Abbott in a different suit—same tie; that is the only difference.
To have leadership in this country, to be a leading government you have to be fundamentally honest with the Australian people about what the challenges that confront us are and how you are going to meet those challenges. It is completely dishonest of a political party in Australia today to pretend that the government's balance sheet is in good order. It is completely dishonest for a government to say things are fully funded when they are not fully funded. It is completely dishonest for a political party to say, in office, 'We will deliver four years of surpluses in four budget estimate years,' and not deliver a single budget surplus.
The starting point for leadership in Australia and the starting point for leadership in government is honesty with the Australian people about the challenges that we have. One of the largest challenges that we have at the moment, of course, is the debt and deficit legacy of a government that was completely addicted to expenditure and to new tax and revenue measures to fund it. It is interesting that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition today did not talk about the positive negative gearing plan that she said she has. She said it: it is a positive plan. Her plan and Bill Shorten's plan—
The assistant minister will refer to members by their correct titles.
and the Leader of the Opposition's plan and the shadow Treasurer's plan to lower the property prices of existing housing throughout our country is somehow a positive plan for people. Just saying it is positive, I would say to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, does not make it positive. In fact, if you have a plan to deliberately, by policy design, lower the price of everybody's house, their principal wealth creation asset—and we know that in Australia people rely on their housing as their principal vehicle for wealth creation—I do not call that a positive plan. I would say that the Australian people will not describe it as a positive plan when you have a deliberate policy intention to lower the price of everybody's property without any regard to the distortions that you are creating in the housing market.
That is why we see a Labor Party here in recent times who have come out saying: 'We want a gold star for going first. We have rushed something out in first draft form into the public domain, and we deserve a gold star.' I say that you do not deserve a gold star for leadership in going forward first if you have not planned or thought through the consequences of detailed and complex economic policy, like changes to the housing market and capital gains tax—two integral intersections of tax policy in Australia that affect the wealth creation of the entire middle and average class in Australia.
It might interest the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to know that there are as many people negatively geared in her electorate as there are in my electorate. We have very different electorates. Some people might say that the member's electorate is an inner-city type electorate and mine is an outer suburban electorate, but the reality is that I have the highest proportion of mortgages of any electorate in the country. So you would expect a higher level of negatively geared people. The reality for the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is that the same number of people are negatively geared in my electorate as in hers.
In fact, when we go to the statistics we find that there are 850,000 negatively geared tax filers in Australia, with a taxable income of under $80,000 per annum—that is their average taxable income. That is the macrostatistic that the Labor Party does not want anyone to focus on. It is also interesting to note, for the House's benefit, that of all the negatively geared taxpayers only two per cent claim net rental losses of over $50,000. Only two per cent claim losses from negatively geared properties of over $50,000. That is a very small percentage in anyone's language. So this equity argument that the Labor Party is running, that all the benefits go to the wealthy or to people who are investors, is not an accurate argument. It does not bear scrutiny. It does not stand up when you consider that offsetting your interest losses against your taxable income across all kinds of asset classes has been part of our tax code for 100 years.
Why is it part of our tax code? Why has it evolved in the Australian psyche? This is about the capacity of ordinary people to generate wealth and to get ahead. That is what this policy debate is about. Labor would have you believe that they have done something to wealthy people in this country, that they have somehow put a limit on very significant investors. This is what is very interesting about this debate. When you read their actual policy, what they are doing is shutting the door on everyone of average means in accessing this policy. Because when you take a third of the investment market out of existing realty and you force it into one narrow section of the property market—that is, new dwellings—you are creating a massive distortion. All of those cashed-up investors, those people that you say are on their seventh or eighth or 30th property and it is an outrage, will now be competing with your mum-and-dad investors in that same narrow band of property.
It was interesting that, in question time today, the member for Isaacs, when a serious lesson was being given by the Prime Minister on the simple laws of supply and demand in economics, said that the Prime Minister was making it up. Your deliberate policy design is to take one-third of the investors—in fact, the most significant third—out of the current property market and put them into new dwellings only. That would be a massive market distortion of deliberate policy design. So your average mum-and-dad investors will be up against seriously cashed-up investors who already have the means, the money and the property to do this.
Of course, what you are doing there in your policy design is shutting the door on ordinary mum-and-dad investors; shutting the door on your union mates who have taken this up in record numbers; shutting the door on your average person, while doing nothing to hinder wealth creation for wealthy people or to claw back any money for the budget. Your own figures show that over the forward estimates this is only worth $600 million. That is what your own figures show.
This incentive is designed to create property investment in a certain way in Australia and in particular investment classes. It is designed to encourage the ability of people to take risks, to invest and to deduct the losses against their own tax. When you change the settings by deliberate design, what you are doing is deliberately cutting off an avenue of wealth creation in this country. But you are cutting it off for the average income earner. You are cutting it off for the mum-and-dad investors. You are cutting it off for your nurses, teachers and emergency services workers—all of your people who are on modest incomes in this country and who use this as one of their principal vehicles of wealth creation.
So it is not surprising that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition did not speak about this issue today. It is not surprising that she says that her singular contribution to this policy debate is that it is positive—Labor has a positive plan. But actually, when you examine the detail of this policy proposal, this plan has a lot of holes in it. It is in first draft format. It has not been thought through. Its implications for the housing market have the potential to create such distortion and uncertainty in the property market that it will be, as the Prime Minister says, a very unsettling and disturbing environment in property prices in Australia today, which will, of course, come down in the existing market.
So the Labor Party came here today to lecture us on leadership when their period in office showed that they are just addicted to expenditure and to revenue and tax increases. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition pointed, of course, to their record on climate change—on the carbon tax—saying that we ran a scare campaign on the carbon tax. Well, there is nothing that is a scare campaign about the world's highest price on carbon. The Labor Party has never understood markets and they have never understood policy design. They proposed a carbon tax with a starting price of the world's highest price on carbon and they wonder why it failed! They wonder why it did not work. Then they lament that we ran a scare campaign pointing out to people that this was the world's highest price on carbon!
You've gone back in time! You've got the DeLorean out!
Quite rightly, people judged you at an election. They quite rightly looked at your policy and said, 'This is the world's highest price on carbon; we do not support it.'
So when you say to us that we are wrong to point out the flaws in your policy, we are not going to apologise for pointing out the serious design flaws in your policy proposals. The proposition you are putting forward to the Australian people is that property prices in Australia will fall. Property prices are the principal wealth creation mechanism for ordinary Australians. You have not thought this through. You have not thought through the implications on stamp duties. You have not thought through the implications on revenue for states. You have not thought through any of the questions that need to be thought through before you announce a policy like this, and for the Labor Party with its record on debt and deficit—racking up the biggest debt and deficit in this country's history and avoiding any responsibility for it—to lecture us on leadership, and on economic leadership in particular, is a bit rich.
Australians will judge the Labor Party. They will judge us on our plan and they will judge you on your record.
As the assistant minister sits down I would just remind him and other members of the chamber that the use of the word 'you' is a reflection on the chair. It is not 'you'—it is not my policy. It is a common mistake by many in this chamber and I just think this is a timely opportunity to remind the chamber, once again, that the use of the word 'you' is a reflection on the chair. If you are addressing the other side of the House it is 'the other side of the House'.
I hope I am being of assistance to all of you. The assistant minister should not take it as a reflection on his ability. I am using this opportunity for everyone, because I was feeling a little sensitive that 'my' policy was not being accepted!
The speaker opposite just finished with the words, 'It's a bit rich.' Well, it is a bit rich for the member opposite to come in here to criticise Labor's plans when they have nothing—there is nothing to debate! We have question time every day where their members can ask questions and we can ask questions of their policies and they have nothing—zip, absolutely nothing!—it was apparently all on the table.
Then we had a situation where things started getting thrown off the table, apparently with other members of their cabinet not knowing. But it is a bit rich for the member for Mitchell to come in here to start lecturing and picking holes in Labor's policies—policies which I might say have been endorsed by everyone from Jeff Kennett and ACOSS to Saul Eslake.
Anyway, I will go on. This MPI is about leadership and the failure of leadership by this Prime Minister. In my past life in the private sector I was given many opportunities to learn about leadership from others and to be taught by some of the best in the business. One thing that has always stayed with me is that leadership is about listening with empathy and responding with empathy.
I heard this Prime Minister pontificating in question time about housing prices—pontificating! I do not know what world this Prime Minister lives in, but I live in the world where you have people who have actually been married for some time still living with their parents or in-laws for years because they cannot get enough for a deposit for a new house. And at the same time I have one of the fastest-growing rates of housing in my electorate—I have one of the urban fringes. I have people who cannot afford to get into those new houses being built. We need more supply of new housing in order to ensure that these people have the best opportunities.
Now, what do I hear as I go around my electorate? What are the two biggest concerns that people raise? They are housing affordability and jobs and job security. We have proposed policies to address both, to incentivise new housing to be built and to facilitate the construction of that housing with multiplier affects not only in the construction sector but in the services sector as well. I have listened for 2½ years to those opposite talking about how they need more jobs for their 'chippies' and their tradies. Somehow they are the big friends of all small businesses! And yet when we have a policy which has one of the best of those multiplier affects—some 25,000 jobs in the construction sector—oh, no! They do not want to be anywhere near it.
This is about a failure of leadership, and I have quite an insightful headline here, 'Malcolm Turnbull fails to deliver on promise to offer economic leadership.' Now, was this written by a leftist hack? Maybe by a Labor Party stooge? Maybe a member of the Labor Party? Maybe it was some radical Marxist? No, it was written by that great Labor Party supporter, Andrew Bolt. Andrew Bolt! He said:
LIBERAL MPs are losing confidence in Malcolm Turnbull, and no wonder.
He has broken the big promise he made five months ago.
“Prime Minister (Tony Abbott)—
This is quoting the now Prime Minister—
has not been capable in providing the economic leadership our nation needs,” he thundered when he knifed Abbott last September.
“We need a style of leadership that explains those challenges ... and sets out the course of action we believe we should take and makes a case for it. We need advocacy, not slogans.”
What has happened in the meantime?
We have had not only one scare campaign but a simultaneous scare campaign about housing prices. You really have to hand it to these people. I thought they were good at scare campaigns—I did not know they could do two at once! I did not know they could do to at once in opposite directions! But I am very happy for those opposite to keep acting like an opposition, because that is exactly what the Australian public is crying out for, isn't it? Acting like an opposition.
And it is not only in economic leadership where this Prime Minister has failed. In terms of having a cohesive society, this Prime Minister consistently fails to bring into line members of the government who openly go out and bash multiculturalism and do some of the worst things not to encourage inclusiveness in our society. He says nothing. He will get up and talk about how Australia is the most successful multicultural nation in the world, but when it comes to bringing people like the member for Dawson into line he is nowhere to be seen, because he is an absolute hypocrite on that matter. (Time expired)
It should not be passed by today that there are a lot of Australians who could only dream today that they could be entering into a second house and negatively gear the house. There are thousands and thousands of those Australians. So, whilst these members of parliament are striking out furiously at one another, let's keep this all in context.
In this great nation of ours, this great southern land, where we have a reputation internationally of being the most egalitarian in the world—
That's just not true.
That is true. It is actually part of our DNA—a fair go for all and fairness. Having said that, we are seeing in a lot of these changes a move away from that.
Dr Leigh interjecting—
You can laugh, but that is the reputation that we have. Compared to most countries in the world, we have a desire for fairness within our community. If our tax system and our system of welfare are out of whack because of consistent policies from different governments over a considerable period of time, we need to turn around and put that fairness line through our policies. We need to run that fairness line that is part of our DNA and that says we can do something about negative gearing when it is out of whack. We can do something about superannuation. We can make some alterations and changes to make our society fairer. Why wouldn't we go down that track as a community and talk about that in a reasonable conversation rather than this major attack that is coming against a Prime Minister who is actually governing on behalf of Australians at a time when 26 per cent of the Australian community are paying 67 per cent of the income tax? We have to consider the whole mix.
I do not think any of the Labor Party should be looking across to this side of the House and laughing at the moment. There are some great disappointments that were put about this government, but let me remind the Labor Party about some of the disappointments that you have put before the Australian people that you have not considered in this debate today. When you needed to cut costs, you went to single-parent families and you hit the most vulnerable in our community to make sure that your budget was to be in balance—which never occurred.
At the time the Howard government left office our expenditure was 21 per cent of GDP. At the end of the Labor government's term of office the spending was 25 per cent of GDP. Having said that, it is clear we cannot go on spending the way we are spending when we have the income that we have. The fact is that the Labor Party knows that. This side of the House knows that. We are going to have to make some alterations. Look at the Australian economy as a whole and where we are placed in the world. We have had 25 years of continuous growth, but there are some dark clouds on the horizon. We are in a tough global economic environment. There are significant geopolitical risks. The Senate has not allowed the reform that should have taken place in this country with regard to our spending and the outcomes of that spending. On top of that we are spending half our budget—$149 billion—on welfare.
For those who are thinking about this seriously on behalf of Australia and Australians, we are going to have to address that issue. I am not saying that we have so much debt now that this nation is incapable of paying off its debt. I am saying the projections of growing debt are in the wrong direction. Whoever governs this nation after the next election will not have a smile on their face. They will be working through the processes themselves as to where this nation is to go in the near future and in the long term. You can have a big laugh about some policy issue today, but eventually this nation has to face up to the fact that we have a spending issue over and above our revenue. If you do not address that, the egalitarian nation that we aspire to we lose. (Time expired)
I rise to speak on this matter of public importance about the failure of those opposite to show any leadership. It is interesting to look from this side of the chamber at those opposite in the broad church of the Liberal Party, interesting church as it is. But even in a broad church the walls do have to start somewhere.
Mr Champion interjecting—
It is good to see the member for Wakefield here. Senator Cory Bernardi has been keen to show where one wall of the Liberal Party should start: the extreme right wall. He has obviously got the other South Australian senator, Simon Birmingham, showing the left-hand side. We saw that when we looked at the Safer Schools program.
He is trying.
He tried to say the walls should be here. And then we have the member for Menzies, Kevin Andrews, saying, 'We can move this wall a little bit further out.' We have got Senator Eric Abetz and the MP for Canning saying: 'Get rid of those buttresses; we can go further out to the right. The roof will hold. The building won't collapse.' We have the member for Leichhardt up there being sensible, saying, 'You still have to move it a bit to the left. Look after the left. You've got to have a solid left' with Senator Dean Smith and a few other more sensible people.
The reality is that, while all that is going on, you have the member for Warringah with his jackhammer out there on the buttresses, hammering away, saying, 'No, no, the whole wall can come down.' He is being helped by the member for Fadden. The member for Groom every now and then provides a bit of help.
Don't forget Kelly!
Not the member for Groom—I will take that. The member for Groom—we are not quite sure: he is inside the church when he is in Brisbane; but, when he is down here, he is not allowed inside the church.
An opposition member: He's in the barnyard!
He has to go out to the barnyard—that is right. Which brings me to the National Party, because where are the Nats in this broad church of those opposite? Sometimes when the drought is on, they put their head in the left-hand side of the church and say, 'We're here. We're with you. The drought's on. Give us a hand.' Of course when the rain comes and the good times come, they are round the other side of the church, saying, 'Stay away from us. Stay away from our profits.' It is a little bit like how they sit in this place: some on the left-hand side; some on the right-hand side—they are not quite sure where they are. It is amazing.
Obviously, in any broach church, you have to work out what you are going to put on the altar—what is it all about? Why do you have a church in the first place? Why do you have a leader? You have the preacher out front—the 'Preacher from Point Piper'—saying, 'This is why you should stay inside my church.'
Why do you need to be there? Because, we are in Canberra, it is all about economics—that is really what it is about: being safe at night and looking after the books. You have to make sure you get the economic foundations right. You need to make sure your foundations are solid because, every now and then, you have to dig a crypt to bury a few bodies. We have seen that—we have seen that up in the corner up there: we have got the member for Mayo in the chamber. He is sort of wedged down in the crypt for a while but he will come back—we know that. It is a just a flesh wound; I know he will come back.
We have got the member for Mackellar—I think they have got the member for Mackellar; they are trying to push her down there and put a big slab of marble on top. The member for Paterson, the member for Wright—some of them will come back; I know that.
Today, I think, you had the leader, the 'Preacher from Point Piper', saying, 'Let's put the member for Higgins in there as well.'
An opposition member interjecting—
I think he would like to put the member for Tangney in there too after some of his comments on Indigenous Australians, but you cannot do that.
Let's remember in terms of economic leadership what happened. I remember the member for Mitchell—I listened to his speech when he talked about surpluses from the Labor Party. I remember the paraphernalia at the election and his shadow Treasurer saying he would have a surplus in the first year.
An opposition member: How old is Wyatt Roy?
Now we are tipping that Wyatt Roy will be in his late 80s by the time we actually get a surplus.
Mr Hawke interjecting—
Let's have a look at that: you borrowed $248.4 billion—the member for Mitchell would remember, because of his portfolio that you have borrowed $248.4— (Time expired)
Mr Deputy Speaker Broadbent, now that you have moved into the chair, can I actually thank you for the measured response that you gave in this particular MPI. Some of the hysteria from the other side—could I just remind the member for Moreton—
Opposition members interjecting—
No, let her go. Please let her go.
More of the same. The member for Moreton in his gross reflection on 'barnyard' people—I am a farmer and I do not respect that at all. The fact that you can say that in this place—
I didn't say that!
You did say 'barnyard'; I wrote it down. That is a reflection on every farmer in this country—every single farmer.
Not National Party members?
What do you think a lot of National Party members are? They are farmers, and it is a reflection on all of us, which just unfortunately shows the disrespect that you have for rural and regional Australians and the farmers that produce some of the best food and fibre in the world. That is just dreadful in this type of debate. It really is dreadful, and I take personal exception to it as a farmer. Some of the most intelligent and capable people I know in this country are farmers.
Opposition members interjecting—
And what a dreadful slight that is as well reflecting on those members in such a way. How low can you go? You reflect on the farmers of this nation. You are reflecting on the farmers in this country.
We can see—even by the responses that you have made today in this MPI—that you have simply reinforced Labor's determination to force down the value of people's homes. We have heard this repeatedly today. Of course we know that, for Australians, homes are their greatest assets, but there is a reason that those who are being hysterical opposite and denigrating Australians—can I just say to them—sit on that side of the House at this moment. In the 2013 election, the people were faced with a really stark choice. We outlined a plan for the future of this nation, a plan that was based on economic restraint—something that the members opposite are not acquainted with. We were taking responsibility—
Opposition members interjecting—
I do not have to protect the member for Forrest but I would like to hear her.
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker Broadbent. As we know, the coalition is committed to ending what is Labor's addiction to unremitting budget deficits and spiralling national debt.
The Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government never achieved a surplus. Let's hear: when was the last time a Labor government achieved a budget surplus? I do not think anybody can remember. That is a trick question, and of course we know that Labor's spend, spend, spendathon is being continued even when they are in opposition. They only have one plan, and that is to continue to spend.
I wonder whether the Labor members opposite care to think about the small businesses that have so benefited through the last budget and all of the decisions by this government. Some of them are actually the farmers that we heard being put down in the 'barnyard' comment just a few minutes ago—an appalling reflection. To think that those same businesses are out there working constantly for the benefit of not only their own businesses and families but their local communities and the broader economy.
We have committed significantly to small business. As everybody knows: small business is a major driver of the Australian economy, and we have directly and actively encouraged, through the budget process, small businesses in Australia. There have been a lot of decisions: developing northern Australia; boosting productivity and reducing regulation—even science and innovation. Some people and businesses are very excited about our innovation policy.
People can see a lot of opportunity in this space. They can see that not only do we have a vision and a plan but we also have restraint and we are very focused on economic management. That is what we saw reflected recently. In fact, I think the coalition government is giving a lot more confidence to people right around Australia—certainly in relation to their housing values and the value they place in those same houses.
What we have seen this government do is fail at leadership not once, but twice. We had Tony Abbott, the member for Warringah, as the Prime Minister. This lot over here do not want to remember that; they want to erase that from their collective memories. I do not know whether we have any of the plotters here today—maybe the Assistant Treasurer. I do not know if he was at that famous meeting at Queanbeyan.
We all know why Tony Abbott failed as a leader: he was relentlessly negative; there were cuts of $60 billion; there was a horror budget; there were attacks on pensioners and workers; they kissed goodbye to the automotive industry and they threatened to send our submarine manufacturing to foreign countries. He dug himself into such a hole, such a failure of leadership, that we then had the contortionists opposite—who had promised us 'adult government'—elect Malcolm Turnbull to the prime ministership. The country breathed a sigh of relief, as a new style of leadership was promised: good government, sound policies, advocacy not slogans and respecting the intelligence of the Australian people. People expected progressive policies from a united government. They expected evidence based government. They expected cabinet style government. They expected policies on climate change that made sense. They expected advances in equality. They expected some progress.
But what did they get from Mr Turnbull? They got divided government. They got two prime ministers, two treasurers, three defence ministers and 14 ministerial changes—including three resignations. It is extraordinary. It is an absolutely extraordinary turnover of people. Think about that. Think about that in the context of people learning their portfolios and of advisors trying to get across things. Think about that in terms of the stakeholders—they would not know who they are dealing with. We have had this extraordinary turmoil and failure of leadership at the heart of this government.
Fundamentally, when we got the new Prime Minister, we were all hanging out for this new progress. What did we get? First of all, on taxation policy, we had the Treasurer running around the country softening people up for a rise in the GST, trying to do a deal with the state governments and trying to put them in a corner where they would back a rise in the GST—and, sadly, some of them did, so desperate were they to fund their schools and hospitals.
The Prime Minister, like the grand old Duke of York, marched all of the troops opposite up the hill. Up they went, all of them, including the member for Corangamite and the member for Mayo. The member for Mayo was sort of out there in front, as he is a keen believer in the GST. Up the hill they went, and it all got too hard and an arrow flew past the Prime Minister and they came back down again. He completely cut the ground out from underneath his Treasurer on taxation policy; so much so that, if you read Paul Kelly—this is a headline in The Australian: 'Caught without a tax policy, Turnbull performs a pivot'. That is what we are getting out of this government.
It is like the mythical animal in Dr Dolittle, pushmi-pullyu, trying to go one way and then trying to go the other. We saw the same thing this week on the capital gains tax. We saw the same thing on, of all things, the Safe Schools policy. This is a headline yesterday—and in the Barossa Herald, mind you; hardly an organ of socialism: 'Support essential in a changing landscape'. This was the first line of that story:
Who knew that creating a safe school community could cause so much controversy?
This is what conservative country newspapers are saying about you lot.
Why? We know why—because Cory Bernardi and others got up in the Liberal Party party room and pushed the Prime Minister into a policy change. That is what has happened. We have seen the same thing on housing. So desperate are those opposite to run a fear campaign and a scare campaign—they are now pining for the member for Warringah—that they force the Prime Minister into running this disingenuous bunch of lies about Labor's policy.
It was totally exposed by the member for Higgins, who was arguing that house prices are going to go up while the Prime Minister was arguing that they are going to go down. You cannot have both sides of an argument. It is the classic sign of a government that is divided and confused and that does not know what it is doing—a government that is failing to provide leadership to the Australian people. I can tell you what will make house prices go down: bad government, divided government, government that does not know what it is doing, a government that is going to wreck the economy.
It is really good to get a chance to talk about economic leadership on the part of the government and the extraordinary lack thereof from those opposite. I think nowhere is this more clear than in the area of taxation and tax policy, because tax is one of the biggest levers, if not the biggest lever, that government possesses. If you look at this government's record, you see a very consistent approach on taxation, which is about lower and fairer taxation. Just very recently—just before Christmas—back at the innovation statement on 2 December, the government said that if you invest in a start-up business, if you back a start-up business and you help it get off the ground, if that business is successful and you make a profit, you will not pay capital gains tax in the future.
That is a great policy, because what that means is that these businesses will be able to raise funds with greater confidence and investors will know that, if the investment works out, their return will be greater. What does that mean? That means more money into start-up businesses. That is a very good example of sensible tax policy. We did something very similar in relation to a tax rebate of 20 per cent on people's income tax returns, effectively, for those investments in start-up businesses. This is new government policy just before Christmas and it demonstrates the clear philosophy of this government when it comes to tax—as indeed does our earlier abolition of those very bad and little lamented carbon and mining taxes.
What about those opposite? We have heard a little bit more from them in recent weeks. They describe it as—capital R, inverted commas—'Reform', but what we have seen from those opposite in the last couple of weeks is two additional tax increases. These ones are going to have a very, very severe effect on the wealth of Australian households and on the broader Australian economy. Let us talk about the negative gearing proposal from those opposite. The key point here is that they say that investors will only be able to claim interest as a tax deduction if they invest in new homes, not in existing homes. Every single home in Australia today, by definition, is an existing home. It cannot be new if it exists, right? So every single one of the homes in Australia, which is about nine million, give or take, is an existing home. Under Labor's policy—in the unfortunate event that they are elected—once it comes in, from the middle of next year, investors will not be able to claim an interest deduction on any new investment in any existing home anywhere in Australia. And we know from ABS data that about one-third of owners of Australian residential property are investors as opposed to owner-occupiers.
The proposition from those opposite is that you can take this fundamental principle of tax law, which is that you can claim interest as a tax deduction, and take it out of the system completely—with the obvious consequence that investors will leave that sector—and it will have no impact on prices. That is just an absurd proposition. Just think about that. The notion that you can just take a third of the potential buyers for an asset out of the market and say that everything will just go on fine and the prices will stay the same and continue to rise as they would have—that is just absurd. Imagine if that were asserted in any other sector of the economy. Imagine if someone said to car dealers, 'We're going to take a third of the people out of the car yards, but it won't have any impact on your ability to sell cars.' It would be an extraordinary proposition. This is just an extraordinarily badly thought-through policy. This is something that came out of a Labor aligned think tank. This is one of those things that might be fun to kick around in a think tank, but that is where it should have stayed, because this is a very, very bad policy for ordinary Australian families.
The other thing they do is they say, 'Let's put capital gains tax up, effectively by 50 per cent.' They reduce the reduction from 50 per cent to 25 per cent. Let us say your marginal tax rate is 48 per cent. You would have paid 24c before. Now you will pay circa 36c, give or take, with the Medicare levy. That means your capital gains tax goes up by half. That is going to hurt investment in business, in agriculture, in housing, in all sorts of sectors. It is entirely counterproductive. It shows a distinct lack of understanding of how real-world economics works. It is to the eternal discredit of those opposite and it is a reminder of why they must never be elected. (Time expired)
It is interesting that today on this MPI the government could not even provide its economic team here to argue its point.
Excuse me. What am I?
What are you? Gee whiz, we could go for an hour there, but calling you an economic expert is something that I would not do, because that would be misleading the House. So we will not do that.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
You cannot call a point of order on that.
It is robust.
Opposition members interjecting—
It is very much a glass jaw on the backbench over there—definitely.
When the now Prime Minister rolled Tony Abbott, he said, 'We're going to have a new style of leadership—good government, sound policy, advocacy not slogans. We will respect the intelligence of the Australian people.' Fine words, you might say, but you have to have a look at what they have done. The thing that we have learned over the last six months is that they have no control over what they are doing. You have the Prime Minister say one thing in the morning and one thing in the afternoon. His office clarifies and then the next day his Assistant Treasurer is out there and she obviously has not read the talking points that are available to everyone, because she gets it wrong as well.
Let us have a look at what we have had under the government. We have gross debt now over $400 billion. The first thing they did when they came into government was to remove the debt ceiling. They did not want to have to come into this place and stand up and say why they were increasing this nation's debt. What they have done is doubled it. Gross debt is now up 47.2 per cent since this lot were elected—the so-called economic wizards, the people that claim that they are the great looker-afters of the Australian economy. We have seen net debt up 57 per cent. It has gone up $274 billion since they got elected.
We can have a look at the NBN. Of course, it is now not the NBN; it is the MTM, the Malcolm Turnbull mess. It is failing everywhere. People cannot get access to it. It is not working. It was going to be cheaper and it was going to be better, but what have we seen? A slowed-down rollout. 'We've taken away fibre-optic, because now we're going to use copper, because that's what we used at the turn of the last century.' That is why we see that it has now gone out to a $56 billion cost. We have had them come in here and say that everyone was going to have access to the National Broadband Network by 2016. Lo and behold, they cannot do it. As usual they overreach, overpromise and underdeliver. That is the worst thing you can do when you are in sales.
Sales?
Well, it is sales. You are selling a policy, but you have not got a policy.
We are delivering.
You couldn't deliver a pizza on a cold night—fair dinkum! Let's be serious here.
Member for McEwen, when you use the word 'you', you are reflecting on the chair, and, as a former salesman, I am embarrassed!
I respect that. I certainly think that you personally could deliver a pizza. I have no doubt about that, Mr Deputy Speaker. You are more capable perhaps than your colleague over there.
The Mobile Black Spot Program was going to be the great solver of communications in the bush. What we saw was nothing more than an exercise in pork-barrelling. The government came out with three criteria: rural and regional areas, mobile phone black spots and areas prone to natural disaster. When we look at areas that meet those criteria, what do we see? In McEwen, where we have three national highways, and 60 per cent of the electorate has been burnt out by fires in the last six years, we got one tower and one upgrade. But what about other areas? The now Deputy Prime Minister's area was pork-barrelled to the tune of 28. Go back and have a look at the stats on natural disasters in this area. They are very small. But here we have an electorate such as mine, which suffers every single year from bushfires, and floods chucked in there as well, and the government sits there and says, 'It doesn't qualify for the mobile phone black spot towers.'
We have seen 17,000 families now losing their family tax benefit A in McEwen, because this government—fair dinkum—could not hold a chook raffle in a pub. It is unbelievable that each and every day we come in here and we know that because of the incompetence of the government $43 million a day is being paid, in interest, on government debt that they doubled and they created in 2½ years. You can change the salesman, as they have done, but the policies are still as bad. (Time expired)
It was fairly unfortunate to have to sit through the member for McEwen's contribution, because the level of debate is such that all he can do is denigrate people. I want to make this comment because good leadership is not personal denigration. During question time he denigrated the Deputy Prime Minister, in relation to the colour of his skin, and it was absolutely appalling. I took him on. He made a comment about how he goes red in his face and that level of personal denigration is disgraceful.
During question time the Australian people also saw that two members, the member for Charlton and the member for Gellibrand, were sitting there with stuffed toys having a joke, like it was a kindergarten. We have to get a better calibre of debate from those opposite in this House. That was an absolutely pathetic attempt at humour.
Good leadership is addressing the nation's issues. It is telling the truth about the importance of fiscal management. It is initiating policies that grow the economy and that grow jobs. It is about looking to the future challenges and about investing in future jobs.
I want to reflect for a moment on the member for McEwen's contribution. He talked about our investment in mobile phone black spots. It is an absolute joke that in six years those opposite, the Labor Party, did not invest one cent in fixing mobile phone black spots. It is an absolute joke that you stood up there and did not have the honesty—the member for McEwen does not have the honesty—to say, 'We did not put any money into mobile phone black spots.'
We have invested $100 million to fix mobile black spots—almost 500 around the country and another $60 million. It is an absolute shame because my electorate Corangamite has also suffered a terrible bushfire in Wye River and Separation Creek. I have been campaigning for many months for those base stations to be rolled out, first, in areas of high bushfire risk, and you have the member for McEwen standing there when he knows that Labor never did a thing. Good leadership is about being honest. Good leadership is about delivering the NBN not just going through the pathetic denigration we heard from the previous member's contribution.
In September 2013, after six years of Labor government and $6.5 billion of investment, some two per cent of Australian premises could access the NBN. They are the facts. In my electorate more than 70,000 premises are either under construction or will be connected to the NBN by 2017.
We talk about tax reform. Good leadership is tackling multinational tax avoidance. We have passed legislation to combat the transfer of profits out of this country into other jurisdictions, which denies Australians jobs and costs Australians dearly. When this legislation came before the Senate, what did the Labor Party do? It voted against it. Fundamental reform, tackling multinational tax avoidance—and what does Labor do? It votes against it. The Greens showed more economic responsibility in joining with us to vote for this legislation than the Labor party, which makes Australian Labor look more and more irrelevant.
Good leadership is tackling excessive credit fees, for which we have just passed the legislation. It is doing the hard work on tax reform. What we saw in today's Geelong Advertiser was, 'Labor risks votes with housing plan.' They are the facts: heightened 'negative gearing hot spot'. In the Geelong region we have seen a number of areas on the hit list because of Labor's tax grab and its attack on negative gearing.
The member for Corio has, unfortunately, left the chamber, but as a proportion of investor owned homes compared with owner-occupied homes the hit list names Geelong at 80 per cent of residential properties owned by investors—Herne Hill at 80.2 per cent, Geelong West at 69.7 per cent, East Geelong at 65 per cent, New Town, Torquey and the list goes on and on. These are all areas with a high proportion of investors who own residential property and who will be wiped out by Labor's reckless economic policy. Good leadership is taking the hard decisions in leading the country, growing jobs and growing our economy.
The time for this discussion expired a few minutes ago.
The Australian public, business and industry want to see a functional Senate operating in the national interest and an end to dysfunction in the political process. I support the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment Bill 2016, which seeks to amend the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918.
The bill before the House proposes a number of reforms to the Senate voting system, which are designed to, essentially, provide voters with the ability to direct their preference votes according to their carefully considered intent. The reforms include the introduction of optional preferential voting above the line, concessions to maintain the formality of votes below the line, the abolition of group voting tickets, a restriction preventing the same individuals from acting as office bearers for multiple political parties and the provision to print political party logos on ballot papers.
The issue of Senate voting reform has been topical for a very long time. It has been about 30 years since the last major changes were made. The 2013 federal election saw the election of a number of high-profile microparty candidates from a large field with low levels of voter support—often less than one per cent of the primary vote. Over the years there has been a gradual increase in the number of Senate candidates, with ballot papers increasing in size as more independent and minor parties began to use preference harvesting to gain election. For example, the Senate ballot paper in Victoria at the last federal election had 96 candidates from 39 different groups and measured just over a metre long. The print was so small that the Australian Electoral Commission resorted to providing magnifying overlay sheets to voters with vision impairment.
The Senate is an integral part of our democratic system as a house of review and to protect the interests of the states in our Australian federation, particularly those states which are less populous and have less representation in the House of Representatives. The Senate ought to provide for the proper scrutiny and objective review of legislation in an orderly and businesslike manner. The role of the Senate should not be obstructionist in nature or beholden to special interest groups who would use the balance of power to wield undue influence.
In recent history, crossbenchers, microparties and Independents have made for an obstructionist Senate, at times blocking key elements of the legislative agenda of the government of the day for which it could be argued that the government has a degree of mandate from the people. This has resulted in dysfunctional bargaining and negotiations for sectional interests. Consideration should always be given to advancing the national interest, providing good governance above all else.
We are at a point in our national history where there are some very important issues facing Australia and there is a need for many important reforms, and the government has essential legislation blocked in the Senate. Our nation does not exist in isolation in an increasingly globalised world. To stay competitive with our global trading partners, our system of government must be agile and responsive enough to respond effectively to issues such as fiscal policy, border protection, national security and microeconomic and industrial relations reform. These reforms might not be popular but they are necessary and the government of the day must be able to gain support in the national interest to provide for the security and economic development of innovation. For instance, with the current Senate, we have seen key budget savings measures and industrial relations reforms blocked, providing many triggers for a double dissolution election.
As a serving member of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters since 2013, I have actively participated in the inquiry process into the 2013 federal election. The committee has received public submissions and conducted public hearings at locations in capital cities and regional towns across Australia. The proposed reforms of Senate voting arrangements contained in this bill are essentially contained in the interim and final reports of the inquiry, which were tabled in this parliament on 9 May 2014 and 15 April 2015 respectively and which received unanimous cross-party support from members of the committee. It is fair to say from observations that the current Senate voting system lacks transparency, is overly complex and needs simplification. It is little known that under the current system, individual candidates and political parties can register up to three group voting tickets which determine preference allocation. Although voting tickets are required to be displayed at polling places and on the Australian Electoral Commission website, anecdotal evidence received at public hearings of the JSCEM would strongly indicate that most voters are unlikely to understand where their preferences ultimately flowed. This gives rise to very legitimate concerns about micro parties being elected with a low proportion of primary votes, equating to a fraction of a quota. It could be viewed as a distortion of democracy, as preferences may be allocated to political parties or causes that the voter opposes or has no intention of supporting.
The voting system must reflect the principles of equity, fairness and simplicity and must give effect to the genuine considered intent of the voter. In practice, the typical voter may not fully be aware of where preferences are allocated once the number of candidates exceeds 10. These reforms are designed to allow the voter to determine their own preference flows, support greater transparency and simplify the Senate voting system.
There has been much public debate about how easily manipulated Australia's electoral system has become. In evidence before the committee, an individual witness described how he would select populist issues—such as cheaper cigarettes, sports and outdoor pursuits—and set up stands at community fairs and rural shows for the purpose of collecting sufficient names and addresses with which to register political parties. The individual acted as the common office bearer and agent for a number of different political parties and lodged a series of group voting tickets preferencing each other. It is estimated that 47 parties are currently registered in time to be eligible to contest the next federal election. Given that 97 per cent of voters normally cast above-the-line votes, with group voting tickets and preference deals candidates with little primary support can be elected. At the 2013 federal election, preference deals saw candidates elected with as little as 0.5 per cent of the primary vote.
The bill seeks to introduce optional preferential voting above the line. Under the provisions, advice will be printed on the ballot paper instructing voters to vote above the line by numbering at least six of the boxes in the order of the voter's choice. To minimise the potential for informal votes, a savings provision will be in place to ensure that ballot papers are still formal where voters have numbered one or fewer than six boxes above the line. On the other hand, in relation to voting below the line, the bill contains provisions which seek to reduce the number of informal votes by increasing the number of allowable mistakes from three to five, provided that 90 per cent of the ballot paper below the line is completed correctly.
A key measure in this bill is the abolition of group-voting tickets. Voters will be required to deliberately specify where their preferences are to be allocated, with preferences becoming exhausted at the point at which the voter stops numbering squares on the ballot paper. It will be a conscious decision to be made by the voter. The proposed reforms empower people across Australia to clearly express their preferences both above and below the line not only their first preference above the line but also their subsequent preferences, without relying on the political parties' predetermined group-voting ticket.
During the JSCEM inquiry, evidence was received that the same individual acted as office-bearer and registered agent for multiple different political parties at the same time. This adds weight to the argument that the electoral system has been gamed purely to harvest preferences. In response to this, the bill introduces a restriction to prevent individuals from holding official positions in multiple parties. Under the provisions proposed, there will be a need for unique registered officers and deputy registered officers of separate political parties to remove the ambiguity around political parties and their affiliations and alliances with each other. It should be pointed out that the provisions do not prevent a person from being a registered officer of a federal political party and the registered officer of a state branch or division of that same party.
In an effort to reduce voter confusion between political parties with similar names, this bill proposes for political parties to have their logos printed alongside the name of the party on the ballot paper. In evidence received before the JSCEM inquiry, political parties with similar names—for example, the Liberal Party and the Liberal Democratic Party—caused confusion amongst voters. In New South Wales during the 2013 federal election, a Liberal Democrat senator was elected, arguably as the result of drawing a favourable position on the ballot paper ahead of the Liberal Party.
To implement these proposed changes in an orderly way, additional resources will be provided to the Australian Electoral Commission to conduct pre-election voter education campaigns and make the necessary changes to its current operating procedures and systems. For instance, in the past where the majority of electors voted above the line on Senate ballot papers, first preference counts were normally undertaken on election night at local polling booths. As the proposed Senate amendments will lead to multiple voter preferences being numbered above the line, preference counts at individual polling booths will no longer be possible. The bill proposes technical amendments for the scrutiny and count procedures to enable the AEC to improve and centralise the count of the Senate ballot papers.
Given the lead time of approximately three months required to implement these electoral changes, now is an appropriate time to consider this legislation with a view to having the bill passed by 17 March 2016, ahead of the parliamentary recess.
In summary, this bill contains a range of measures designed to prevent the gaming of the Australian electoral system. It is intended to combat the practices of registering political parties for the purpose of harvesting preferences and complex deal-making by the self-described 'preference whisperers'. It achieves this through the abolition of group and individual voting tickets, which resulted in unintended preference flows beyond the genuine intent and comprehension of the voter. These reforms are intended to counter the election of candidates who receive an extremely small proportion of the primary vote, in many cases less than one per cent, but who, under the current system, can gain election through preference accumulation as other candidates are eliminated.
As I outlined in my opening statements, the Senate is a house of review. It is the states' house in the Australian Federation. It is an integral part of our democracy. The Senate needs to function freely without undue influence by minorities holding the balance of power. The Senate should be neither a rubber stamp nor an insurmountable obstacle. The government of the day has a certain mandate to carry out this legislative program without facing unreasonable deadlocks and stalemates.
These proposed reforms give voters more control over the preference flows from their votes. The voter will determine where their preferences flow and at what point their preferences will cease to flow to candidates or political parties which they do not wish to support. The government is committed to electoral reform, which provides integrity, is simple and clear, and provides voters with the ability to express their intent. I commend the bill to the House.
I call the long-term member for Hughes.
Thank you, Acting Deputy Speaker. I hope five years in this place is not considered too long term. I rise this afternoon to speak on the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment Bill 2016. I would like to start by making an observation. Those who framed our Constitution back in the 19th century did an absolutely amazing and wonderful job. They delivered our nation one of the strongest democracies in the world. I do not think that they could have envisaged the wealth that has been created in this country over the last hundred years or the massive increase in prosperity that the average citizen enjoys today compared to back in the 19th century. I would say that when they framed our Constitution, the lifestyle and prosperity the wealthiest Australians enjoyed would be well below the lifestyle and prosperity enjoyed today by the average Australian.
The reason our Constitution, our nation, has been so successful is that our system of government, everything in our Constitution, has been designed to prevent undue concentrations of power, to prevent a small group being able to concentrate power in their hands, to ultimately hand the power to govern this country back to the people. When the framers of our Constitution were thinking about how our government should work—that we should copy the Westminster system and have the equivalent of the House of Commons and call it, as we do here, the House of Representatives, because we here are effectively representatives of the people. Each of us represents in this parliament an electorate of around 100,000 voters, and we have a system to ensure that that stays so that each of us represents a similar population of people.
I am thinking that the questions they would have asked themselves are, what powers should the Senate have and how should our senators be elected? In thinking about what powers the Senate should have, no doubt the framers of our Constitution looked at the English House of Lords, where they were simply appointed but had limited powers to block and frustrate the will of the House of Commons. Likewise in Canada, although they have a Senate, the election of the Senate is by appointment; it is not an elected body. In fact, the first Canadian Prime Minister described the role of the Senate as simply 'a sober second thought' to governmental legislation. In New Zealand they had a Senate as well, and that was appointed, not elected, yet in 1950 the New Zealanders decided to do away with their Senate altogether.
When it came to our Senate, the main purpose was for it to be something similar to the Westminster system in England. But of course one of the concerns the framers of the Constitution had was to protect the interests of the smaller states. So we can say that our Senate, across the hall on the other side of this building, is hardly democratic when Tasmania elects the same number of senators as New South Wales. Tasmania with a population of 500,000 provides 12 senators, yet New South Wales, with a population 14 times that, also provides only 12 senators. For someone in New South Wales, when their vote comes to the Australian Senate it is worth one 14th of the vote of someone from Tasmania. Therefore, it is important that our Senate realises its place as intended by the framers of our Constitution: to be a house of review, not a house of blockage. And I am sure the framers of our Constitution could not have envisaged a way that the current Senate has been gamed, and that is exactly what we have seen happening.
Antony Green, the ABC election analyst, said in his evidence to the joint standing committee inquiry into the 2013 election that the Senate:
… has produced results that were engineered by the preference deals rather than by the votes cast by voters.
What he is saying is that we did not have a democratic result. Paul Kelly, writing in today's Australian, said:
Reform of the corrupt Senate voting system is a necessary step to restore a degree of integrity in the Australian Parliament, offer greater voter transparency, give more weight to first preference votes …
The need for change is clear, and that is exactly what the changes that are being proposed do.
Firstly, they introduce optional preferential votes above the line for voting. If someone wants to allocate their preferences they must be able to do so of their own free choice. The flaw with the current system—that someone can vote for a minor party or any party and vote 1 above the line and have no idea whatsoever where their vote will actually end up, because of the secrecy and lack of transparency in the preference system—is why this change is most important. To ensure that we have more transparency, the system will advise on the ballot paper for the voter to number at least six boxes above the line, in order of their choice. That gives someone ample opportunity to decide where their preferences go.
Secondly, to avoid a high rate of informal votes, if someone just writes 1 above the line then their vote will still be considered formal. I think that is something we should also consider for the lower house. In New South Wales, in the state elections we have optional preferential voting, but at federal elections we have compulsory preferential voting. I have scrutineered at elections, and you see people filling in 1 on the ballot paper, thinking they have voted for a particular candidate. Their intention to give their vote to that candidate is crystal clear, yet by having compulsory preferential voting we disenfranchise that person. But we are fixing that for the Senate. It is something that down the track we perhaps need to look at for the House of Representatives.
Thirdly, we will introduce the abolition of group and individual voting tickets, and we will introduce restrictions to prevent individuals from holding relevant official positions in multiple parties. That is to stop the gaming of the system whereby someone can be an official of multiple parties simply to harvest votes, to game our system and ultimately to game our democracy.
There is one provision I do have some concerns with, something we need to look at down the track, and this is the provision that allows for logos to be printed on the ballot paper. That is because of the mass confusion between the Liberal Democrats and the Liberal Party at the last election. I was standing and handing out at the booths, and many people came back to me after voting and said, 'I've made a mistake on my Senate paper. I meant to vote for the Liberal-Nationals, but when I looked at the big long ballot paper I saw Liberal Democrats and I put my vote there.' They wanted to run back into the polling booth and rip their paper back out of the electoral bin but were unable to, so I understand the reasoning for that. When we look at the names of some of these parties we had the Katter' Australian Party. Now I can understand that the Katter party's logo may be simply a large broad-rimmed akubra hat. We had the Social Alliance, and they may have the hammer and sickle as their logo on the ballot paper. Of course we had the marijuana party, and they would have a marijuana leaf or a large bong printed on the ballot paper. The Pirate Party could have the Jolly Roger, and I will leave it up to others' suggestions for how the Australian Sex Party should have their logo. But perhaps this is something we should look at and take some care at to make sure that the ballot paper does not look strange with all these logos over it.
In conclusion, I would like to reflect on the comments in this debate by the member for Brand. To quote from his speech I think is very telling. He said:
It is self-evidently the case that our parliament needs to act on electoral reform. It is self-evidently the case that our parliament needs to act to make sure that our voting system is transparent, effective and understood and that the voting process itself is a process where the voter is empowered to deliver a vote to the person that they wish to elect. The system needs to be fixed.
He continued:
My view is that the current rules do need to be changed; the Labor Party's view is that those rules do need to be changed.
… … …
I lost the argument in my party room on Senate reform, so Labor will oppose the substantive reforms that are enshrined in this bill.
Then the Labor member for Brand said:
I think that is sad …
He is right. It is sad that the members of the Labor Party will not support this bill, because this is an important step we need to take to improve our Senate voting system and therefore our democracy. The member for Brand continued:
My party has moved that it will be opposing this bill and therefore I oppose this bill.
I think that is also very sad. An elected member of the House of Representatives is forced by his party to vote in this chamber against his will. On this side of the House if someone decides that they disagree with the legislation they can take the walk across and exercise what they believe in their heart and conscience. Yet members of the Labor Party are denied that opportunity. That is sad, and that is undemocratic. I congratulate member for Brand for his speech and for calling his own party out on this. The assistant minister will sum up very soon, and I hope that members of the opposition will not vote against this bill, because, as the member for Brand said, it would be a very sad day for our democracy if they do so. With that, I commend this bill to the House.
The amendments contained in the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment Bill 2016 will ensure our electoral system is open and transparent and allow for the expression of voter intent. The bill responds to key elements of the interim and final reports from the inquiry of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters into the 2013 federal election, which were tabled on 9 May 2014 and 15 April 2015 respectively.
The bill proposes to 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. It proposes to abolish individual and group voting tickets to return the control of preferences to voters and removes the capacity for an individual to be the registered officer or deputy registered officer of multiple political parties. And it proposes to allow political party logos to appear on ballot papers for both the House of Representatives and the Senate.
Contrary to the claims made by the opposition that this bill will lead to 800,000 additional informal votes, the bill contains savings provisions that should actually increase vote formality. The bill allows 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. The bill also proposes an improvement to the vote savings provisions for voters who choose to vote below the line, by increasing the number of allowable mistakes that can be made by voters when they are sequentially numbering their preferences, from the current three mistakes to five mistakes, where 90 per cent of the number of boxes below the line have been filled in correctly, before a vote becomes informal.
The government has prepared minor technical amendments to this bill, which have been circulated to members. The purpose of these amendments is to provide for a count of above-the-line, first-preference votes on Senate ballot papers by assistant returning officers and Divisional Returning Officers and the transmission of the number of first preference votes to Australian Electoral Officers. The bill as it currently stands proposes to remove requirements for assistant returning officers to conduct a count of first-preference votes. The amendments will reinstate a requirement that counting of first-preference Senate votes above the line commences after polling closes, and this will provide to the public an early indication of first-preference votes.
Taken together, the measures in this bill to introduce optional preferential voting above the line, abolish the voting ticket system, enhance savings provisions for voters and print political party logos on ballot papers will give voters greater control over their vote, increase transparency and simplify the Senate voting system. I commend the bill to the House.
The question is that the bill be read a second time.
I ask leave of the House to move a motion relating to the consideration of the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment Bill 2016.
Leave not granted.
I move:
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would enable consideration of the remaining stages of the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment Bill 2016 to proceed immediately.
It is interesting that the mover of the motion, the member for Eden-Monaro, offered no reason why this is being moved. It is not an ordinary occasion when leave is asked to proceed to the third reading. This is this situation. On Monday morning the Treasurer moved that the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment Bill 2016 be referred to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters to report on Wednesday of next week at 9 am. This bill in this form has never been through that committee. Speaker after speaker on the government side has relied on findings from JSCEM to reach their conclusions. Speaker after speaker has said that the deliberations of this committee matter for the conclusions of this House. The Treasurer did the right thing when he referred the bill to that committee to report on Wednesday next week at 9 am.
What the government is wanting to do now is say that only members of the Senate get to deal with the findings of a joint committee before they reach their final vote. What is the point in having a joint committee if the attitude of the members of the government is that the deliberations of this House do not matter? What is the point of having this House vote on who will be members of a joint committee if the approach of the government is going to be that you simply ignore the findings of the committee? Worse than ignoring those findings, we have a situation where they are saying we should vote before the committee has even reached its conclusions. Standing order 148 is there for a very clear reason. It says:
… except that a bill referred to a standing or select committee under standing order 143(b) shall not be considered in detail until the committee has reported.
The intention of this motion right now is to render the committee system of this parliament irrelevant on an issue of electoral reform, on an issue that goes—
Order! Would members please take their seats.
He is not that tall, so he might not be blocking the camera that badly, but it is a bit over the top. It is an insane proposition, a ridiculous situation, that what we have right now in this parliament is the House of Representatives voting to ignore the deliberations of a joint committee—the same joint committee that every one of their speakers relied on to make their case. This is not the same bill as had previously been considered by the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. The government are about to want to move amendments to this bill. So we have a situation where the government have realised the bill as it was introduced was in an inadequate form, they want to move amendments, they have referred it to a joint committee because of the nature of the information that is being dealt with, and in the face of all of that they then say, 'But let's ignore the joint committee and just vote now anyway, because we're going to steamroll it through.' What on earth is the point of the Leader of the House standing up at the end of question time and moving resolutions on who will be appointed to different committees if the committee system of this parliament is to be rendered completely irrelevant?
Standing order 148 is there for a very clear and precise reason. In the ordinary running of this parliament, time after time a minister will stand at that dispatch box and will ask, 'Is leave granted to proceed to the third reading forthwith?' and whoever is at the table here, in the ordinary course of events, will stand up and grant leave. But the government ordinarily does not even ask that when you have a situation where a committee is yet to report.
It was only referred to the committee to Monday. By Wednesday, they are saying it is time to ignore that reference. We have a situation where the Senate will have the benefit, I presume, of being able to consider the findings of the committee but the House of Representatives is being told right now, by resolution moved by the government, that if you are member of a committee then the work you are doing is considered irrelevant by the executive of this government. If you are one of the backbenchers turning up to hearings, thinking that you have a relevant role in the running of this government, you are being told right now that the captain's call is all that will matter. Those on the backbench: if you thought there was some situation happening now where somehow the people who sit in the front row of your side of this House have any respect for the roles of the people who sit behind them, this resolution says, 'Nope, no respect for your participation in committees and no respect for any of the issues.'
What we have actually had is that the government has wanted to go through the charade. The Treasurer, who I am surprised is confident enough to be in the parliament at all after the week he has had, moved the resolution that it be referred to the committee, because that was the right thing to do, because that was due process. Of all the issues that we deal with, for the one that they decide they will steamroll over the top of to be electoral reform is just breathtaking. It is breathtaking in its arrogance and extraordinary in the outcomes that we are seeing now.
It was the Leader of the House—before he became Leader of the House, when he had my job—who said to the Institute of Public Affairs, 'The Australian people expect parliament to consider all items diligently.' Well, that is not what this House is being asked to do. The House is being asked right now to not consider its own committee report at all and to roll this through in the urgency of a government that has no respect for its own backbench. But I think the backbench in the last few weeks have been working out how little respect there is for them from the people who sit in the front row. I think the backbench members who participate on committees are getting a pretty clear idea that, if they thought the days of captain's calls were over, they are now seeing more of them than they ever did under the predecessor. The captain's calls are alive and well—the arrogance and the commitment to ignore any other view in the room. The view that whoever is sitting in the front row is the smartest person in the room and the rest of the place does not matter is exactly what is happening right now in this parliament.
It is an extraordinary action from the government to decide to ignore the committee that received this bill by resolution—unanimous resolution—of this parliament on Monday. Why on earth did the Treasurer bother referring it to a joint committee if he has already decided that the only chamber that is going to matter is where they have done the deal with the Greens to steamroll this through the Senate? If that is the only house they care about then they say to every person elected to this House, which is meant to be the house of government, that the procedures here are of no consequence at all.
So I urge every member of this House to not be like lemmings, as some of those opposite may be told that they are meant to do by their party whip and by their leader, and to not simply have a situation where you go off to committees but it really does not matter what you do, it really does not matter how much work you put in and it really does not matter what findings you end up with. In this House, we should at the very least, if we unanimously refer an issue to a committee, wait for the committee to report before we vote.
I will not delay the House at great length about this matter, but I should point out the absolutely amazing hypocrisy of the Manager of Opposition Business. The central tenet of the Manager of Opposition Business's argument is that apparently the Labor Party wants to closely examine this bill in the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters and that it is the greatest offence against democracy of all time, since the English Civil War, that we would in fact have debate and consideration in detail in this House. The only problem—the massive flaw—in the Manager of Opposition Business's argument is that the member for Brand has already exposed in this House today that it would not make any difference what JSCEM reported either in April 2014 or next week; the ALP is already opposing this bill. Gary Gray said it today in the House. Gary Gray said:
I think if this bill reflected 100 per cent the recommendations of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters it would be a better bill. But it still would not have won the support of my party.
So the Labor Party has already made its mind up about this bill. For base political reasons, the Labor Party is opposing the democracy that this bill will engender in Australia. It does not make any difference which witnesses turn up, what they say in the JSCEM inquiry, when it reports or what the recommendations are; Labor has closed its mind to the reform. I really would like to thank the member for Brand, because not only has he destroyed the central argument that we just heard about for almost 10 minutes from the Manager of Opposition Business, that apparently they want the scrutiny of the parliament for something they have already decided they are totally opposed to, but he also exposed the other myth that has been propagated by Senator Dastyari in the other House. Senator Dastyari has completely taken over the political antenna of the opposition on this and many other issues. He said that this bill will lead to 800,000 more informal votes, to which the member for Brand said in his speech today that claim is 'nonsense'. The member for Brand said the idea that this would lead to 800,000 more informal votes, which is the political argument being run by Sam Dastyari against this bill, is 'nonsense'.
If you took Senator Dastyari, the former Secretary of the New South Wales Labor Party—the man who paid the legal fees in the cases of the former member for Dobell, you might remember—and you line him up with credibility against the member for Brand, I have a feeling I know where the public would place their money. The member for Brand is one of the most respected figures in this parliament and it is a great shame to this parliament that he is retiring at the coming election. It is a measure of his lack of faith in the modern Australian Labor Party that he sees no point in remaining in this parliament. He has said that no matter what the JSCEM found, no matter what the government inquiry discovered, his party would still oppose this bill and he says that Labor's central political opposition to Commonwealth electoral reform is 'nonsense'. The member for Brand has belled the cat.
Labor's position is based on complete political opportunism. The Labor Party believe that this bill will pass the Senate, with the support of the Greens and Nick Xenophon. They believe that. They know this bill will become law—I hope it will become law. I do not want to jump the gun of the Senate but that appears to be the case. They believe they can oppose the bill, because this would be the Dastyari model—no political principle involved here—and still get the bill! In other words, the result we saw at the last election, where somebody with less than a half per cent of the vote got elected to the Senate, will be fixed. They know that but they think they can base political benefit out of what they claim to be standing up for the microparties.
The grand old Labor Party is well and truly over. What we have today is a Labor Party run by spivs and the CFMEU, and today's debate has exposed that entirely to the Australian public. That is why standing orders should be suspended, which is of course the purpose of this motion, so that we can move into consideration in detail and deal with this bill.
The resolution that is actually before the House is to suspend standing order 148. Standing order 148 says that when you have a committee inquiry, as in a committee inquiry that involves the House of Representatives, which a joint standing committee does, then you should probably get the result of that inquiry before you move to consideration in detail. The whole point of the committee inquiry is that you examine a bill in detail and come up with recommendations to improve the legislation. But what is extraordinary here is that of all legislation of just about anything you can think of where something might have unintended consequences, a change to the way that the Senate will be composed is just that. Yet what have we had for this process? We have had a dirty deal between the coalition and the Greens political party. They are sitting up there and voting in favour of this being rammed through on the second reading—the new marriage of convenience—in order to advantage the Greens political party and the coalition. The Greens, who lecture from on high about proper processes and accountability, are prepared to do a deal. Their spokesperson, Senator Rhiannon is the person who believes in only one term for any MP, except herself. She has been there for decades, and with the increased likelihood of a double-d as a result this legislation, she, as the only sitting Greens senator from New South Wales, will be number one on the ticket in a double-d election and will need one out of 12 rather than one out of six. Talk about a conflict of interest! She is the person responsible for the Greens on this issue.
Let there be no mistake: with the amendments we will move about proper disclosure of donations we will see exactly where the so-called party of principle ends up on this. This is a disgraceful trashing of democratic process in this chamber—the suspension of this standing order, which is there for a very good reason. It is there to ensure that the proper processes of this parliament take place. They are important for policy legislation but to do this for legislation that is about affecting the make-up of future parliaments, not just once, not just a one-off, but for decades into the future, that will impact on the composition of the Senate of Australia is quite frankly extraordinary.
We have proper processes here. We have legislation introduced on a Wednesday or a Thursday, it gets adjourned, you come back the next week and you then have the party meetings and the crossbenchers can get briefings on it if they want them. You then have a debate the week after that and you have proper processes. What we are seeing here is legislation being introduced on a Monday afternoon after going through the coalition party room, and it is legislation that they have to amend. If you want evidence of why it is that you need a proper committee process, it is that they introduced legislation two days ago and they have to fix it up already. It did not last the week and yet there are six amendment so far to their own legislation that has not lasted 48 hours. Well, there are real consequences behind this and it is absolutely extraordinary.
This legislation does not relate to the JSCEM report that was done and open. This legislation relates to meetings that took place behind closed doors between the Greens and the coalition to advantage the Greens and the coalition at the expense of Independents and others in terms of who might want to put themselves forward. That is why this process, which is outrageous, should be rejected. That is why it is extraordinary that this is going to be rammed through the House of Representatives and through the Senate with the support of the Greens. This is the worst decision since the Greens helped to knock over a price on carbon in 2009. (Time expired)
Trying to fandangle the political system to your own advantage has had a very bad history in Australia—an extremely bad history in Australia. In my home state of Queensland the ALP got all the western seats which they held and divided them in half so that there were 3,000 people electing a member from Charters Towers and 20,000 electing the Country Party leader from the Gold Coast. That was called a gerrymander. We in the Country Party said thank you, because we ended up taking all those country seats and winning government. So the ALP wrote their own death warrant. Mr Goss changed the voting in Queensland so that it is first past the post, and he thought that that would set the National Party at the Liberals' throats and the ALP would be in government forever. What it did was bring the National Party and the Liberal Party into bed together and the ALP were thrown out on their head at the next election.
So when you start trying to play these sneaky little political games, like the Greens are playing with the Liberals at the moment, they have a very bad habit of backfiring. You want to be really careful. I have already been attending meetings where already there is some great stuff going on which is going to be very regretful for the people sitting over here. There is a little thing called preferences and, judging by the way you blokes are falling in the polls at the moment, you better be really nice to the people in the middle—and you are doing just the opposite. You are rather stupidly antagonising all those people who are going to be holding those preferences upon which your seats will depend in the next election.
There are people in Australia who think, and therein lies the problem for the people who try to fandangle the system. There are people in Australia who think, and everyone knows what this is about. Everyone knows that this is about trying to eliminate the voice of the little people. That is all this is about—'There will only be us and the big boys playing and no-one else is playing the game.' The Greens have got a bit carried away with themselves and have started to think they are the big boys. I think they are in for a pretty rude shock, because people are pretty worried about their jobs. They are not coming up to me and saying, 'We are dying of carbon.' They are saying, 'Am I going to have a job tomorrow?' So I would not be counting too much on the Greens' performance.
I deeply regret that this game is being played. Once again, the people of Australia will be hit with another wave of disillusion. For everyone in this House, 20 per cent of people will not vote for the majors anymore. They just will not do it. They will vote for anyone. You can say, 'These are ridiculous little parties,' but they will vote for ridiculous little parties rather than vote for you. The chickens are coming home to roost, as I have said a million times in this place.
There is a really good movie out. I recommend everyone go and see The Big Short. In America, everyone said there was no problem and one bloke made $96 billion out of the fact that he realised that there was one hell of a big problem out there. He sold short and made $96 billion. Go and see that movie, because if you think there is nothing wrong in this country then you must be the only people in this country who think there is nothing wrong. We have nothing left except iron ore and coal. I come from a coalmining area, and I can tell you that things are pretty grim. That is all we have left now. We have those two things going.
You have decided that you are going to fandangle the system for your own benefit, and I have seen it again and again in Australian history that, when people have tried to be tricky and smart and to overcome the democratic system with their sneaky little tricks, it has backfired on them really badly—and I predict it is going to be the same thing here.
I call the honourable minister.
Thank you, Deputy Speaker. What we are doing here is talking about a suspension of standing orders so that we can have—
He can't speak. He has already spoken.
I did not speak; I moved the motion.
He cannot speak.
He was the mover of the motion.
I think we are out of time anyway.
You made your speech when you moved the motion and then you chose to sit down.
I give the call to the member for Isaacs.
The time has expired.
No, time has not expired. Thank you, Deputy Speaker, for the call. It is a shameful thing that this is an attempt here by the government to suspend standing orders—eloquently put by the member for Grayndler—and no better example could be had than these amendments. This bill did not survive 48 hours. Within 48 hours a really major amendment has been put forward.
Order! The time for debate on this motion has expired.
The question is that the motion be agreed to.
I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum and seek leave to move government amendments (1) to (6) together.
Leave granted.
I move: government amendments (1) to (6) as circulated together.
The government has prepared minor technical amendments to this bill which have been circulated to members. The purpose of these amendments is to provide for a count of above-the-line first preference votes on Senate ballot papers by assistant returning officers and divisional returning officers, and the transmission of the number of first preference votes to Australian electoral officers. The bill, as it currently stands, proposes to remove requirements for assistant returning officers to conduct a count of first preference votes. The amendments will reinstate a requirement that counting of first preference Senate votes above the line commences after polling closes. This will provide an earlier indication of first preference votes for the public. I commend the amendments to the House.
It is absolutely extraordinary that what we have had here is legislation introduced into the parliament on Monday, referred to a committee, a truncated debate and standing orders suspended so that we are now dealing with the finalisation of the bill before the committee has actually met and considered any of these issues, and the farce is exposed by these six amendments.
You know why these are being moved? Because Anthony Green in his blog picked it up on Monday that, under the government's legislation, it is possible that the Senate might never have been counted. There was no time frame for the counting of ballot papers for the Senate under the legislation that the government just voted for as did the Greens and some crossbenchers as well, except for the member Kennedy—to his credit. They just voted for the second reading of a bill that had no provisions for the actual counting of the ballot papers. That is why these amendments are here.
This legislation should not be rushed through because Lee Rhiannon and this bloke and a few other Tories sat in a room and decided what was good for Australia. I tell you what, the member for Kennedy from time to time says some very wise things—not always but from time to time. But he was absolutely spot on here because what the parties are trying to get around is the fact that some people inconveniently do not vote for the Labor Party or for the Liberal Party or for the Greens political party. The solution to that is not a fix. The solution to that is to win support for your arguments in the community. If you try and fix that through a manipulation, which is what this is, in order to say 'you do not have a right to go out out there and form a minor party, you do not have a right to go out there and campaign for a more minor party because we will ensure that your votes are excluded' then, I am afraid, these amendments expose how bad this dirty deal is.
I believe, and am on the record very clearly, in being in a party of government. I believe in being in the Labor Party as the progressive party in Australia that can form government. That is why I have never been interested at all in being part of a minor party or being an independent. That is where I come from. But I respect the fact that others have a right to have a different view. And if you disagree with people on the crossbenches, go and talk to them. I was Leader of the House in a parliament that had 70 votes out of 150 and we did not lose a vote—not one, for 595 pieces of legislation—by treating people with respect here and in the Senate, by treating them like adults. This is not treating people like adults.
This is a fix done behind closed doors and rammed through this parliament, rammed through this House and it will be rammed through the Senate. Guess what? The government have foreshadowed a double-D election. What justification is there for that apart from allowing these people opposite to avoid handing down a budget like they did in 2014, to avoid scrutiny over the privatisation of the Australian Rail Track Corporation, the privatisation of Medicare, the privatisation of education services? That is what this is about. They are the ramifications of this legislation.
I say we should reject this legislation. We should reject it as a parliament. We should reject it, partly, if we are not sure. If you are not sure whether they have got all of this right, then there should be proper scrutiny. These six amendments, coming 48 hours after this legislation was introduced, show why this shabby deal should be rejected by the people of Australia.
In the details of what is being proposed now there are two examples that I clean forgot. They both concern the Senate—the upper house. One of them was the example of Mr Gough Whitlam. He found a sneaky way to manipulate the numbers in the upper house. He failed in his attempt because he made a mistake—a little technical mistake. But Bjelke-Petersen thought, 'That is a really good idea—I think I will do that.' Being smarter than Mr Whitlam, he succeeded in his manipulation. Gough Whitlam made the decision that we would doctor up the Senate for our own benefit and it brought him unstuck. His government fell.
The other one was JD Lang in New South Wales, who stacked the upper house to get whatever legislation he wanted through, and it backfired on him. He was written off and went into the abomination of history.
I think one of the things operating here—and a couple of commentators have mentioned this—is that you have political lightweights running the Liberal Party, people who have only been in politics for 10 minutes. They do not really understand this game at all. The commentator Alan Jones was saying this recently, and I think he is spot on. We have people here who do not know what they are doing. They think that by doing this they will get power. But what they do not understand is that the people out there see this as a rigging of the system so that the Liberals can do anything they want to do.
Have a look at Queensland: the biggest swing in Australian history when the government there thought they could do anything they liked. If you think the people of Australia are going to give you the power to do anything you like, that is another reason why they should not vote for you in a double dissolution. You have just created probably the strongest argument for not voting for you in the next election. They do not trust you and they put a bit of an insurance policy in there by voting for some of the small-party, independent people. They put an insurance policy in for themselves. If you remove the insurance policy—I think the most unhappy day that John Howard ever had was when he got control of the Senate. Some of the ratbag, extremist, super-rich corporate elements in his party forced him to do things that I do not think he would otherwise have done. The worst thing that happened to John Howard was losing control of the Senate.
The honourable member for Grayndler, in his remarks, said that we had to actually reason with the in-betweens; we had to have intellectual firepower in what we were putting forward. It had to be a reasoned decision, not just a rammed-through decision. Everyone in this House knows that in the two parties you just come in here—I never knew what I was voting for; I would ask the bloke beside me what I was voting for, and he would say, 'I've got no idea'. That is the party system. But suddenly you actually had to justify what you were doing to some independent-minded people that were not ALP and were not LNP. You had to justify your decisions. In the Senate—God bless Australia—they put in a number of people that are not just puppets on a string. If you want their vote, you have to convince them that what you are doing is the right thing to do. When you fail to convince them, you are going to rig the system so that you do not have to ask the people in the future. That is what is going on here: rigging the system. Maybe there are some exceptions to the rule, but it seems to me that every time people tried, through some sneaky device, to rig the system in their favour, the Australian people have been awake to them and have punished them very, very painfully.
Question agreed to.
Bill, as amended, agreed to.
I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
When I was speaking the other night, I was making the point that, rather than provide the Australian people with sound economic management, this Liberal government has delivered a deficit blow-out of $26 billion over the forward estimates, debt at nearly $100 billion higher than was forecast in the 2013 PEFO, higher levels of spending, gross debt heading towards $550 billion by the end of the forward estimates and growth that is well and truly down since they came to office.
Two and a half years ago the new government promised new economic leadership. Prime Minister Abbott made this one of the principal priorities of his government. Over the course of his prime ministership, what we saw was the deficit double and an increase in public debt. To target that issue, the former Prime Minister and his government attacked the weak and vulnerable in our community. They sought to increase the Medicare co-payment. They sought to reduce pensions. They sought to increase fees for students and introduce $100,000 degrees.
Then, of course, we saw former Prime Minister Abbott toppled in a leadership spill, and in September last year Prime Minister Turnbull, too, promised new economic leadership. But what have we got from the new Prime Minister in terms of economic policy? Well, zip—nothing! No new economic plan for our nation.
The new Treasurer is clearly floundering in this new job. We saw last week at the National Press Club 46 minutes of nothing. The opportunity on the national stage for the new Treasurer to put to the Australian people a new economic plan for our nation to stimulate growth, to invest in infrastructure, to grow real wages, to reduce unemployment and to invest in jobs and all we got was rhetoric and spin—no plans for our nation's future.
As a result, what have we seen in terms of living standards? Living standards have been falling for six consecutive quarters. The real wages of Australians have been falling. It is becoming harder for Australian families and for pensioners to make ends meet. Capital expenditure has experienced a broad-based decline, and not just in the mining sector; consumer confidence and business confidence are at levels far lower than they were when the Liberals took office in 2013.
They have busied themselves by floating ideas about raising the GST. I have to say that this has become a farce, really, because I have no doubt that Treasurer Morrison initially went to the Press Club last week with the intention of talking about the Liberal's plans to increase the GST. When he became the Treasurer he was instructed by the Prime Minister to go out to work with the states on a new plan to increase the GST to 15 per cent, or to broaden its base. Then, at the last minute, the Prime Minister pulled the rug from underneath him. He pulled the rug and his support for an increase in the GST that, clearly, he and those opposite did want to do in order to raise additional revenue.
That left the Treasurer with nothing to say last week at the Press Club. Nothing at all to say about economic leadership and economic management. There is no doubt that the instability and the division that clearly exists within this government and the inward-looking focus of the Liberal Party is now affecting this government's ability to make decisions—to make tough calls when it comes to policy. And it is hurting Australians. It is hurting the Australian business community, because we have subdued growth and a lack of confidence—people are not willing to invest in businesses.
It is hurting Australian workers, because real wages are continuing to decline. We have unemployment increasing—it has jumped back up to 6 per cent again. And it is hurting those on fixed incomes, like pensioners, who have had their pensions cut and who have seen a decline in their purchasing power.
So we have seen a disastrous couple of budgets from the Abbott government, that they could not get through the parliament. Then they switched leaders to the new Prime Minister Turnbull, promising to deliver tax reform and to talk to the Australian public about tax reform. They put the GST on the agenda, then they removed it and now they have no economic plan. It is clear that the Abbott-Turnbull government is making up financial management as they go along. As the papers have so rightly suggested, they are desperately scrambling for any policy that will save them from further disastrous economic woe into the future.
Contrast that with the work of the opposition under the leadership of opposition leader, Bill Shorten. Labor has been busy over the last couple of years, consulting with the Australian public: working with business leaders, working with economists and academics, working with families and working with workers to ensure that we put together a set of tax reform packages and economic strategies that will deliver growth and an increase in jobs in our economy, to ensure that we transition from the mining boom to an innovation-led recovery in our economy and, ultimately, over time to grow our economy and increase living standards.
Labor has had a clear set of policies on tax reform for the last six months. We consulted about them, we debated them and we made decisions about them. We have subjected them to the scrutiny of the independent Parliamentary Budget Office, and the Parliamentary Budget Office has come back with reports on all of our policies, indicating how much additional revenue they would raise for the budget. I must say that in terms of the electoral cycle, this opposition has had more policy out there than any other opposition in living memory.
These policies include an increase in the tobacco excise over the next three years, which will raise an additional $48 billion. We will clamp down on the excessively generous and unsustainable tax concessions for very high-end superannuants—people with more than $1 million in their superannuation balance, who earn an income above $75,000 off that balance. We are not talking about drawing down on the balance, but if someone earns an income through interest or dividends on that balance over $1 million currently they pay no tax on that—no tax whatsoever. Labor has said that is unsustainable; that tax concession will eventually swallow much of the social security system. So we need to tighten that up. It is an area where we can raise additional revenue, and we have developed a policy such that if you earn more than $75,000 as interest off a balance in a superannuation fund then you will pay 15 per cent tax on the additional amount over $75,000.
We have also announced a policy to crack down on multinational profit shifting, ensuring that the likes of Google, Apple and Microsoft cannot shift profits overseas on the billion dollar revenues they are making in Australia in the form of loans before they pay tax here in this country. Some of those companies have been paying effective tax rates of one and two per cent. How many Australian workers or how many Australian businesses get away with paying effective tax rates of one and two per cent? They do not, and nor should big multinational companies which earn $6 billion and the like in revenue from the Australian people. They should pay their fair share of tax and Labor's policy will ensure that they do. These measures together will raise an additional $14 billion over the next decade.
So there we have it: a set of policies announced by Labor—clearly enunciated and giving time for people to have a look at them. And over the course of the last two weeks we announced another policy, to crack down on the unsustainable negative gearing that is occurring in our economy. It will ensure that we are making home ownership affordable again, taking out some of the heat that exists in the housing market—particularly in communities such as the one that I represent. Not a week goes by where I do not get a complaint from a parent about whether or not their kids are going to be able to afford to live in our community in the future. They are bewildered about how their kids are going to be able to afford the prices that certain properties are going for.
We have listened to those concerns and we have worked with economists and experts to put together a reasonable policy. We have put it out there well before the election so people have the opportunity to have a look at that policy and make their mind up. There is a fact sheet that goes with that policy and explains in detail how the policy will work. To summarise the policy: anyone who is currently in the system and negatively gears a property will be grandfathered. They will not lose the opportunity to continue to negatively gear that property that they own at the moment, and that will continue until the property is sold. Then people wishing to negatively gear beyond 1 July 2017 will be able to do so so far as they must invest in a new property. They must invest in new housing stock. The aim of that policy is to grow housing stock to increase supply, take some of the pressure off those hot housing markets and boost the construction industry and create jobs. The independent McKell Institute indicates that that policy should promote an additional 25,000 jobs in the housing industry. Again, that policy will raise an additional $30 billion in revenue in savings because of the tax concession that exists in negative gearing coupled with the reduction in the discount on the capital gains tax. This will raise an additional $30 billion for the budget over the next decade.
That additional revenue will go to fund Labor's policies. It will go to funding a decent education policy, restoring the $30 billion that has been cut by this government from school education policy over the last two years by abandoning the Gonski reforms. It will restore that funding and ensure that we fund our schools on a fair dinkum basis based on the needs of kids.
There will be a decent healthcare policy. The cuts that have been made to hospital budgets by this government will be reversed by Labor because we will have that additional revenue to fund that through these policies. Because of these policies, Labor will be able to commit to funding fully the National Disability Insurance Scheme and other policies that are fair and will grow our economy.
In summation, the choice is clear. This government, which has no economic plans whatsoever, talks about tax reform. Malcolm Turnbull says one thing but does another, says that he is all about tax reform and new economic leadership but delivers nothing. We do not have an economic plan or a tax reform policy from this government. On this side of the chamber, the Labor Party has a clearly enunciated set of policies, a clear economic vision for our nation's future. It is costed, it is fully available for people to see and it contrasts the difference in leadership between the Labor Party and those opposite.
I remind the House that it has been agreed that a general debate be allowed covering this bill and the Appropriations Bill (No. 4) 2015-2016.
I rise with pleasure to speak on the Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2015-2016 before the House today and note the comments of the member for Kingsford Smith. It would be remiss of me not to take him to task on a couple of those things. The year of ideas—or was that 'idea'?—it seems to me could be summed up as the Labor party saying: 'If elected to government, we will put our hands deeper into the pockets of Australians. We will spend more, we will not lose our addiction to spending that got us into this situation that we are now trying to deal with and we will put up taxes.'
As we all know, taxes are paid by working Australians, those mums and dads that own small businesses around our country and, of course, businesses more generally. The Labor Party suggests that whacking tobacco smokers will be part of their solution for funding the difficulties that the nation has inherited from six years of spending under Labor between 2007 and 2013. The poorest and the most vulnerable within our community will be hit the hardest. Indeed, there are those who have looked at this policy and raised real and, I think, justifiable concerns in respect of the prohibitionist style of policy here. We all know it is something that is not good for anybody's health, but that will drive more smokers to products underground. That will drive more smokers to illegal products. That will drive smokers to products from which the Commonwealth can extract no tobacco excise, to products that are likely to be increasingly controlled by criminal elements within our society.
The member for Kingsford Smith mentioned that Labor will crack down on those wealthy Australians who have saved for their retirement and enjoy $75,000 of income on their savings that they have put away. They will go after them. Here is a message out there to all those self-funded retirees: you cannot trust Labor when it comes to superannuation.
The hypocrisy of those opposite. I sat in here on the last sitting day before the Christmas break. On this side of the House were the government and the member for Melbourne, a member of the Greens party who, like his colleagues in the other place, had supported significant reforms to make sure that multinational companies operating in Australia did in fact pay their fair share of tax. If my memory serves me correctly, the only people in this place who voted against those reforms were the Labor Party. The hypocrisy of those opposite!
And then of course we come to the topic du jour, indeed, in the 'year of ideas', and that is negative gearing. I am a simple man. I worked in the wool industry for many years. I worked for a trading company in Melbourne, but I spent a lot of money on behalf of my principals and for the customers that we were supplying in all four corners of the globe. I can tell you that, when I was sitting in an auction room, the thing that brought the most joy to my heart was to see one of my competitors in bidding on similar products walking out of the room. What did it mean? It meant that prices almost certainly went down. You could apply the same at a sheep sale or a livestock sale.
Indeed, there is the example of what the Labor Party did in government in a panicked response to a social media campaign, an email campaign, and the lives and the businesses that paid a terrible, terrible price in northern Australia in respect of the live cattle export trade. But it was not just those families who were impacted directly and the transport businesses and the other business associated with that; there was the knock-on impact. It knocked down through Queensland. It knocked down through New South Wales to Victoria to the yearling sales in Tasmania. It impacted on every person around the country trying to sell cattle at that time and for many months afterwards.
So it is at a house auction. So it is when the competition is reduced for a home property. Those opposite have put forward that the policy for negative gearing would only apply to new houses. Well, blow me down with a feather. It is a bit like the new car being driven out of the dealer's premises. Drive it out, and the price falls by 20 per cent. Immediately you are devaluing an asset. The incentives here are all wrong. The signals are all wrong. As the Prime Minister said today, this is economics 101, and unfortunately the Labor Party have failed dismally. I just wonder whether or not they have consulted with some of their own Labor colleagues, the premiers of the states, because I wonder how they might feel about the value of land tax transactions going down as a result of house prices going down in their communities.
Since coming to government, we have turned this engine of state around. In fact, you can do no better than to point to the job creation—and everything, really, that this government has done over the last 2½ years has been about job creation. Indeed, 300,000 jobs have been created in the last 12 months alone. There has been jobs growth of 2.6 per cent, higher than the 10-year average of 1.8 per cent—not high enough, of course. We know we need to do more.
There has been record funding for education and health, but I think what has captured the attention of Australians and has captured the attention of small business particularly and, more broadly, those who take an interest in the economy is the innovation agenda that the government has embarked upon—led, of course, by the Prime Minister and the Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science, Minister Pyne. The National Innovation and Science Agenda has rekindled a degree of confidence in this country that has been welcomed by business and is permeating to the mums and dads who see the confidence being restored. I will get to practical examples of that in my home state of Tasmania.
No state more than Tasmania has been able to take advantage of and understand the benefits that have flowed to this country, and specifically Tasmania, from the trade agreements that have been signed by Minister Robb on behalf of our nation in South Korea, Japan and, of course, China.
I think that the participation in the workforce of women is a very, very strong indicator, again, of that confidence of mums and the support that we are providing them through the $5.5 billion childcare package, which is encouraging and providing mothers with more opportunities to get back in the workforce. If we have a similar proportion of female workplace participation in this country compared to, for example, a similar country such as Canada—a small population in a large country—the value to the Australian economy in terms of its increased size is roughly $25 billion a year. It is worth putting the effort in to encourage mums to get back to work.
There has been more money going into health and education. There is a focus on those subjects, the STEM subjects, that will provide the jobs of the future for more and more Australians. Particularly, again, in my home state, the opportunities that I see lie within advanced manufacturing, particularly within the food sector.
And of course there is the record investment that this government has made in respect of infrastructure, $50 billion over 10 years that is revitalising the productive infrastructure of our country, building new productive infrastructure that will set up our country to transition the economy. That is what we are doing. We are moving from what was a boom time in this nation of the construction phase within the mining sector. They have moved into the production phase. Yes, they face their challenges with commodity prices as they stand at the moment. But transitioning the Australian economy into a more diversified economy depends on the investment that we are making in infrastructure, not least of all in my home state of Tasmania.
Of course, reform within the workplace has been a focus of this government as well. Unfortunately—and it has been topical today in the debate that has just concluded—we are seeing what is happening within the Senate on the reforms that we are proposing around the Australian Building and Construction Commission and registered organisations to apply the same rigour to the way that unions are managed that applies to corporate entities in Australia. I do not think it is asking too much. The same standard that applies to public entities in this country, frankly, should apply to those organisations that purport to represent working Australians. These are all measures that are about driving productivity in our nation.
In my home state of Tasmania we are leading the way, and we have done so for more than 18 months, in terms of small and medium business enterprise confidence. We used to describe Labor and the Greens running the show in Canberra as a 'double whammy', but in Tasmania we had the double whammy. We had a Labor government at home in coalition, with ministers in cabinet—some of whom now reside in the other place—running our state into the ground. No more. We put a plan forward to the Tasmanian people: we would focus on rebuilding our state to capitalise on the entrepreneurial spirit that exists within the people of Tasmania and the people of my electorate.
And so it is that in two short years we have been able to, through re-engendering confidence and focusing on a can-do attitude, deliver our state some stunning results in terms of business confidence. There is one thing I would like to highlight: we have had close in recent days—certainly in the last week or so—the Tasmanian Jobs and Investment Fund. This is a fund that the Commonwealth contributed $16 million to. The Tasmanian government has added $8 million to that, which, indeed, we welcome. It is for businesses looking to expand, to innovate and to grow their businesses, creating more jobs for more Tasmanians.
It is funding that is available on a competitive basis for businesses—$1 of funding for every $2 that the business is investing. Indeed, without getting into the specifics, it is being managed by AusIndustry, and I look forward to the work that they will do. It will be a difficult job, I have no doubt. There were 140 applications for the $24 million that is available to businesses looking to expand. Those applications were for nearly $107 million, with matching funding of $362 million—totalling almost half a billion dollars of proposed investment.
What this will mean for my state is truly transformational. This will mean, and it is evidence of, businesses having an increasing confidence that, in Canberra, we have a government with a plan. We have a government that is focused on the things that Australians want us to be focused on. They know we have not had it all our own way. We have a state government at home that is supporting the work of the Commonwealth government, and I look forward to being part of the continued work that I can do in this space to encourage more jobs and growth in Tasmania.
Tax has been the hot topic of conversation around the barbecues of north-east Victoria this summer. Tax—how it is raised, how it is spent and what the government does with it. It is time to get honest about tax and tax reform, and to get honest about the need for regional Australia to be included in any conversation about tax. Tonight I call on the government, the Prime Minister and the Treasurer to stay the course and to give us, the people of rural and regional Australia, the information we need about tax reform.
In March 2015, I tabled in this place my private member's bill, The Charter of Budget Honesty Amendment (Regional Australia Statements) Bill 2015. This bill called on the government to ensure that regional impact statements are prepared and accompany every budget, every year. This amendment bill addresses my election commitment to stand up for people who live in regional Australia; people who already pay their fair share of tax and have a vested interest in how this tax spent. Many feel they are disadvantaged, because of a lack of taxpayer money invested in regional public transport, regional mobile phone coverage, regional internet, regional innovative employment creation and regional educational opportunities.
The topic of tax and how it is spent goes to the very heart of regional living. The main purpose of the bill was to ensure that the framework for the conduct of government budgetary policy—which includes obligations on the government to provide regular financial reporting—should include regional Australia statements. These statements would be publicly released with each Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook report, as well as with the budget. The central pillar of my charter of budget honesty amendment bill is for people who live in rural and regional Australia to have the information to allow them to make an assessment of the impact of government policy decisions on regional Australia.
Such statements would acknowledge, and account for, the impact government decisions have on regional Australia. They would help improve the knowledge and understanding of the impact of fiscal and budgetary measures upon regional communities. This amendment would keep the government honest about the tax revenue coming in from regional Australia, and about reporting where the expenditure is going and the degree to which it benefits people, families, businesses and farmers in regional Australia. It is important to stress here that when I refer to 'rural and regional' I am not only referring to farming or agriculture; I am also referring to the over 80,000 of my constituents who live in rural towns and small villages.
Including these statements is not a new idea. It is my understanding that they have been a feature of every budget since 1996-97—except for 2006-07—until 2013-14. They need to be returned, because they have been missed and they are needed.
There is strong community consensus, in rural and regional north-east Victoria, around the broad framework and the justification of taxation. There is a strong understanding and recognition of the government's role and responsibility to collect and redistribute tax based around an agreed set of values and behaviours and, every three years, an opportunity for the people to elect the party whose policies are generally considered in line with the community's values and expectations.
As people gathered around barbecues on glorious summer evenings this year, they talked about the ramifications of an increase in the GST to health services, food and education. They talked of the need for fairness in the tax system and the sense of unease when the big companies, the multinationals, are seen to not be paying their fair share. They talked of housing prices and wondered whether negative gearing was having a negative impact on the housing market. They talked about superannuation and shared stories of people they knew who did not have enough and how hard things would be if you could not get a pension and had to work till you were 70 or were a self-funded retiree. They also talked about others who had very profitable schemes and could live very comfortably, thank you, on the interest gained from these investments. Surely they could afford to pay tax on those earnings, they asked.
The conversations also skirted around the role of government in delivering appropriate goods and services and if people would be prepared to pay more tax if that meant better services, better access to higher education, improved infrastructure, particularly trains, and telecommunications, mobile phones and internet. And no barbecue is ever complete without stories of government waste, poor decision making and frustration at poor administration. No-one wanted more of that. There was a belief that considered and productive reform is needed of our tax system. We need better outcomes. We do not just need to raise more tax to spend more money; we need outcome based taxation.
Against a background of general chatter, I have to say there is a level of discord—things are not going well, from the people's perspective—about tax, and the general belief is that reform is well and truly overdue. There is an interest—and from many people it is an eager interest—in improvement in the taxation system and the distribution of tax. There is also an interest in the process of policymaking. How about a green paper, a white paper, policy then budget? Processes would result in a fairer tax system, better targeted support and a government focusing on its core business, with particular focus on facilitating infrastructure, transport, telecommunications, education, defence, trade and managing foreign affairs as well as maintaining a fair social welfare safety net.
There is so much that needs to be done in rural Australia, so many areas where people experience disadvantage. This leads them to a belief that the taxation system is not working for them, that it is not fair. That is why the private member's bill calling for an amendment to the Charter of Budget Honesty Act by including regional statements is so important. It would provide the facts. It would give the evidence and ensure that policy is based on data. These facts would give us the information which would allow the assessment of the likely economic, social, cultural and environmental impacts on regional Australia of key government initiatives and of the progress made in implementing key government initiatives. These statements would tell us what impact is being had, what outcomes are being reached and whether we are successfully addressing the problems that we have identified.
The legislation calls for regional statements to have regard to the economic drivers of regional communities and the disproportionate effect that government initiatives may have in regional communities due to a lack of infrastructure, including, particularly, mobile phone coverage and internet connection; a lack of access to public transport; and a lack of access to government services due to cost and long travel distances and times. There is also the effect that lack of competition in regional communities has on the cost of living and, particularly, doing business in regional communities, and the cost and difficulty involved in complying with regulatory requirements for people and business.
There is one particular topic that I would like to bring to the attention of the House. The Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Jobs for Families Child Care Package) Bill 2015 is before the House at the moment, and this morning we had Deloitte Access Economics give us the results of their analysis of the impact of this bill, particularly on rural and regional Australia. The impact is just enormous, but to me it seems just so wrong that we should have a private enterprise consultancy business doing this study. It should come out of the Department of Education and Training. The department are putting this bill up. They should be responsible for making sure that the negative impacts and the positive impacts on rural and regional people are noted and that people understand that it is going to have a huge negative impact on us.
In bringing this to a conclusion, I have to say that in 2015 the government did not ignore that bill. In the 2015-16 budget papers, there was a most welcome addition—the 'blue book', Partnership for Regional Growth. This blue book was a joint statement by the Hon. Warren Truss, Deputy PM, Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development, and the Hon. Jamie Briggs, at that time Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development. This blue book provides an overview of current and new initiatives, under the topics of Agriculture, Attorney-General's, Defence, Education and Training, Employment, Environment, Foreign Affairs and Trade, Health, Human Services, Immigration and Border Protection, Industry and Science, Infrastructure and Regional Development, PM&C, Social Services, Treasury and Veterans' Affairs. It is a great description of programs that are operating.
But, sadly, this blue book does not do what was really asked of it. What is missing? There is no detail of budget initiatives, no impact statements or analysis of the economic drivers of regional communities and the disproportionate effect that government initiatives have in regional communities due to a lack of infrastructure and associated problems. There is no mention of our ability to grow business. There is no mention of the impacts that we are trying to have. There is no mention of outcomes. There is no mention of whether we have had success. All there is is a description, then 'Here's the money,' and no accounting at all about what we want done with it.
There is an opportunity now, as we prepare for the next budget, for the Prime Minister, the Treasurer, the new leadership in the National Party and the relevant ministers to revisit the content of the blue book to review its contents and its relevance in time for the budget. To do so would be a wonderful thing. It could ensure that as a community, as we gather around our fires in late autumn and winter, as we are discussing tax and tax reform, we look at how our hard earned money—our taxes—is being used to build our communities, to bring prosperity, to bring opportunity for all and how our taxpayer money and government initiatives are changing and making a difference and we have some form of accountability for the outcomes that we want.
In closing, my call to the Prime Minister and Treasurer is to stay the course on tax reform and to put in an overlay for rural and regional Australia, across all the proposals, and then communicate the benefits, the opportunities and the costs to the one-third of the population who live outside our capital cities.
I rise today to contribute to the Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2015-2016 cognate debate. In part, I do this to acknowledge the strong record of delivery by the coalition government since its election 2½ years ago and to lay out the many programs the government has implemented in my electorate of Solomon, and indeed the Northern Territory, since 2013.
I will begin by going back a few days to Thursday, 19 February, which is a very significant day in Darwin for our sometimes turbulent history: 19 February was the first day of the bombing. The Japanese launched 188 planes from aircraft carriers, and bombs rained on the harbour and town. Ten ships were sunk, around 250 people were killed, 400 were injured, 30 aircraft were destroyed and the city was in absolute chaos. There were oil slicks across Darwin Harbour, smashed and burning buildings, and people dead and dying. It was an event of catastrophic significance, which saw the loss of American as well as Australian personnel. Yet, outside the Northern Territory, very little is known about it compared to, say, the Kokoda Track or the Thai-Burma Railway.
Out of respect for those who died trying to defend their country at our own backdoor, the event should have a national profile. Through my own efforts and those of a great friend of the Territory, former Labor Senator Trish Crossin—the one that was sadly replaced by a captain's pick who has disappointed us all—we were able to have the bombing of Darwin declared a national day of observance. This has raised the status of February 19 from a day of local commemoration to one of national significance. Next year we will commemorate the 75th anniversary of the bombing of Darwin. It is important that we acknowledge our past and celebrate our future.
This year I laid a wreath, on behalf of the Prime Minister, alongside my husband, Paul, and Mr Masato Takaoko who is the Consul-General of Japan. This was a very moving moment for the three of us and I am pleased that our countries are now firm friends.
Northern Australia contributes over 11 per cent of Australia's GDP and has 40 per cent of Australia's GDP but only around five per cent of its population. The Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility is set to commence in the 2016-17 financial year. I am looking forward to seeing ambitious nation-building projects growing the Territory. Indeed, population growth will be crucial in driving investment in Northern Australia, particularly in cities like Darwin.
Leading demographer Bernard Salt said last year that if the government is to succeed in developing the north, Darwin's population will need to grow by 70 per cent to reach around 250,000 or 300,000 over the next 30 to 40 years. The government's vision for Northern Australia lays the foundation for this to occur over the next two decades. It includes $600 million for roads, cash to upgrade airstrips, money to explore rail freight, $100 million for beef roads, $200 million for water infrastructure, $75 million towards a cooperative research centre and measures to develop even closer links with Asia.
In partnership with the Northern Territory government, the coalition is spending $70 million duplicating Tiger Brennan Drive—one of the two main arterial roads in and out of Darwin. In 2014, I was proud to have the former Deputy Prime Minister Warren Truss in my electorate to open the first stage of the duplication. I can assure the former Deputy Prime Minister that work on the next phase of the project—duplicating the road out to the Berrimah lights—is powering ahead, notwithstanding the discovery of the occasional bomb dropped during one of the raids that I mentioned earlier. The duplication means that Palmerston residents and those from further afield can enjoy a quicker and safer commute into and out of the CBD, spending a lot less time in their cars and more time doing the things that they like to do—and many Territorians like to spend time fishing.
Also growing the Territory, through the Investment Road and Rail Program, the coalition is spending $18 million improving flood immunity, road safety and productivity on the Stuart Highway—the other arterial road into and out of the city—between Katherine and Darwin.
Still on roads, the Black Spot Program has provided a boost to road safety in Solomon, with funding approved for a number of projects. Some of these have been funded directly to the Darwin City Council or the Palmerston City Council while others have been directed to the Northern Territory government for their road expenditure. We have $120,000 in expenditure on the Trower Road and Dripstone Road intersection in Wagaman. On the Smith Street and Edmund Street intersection in Darwin CBD there is $43,000 being spent. On McMillans Road and Lee Point Road intersection in Moil there is $400,000 being spent. On the Stuart Highway and Amy Johnson Avenue intersection in Coonawarra there is $100,000 being spent. On the Stuart Highway between Bagot Road and Billeroy Road, in The Narrows, there is $200,000 being spent to upgrade that area. In the city, once again, at Smith Street and Daly Street intersection, $550,000 is being used to implement a roundabout. At the Ryland Road and Clarke Crescent intersection in Rapid Creek, $75,000 is being spent for road infrastructure. At the Temple Terrace and Emery Avenue intersection in Gray, $500,000 is being spent to upgrade that intersection. And at the Elrundi Avenue and Bonson Terrace intersection in Moulden, $260,000 is being spent from the Black Spot Program to upgrade that particular intersection. On the Flockhart Drive Bridge between Muster Road and Campfire Court in Marlow Lagoon, $440,000 is being spent for a pedestrian bridge to make sure that the children going to and from the Palmerston Christian School are going to be safe from the road traffic. These upgrades are about improving safety on our local roads, and, as the local member, I am extremely proud to have been able to work with the Solomon community to identify roads in need and to secure investment in these particular roads.
Solomon has benefited from the Roads to Recovery program, with the city of Darwin receiving $5.72 million and the city of Palmerston $2.47 million to upgrade local roads. The National Stronger Regions Fund has at its heart economic development, and third-round submissions have recently opened for this much sought-after nation building measure. Darwin City Council's request for almost $4.5 million for its ambitious upgrade to Parap pool was approved in round 1, and I look forward to working with the Darwin City Council and, in particular, with Lord Mayor Katrina Fong Lim, as this project proceeds.
Some concerns were raised around the Northern Territory that we were not able to secure any funding in round 2. No-one was more disappointed than I was, and we have got some feedback from those applications and we are working to secure funding in the next round. I encourage anyone who is interested in submitting for round 3 to work with my office so we can ensure that we get some much-needed funding in the Territory.
The Anzac Centenary Local Grants Program was an extremely popular measure in Solomon. The Commonwealth provided funding of $1.7 million to help with the enormously successful Albert Borella trek. This trek re-enacted the incredible journey that Albert Borella and his companions took from Tennant Creek to Darwin after war broke out—by train, by horseback, on foot and eventually by boat. Albert Borella went to extraordinary lengths to enlist in the Great War, and after a short campaign at Gallipoli he eventually became the Territory's first and only Victoria Cross winner on the battlefields of Europe.
At a local level, I was extremely pleased that the Commonwealth was able to top up funding for the Anzac centenary program from $75,000 to $125,000, which allowed local committees more scope to assess submissions to approve project requests. The Solomon committee was bipartisan with representatives from the government and opposition benches of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly and included veterans group representatives, a leading military historian, the editor of Darwin Sun and Palmerston Sun newspapers and a youth representative, and we also received input from the Chief Minister's department. A substantial number of nominations were received but the primary criteria upon which successful applications were judged was the enduring nature of the proposal. For example, the Darwin RSL Sub Branch received the lion's share of funding with a $50,000 grant towards a documentary about Albert Borella's trek, including footage of the re-enactment ride into Darwin.
Other grant recipients were the Vietnam veterans, who received $3,357 to spread the Anzac history to all Northern Territory students, through a book; Girl Guides NT received $1,715 to construct an Anzac centenary memorial garden at their Parap headquarters; Darwin Military Museum received $5,275 to contribute towards a Great War museum display; St Paul's Primary School received $2,333 to install an Anzac commemorative plaque and a flagpole; The Palmerston RSL Sub Branch received $18,583 to conduct an Anzac eve youth vigil and Great War research competition in Palmerston; Moil Primary School received $5,000 to perform the production From Darwin to Dardanelles, and Darwin High School also received $5,000 to hold an Anzac assembly featuring a tribute to the silent service of the Australian submarine flotilla.
Darwin Military Museum received $27,000 to produce and distribute a book, including a teacher's guide, about those who served in the Great War from the Northern Territory. I have spoken about that book, which was written by Norman Cramp. It is a fantastic book and I was delighted to be able to launch that a few weeks ago.
Casuarina Senior College received $875 to help them hold an Anzac centenary commemorative week and service, and the Darwin RSL Sub Branch received $7,262, for rectification and correction of deceased listings on the Darwin First World War cenotaph.
I am extremely proud to have been involved in this program, with its roots well and truly in the Solomon community. As somebody with a great-uncle who served and died in Europe fighting for his country, it was extremely satisfying to have been able in a small way to honour the sacrifice of those who took part in the war to end all wars.
The former Deputy Prime Minister also opened the Housing Industry Association's multipurpose building industry training centre project, which was supported with $3.3 million from the Regional Development Australia Fund, and the $7.5 million Michael Long Territory Thunder Learning and Leadership Centre was also built with support from this funding pool. It was opened by former minister Jamie Briggs.
Law and order was an unusual focus for Commonwealth governments, but the coalition was keen to help ease the pressure on the states and territories in this space. The result for Solomon was the purchase of two mobile CCTV units that have been deployed on a needs basis such as the Nightcliff, Karama and Palmerston shopping centres. These are wonderful pieces of infrastructure that provide awesome support to our police officers.
The Green Army has been busy in Solomon, with up to 30 volunteers, mostly aged between 17 and 24, assisting local groups including the McMinns Lagoon Reserve Association—even though that is not in Solomon—Friends of Casuarina Coastal Reserve, Friends of Fogg Dam and Friends of Mitchell Creek on revegetation, clean-up and signage projects. I want to acknowledge the really good work by Conservation Volunteers Australia in facilitating these projects.
Funding has also been approved for a particularly exciting project under the auspices of Greening Australia which, with support of the Green Army, aims to establish the largest seed bank in the Northern Territory. The Green Army will assist in the collection of seeds, their cataloguing and storage with an eye eventually on having the seed stock registered both nationally and globally. I am delighted the Green Army is able to assist in the early stages of this important body of work.
There has been some talk about the Palmerston hospital, and I noticed the Labor shadow minister is in the chamber. I am delighted to say that the project is well and truly underway. The Northern Territory government has responsibility for delivering on this. We funded it and, despite all the lies from those across the table, it is well and truly underway. My opponent, the wannabe politician, needs to stop with the scaremongering.
I too rise to speak on the Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2015-2016 and cognate bill, which represent Malcolm Turnbull's first major economic statement. I do feel the need to respond to the member for Solomon to some extent. I think the Northern Territory government, unfortunately, dropped the member for Solomon in it. Her media statements around the Northern Territory government actually attest to that. I felt very sorry that she was, unfortunately, dragged into what clearly was a stunt around the Palmerston hospital. I am delighted and those on this side are delighted because we made the commitment to the funding for the Palmerston hospital in the first place that it is finally under construction, though a bit late, I would have to say. I do feel very embarrassed for the member for Solomon that she got dragged into the stunt by the Northern Territory government and I am glad she hit out at them in the local media about that. But I do look forward to having our Labor candidate, who has been a champion not only for the Palmerston hospital but for the Darwin hospital as well, here as the new member for Solomon in the next parliament.
The appropriation bills give us an opportunity to look at the Mid-year Economic and Fiscal Outlook and to speak about those areas for which we have some responsibility. Of course, I wish to speak about health. Sadly, despite the Prime Minister's promise of new leadership, there has been absolutely no evidence of that when it comes to health policy. Instead, in many ways, what we have seen in the Prime Minister's first economic statement is actually worse than what we saw from the previous Prime Minister and the previous Treasurer.
This year Mid-year Economic and Fiscal Outlook statement has continued the $57 billion worth of cuts to public hospitals. I note some reports today that the government has been forced and will have to go to the COAG meeting in April with the bucket on the table—$7 billion potentially—that represents Labor's funding for the next few years for public hospitals. It is the money Labor committed. What an embarrassed for the government that it now has to put exactly the money that the states and territories would have got under Labor's agreements back to the states and territories because of the absolute mess they have created with public hospital funding—$57 billion worth of cuts. I can tell you now, $7 billion is not going to cut it when it comes to the growth in demand in our public hospitals. If you think you are going to get away with just rolling all of the money in from some of the existing services and not giving the states extra money to meet the demand that is happening in our public hospitals across the country, then you are kidding yourselves and you are on for a very big fight over this issue.
Again, in the Mid-year Economic and Fiscal Outlook we not only had the $57 billion worth of public hospital cuts entrenched in the budget but also the $2 billion four-year freeze on Medicare rebates for GP visits. The government may not think this matters much, but we know that over time what we will start to see is the introduction, in essence, of large co-payments within general practice. That is what is already happening in some areas. Over time, it certainly will have a substantial impact on the fees that GPs charge their patients.
We also saw the continuation of the $800 million in cuts to the health flexible funds. This is a debacle. We saw, in fact, that debacle this week. The hotline for the Australian Breastfeeding Association that thousands of women ring each year to try to get advice about breastfeeding has uncertain funding. The funding was due to run out at the end of this financial year. They had been to the department. There was nowhere for them to put an application in. They were told, very specifically, that they could put in a letter and there might be something coming but there was no time frame, no possibility about what the amount would be or what the parameters were because the department simply does not know what is happening with those flexible funds. I am very pleased the government has provided them with some money for another year. They were getting three-year funding and they have now been bailed out for another year.
This is the chaos that has been created with the $800 million being entrenched in MYEFO into the budget to all of the not-for-profit organisations across the health system. We have recently seen the rural and regional health consumers forum, basically, defunded—it is $60,000. There is nowhere else for these groups to go, and there are hundreds of them. Many of them are coming to me. They are scared. They say they do not want to run a campaign because they know how vindictive this government is when they do.
The Australian Breastfeeding Association have been courageous and they have had a result here. But they have had a result of one year, because, I can tell you now, there was a strong potential for a very strong campaign against this government on this issue and the government has tried to save itself a problem in the lead-up to the election. But these $800 million worth of cuts are causing chaos across the not-for-profit sector when it comes to health and the government has no solution. It is tinkering around the flexible funds. Out of the blue, it created a new peaks fund that no-one particularly knew about. It has also told people that it is going to start creating other funds as well. It is chaos when it comes to this issue.
We have also seen entrenched again in the budget a $1.3 billion hike to the essential medicines. That still sits in MYEFO as a $1.3 billion savings measure, despite the fact that the Senate has clearly indicated it will not pass. It is a fraud to have it there. The minister has said, 'I'm not taking it off the table, because I'll have to find other savings.' Well, yes, she will, but it seems to me that the government cannot continue to claim that this measure is in fact a saving and try to prop up its budget bottom line. Equally, in the same point, is the $267 million attack on the Medicare safety net, which had, in particular, those patients facing fertility treatment so anxious about what that would mean in that area as well as in some of the other areas such as psychotherapy in the mental health space. So, again, that is also still within the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook. But, to add insult to injury, this mid-year economic statement adds another $2.1 billion in cuts that will make potentially make health care even less affordable to millions of Australians. Frankly, this mid-year budget review proved that, no matter who the leader is, the Liberals only ever see health as a source of budget cuts and will always look to make health less affordable for those who need it most—the sick and the poor.
The Prime Minister's first economic statement, delivered just weeks after he came to power, promised to put an end to the backward-looking policies and divisions of his predecessor. But, instead, in health, the government cut $595 million out of health workforce programs. Having already cut the health workforce, it is incredibly short-sighted for the government to have done this. We have seen a program of work remaining from Health Workforce Australia that will basically pretty much finish at the end of this year, and now they have cut further funding out of health workforce. The government have no policy, no plan and no idea about what they are doing in this vital area to make sure that our health system actually functions. What are you going to do about the professions, how they are spread across the country, what their work is, and how you foster the next generation of our workforce in this area? It is critical to reform, and the government have absolutely dropped the ball. We have also seen another $146 million out of health prevention and eHealth. The government are going around saying that they are committed to the electronic health record, yet they have continued with cuts and they have not put money in the forward estimates for it. So they have a big problem when it comes to that.
As we have heard a lot about both in this place and outside, they have also taken a very blunt instrument and ripped another $650 million out of bulk-billing for pathology and have made changes to bulk-billing for diagnostic imaging. Australian women were rightly outraged at reports that, as a result of the Turnbull government's pre-Christmas budget cuts, they might soon be paying a lot more for critical tests. These are critical tests when it comes to cancer diagnosis and chronic disease. It is a very blunt instrument. If the government think that the pathology companies—which they like to beat up on at the moment—and the diagnostic imaging companies are somehow going to just absorb these cuts and be really generous to patients and not pass these cuts on, they are absolutely kidding themselves. They know that these companies will pass these cuts on. You can say that is appalling—it may well be—but that is the commercial reality of what they will do. What will happen as a result? The result will be that it is the patients who will pay—and, in some cases, it will be the sickest and poorest patients who will pay.
The government like to play around with figures on this, but the bulk-billing incentive in pathology was deliberately designed after we had made savings in the pathology area to ensure that pathology maintained its high level of bulk-billing—and that is exactly what happened. It has not only done that; it has increased it by one per cent. So if you think just taking that away without any negotiation with the pathology companies about how they might continue to keep high rates of bulk-billing and that there will not be a change, you are just in there with a wing and a prayer—and the people who are going to pay for that are the patients.
I particularly want to highlight diagnostic imaging. I am bit reluctant to do this on this day, but it is the only opportunity I have to do so. In particular, because it is Teal Ribbon Day, I want to talk about the circumstances of someone who may be diagnosed with ovarian cancer. Ovarian cancer is an insidious disease. It is the silent killer. We know that, for many, many women, the symptoms do not show. They are symptoms that we all generally put down to being of our gender. We might be a bit tired, we might be feeling a bit bloated or we might have to wee a bit more, but we do not necessarily think that these are things that we should absolutely, desperately, go and see the doctor about.
I found it a bit galling, to be honest—when we have these terrible cuts that are happening to diagnostic imaging—to see some of the comments being made about how we need to commit to ovarian cancer and how important this is on this day, when there are some very serious consequences of the decisions that this government is making. For example, a woman diagnosed with ovarian cancer will typically need an ultrasound and two CT scans and, after treatment, a further five CT scans and two ultrasounds for monitoring. As a result of the government's decision to cut diagnostic imaging, these women now face upfront costs of between $3½ thousand to $4½ thousand, because you do not just get to pay the gap; you actually have to pay the full amount upfront and then reclaim from Medicare. So they have to find that money each time for those scans and, even after they receive the Medicare rebate, they are left between $365 and $1,300 out of pocket. They are the figures from the Australian Diagnostic Imaging Association and they cannot be dismissed. That is the commercial reality of what they have said they will need to do in their practices across the country.
I have no doubt that many women, when they hear these examples and when they see what these cuts actually mean for what patients, potentially, will pay in out-of-pocket costs, will be extremely distressed by that—and they should be. What the government has done, in the mid-year economic financial statement, has been a very blunt instrument. It has not been negotiated with either of those sectors. The inevitable consequence of those is, of course, that patients will pay.
I saw the minister's press release; we do pay attention. We get a bit amused by those, I must admit, in my office, because we are in opposition and she does pay us an awful lot of attention for that. It is always very flattering. But in quoting the Grattan Institute on pathology today the minister probably had not read the report. The report clearly stated that if the government proceeds with what it is doing there is the potential for patients to pay for it. This mid-year economic financial statement has entrenched the fact that this government is the worst friend that Medicare has ever had. They do not believe in universal health care and they should be ashamed of what they have done in health.
I am pleased to rise in support of Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2015-2016 and the associated package, which details the expenditure of money from the Consolidated Revenue Fund for this financial year. The total being sought through these bills is just over $2.2 billion. Like many members on both sides, I am really pleased to have his opportunity to discuss how this wide-ranging legislation will provide a significant boost to my electorate of Robertson.
One element in this package of bills that I do want a focus on tonight, because it has a real impact in my electorate, is the investment in the National Disability Insurance Agency, which will roll out the landmark National Disability Insurance Scheme—more commonly known as the NDIS. The bill delivers just over $108 million for the transition to the full NDIS, as agreed with New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania. Importantly, for the families and businesses in my electorate of Robertson, the scheme includes the Central Coast, which is among one of the first locations where the NDIS will be delivered in New South Wales. It will be phased in from 1 July this year—just a few months away—and will continue to be transitioned gradually through to the end of June 2017.
I think it is vital to emphasise from the outset that the Turnbull government is fully committed to implementing the NDIS. I am advised that, by the end of the transition to the full scheme in New South Wales, around 115,000 participants are expected to be supported by the scheme. The agreement with New South Wales also provides for another 26,000 people who are not currently receiving services to enter the scheme from July 2018. So in terms of the overall numbers, this gives certainty to more than 140,000 people with disability in New South Wales. When combined with the agreements signed with Victoria, South Australia, Tasmania and the ACT, it gives certainty to the more than 64 per cent of the 460,000 Australians expected to be eligible for the NDIS. Each region will, of course, have a different approach to the transition. The phasing in of clients will take account of local circumstances and promote the best possible outcomes for people with disability in each local area.
Of course, the NDIS is not just about a program; it is not just about KPIs. It is all about helping real people who need this support and backing the organisations that work so hard on the ground to deliver it. The NDIS is a long-term commitment for people who need lifelong support. Many people who will need that lifelong support live in my electorate of Robertson. That is why, today, I would really like to share some examples as to how organisations and people in Robertson will directly benefit from this scheme.
The Turnbull government was recently able to confirm funding to deliver employment certainty for around 200 people with disability on the Central Coast through an investment of $650 million, for Australian Disability Enterprises, over the next three years. Six-point-three million dollars of this funding is for three outstanding organisations in Robertson, including Fairhaven Services. It is a local organisation on the Central Coast that is focussed on ensuring that people who have disability have the opportunity for work. Fairhaven's Chief Executive Officer, Jim Buultjens, told me that it would deliver more varied work options for more than 140 employees, like at the Fare Cravin' cafe at Point Clare that they recently opened and that we attended, and at their factory at West Gosford.
Terama Industries at Gosford and Lasercraft Australia at West Gosford are also receiving funding to deliver jobs for people with disability on the Central Coast. These new contracts, signed by these organisations as part of the funding, are expected to reduce red tape and assist in the transition from current arrangements to the new claiming processes on the NDIS.
Importantly, I understand that people currently receiving support through the New South Wales government specialist disability services will be moving to the NDIS first. Those with unmet needs who newly acquire a disability, or whose circumstances change so that they need critical support, will also be able to enter the NDIS during the transition period. Importantly, also, people receiving support at the moment from a state or the Commonwealth will continue to do so until they transition into the NDIS. This news has the potential to have a significant impact on many families right across the Central Coast, particularly parents who are tireless carers for children with a disability, such as Rachael.
Rachael has lived on the Central Coast for 25 years. She has two children under the age of 10, one of whom was diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder around three years ago and is completely non-verbal. In a letter to me, Rachael said that she started with no knowledge whatsoever of what to do—as with many people when receiving a diagnosis such as this. Through some basic Google researching, she found a paediatrician and quickly realised that early intervention was absolutely the key. We know that children with disability should have the same choices, opportunities and experiences as other children and be fully participating in their community to lay the foundation for further development and learning. But, for Rachael, to make this a reality required sacrifices. Rachael's full-time job soon became part-time, as the therapy sessions became more regular. The family was able to access $12,000 in funding from the federal government during this time, through the Helping Children with Autism package, which did assist in some of the costs that kept rising. The appointments with experts on speech, occupational therapists, paediatricians and clinical psychologists kept coming but Rachael's family decided more therapy was needed.
I understand they have since linked up with Jigsaw, whose Occupational Therapy for Children program works within home, school and community environments. But of course more therapy also involves more expense, and Rachael's family said they were finding it difficult given the everyday costs of living including bills and mortgages to pay. Rachael's letter ended to me:
As a mum, trying to do the best for her son, I'm writing you this letter to have the NDIS available sooner. I believe not just for myself, but other families who are missing out on this opportunity.
I am pleased to say, that in just a few months this process starts on the Central Coast which could assist families like Rachael's.
Another local mother I have been speaking with about the challenges and opportunities of the NDIS is Lorraine from Lisarow. Lorraine is a single parent whose 11-year-old son has Dravet syndrome. Until recently, Lorraine was able to claim several days a week in disability respite services provided through the New South Wales state government. I understand that respite provides families and unpaid carers of a person with a disability, like Lorraine, with planned, short-term, time-limited breaks from their usual caring role. Respite services aim to provide a positive experience for both the carer and for the person with disability. However, I am advised that since circumstances for Lorraine changed, because she now works part-time, this support is now more difficult to access. Despite trying to hold down her job, Lorraine told me it is causing added stress at home with taking care of her son, especially on school holidays.
I am determined to work towards establishing the potential for the NDIS, in collaboration with the New South Wales government's current disability funding framework, to see if that may be a way forward for Lorraine to obtain the support she needs. I want to thank Lorraine for sharing with me her very personal story. It has been an absolute pleasure to get to know Lorraine over a number of meetings and occasions, and also her son.
The NDIS has also got the potential to help businesses who help people with a disability, like Gemma, who is a pathologist at Coastal Speech Pathology in Erina. Gemma runs her own private practice and told me that she expects many of her clients will become participants of the NDIS when it begins. The practice also encourages early intervention and assists children to access support through private allied health services. This has allowed local families to develop strategies to help their child participate at preschool, develop communication skills, and to learn to eat and grow. However, like Lorraine, Gemma also raised with me some concerns around the clarity of the rollout process and how it relates to helping patients. Local stroke awareness advocate Brenda Booth, from Woy Woy, has also raised with me on behalf of many stroke survivors on the Central Coast some of their questions regarding the rollout, not just of services but also available information.
The NDIS is about helping a participant to reach their goals, objectives and aspirations and to undertake activities to enable their social and economic participation. But it is also about delivering more choice and control to people with permanent and significant disability, their families and carers. This government is determined to deliver the NDIS on time, within budget and in full to support families that need it the most. But we also need to ensure the people in my electorate of Robertson know how this rollout will directly impact them, and work to communicate this clearly to families and businesses. Part of this would be to push for the National Disability Insurance Agency to be based locally in Gosford. Having a Central Coast based office coordinating the local rollout and engaging with our local community would be a direct boost and a direct benefit to our region as well as to the families and businesses that will be accessing and participating in the scheme. I am working closely with the Minister for Social Services to make this a reality.
In the meantime, I would encourage people in my electorate to contact my office to check if they may be eligible for the NDIS and to find out more information about this important scheme. It is just one way that this Turnbull government is determined to care for the families who need it most.
As a mother of two young children myself, I strongly support the work of the government in this area and commend the bill to the House.
The appropriation bills being debated today, Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2015-2016 and Appropriations Bill (No. 4) 2015-16, are seeking parliamentary approval to appropriate $2.2 billion in 2015-16. These bills reflect the changes to the budget that were shown in the 2015-16 Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook which was released by the Turnbull government just prior to Christmas on 15 December 2015.
Labor will, of course, not block supply. We are, however, very keen to take a close look at some of the priorities and decision making of this government to show up where they have been found to be sorely lacking. What has become very clear since the MYEFO in December is the extent of the economic mismanagement of this government has been really laid bare. We have seen a budget situation that is deteriorating and not being addressed. I do want to go to some of those issues to outline some of the impacts of decisions being made by this government that really undermine both our economic and our social circumstances here in Australia.
It was clearly exhibited in the 2015-16 MYEFO the continued deterioration of the state of the budget and the economy under the current Abbott-Turnbull government. We learnt from MYEFO that the deficit was higher, a blow out of some $26 billion over the forward estimates—$120 million per day between the 2015-16 budget and the 2015-16 MYEFO. We also discovered that the net debt for 2016-17 is nearly $100 billion higher than was forecast back in 2013. Gross debt is headed to $550 billion by the end of the forward estimates and economic growth has been slashed.
This is on the back of figures which show the deterioration of the economy under this government. We have seen living standards, as measured by net disposable income per capita, falling now for six consecutive quarters. We have seen capital expenditure falling, with a broad-based decline—not just in the mining sector, as some members opposite might have us believe. Consumer and business confidence is at levels far lower than they were when this government took office. The evidence is clear: we have a Prime Minister, Treasurer and government who are failing to provide the economic leadership that Australia needs to prosper.
What has led the budget into the position where we now find it, you might ask. The answer to that question is the priorities and decisions that this government has made; the responsibility for which lies fairly at the feet of the Abbott-Turnbull government to date. From the early days, with the multibillion dollar cash injection into the Reserve Bank—an injection that the Reserve Bank did not ask for, as we well remember—to more recently allocating millions to pay for the magical mystery infrastructure re-announcement tours, the coalition continues to make decisions that undermine our economy and our budget and, more significantly, decisions that undermine the social contract that this government and parliament has with the Australian people. This is a government whose priorities are twisted and the execution of whose policies are lived as a cruel consequence for the Australian people.
I will start very briefly with this government's appointments around human rights commissioners in Australia. There has been nothing more offensive, in my view, than this government's decision to not replace the role of a full-time disability discrimination commissioner. I just heard the member opposite, the member for Robertson, talking passionately about the support for the National Disability Insurance Scheme. That is, indeed, a Labor policy position that has enjoyed bipartisan support in this House, and for that I think the nation remains grateful. But you cannot come to this House and lend support for the National Disability Insurance Scheme with one hand whilst you cut the capacity of people with disability to have a legitimate avenue of complaint and to ensure that due process is being followed to have all of their complaints heard in a proper manner. That is exactly what this government did when the then Disability Discrimination Commissioner, Graeme Innes, retired. His term was up, and this government refused and continues to refuse to replace that position with a full-time commissioner.
That is no slur on the tremendous work being done by Commissioner Susan Ryan, who has to double up her efforts. She is now a joint commissioner for both ageing and disability. These are portfolios which require their own dedicated commissioners. We know full well in this House that 37 per cent of the discrimination complaints handled by the Human Rights Commission were related to disability. We know that that is a heavy workload. We know that it is an area of clear, demonstrated need, yet this government does not see fit to replace the retired Graeme Innes with an equivalent full-time disability discrimination commissioner. That is to this government's great shame, and we should never forget it. Not only did the government cut the roles of the disability and ageing commissioners in half—they subsequently took five months to replace the Sex Discrimination Commissioner, a pivotal role within the Human Rights Commission.
However, we also saw the government swing into very swift action when they wanted to appoint a somewhat different type of commissioner on the political landscape—our very first wind farm commissioner, whose role continues to be as opaque and unfathomable as ever. The wind farm commissioner was appointed back in October 2015 following the announcement of the role in June 2015. In Senate estimates earlier this month, neither the Wind Farm Commissioner, the department or the minister were able to answer questions around the overall cost of the office of the Wind Farm Commissioner and what that cost will be to taxpayers. There were no answers, nor could they provide a figure as to the commissioner's travel budget, despite admitting to undertaking significant travel to meet stakeholders and complainants. The only figure they could confirm during estimates was the commissioner's salary of $205,000 for a part-time role. Again, when asked questions in Senate estimates no-one had any idea how many days or hours we were actually paying the commissioner for. What a debacle! What an absolute disgrace!
I hope that with the very recent opening created in the Human Rights Commission following the resignation of the Liberal preselection candidate, Tim Wilson, from his role as the 'freedom commissioner', this government will take the opportunity to reset their priorities, and that we will get to see the reappointment of a dedicated disability discrimination commissioner, allowing also a dedicated commissioner for the aged again in the process. I would think these are some significant areas that are in need of redress. This government has an ideal opportunity to take that issue up now.
I also note in the area of the immigration portfolio, or Border Force, the absolutely appalling situation that Australia finds itself in where this government has no plan for resettlement of refugees and asylum seekers into a third country, instead wasting $55 million on an incredibly botched deal with Cambodia that has resettled first four and now three people in Cambodia, all the while leaving refugees and asylum seekers to just languish in detention facilities with absolutely no hope and no certainty as to their future. That is a situation that is intolerable and the people of Australia have every right to be questioning where this government's plan is, what its intentions are and who is now really looking out for those asylum seekers and refugees under Australia's care.
If I look at the disastrous Direct Action plan that this government has before us, half of the $2.55 billion Emissions Reduction Fund has been spent, and yet for the first time in 10 years greenhouse gas emissions are rising in Australia. At a time when nearly 200 countries around the world have acknowledged the need to reduce greenhouse gas pollution, the Liberal government here is taking Australia in the opposite direction.
We saw a report earlier this month where the modeller RepuTex confirmed that pollution levels have gone up 1.3 per cent over the 2014-2015 fiscal year, and that is the first time we have had an increase since the 2005-2006 period. That same report confirmed that emissions are projected to rise from six per cent by 2020, with no peak in emissions expected before 2030. The old Malcolm Turnbull would never have stood for this but, regrettably, the new Malcolm Turnbull appears to have turned a blind eye to appease the conservative elements within his own party. He has sold his beliefs and the Australian people up the creek, really, whilst wrestling for leadership in his own party.
When it comes to workers' rights, we have seen a government that would rather invest $80 million in a royal commission than give serious attention to looking at redressing situations where there is blatant worker exploitation going on. There are employers like Baiada and the 7-Eleven stores in my electorate and, indeed, in many others in this House, whose stories of blatant exploitation of workers go completely unaddressed in this parliament. These are high-profile cases; they are just the tip of the iceberg, but they indeed require some serious attention. Labor has delivered important policy announcements in this area that seek to strengthen and protect workers' rights at work. That announcement is out there before the Australian people, for their consideration.
This is a Liberal government that has also completely abandoned seafarers and shipbuilding in my electorate. I have two shipyards that are facing very grim futures. The workforce has gone from Forgacs. It has just recently been sold and the workforce has dropped from over 1,000 highly-skilled men and women to fewer than 100.
Of course, just recently we saw the shocking removal of Australian seafarers in my Port of Newcastle from the CSL Melbourne. They were marched off their ship, their place of work, by the New South Wales Police Force. What was their crime? It would appear that to be an Australian seafarer was their crime. That ship will be replaced by a foreign-flagged ship and the men will be replaced by a foreign crew. These are men who have sailed between Gladstone and the Port of Newcastle for decades, but this government has no interest in the retention of an Australian coastal shipping industry—much to their shame.
There are many other issues that are deserving of attention here, but time is extremely limited: this government's complete neglect of cities policy, and of regional cities policy in particular, is absolutely abysmal. They have dropped the ball by abolishing the High Speed Rail Planning Authority. These are issues that need attention, but this is a government with no vision for our future, no control over today and in denial of their decisions that are making matters worse.
I rise to speak on the Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2015-2016 and the related bill.
A lot has been said about the Safe Schools program that was funded by the previous Labor government. I will take this opportunity today to say why I am opposed to its continued funding. I note that there is a story on ABC Online about the views of my colleagues and what our opponents say about those views, so to start with I will use the quote from Premier Andrews of Victoria, who was reported as saying:
… let’s be honest here: I don’t think these extreme Liberals are actually offended by the structure of the program, or the teachers who lead it.
I just think they’re offended by the kids who need it.
That is absolutely wrong in every element of that statement, right from the start where he says, 'let's be honest'. But I do say that this is a country where there is free speech, so he has the right to say these things. Clearly, he does not tolerate alternative opinions, but I will offer a glimpse into how things are done in Victoria. With my example it appears to me that bullying is alive and well in such schools, but not in the way that is suggested in the Safe Schools program.
I will get to that soon, but it would be true to say that many people have contacted me about this issue. It was even raised with me during my door knocking. The concerns are legitimate and therefore it is not just my colleagues here on the government benches who are raising these concerns. I know that one of my neighbours in Darch raised it with me as well, and so I then asked about the experience his daughter had in the Victorian and Western Australian school systems. I thank her for helping me out with what actually happened. I emphasise that this was not something that I got out of the paper or off a website, but I know them and I know that this information is no exaggeration. Here is what this year 12 student in Cowan told me about her time in a Victorian school. I have provided the name of the school to the minister's office, but I will not use it in this speech.
She told me:
I am originally from a provincial city in Victoria. I went to the city High School from year 7 to the first term of year 10. The high school was very forthright about their beliefs on gay rights. From year 7 the classroom had posters about accepting gay and lesbian people and being aware of them. Then in year 9 there was a gay pride day.
When I was in year 9 my year cohort spent a day learning about health issues that we would face in the future. For an example what to do if someone passed out at a party, STDs H1Vs etc. One of the classes was about gay pride and legalising Gay marriage. The teacher mocked Islam and Christianity for persecuting gay people and saying that they are wrong and held aged old ideas. Then the teacher got the class to participate in an activity that involved the room being split into three columns — 'yes', `no' and 'on the fence'.
He asked questions on of the questions was: Do you think we should legalise Gay Marriage in Australia?
I disagreed with the question but all my class mates were standing in the yes column, I didn't want to get yelled at by the teacher or even worse get picked on by my class mates. So I got peer pressured into standing with my class mates in the yes column.
One of friends, who was in another class, also disagreed with the idea of gay marriage. She stood up for herself and her beliefs and stood in the No column. She was the only one, the teacher told her off in front of the whole class trying to put her to shame.
This is an example of bullying and intimidation of students, and I ask: are browbeating, bullying and intimidation part of creating a safe school?
All this was done without seeking parental permission, so I say to Premier Andrews that I am not offended by gay or lesbian teenagers but I am offended by a program and teachers that will not tolerate alternative views and will use the very methods they sermonise against to impose a view in schools. When my colleagues say that this program is indoctrination, I would agree. The definition of indoctrination is to teach someone to fully accept the ideas, opinions and beliefs of a particular group and not to consider other ideas.
I will read again the last part of what the year 12 student told me of what happened in Victoria:
One of friends, who was in another class, also disagreed with the idea of gay marriage. She stood up for herself and her beliefs and stood in the No column. She was the only one, the teacher told her off in front of the whole class trying to put her to shame.
I say that, in using this so-called Safe Schools program, young people are being indoctrinated. I am concerned that young people are being harassed and belittled in Australian schools, that their parents have had no say in this process and that, worst of all, the children have no protection.
There have also been reports that at Burwood Girls High School in Sydney students were pressured into signing a mural and, if they did not do so, they were abused and bullied. How sad it is that, in institutions of learning, doctrine and dogma reign so strongly. I am sure freedom of speech is allowed. Just make sure you say what is acceptable; otherwise, be prepared to be bullied by the teachers. If people on the Labor side of politics want to endorse what happened in that school and what appears to still be happening in those schools then they endorse the belittling of a young person by a person in authority. I condemn that completely and utterly.
I note that none of the schools in Cowan appear to have officially taken up the Safe Schools program; however, I would like to also offer the perspective of this year 12 student who moved to Western Australia with her family. Here is what she said about her experience in her new school:
When I moved to Western Australia I noticed that my new school wasn't so public about their stance on gay and lesbian rights.
There wasn't a Gay Day like in Victoria or a teacher pushing their ideas of gay right onto you. I've only had two problems with my year 11 English teacher. She passively gave us a feature article called 'Guy Pride' written by a gay man sarcastically talking about a straight guy coming out as a straight guy; foreshadowing what it is like for homosexuals to come out to their parents.
The article was pushed on us as we had to discuss what it was about.
My class mates said the article felt like it was pushing an agenda.
Then the second time was when she pulled out a movie. Our class was working on the theme 'odd balls and outcasts of society'; we had looked at refugees and disabled people.
The movie 'Priscilla Queen of the Desert' was about trans-sexual's and drag queens. The movie depicted them being pushed out of society. The movie had foul language and it had many sexual references. One scene depicted a boy getting molested at a young age. I remember turning away in horror.
I remember thinking, "Where was the note that told my parents about the movie and asking for their approval."
Labor Senator Wong is quoted as saying in the media, 'We all want our children to be safe and this program is about that.' I say that our children and freedom of speech are not safe from this program.
Premier Andrews said, 'I'm sick of Liberal politicians telling our kids that there's something wrong with them.' What rubbish that is from the Premier. I am telling him that there is a lot wrong with this program and that his institutionalising of bullying and doctrine onto students, without any parental involvement, is more like a human rights breach. He can hide behind the classic lines of homophobia and other moral trump words, but in the end this sort of activity is wrong in every regard.
The Leader of the Opposition has of course weighed in on this issue. He is quoted as saying it is 'disgraceful that an Australian child may fall victim to Malcolm Turnbull's failure to stand up to the right wing of his party.' What about those young people that are belittled in Australian schools because of this program and the agenda of those that advance it? Who stands up for them? The answer, of course, is that we do, and I am proud of it. Mr Shorten also said:
Life is already difficult enough for young people — they shouldn't have to put up with the added stress of bullying and intimidation in the schoolyard.
My question then is: what about the bullying in the classroom, Mr Shorten? What about the teacher standing over students, belittling, isolating and bullying them into accepting the doctrine advanced? It is a disgrace.
I acknowledge that the Foundation for Young Australians was funded by the previous government over four years from 2013 with the purpose of delivering the Safe Schools Coalition Australia program. I understand that in Queensland no one admits to using it in their schools and in Victoria it is compulsory—or it will be—but I am very pleased that the federal minister has contacted his state counterparts, saying that he expects that schools choosing to take part in the program will do so in consultation with parents and the school community and also that all material is age-appropriate and that parents have confidence in any resources used in a school to support the right of all students, staff and families to feel safe at school.
That being said, I still believe that the material and the delivery are so fundamentally flawed that they must be scrapped. Antibullying action is a core responsibility of schools and should be addressed without some narrow focus that tries to bring this agenda into every aspect of the curriculum. A program for bullying should get the balance right. What are the main reasons for bullying? Body image is at the top, then school results, then cultural or racial backgrounds, then language and gender after that.
I know that much has already been made of the political position of Marxist activist Roz Ward, who is also the co-author of so much of the material in this program, but I do worry about someone who appears to state that the Safe Schools program is step one but it is through Marxism that there is a hope and a strategy needed to create a new world regarding human sexuality and gender change. Marxism, socialism and communism are well and truly failed political systems, and it is amazing that Senator Wong wasted so much of the taxpayers' money on such a program, although some of the teaching methods, as I have quoted, do seem to be somewhat akin to Orwell's Animal Farm.
Fortunately, fringe dweller political groups such as the Socialist Alliance do little damage to society apart from vandalism during protests—until now, that is. Yes, I acknowledge that talk of socialism is useful in some Labor Party preselection fights, but ultimately the nation and the world have come to realise that socialism and communism have failed and left the people worse off than they were before.
The member for Cowan will have leave to continue his remarks at a later hour.
Debate interrupted.
Tonight I rise to talk about doctor shortages in the electorate of McEwen and the ineffective way that the District of Workforce Shortage and Area of Need frameworks are currently being applied. Areas like Sunbury and Whittlesea are facing real doctor shortages and have not been listed on the DWS or recognised as an area of need. These are areas experiencing significant population growth and expansion, which is placing increased pressure on existing medical services. Seymour, a regional area in my electorate, does not have a doctor shortage but is on the DWS. In fact, one of the medical centres in Seymour has contacted me seeking assistance in getting this reviewed because, in their view, they do not need more doctors being diverted to it.
I wrote to the Minister for Health on behalf of the Evans Street Medical Clinic in Sunbury about its difficulties in recruiting GPs. The minister assured me that the need for non-DWS communities to have sufficient numbers of GPs was understood and that replacement provisions are available. These provisions allow clinics to employ overseas trained GPs as full-time locum doctors for a period of up to six months or into after-hours positions. Not once did the minister address the other elephant in the room: the unfilled advertised position in the Evans Street Medical Clinic. The Evans Street Medical Clinic has attempted to recruit GPs a number of times. There has been no expression of interest, and the position remains unfilled. The replacement provision does not appear to have helped this situation. Surely this demonstrates that there is a doctor shortage.
The Whittlesea Family Medical Centre faces similar pressures in recruiting doctors, but they have raised a different issue. They are using the replacement provision, but there is a backlog in Medicare assessing Medicare provider numbers. Faced with the backlog and the fact that the medical centre is in a non-DWS area, its application is not going to be prioritised. This means Whittlesea Family Medical Centre must limit the services available to the community until Medicare finally catches up.
With significant expansion and growth in outer metropolitan areas like Sunbury and Whittlesea, we need to think how we identify the need in the GP space. A DWS is a geographic area where the local population has less access to Medicare subsidised services compared to the national average. The Department of Health uses the latest Medicare billing statistics and residential population estimates from the ABS to identify these areas. The problem with this data is that it is easily skewed. Larger medical centres use a greater number of services that are subject to the Medicare rebate. This skews the GP numbers on a per-head-of-population basis to appear that access to doctors in the area has gone up.
An increase in the number of medical services subsidised by Medicare is not equivalent to an increase in doctor numbers. I call on the Department of Health to rethink how we undertake the analysis of DWS. The data should be used to predict and plan for population growth, especially in growth corridors like the one McEwen is in. There should also be a way for medical centres to report GP shortages and to have this information taken into account and assessed in a timely way.
Let me show you the frustration that these medical centres face because there is no mechanism currently available. The DWS classification is the first criterion that the state health department uses to decide whether an area is eligible as an area of need. Once identified as an area of need, resources, including GPs, can be diverted to the area. It is a circular argument. To be an area of need, you need to be in a DWS. Being a DWS means you will be an area of need. The framework needs a circuit-breaker.
The Evans Street Medical Clinic and Whittlesea Family Medical Centre are working at peak capacity. The doctors are seeing the number of patients that they can, pushing Medicare's ceiling on the number of patients a doctor can see in a day. The Evans Street Medical Clinic also provides medical services to three aged-care facilities in Sunbury, which also is impacting on doctor shortages. There are over 1.1 million medical services provided to members of the community in McEwen each year, and 82 per cent of those are bulk-billed. If we do not find a circuit-breaker to fix this and find a way to address doctor shortages, no matter where they are, medical centres will limit the hours of operation and the services they provide to the community. This will impact on preventive health and treatment of chronic diseases. This will put further pressure on hospital resources, which are already stretched and under threat because of the cuts from the Abbott-Turnbull government.
I call on the minister to address these problems urgently and assist small businesses throughout Seymour and Whittlesea in the seat of McEwen so they are able to go out and service the community properly and ensure that preventive measures are put in place so that people can see a doctor when they need to and at the time they need to. The problem we have now is that many of the corporate medical centres in the city are able to take up all the doctors, and the doctors are not moving to regional areas. They are not going to outer suburban areas, because it is easier to stay in the city where they can see a lot of patients and live close to home.
This problem needs to be addressed. It is not something that I am attacking the minister about, but I think the minister needs to get up and do something about this, because this problem is going to spread right across Victoria and across the nation in the few months to come.
Since 2013 I have had the honour of holding a contract of service and advocacy with the people of Gilmore. This is an extraordinary electorate, and has some of the most incredible people. From the early days as the candidate in 2012 and then as the elected member, I have been privileged to work for these wonderful people, sometimes on a personal level, for issues of individual trauma or frustration, and at other times advocating for community groups or national initiatives.
There have been some terrific funding rollouts. The election commitments for road safety, including $2 million for Turpentine Road and $10 million for the design work and feasibility studies for the Shoalhaven River bridge, were part of a $15 million dollar package to improve road safety for the region. I have continued to lobby for roads funding in Gilmore through the Black Spot program. This includes upgrades to Jervis Bay Road, the planned replacement of Duck Creek bridge, safety barriers on the highway at Kiama and a roundabout in Sanctuary Point. Safety improvements have also been made on Bolong Road and Kangaroo Valley Road.
Road safety has been, and will continue to be, a priority for me as I work to address more Black Spot road locations. However, the projects that have generated the greatest sense of achievement are the ones that were almost defunded. It was with a sense of joy that I called the Bay and Basin Community Resources centre to let them know their Men's Shed, Community Hub and youth project had had their funding extended. It was similar with our fantastic Shoalhaven Youth Volunteering Initiative, which inspires so many of our local youth to join the RFS, SES or Surf Life Saving, when I told them of their funding extension, after countless hours of phone calls to the minister.
The ANZAC Centenary projects were an outstanding collaborative effort from across the community that generated exhibitions, displays and new commemorative structures around the electorate. These included rock structures at Gerringong headland and Shell Cove Public School, the In Memory display, honouring our Indigenous ANZAC diggers, which is now on permanent display in Nowra. There were also improvements to memorials walls and monuments in Ulladulla, Sussex Inlet and Huskisson and a wonderful re-enactment of the Waratah March from Nowra through to Gerringong. I was honoured to participate in that event.
Many of Gilmore's RSL sub-branches have also received funding through the Saluting their Service grants, resulting in a number of commemorative structures and plaque upgrades. Encouraging the youth in Gilmore to get involved and active has been a focus, and directing $300,000 towards new outdoor facilities has had a direct impact. Watching the skateboarders in Yulunga and Sanctuary Point, as well as the young cycle riders on the Learn to Ride facility at Shoalhaven Heads, made my heart sing. They were happy, excited and no longer sitting inside playing on iPads and other devices.
The young boxers at the PCYC also benefited from new equipment, after receiving a $10,000 grant early last year. The facilities at some of our schools have amazed me, with the new facilities for drama, music and food technology at Shellharbour Anglican School promising some great benefits to the students. The South Coast Trades Skills Centre at that school will allow secondary school students to earn qualifications in horticulture, construction and electro-technology.
The greening of Gilmore has continued, with more than 30 Green Army projects underway or completed throughout the region. Our Landcare groups also received additional funding for projects ranging from the dairy industry to fishing to conservation activities for local landowners. I have really enjoyed visiting some of these sites to meet the participants and to see the work that they are doing and the difference they are making.
Community safety and security is important to everyone in Gilmore, and the rollout of CCTV cameras in Bomaderry, East Nowra, Kiama and Sanctuary Point has been very worthwhile. Each village was chosen because there had been incidents of armed hold-ups. The residents and businesses alike are relieved and pleased with the federal government investment—they now have a safe shopping neighbourhood.
Being the elected member is not just about getting funding for the electorate, although that is important. It is also about the needs of individuals and the responsibility for the direction of our nation. It is gratifying to sort out individual problems for someone with an immigration issue or a conflict with the ATO. There is also advocating for the people living in Gilmore with national policy initiatives. I lobbied hard for the shingles vaccine to be part of the PBS. After the therapeutic goods approval process, advocacy was needed for PBS listing. The minister informed me on the morning of public release that the shingles vaccine would be available for 70- to 79-year-olds in 2016. I actively lobbied the minister for continued funding for universal access to preschool for every child in Australia and secured funding for MIND the GaP—an initiative that brings together a range of mental health services and research on the Shoalhaven university campus, in cooperation with Lifeline.
It is my intention to seek approval from the people of Gilmore to renew this contract of service and advocacy. There is much that still needs to be done. Our bridge needs to be built, our roads must be further developed and there must be more work opportunities for our youth. We have to do this within a framework of a strengthened and more confident economic outlook. (Time expired)
What a remarkable juxtaposition we saw this weekend in the nation's two most populous cities. In Melbourne, the nation's cultural capital, the Victorian government supported White Night, which saw the city open from 6pm to 6am, with live music across the city, art installations and street parties, it brought half a million revellers of all ages passing through the city. It was a credit to the Victorian government—including my friend, the Minister for Creative Industries, Martin Foley. It kept Melbourne ahead of the pack; not just as the most liveable city but also as the most culturally vibrant.
In Sydney, by contrast, a protest of over 10,000 was held to 'Keep Sydney Open'. They were protesting the lockout laws imposed by the previous Premier and now defended wholeheartedly by the neo-puritan Mike Baird. Baird has really poked the bear, as it were, with his recent Facebook post defending the laws attracting over 17,000 comments, mostly from angry Sydneysiders fed up with the laws. Now Queensland looks like following New South Wales' lead and imposing its own lockout. Senator—The Brick—Lazarus wants a national lockout law, but the problem is that, just like those shorts Senator Lazarus wore to his ABC interview yesterday, Sydney's lockout laws are not one-size-fits-all.
Indeed, Victoria was the first state to trial lockout laws. In 2008, the Brumby government trialled a 2am lockout, which was scrapped after just three months. There were many reasons that the lockout did not work, but the main point is that it pushed people outside and isolated drunk people in the streets, walking around aimlessly, frustrated they could not get in anywhere. It put pressure on police to protect the streets. Inside a bar or club, we know that responsible service of alcohol restrictions apply, and we know all clubs have security.
I suspect most parents would agree with me that, while we would love our kids to be in bed by 12, we would prefer them to be inside rather than outside a licensed premises drinking or dancing. And, of course, the high prices inside ought to slow their drinking down. After all, police report that for approximately every 1,000 assaults in the Melbourne CBD, only three are inside licensed premises. The New South Wales Premier says assault rates are down in his city. True, but patronage and traffic in the areas has been affected massively. Of course, fewer people in those areas means fewer assaults, but that does not balance the negative impact these lockouts have on the economy, jobs, the hospitality industry and the viability of artistic venues. What will happen if the Oxford Art Factory closes down? It might not affect the Premier, who would prefer Taylor Swift at Olympic Park, but what of the fans of smaller acts not big enough to fill the ANZ Stadium or Rod Laver Arena? Without sufficient small music venues, will these smaller acts, which are popular on Triple J or FBi Radio, just skip Sydney, or will they just skip Australia altogether?
The tragic deaths of young men coward-punched by drunken louts in Sydney which precipitated these lockout laws occurred early in the night. Thomas Kelly was fatally assaulted in Kings Cross at 10pm. His killer, according to The Saturday Paper, had been predrinking since 5pm. Daniel Christie's life was cut short by a coward punch at 9pm. These were tragic and shocking events. We all feel the devastation of our communities in seeing such promising young lives cut short by drunken violence, but we also see that the problem is not at a particular time or place, nor is it about access to licensed venues.
There are always ways of tackling alcohol fuelled violence without forcing the closure of the entire nightlife of a city. The easiest thing to do is not always the smartest. Lockouts are easy and popular, but they have side effects. Victoria succeeds without lockouts because police work with licensees. The late police inspector, Tony Warren, helped set up the Melbourne Licensees Forum, and there are many visionary police officers who have helped since. They work together to combat violence. Move-on laws with appropriate fines, increased police presence and safety officers are all measures that can and do work to reduce violence in the streets. Another great measure in Melbourne has been the 24-hour public transport on weekends, giving young people the chance to get home quickly and safely without having to clamour for a taxi or hang around for hours on the streets, drunk, waiting for morning services.
We also need to consider that, if people get off lightly for less serious but still violent offences, the wrong message is being sent. There is little point doubling sentences for killers but giving good behaviour bonds to people who throw punches but are lucky that their victims do not fall and hit their heads. All punches are dangerous and all punches can kill. It is never okay to throw a punch.
Perhaps New South Wales premiers should learn from Victoria. To curb violence, you do not need to gut the night-life, force places to close, force licensees to lose customers and give young people nowhere to go. Victoria should keep its present laws and keep supporting the arts, music and a vibrant night-life. Others will fall behind. (Time expired)
I rise to regretfully advise the House of the tragic and sudden passing of a mayor whose shire is completely engulfed within my electorate of Wright. I speak of the tragic and sudden passing of Mayor Steve Jones AM. Steve's time in this place has been cut short by many years. He was a man of only 54 years old, who had served as a councillor since 1997, when he was first elected. After amalgamations, he took on the mayor's role in the year 2004.
This man's passing is a great loss to not only the shire but the region, my electorate and the state. No-one will ever forget the Lockyer Valley Grantham floods. Mayor Jones played an enormous role in rebuilding that community. It was for that colossal effort that he was awarded his Australian medal. His funeral is tomorrow at 10 o'clock in the Lockyer Valley, in Gatton. I would suggest that it will be an enormous function.
For his wife, Ann, it must be just a terrible burden on her. To lose someone who has been chronically ill is something that you can prepare your mind for, but, when your life partner, your best friend, gets up of a morning and goes to work and just never comes home, it is a shock. As I said in my opening comments, he was of an age when this should not have happened. He died on the job. He was conducting a meeting with a number of other mayors—the Ipswich mayor and the Somerset mayor—in the Ipswich mayor's chamber. From the reports in the press, he slumped in the chair and never regained consciousness. He was transported to the Ipswich Hospital and then from Ipswich through to the PA in Brisbane.
I will always remember fondly some advice he gave me. He was known in the shire as Jonesy. That gives you a bit of an insight as to the fondness that everyone had for him. Jonesy gave this advice to me when I rang him once when the state politicians' wages had been increased—in Queensland, the mayors' wages are linked to state backbenchers' salaries. They had, through an independent tribunal, had an increase in wages and, subsequently, his went up and he was taking some negative traffic about it, as all politicians do when there is a pay rise. I rang him. I said, 'How are you holding up?' He said to me, 'Scotty, it doesn't matter what a politician gets paid. If we got paid a pushbike and a chook sandwich, half the shire would want you to give the chook sandwich back.' And he was right. He said, 'So never enter into a debate about politicians' wages.'
He was a mayor who was well liked by his councillors, a very small and boutique council. He also had a passion for the youth of the electorate. He had a very aggressive Lockyer Valley Regional Youth Council. He and the deputy mayor, Tanya Milligan, would often bring them to Canberra to give them exposure to federal politics and get them involved. He believed that the strength of the shire was in trying to retain the youth, to keep them.
I also remember a speech that he gave to a mob of developers up on the north coast, in his capacity when he was part of the regional council of mayors. All the mayors were vying for these developers to come to their shires and invest money. Jonesy's iconic speech was: 'Don't you bastards think about coming anywhere near my electorate. It's a rural electorate, and our job is to be the salad bowl for the world.' He had a great affiliation with regional Australia. He will be sorely missed by his wife, Ann; his boys, James, Dale and Brandon; their partners; and his grandchildren. Vale to you, Jonesy. Vale, Steve Jones AM.
I would like to thank the member for Wright for that fine contribution and associate myself with the grief that Lockyer Valley must be feeling on the loss of a fine son and a servant. It reminds me that there are many of us in this chamber who come with the best intentions and with the right motivations. I count the member for Wright, Scotty Buchholz, among those.
That brings me to the core of why I am standing tonight. I rise to talk about Labor's positive plan for a Shorten-led Labor government and the 50-plus policies that we have in the public domain now as we prepare ourselves for an election battle. It has been the year of ideas for Labor, and I am incredibly proud to have been part of the Labor team that has worked so hard to work our way through policies that we think will bring this country back to the place that we believe it should be.
I am most proud, obviously, of the 'Your Child. Our Future' policy. It was launched in my electorate and I believe it is the road to prosperity for our country—investment in our children's education. There is no more critical policy in the public domain at the moment than that policy, and yet people ask constantly, 'So how are you going to pay for that?' That is on the back of an enormous thrust from those in government around a budget repair and budget deficit narrative that has driven this country.
Standing here tonight as a Labor person what I am proudest of is that our suite of policies are about prosperity through equity and opportunity. That is what our suite of policies are about. I am proud of the work that our economic team has done in this era of budget constraint and budget fear, in terms of finding the ways and the saving measures to put those into place.
I believe that in government we can deliver on our great policies with important economic reform, cracking down on existing tax loopholes to ensure foreign multinationals pay their fair share of tax in Australia. It is critical that everyone in this country pays their fair share. How often have you heard it said? Certainly, in my electorate, I heard it said: 'Joanne, if everybody paid their fair share we'd have more than enough money.' We have done the work to ensure that that happens: tightening unsustainable and unfair superannuation tax loopholes, ceasing the emissions reduction fund, which pays polluters to stop polluting—an oxymoron—and increasing the cigarettes excise to get more people to stop smoking and, critically, to get even more kids to never start.
Our negative gearing policy, if you have watched the news over the last few days, is almost a celebrity of its own. I want to speak tonight about what that policy means on the ground. I want to be very clear with people in my electorate—who will get so much value with a Labor Shorten government and these policies—that the negative gearing policy that Labor has put on the ground is not retrospective. The person in Truganina who owns four properties, right now, and has them negatively geared, will continue to be able to negative gear them beyond 2017. Let me be clear: it is not retrospective.
What will happen beyond 2017 is that those who want to purchase a property and have it negatively geared will need to have that property make a contribution to the new stock in this country, which will drive employment. So many in my electorate are employed in the housing building industry. This is a good thing for Lalor.
Let me be clear: our policies are fabulous and we have the economic means to fund them. Labor deserves a chance at government—a Shorten-led government. (Time expired)
I would like to speak tonight about a very important issue in my electorate and, indeed, right around Australia, and that is the issue of aged care—particularly dementia care.
Over the parliamentary break, in my travels around the electorate, I visited with people in some of the western towns and discussed the issues that they are having in those smaller communities with regard to suitable care for their loved ones and their parents. Indeed, we heard some heartbreaking stories. In Lake Cargelligo a couple has been married for 60 to 65 years and one of them has dementia and has to be cared for 100 kilometres away. Can you imagine, after being together a lifetime, in your final years, being separated by distance? That is very difficult. It may be that at best you can see your husband or wife maybe once a week. That is completely unacceptable!
There are some things that we do not talk about that, I think, are very important. We quite often talk about health care, and we talk about the needs around that and medical care. But one of the things we do not talk about is the importance of the final stages of your life and the ability to die amongst the people that you know best—your family and your friends. The absolute uprooting of people in their final days to be taken somewhere else, and to have their final days surrounded by strangers, is particularly difficult.
As we talk of economics and balancing the budget, in this place, we need to keep in mind that into the future we are going to have an increased burden with aged care and dementia. A simple fact of life is that those of us who are baby boomers are, all things being equal, probably going to live to be the oldest generation in our history. One of the problems of living to an old age is that it is nearly inevitable that we will receive some form of dementia. It is important that we make provision now, as people who are in government in this place, so that when the time comes this country is equipped to have the resources for the appropriate care.
I will be working with communities, like Lake Cargelligo, Warren and other smaller communities in my electorate, to make sure that we have the appropriate care for our elderly. The MPS model—the Multi-Purpose Service model—has been one of the great successes of partnerships between state and federal government, where the federal government funds the aged care component and the state government funds the critical care. But what is becoming a reality is that this model is nearly at the end of its time and we are going to have to plan for the next stage. As the demographics of our society, particularly in small country towns, changes we need to make sure that we have that appropriate care.
Over that period, I was pleased to be able to welcome the announcement from the Minister for Health that we have received more funding for beds in Lake Cargelligo, Warren, Coonamble, Lightning Ridge and Collarenebri. They have all received funding for more high-care aged beds. But we need to be ahead of the game. We need to make sure that we can care for our most valued citizens right to the end of their lives, to offer them a place to die with dignity in the very place that they have lived their lives.
It being 8 pm, the debate is interrupted. The House stands adjourned until 9 am tomorrow.
House adjourned at 20:00
This past week, Tropical Cyclone Winston hit Fiji and became the strongest storm on record in the Southern Hemisphere. The storm has destroyed homes and crops and disrupted utilities, telecommunications and medical services. Reports are that whole villages have been flattened. Fiji's weather has since returned to normal, but the recovery effort has only just begun, with populations on outer islands in particular still struggling to make contact. The death toll has reached 29 and at least 14,000 people have been displaced. Many families are without homes and others are cut off from each other, unable to check the wellbeing of their loved ones. We have, of course, a significant Fijian community here in Australia, who are also struggling to make contact with families at home.
Australia has a very close relationship with Fiji, with 40,000 people of Fijian heritage living here. Prime Minister Frank Bainimarama has urged the people of Fiji to support each other during this difficult time, saying:
We will stand united in the face of this disaster. Please, if you see your neighbour struggling, help if you are able to.
The Sydney Fijian community has done just that. The Sydney Fijian disaster relief group has mobilised very quickly and is working with the Fiji Consulate General to provide up-to-date information to the community. Many of my colleagues are supporting Fijian communities in their own electorates right now. Julie Owens is coordinating with telecommunications providers here in Australia to provide free phone calls to Fiji, for example. The government has offered $5 million in assistance to Fiji, and, of course, we welcome this initial package of assistance but expect that the government will do more over time. I would also like to acknowledge the Australian aid organisations and non-government organisations that are working on the ground in Fiji. These organisations have been on the front line of Australia's humanitarian response and are assisting with the delivery of Australia's $5 million package. Australians who are able to make a contribution to these organisations can. The Australian Council for International Development, ACFID, has provided links to Australian organisations that are running appeals on its website.
Cyclone Winston serves as a reminder of why it is important that we have a strong aid program in our region, particularly in the Pacific region. We deliver $35 million per year in bilateral aid to Fiji. It is a good thing for that aid to be delivered by the Australian government, its officials and Australian aid organisations. Our thoughts continue to be with the people of Fiji at this very difficult time.
I rise to speak today about the Ku-ring-gai Art Society and, in particular, its retiring president, Mr Malcolm Carver. The Ku-ring-gai Art Society was founded in 1965 and I was delighted to attend its 50th anniversary event last year. The society meets regularly and often has notable guests giving instruction. It holds regular exhibitions, workshops and demonstrations. Notably, each year the Ku-ring-gai Art Society holds its annual awards exhibition. For the past several years, I have been pleased to award the Member for Bradfield's Prize to a painting which best exemplifies, in my view, our area of Ku-ring-gai and of Bradfield—a painting which showcases the magnificent natural features and the built environment of the wonderful area in which we live. The winner is featured on my Christmas card for the year, and it is always well received. In Christmas 2015, my Christmas card featured a work by David Hammersley depicting Bobbin Head Road in Turramurra. The feedback on Mr Hammersley's work was extremely positive. I look forward to once again awarding the Member for Bradfield's Prize this year, and anybody here who is on my Christmas card list will see the outcome of that important work.
I also want to pay tribute to Mr Malcolm Carver, a local architect who formerly ran his own architectural firm and who, for the past seven years, has also been President of the Ku-ring-gai Art Society. Malcolm is himself an accomplished artist with a focus on watercolour works. His works have been exhibited in solo exhibitions in Sydney, in Italy, in China and in North Africa, as well as in many group exhibitions. He became a member of the Australian Watercolour Institute in 2007 and has exhibited with that organisation in many group exhibitions. As president, Malcolm has shouldered substantial administrative burdens and has led the Ku-ring-gai Art Society to success after success. As a guest at a number of Ku-ring-gai Art Society events over the years, I have personally witnessed the passion and enthusiasm of the large membership of the society, as evidenced most powerfully by the substantial volume and quality of the works produced by its members. Every year, when I go to the exhibition I am struck by the quality and diversity of the work on display, and I want to pay tribute first of all to Malcolm Carver for his work in leading the society over the last seven years. I congratulate the newly elected president, Charmaine Phillips, and I congratulate all members of the Ku-ring-gai Art Society on the wonderful contribution they make to our local community.
Last Friday, I attended a very special event at Penola Catholic College, a fine secondary school in my electorate which is built on the site of the former St. Joseph's baby home, a place where Saint Mary MacKillop spent some of her time as a nun in the early 1900s. Penola conducted the official blessing and opening of their newly constructed Saint Joseph the Worker Trades Skills Centre. I was very pleased to tour the new building and its facilities. The trades skills centre, fittingly named 'Saint Joseph the Worker', provides students at Penola with the opportunity to undertake vocational education and training.
The establishment of trades skills centres in high schools was, of course, a federal Labor government initiative. Federal Labor understands that it is of vital importance to invest in skilling our young people in jobs of the future. The Rudd and Gillard Labor government funded the Trade Training Centres in Schools Program, which saw a large number of schools receive funding to establish what are vital links to our secondary school education system. By establishing these centres, high schools are able to provide additional pathway options to students beyond tertiary education. The centres also run in partnership with industry and employers, giving students even greater opportunities to obtain jobs on completion of their high school studies.
The funding provided by the Labor government enabled Penola to construct a new building which includes a workshop for electrotechnology and engineering and a hairdressing teaching facility which, of course, will deliver qualifications in these areas. These are areas where there is a skills shortage and, therefore, students who undertake these qualifications will be in a better position to get a job on leaving school. The incredible value and opportunity these centres bring to the secondary school system was not exactly appreciated by the Abbott-Turnbull government, which stripped $950 million from this program and, for whatever reason, also decided to change the name from 'trades training centre' to 'trades skills centre'. This significant cutting of funds has locked out over 1,500 schools across Australia from ever applying for a skills centre of their own. This is very disappointing and, especially after visiting the centre at Penola, I feel for those school communities and students who will miss out on vital training for future jobs.
I extend my thanks to all those involved who made the opening such a success. I pass on my special thanks to Father Chinua Okeke, who gave the official blessing; college principal Christopher Caldow, who provided the tour of the new building; deputy principal and head of the Broadmeadows campus Mr Ernie Pisani, who moderated the ceremony; Stuart Harrison, deputy principal of the junior campus; Denzel Carvalho, captain of applied learning; Joanne Grindrod, chairperson of the board; and John Gribble, property manger. I want to thank them for their involvement in the ceremony and for organising a wonderful event. Thanks must also go to the former Penola principal, Chris Blake, for taking the time to officially open the trades skills centre and for unveiling the plaque with college captains Katrina and Joseph. Congratulations to all at Penola Secondary College.
As the Australian and South Australian economy transition, it is vital the government supports companies, where possible, to help jobs and economic growth. In recent months a number of local businesses in Hindmarsh have been the recipients of a federal government Industry Skills Fund grant to assist with the costs of training staff to take advantage of new growth opportunities. The government is committed to helping businesses, especially small and medium enterprises, to grow and diversify their markets and create more local jobs. Under the Industry Skills Fund, eligible businesses can receive support to identify growth opportunities and advice on the skills and training their workforce needs to take advantage of these opportunities.
The sorts of training projects that have been funded to date include helping employees to acquire new skills or upgrade their existing qualifications in areas as diverse as product design, inventory control, manufacturing techniques, management and marketing. I have enjoyed visiting a number of these businesses and learning more about their operations and plans to expand their workforce or help their employees with future training opportunities. The Industry Skills Fund is extremely important because the grants will help businesses grow.
Some companies such as MIMP Computer Cables in Richmond, Torque Control Specialists in Edwardstown and Triple Point Calibrations in Welland have been fortunate to receive a number of grants—showing their dedication to continue to improve their workforce. In relation to MIMP, I congratulate Allan Aitchison, the CEO, on the success his company has experienced. I have visited that company and been very impressed with the way it has grown and expanded into new markets across Australia, including groundbreaking projects like Adelaide's first internet-enabled buses, building a multicast mesh wireless network to make Darwin's streets safer and deploying a 480-kilometre wireless network in regional Queensland. MIMP has also worked to link up remote SA communities such as Arkaroola.
Established in 1985, they have provided and installed hundreds of communication systems throughout Australia. Major clients include the Adelaide Zoo, SA Heart, state and local government, Education, Health, Defence and large corporations. They have doubled their headcount to nearly 30 since 2013, driven by strong demand for their expertise. Like many other companies in Hindmarsh, they are also a good supporter of the local community by sponsoring organisations such as Anglicare and the Brighton Surf Lifesaving Club.
More recently I visited General Practice SA, which has received $40,000 towards a project called 'a healthy change' which is designed to expand services to clients in the primary healthcare service. The support provides training for 120 members across administration, management and leadership, sales and customer service. I also met Rossi Boots, a footwear manufacturer, who received support for training for their employees. I encourage companies in Hindmarsh to look at the Industry Skills Fund because it offers some valuable support.
Early this year the Tasmanian government-owned bus service Metro made a number of changes to its routes and schedules. Now there is, of course, a need to review and improve bus routes and schedules, but these changes have been rolled out with little consultation or notice and have had some disastrous effects in my electorate. Indeed, my office has heard complaint after complaint—more so, in fact, than any other local issue in my 5½ years as a member of parliament. Since I raised this issue in the media last week, there have been many more complaints coming in—dozens overall.
I have heard from people whose regular bus routes have either been dramatically cut back or no longer exist at all, people with mobility issues who are forced to walk kilometres or up steep hills to get the bus, and people who can now no longer make it to work or appointments without spending a fortune on taxis. Here are some examples. I am told that the bus up St Canice Avenue in Sandy Bay, where there are three very large aged-care facilities, now only operates three times a day. So elderly people are often seen struggling up the very steep hill with their shopping. Another example is that peak-hour buses from Kingston to Hobart have been dramatically scaled back. So they are now incredibly overcrowded and I am told that people are often left on the side of the road. Another constituent tells me that express buses that once travelled from Lenah Valley to the city have become much less frequent, even though I am told that they were always nearly full. It is no wonder this has caused tremendous difficulties for people travelling to the city or to Calvary Hospital in Lenah Valley.
These changes have been poorly communicated to passengers. A constituent tells me that her six and seven-year-old children got on their bus after school one day only to be dropped off in the Glenorchy bus mall, miles from their home, and left to fend for themselves. Countless more people have told me that they have been late for work or missed appointments because they were unaware of these changes.
The state government needs to step up here because, if you take away what is often a person's only means of transportation, it can have enormous detrimental impacts, both socially and financially. But all the state government has done so far is to call critics of these changes, 'sensationalist, 'and to dismiss their concerns. This is not good enough. The state government needs to act and to direct Metro to immediately reinstate lost services, and then to work with the community—genuinely work with the community—on any future changes.
Today I rise to speak about a letter to the editor in The Maitland Mercury this morning from the member for Hunter about the NBN rollout. I would like to raise two quotes by the member for Hunter. The first is from 1 March 2011 in this House, where he said: 'We in the Hunter can see the enormous opportunities that will flow from the rollout of the NBN. We intend to be up there in front grabbing these opportunities earlier rather than later.' The second is from 22 June 2012, when he said, 'the rollout of the NBN—which in Maitland is imminent—'. Yet under Labor it took a full three years from July 2010 to June 2013, for the NBN to cover 100,000 premises nationally under the Labor plan. Under the coalition, the fibre to the node in Newcastle and the Central Coast reached this milestone in just a few months. The Labor Party failed. It was their plan, and had they not have stopped the OPEL rollout—which would have been completed in 2009—everyone would have had high-speed wireless. What we have seen from the Labor Party is massive cost blow-outs—and now Jason Clare wants to go back to fibre to the premises, and we will see a blow-out of between $74 and $84 billion.
We are rolling the NBN out. Areas through Port Stephens, Maitland, and the Hunter have already got it—in October 2015—and the majority of the rollout will occur by the end of the fourth quarter of 2016. We will see people being able to access high-speed internet. I would also like to raise quotes from the former member for Newcastle, who then represented Thornton, who carried on up hill and down dale, with numerous quotes about how Thornton was critically important—and because they were on pair gain wiring systems, they could not get ADSL—and how they needed the NBN. But nothing occurred while Labor were in government for six years—nothing. This coalition has come to government, we have picked up the issue and we are addressing it. It is being rolled out now. In fact, large areas of Maitland and large areas of Port Stephens now have access to high-speed broadband. Is it good enough? No, it is not. We need to do more. We need to be able to provide high-speed internet for each and every Australian, and we are determined to do that through a mix of technologies. Those technologies will include satellite, wireless and fibre to the node.
It is critically important that people have access to high-speed internet. So I do not want to see any more false rhetoric from the member for Hunter, who raised the NBN only fleetingly on a number of occasions in this House. There has been no serious commitment by the member for Hunter, or indeed by the member for Newcastle, to do anything to address the NBN rollout in their areas. I accept the challenge, and I will deliver the NBN to people throughout the region.
On 27 January, John Brudenall passed away, aged 77. John was the Deputy Parliamentary Librarian, having served in the Parliamentary Library from 1966 to 1996. Margaret Reid described him as 'the father of the modern Parliamentary Library'—as having moved that library from a card index to the internet. He was, as Bob Halverson noted on John's retirement, 'a visionary in his enthusiasm for the library's being at the forefront of information technology'. John began his career serving the National Library of Australia, and continued working in library services after his time in the Parliamentary Library, serving the library of the Alcohol and Other Drugs Council of Australia. He and his wife, Sue, lived in Argyle Square, and his quiet work was of a piece with so many of the great parliamentary librarians who continue to serve us. In his eulogy for John Brudenall, Alan Wilson said, 'John was always fair, honest, kind, reasonable, trusting and understanding.' Frances Cushing said, 'He valued all of us in such a personal way that I think it made us want to be better than we were, and that is a wonderful quality in anyone.'
John played an important role, too, in the creation of a network of parliamentary libraries in the Asia-Pacific region, including in Cambodia, which he visited very soon after the cessation of hostilities there. John started work in Old Parliament House with a Parliamentary Library of just a few dozen and finished at a time when the Parliamentary Library was in this current building with a staff of over 200 and a budget of $16 million. He had poor eyesight, which meant that he had to work extra hard in order to serve the Parliamentary Library and the elected representatives, and he worked hard to try to defend the Parliamentary Library against what some have referred to as the 'vandals' who wanted to curtail its development.
John will be greatly missed by his wife, Sue, to whom he was married for 54 years. He leaves behind his children, David and Peter, and he had two other children, Helen and Andrew, who are now deceased. He was the father-in-law of Kirsti and Kylie; grandfather of Tom, Stephen, Jack, Otte, Harry and Mia; stepgrandfather to Emma, Sophie and Imogen; and dearest brother to his disabled sister, Kay. John Brudenall left us with a better Parliamentary Library and we are fortunate for his service.
I rise to talk about the wonderful community groups in my electorate of Calare that are benefiting from the coalition's Stronger Communities Program. The program was an election commitment by us and it is a fantastic way for all 150 members of the House of Representatives to look after their communities and ensure that all these community groups have an opportunity to progress in what they do for the community. In my experience, local people are certainly best placed to know their own needs and the most successful projects are always driven by local communities.
Under round 1 of the Stronger Communities Program I received more than 50 expressions of interest for over $650,000 worth of projects around the electorate. Some of the successful recipients include the Millthorpe and District Historical Society, Yeoval and District Men's Shed, Parkes and District Netball Association, Oberon Show Society, the Cabonne Food, Wine and Cultural Centre, Canowindra Tennis Club and the Cumnock Village Preschool, and I will be announcing more local projects shortly.
I have had the opportunity of visiting several of these groups already and will be getting around to more over the coming weeks. Men's sheds are such a strong community support for people who are retired and looking for an opportunity of company and to make use of their hands. And we have no problem with women's sheds; it is just that I have not had one apply yet.
On that note I want to talk about the importance of community generally. Communities only continue to grow and prosper because some people within them have the desire and ability to encompass every man, woman and child in their small town or community. I think we have all been guilty of not getting to know a neighbour or being caught up in our own lives instead of getting involved in a local event or organisation, so we all owe a huge debt of gratitude to those people who take the lead and do it for is—and hopefully we all get involved once someone else starts it.
Last year in Calare, for example, we celebrated 100 wonderful years of the CWA, the Country Women's Association. I heard over 20 women speak about their time in the association. Our government—and I am sure the whole parliament—wants to see these groups continue to grow. That is what the Stronger Communities Program does by supporting community organisations, and we will continue to support them.
I am always fighting to get our fair share from Canberra, and I am very proud to deliver federal funding to my electorate. To date, this has included more than $2 billion for local roads, schools, health and community infrastructure.
Last December, I was very pleased to announce that Tweed Shire Council will receive $9.8 million in federal funding towards a total cost of $21 million for the Kingscliff foreshore project. The project received funding under round 2 of the National Stronger Regions Fund, and it is a real credit to the entire community that this funding was received. Council is providing $3.8 million for the foreshore upgrade, and Tweed Coast Holiday Parks will contribute $7.5 million. I would like to congratulate everyone involved: the Tweed Shire Council, Kingscliff and District Chamber of Commerce and all the community groups and residents who fought so hard for this funding. It is important to note that the project has overwhelming local support.
Kingscliff is a vibrant, exciting coastal town, and this great project will enhance the village and protect the foreshore. In fact, it was reported only last week that Kingscliff has been ranked fourth in a list of the top 10 sea-change towns in a national online newspaper. Kingscliff is a popular destination for both North Coast locals and domestic and international visitors. This project will really add to its already outstanding reputation.
The plan includes the construction of a permanent seawall, an upgrade to Kingscliff Beach Holiday Park, the creation of open space for Kingscliff Central Park and the refurbishment of Kingscliff Amenities Hall. The central park will provide spectacular views of the ocean from Marine Parade. The features of the park include recreational features for the aged, disabled and youth; improved beach access; a bigger cenotaph area; a new amenities block; a boardwalk and viewing platforms; and barbecues, picnic shelters and landscaping—all wonderful achievements. It is estimated that the revitalisation will create more than 200 jobs during the project and post construction. Council advises that the timetable for the redevelopment is a two-year project, with construction expected to start in early 2017 and scheduled for completion in 2019.
This project has been years in the making and planning. I would particularly like to acknowledge the outstanding work of Tweed Shire Council. There was extensive community consultation on the project in 2011, and I understand that council are again currently undertaking community liaison for feedback and to provide information. I also understand that there have been many people in council who have worked very hard on this project for many years, and it is important that their dedication and commitment be acknowledged here. This project is truly a community victory and one we should all be rightly proud of. I again thank all those community members who have contributed to this very successful effort to secure this important funding.
Kingscliff already has many great features. It has beautiful beaches, thriving cafes and a range of diverse and wonderful businesses. It also has a very popular coastal cycleway. This exciting project—the revitalisation of the Kingscliff foreshore—will really add to what is already an outstanding village.
I would like to report to the House on the significant infrastructure rollout taking place in the Lyne electorate, thanks to policies in investment by the coalition government. Last week, I was informed that the National Broadband Network will commence construction of two new facilities at Coopernook and Moorland that will expand access to faster broadband services in the Manning Valley, particularly around Coopernook, Moorland and into nearby Harrington. The nbn co has informed us that construction of the new facilities is to get underway around September and that this should come online in October.
The coalition government's changes to the NBN have seen the rollout significantly fast-tracked and at a far more economical cost than the original proposal. When we came to government, there were many parts of my electorate that were not scheduled to have access to the NBN for at least 10 years. Thankfully, with the changes that we have made, the vast majority of my electorate can now either access or will soon be able to access the NBN. Over 10,000 premises in the Lyne electorate have been connected since the election, and the 2016 work schedule includes work for a further potential 22,100 homes and businesses.
As well as that, the coalition's decision to significantly increase funding for the Roads to Recovery program, coupled with federal financial assistance grants, has seen infrastructure funding to the local councils in Lyne, namely Gloucester Shire Council, Greater Taree City Council, Port Macquarie-Hastings Council and Kempsey Shire Council, increased to more than $160 million for the period 2014 to 2018.
The coalition is investing in Bucketts Way with $17 million worth of work and there are strategic transport links in the Manning. As well, there is over $1 billion being invested in the Pacific Highway between Port Macquarie and Kempsey that has generated over 900 direct jobs and nearly 3,000 indirect jobs throughout the region. There is so much more to be done and I look forward to more projects coming online as the coalition continues to roll out our $50 billion infrastructure package. And that does not include the bridges to recovery program or the black spots mobile tower upgrades that are scheduled for the Lyne electorate as well.
Infrastructure is so important because it lasts for generations and helps all businesses and individuals alike—whether it is fast internet, fast highways, better regional roads, replacement of timber bridges or all the other things that councils can do with their federal financial assistance grants. A lot of these FAGs do not get the recognition that they deserve, and I have argued that the weighting on how they are spent has moved towards infrastructure rather than being purely population based.
I rise today to put on the record the importance of the vital work that the Australian Breastfeeding Association do and to call on the government to end the madness around the uncertainty of funding for this vitally important organisation. A few weeks ago I received an email from Jill. She is a volunteer with the Australian Breastfeeding Association and has been for close to five years. She talked to me about the important work that she does and how long she studied to have the confidence and the knowledge to assist new mothers when they are struggling with breastfeeding. She talked to me about the fact that the funding for this organisation was in jeopardy because the Turnbull government had refused to provide ongoing funding.
I must admit that when I received this email I thought, 'This cannot be true. It would be madness, for the important work that this organisation does and the small amount of government funding that it runs on, for this to be true.' But sure enough, when we looked into it, we saw that the government had refused to guarantee ongoing funding. Since the shadow minister for health pointed this out and the Australian public expressed their outrage, the government have now very sneakily decided to extend funding for just 12 months to get them past an election, but not to guarantee the ongoing, important, good work of this organisation.
This is an organisation that has over 400 volunteer breastfeeding counsellors. They answer up to 6,000 calls every month. It is not just for new mothers that this organisation is important. The government itself says that it is committed to protecting, promoting, supporting and monitoring breastfeeding throughout Australia, and we know that it is important for these children, and indeed for the health of the community. We know that this is an important issue for the health of Australia and we know that women who are new to breastfeeding often rely upon this counselling; they rely upon this important advice. Too often it makes the difference between whether they are able to continue breastfeeding or whether they have to move on to something else. The health of these children, when they have mothers who are able to breastfeed but just need a little bit of advice and a little bit of support, is reliant upon this government providing ongoing funding.
Government members interjecting—
To those opposite who, rather than getting on board and demanding that the government provides ongoing funding, sit there and interrupt, I say: we will see the federal budget in a few weeks. We demand to see ongoing funding for the Australian Breastfeeding Association. This is not about Liberal, it is not about Labor, it is not about progressive or conservative—this is about mothers and babies and the health of Australians going forward. It would be shameful to end this funding and continue the uncertainty.
I am delighted that three organisations in my electorate of Solomon have been successful under the Saluting Their Service Commemorative Grants program. The National Servicemen's Association of Australia in Darwin, 5th Battalion, the Royal Australian Regiment Association in Darwin and, of course, the MacKillop Catholic College in Palmerston all had projects funded under this commemorative grants program. Saluting Their Service is an Australian government initiative that aims to honour the service and sacrifice of Australian servicemen and women in the wars, conflicts, peace operations and also to promote appreciation and understanding of the role that those who served played in shaping our nation. This program is designed to preserve our wartime heritage and to involve people throughout the nation in a wide range of activities and projects. The National Servicemen's Association will receive $1,320 to install a National Servicemen's Association memorial plaque on the remembrance wall at the North Darwin RSL. I had the pleasure of contacting the vice president of the association, Mr Ivan Walsh, who is a staunch supporter and advocate for our national servicemen, and he was as thrilled as I was that our servicemen will receive this great addition to help people remember those who have fought for and continue to fight for our nation. The North Darwin RSL are equally excited that this is happening.
The 5th Battalion the Royal Australian Regiment Association will receive $4,000 to restore 5RAR commemorative plaques and a memorial wall at Robertson Barracks. The fantastic MacKillop Catholic College will receive $925 to install what is, in my opinion, one of the most important foundations at any school: a flagpole so that they can have the Australian flag. I will be visiting them very soon and will make sure that I present Lauretta Graham, who is the principal, with a flag. I hope that not too far into the future I will be standing with teachers and students and admiring our national flag in front of the school, which is named after its patron saint, Mary McKillop.
All three projects will be of great benefit to the individual organisation, the students, the teachers, the veterans and members of the wider community. I look forward to these projects being completed. I would also like to put on the record my thanks to my good friend Dan Tehan, the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. I look forward to welcoming him to my electorate to meet with the veteran community in the not too distant future.
It pains me to have to rise again to speak about the failure of this government's NBN rollout in the southern suburbs of Adelaide. If Labor were still in government, over 20,000 homes and businesses in the suburbs of Hallett Cove, Happy Valley, Lonsdale, O'Halloran Hill, Old Reynella, Reynella, Reynella East, Sheidow Park, Trott Park and Woodcroft would have been connected to fibre-to-the-premise NBN. Unfortunately, these suburbs and many others are languishing under the Turnbull failed plan to deliver the National Broadband Network. I have had hundreds of people respond to my petition to demand not second-rate NBN fibre-to-the-node but a proper NBN of fibre-to-the-premise. These people in the southern suburbs of Adelaide have sent a clear message that we want a proper internet after struggling for so many years to have decent internet. It is time for the real NBN to be rolled out.
The now Prime Minister said before the election that the Liberal government would deliver the NBN by 2016. That was in the coalition's 'real solutions' policy. My message to the Prime Minister, who was then the Minister for Communications is, 'We are still waiting.' Indeed, the second-rate NBN is due to be delivered, although we do not have any time frame whatsoever for when it will be delivered, to Happy Valley, Reynella, Trott Park, Woodcroft and Lonsdale. But the people in these suburbs have been short changed; they will be getting only fibre-to-the-node and they have said clearly to me that they want fibre-to-the-premise. Colin from Hallett Cove says, 'By the time the fibre-to-the-node is complete, it will be well and truly obsolete.' Alan says, 'NBN is way overdue…Fibre-to-the-premise is the answer.' And Lester says, 'Bring back the original NBN.'
It is now time for the Liberal Party to recognise that the telecommunications network in southern Adelaide is a disaster. Fibre-to-the-node will not fix the problems with the copper and the problems that residents have continued to endure. Even worse, in other large parts of my electorate there are those suburbs that will not have any NBN anytime soon. These include Port Noarlunga, Huntfield Heights, Hackham, Hackham West, Noarlunga Centre, Onkaparinga Hills, Christies Beach, O'Sullivan Beach, Lonsdale and Noarlunga Downs. Brendan, who runs two businesses, says, 'No-one can give me a clear answer as to why in 2015 I am unable to connect to what is fast becoming an essential carriage for conducting business.' Roger from Hallett Cove says, 'We of Hallett Cove—we are many—ask if you would advise when it is likely that the NBN in Hallett Cove will be available.' I cannot answer these residents. This shambles of a rollout of a second-rate NBN in my electorate has to stop. The government need to reverse this policy and deliver fibre-to-the-premise and decent internet connections for residents right across the southern suburbs of Adelaide. (Time expired)
The Woolgoolga Garden Club is a strong community club with more than 100 members. Members range from 40 years of age to the oldest member, Jacki Ganderton, who turned 100 last week. Happy birthday, Jacki. This is a club that gives much back to the community. Recently it gave donations to six local schools: Corindi, Mullaway, Woolgoolga, Sandy Beach and St Xavier primary schools, as well as Woolgoolga High School. The money was to help each school beautify their school grounds. This is great community spirit. I would like to acknowledge the club's executive: president, Scott Rodham; secretary, Keryn Rodham; treasurer, Jill Smith; vice-president, Alice Lipman; vice-secretary, Margaret Franks; and vice-treasurer, Margaret Osborn; as well as the outing organiser, Rhonda Johnstone, who works tirelessly. They all work tirelessly to run a smooth ship. It is not just local schools that benefit from the garden club. They pledged money to the local Japanese garden and made a donation to the Woolgoolga community garden, and also gave a $1,000 donation to the Northern Beaches Multipurpose Centre.
I would also like to acknowledge today the Woolgoolga and District Retirement Village auxiliary. This dedicated team of volunteers wants to make life as best they can for other residents in their retirement village. They recently presented their retirement village with $10,000 to purchase new air conditioning for the dining room. In fact, since 1992, the auxiliary has fundraised more than $120,000 for the village, which is being used to purchase items such as beds, wheelchairs, lifters and physiotherapy equipment. I would like to acknowledge the hard work of the Woolgoolga and District Retirement Village auxiliary committee, led by the president, Gail Towers, the secretary, Margaret Hodges and the treasurer, Betty White, along with 17 members who work tirelessly to raise funds to ensure a better life for the residents of the village. Those members are Steve Towers, Pat Hodges, Val Penfold, Laurel Vardy, Shona Ward, Beth Hamilton, Barbara Mortimer, Barbara Stucking, Hazel Billingsley, Muriel Cresswell, Dawn Hawkey, Mary Johnston, Lyn Shakespeare, Carol Thompson and Margaret McDougall. Thanks for the work that you do.
Thursday, 28 January will be recorded as the day that Bill Shorten and Labor committed to the most significant improvement in school education for two generations—a very proud day for all of us who have the privilege to represent the Labor Party in the national parliament. A future Labor government will fully implement and fund the Gonski reforms. This is of fundamental importance to Australia's future growth and prosperity. Driving around my electorate past both primary and high schools, it is evident from the number of green posters at the schools declaring 'Gonski: it's making a difference right here' that there is strong support in Charlton schools and the wider community for this policy. Before talking about Labor's policy, I want to briefly refer to the political context of this debate. I will not go through the many quotes that are on the record, but the fact is that the Liberal and National parties blatantly misled the Australian people before the last election. They claimed that you could vote Labor or Liberal and get the same outcome in education. This was a shameless untruth. In its first budget, the Liberal government cut $30 billion from schools. In Charlton, this means that schools will lose $162 million in funding—a massive hit on local schools. With the recent announcements, there is only one political party that will deliver Gonski in full, and that is the Australian Labor Party.
The new Prime Minister loves to talk about innovation and what an exciting time it is to be alive. Fluffy rhetoric about innovation is not good enough. Labor's education policy will definitely have a positive impact on our innovative future. Labor's positive policy specifically focuses on every child's needs, more individual attention for students, better trained teachers, more targeted resources, better equipped classrooms and more support for students with special learning needs. Labor will ensure an additional investment in education of $4.5 billion over 2018-19 and over $37 billion for the package over the next decade. Ensuring that our workforce is prepared for the challenges and jobs of the future starts in our schools, and Labor's policy will make sure that Australia has the education system that our children and our country need. Labor believes the best way to ensure that Australians have a fair go is for there to be a needs based education system where the background of the child, where they live or what type of school they go to does not matter, as long as they have the same chance of succeeding in school and in life.
At the next election young and old voters alike will have a clear choice between a Liberal Party which has cut tens of billions of dollars from schools and abandoned the Gonski reforms and a Labor Party that believes in the empowering quality of education and its importance for a prosperous and productive Australia. This is a policy that is close to a silver bullet for the future prosperity of this nation, and I am so proud to be part of a Labor team that is pushing for the full Gonski reforms.
Today I am planning to upset both the Prime Minister and the Treasurer, but they say that all is fair in love and war. I am sure this year of 2016 is going to be 'the Year of the Panther'. I thought last year was going to be the Year of the Panther, and I must admit I was wrong. I was led down the garden path by Troy Dodds, the editor of The Western Weekender. We had this theory about Chinese New Year, but unfortunately I think we got it wrong. But I am sure this year is going to be the Year of the Panther.
Go the Panthers!
The member for Dobell agrees it is going to be the Year of the Panther! The Prime Minister can support Easts—he can support the 'chickens'—and the Treasurer can continue with the Sharks, but we are going to make short work of both of those teams.
This year is also significant for the Panthers, as the club turns 50 this year. The Penrith Panthers journey started many years ago—in fact my grandfather was one of the people who put in one of the original bonds to bring the Panthers into being as a professional team back in the early sixties. Our team has seen some wonderful successes—people like Tim Sheens, Phil Gould, Mark Geyer, Greg Alexander, Brad Fittler, Royce Simmons, John Farragher, Scott Sattler, Daryl Brohman, Ryan Girdler and many more. Many people will remember that on 22 September 1991 we took down the Canberra Raiders at the Sydney Football Stadium—an amazing day. The last time we cooked the Chooks was 2003, so I would like the Prime Minister to know that we have done it before and we will do it again. Of course there is also poor old Cronulla, who came in in 1967 and have never won anything.
As a club we have had our tough times too but, as a true Panthers supporter, I think one of the most amazing things about the Panthers is what they provide to the entire community. Everyone knows Penrith as a rugby league town, but what the Panthers and the St Mary's Rugby League Club give back to junior sport and junior netball is pretty phenomenal. I would also like to acknowledge the Penrith Panthers netball team, which is joining the Netball Premier League this year. This is an amazing transition for what is the No. 1 participation sport in our country: netball. We are going to see these wonderful women take the court—wonderful women like Paige Hadley, a local junior who went into the state team and then into the Diamonds.
So whether you are playing netball or whether you are playing rugby league, this year is the Year of the Panther. I would like to wish the entire team the very best of luck. Matt Moylan, our new captain, has started the year with an injury—not the best way to start. I hope his injury comes good and that he gets to his feet and is out pulling on the black jersey sooner rather than later. I wish all young participants of sport right across the region the very best—and do you know what? It does not really matter if you win or lose; it is about how you play and your sportsmanship.
I rise again in this place today to speak about water, water infrastructure and the Werribee Irrigation District. Last October I raised this issue for the first time, calling on the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources to find a way to talk to state government about making a federal contribution to the upgrade and modernisation of the Werribee irrigation channels. Our channels are ancient. They are dilapidated. They are losing 40 per cent of the water on their way to our market gardeners, our growers, in Werribee South.
The industry in Werribee South is a billion-dollar-per-annum industry and employs 1,000 people a day. It is a critically important industry for us locally; it is important for the state and it is important for the nation. In fact, Fresh Select—one of our companies down there that also exports—was raised in the federal parliament by then Minister for Trade Andrew Robb, as well as being raised in a speech of his at the Press Club talking about the potential for export and the Werribee Irrigation District and the Werribee growers.
Since last speaking about this, I have had a meeting with Minister Joyce's adviser and was pleased to sit down and talk to him about the local issue. Since then, I have met, again, with Southern Rural Water who are continuing to work on their business plan to ensure that we are suitable for federal funding going forward. I call on the minister to come to Werribee South to meet with the growers. I have today organised to be with our state minister, Lisa Neville, when she meets with irrigators in our district in the next couple of weeks.
This is a critical issue for us, locally—absolutely critical. Our growers are paying exorbitant amounts for water when you consider that their allocations are not reaching them. Part of that issue is actually the infrastructure—the infrastructure that has not had an upgrade in decades and desperately needs it. If it was a case of, 'It's just the weather, and it's the drought,' then we would be looking at other issues, but we are losing water every day in those channels. Is it an absolute waste and an absolute disgrace.
I call on the minister to come down to Werribee South and meet with the irrigators. They want to tell you their story, Minister. They need you to understand that the federal government has a role to play here in supporting the modernisation of our channels. This is a critical issue for the growers in my electorate. It is a critical issue for all of us in Victoria who want to eat fresh vegetables.
Ageing in our population is something that we can all be proud of because, amongst other things, it points to the successes of increasing life expectancy. Over the past weeks, I have had the pleasure to celebrate some major milestones with some of Dobell's amazing seniors. Last week, I was fortunate to visit the homes of two Dobell couples celebrating significant wedding anniversaries: Mr and Mrs Edward and Gladys Moore of Lisarow, who celebrated their 70th wedding anniversary, and Mr and Mrs Bruce and Felicity Pyke, OAMs, of The Entrance, who celebrated their 60th wedding anniversary.
Not only were Edward and Gladys celebrating their 70th wedding anniversary, they were also celebrating their 90th birthdays, in March and January respectively. Both born in 1926, a couple of years before the Great Depression, they were childhood sweethearts, marrying just after the Second World War. The tales they related of their younger years were just as vivid as if they had happened yesterday. We discussed the many changes in the world and life in general that they had experienced over the course of their marriage and the challenges that they have endured together. I sat, enthralled, and listened to their stories of how they met and fell in love, and how they grew their family, and chose to live on the Central Coast.
These stories were then continued when I made the visit to congratulate Mr and Mrs Bruce and Felicity Pyke, both OAMs, from The Entrance. Unfortunately, Felicity is not well at the moment, but I was so impressed with her charity work and her contribution to Wrap with Love, of which she recently stepped down from the position of Central Coast convener. Wrap with Love provides knitted wraps and blankets to ward off hypothermia in cold countries where people are struggling to stay warm. Bruce and Felicity received Order of Australia medals for their outstanding service to the Wrap with Love organisation, as well as to the wider Central Coast community.
Both couples are still living in their homes and are actively contributing to our community.
Last Saturday, I was honoured to attend the 100th birthday of Tom Picot, OAM, a Central Coast icon and one of our most cherished residents. Tom, a World War II veteran, received his OAM for services to his country and the RSL. Tom is also the subject of artist Wayne Dowsent, who is entering a portrait of Tom in this year's Archibald Prize. This is an amazing portrait and I wish Wayne all the very best with his entry. The secret to Tom's longevity is: a drop of rum every day.
Spending time with these amazing seniors and joining in with them in their anniversary and birthday celebrations gave me much more appreciation of the contribution that our seniors make to our community. It is something each and every one of us should value. I would like to wish everyone who is celebrating a milestone anniversary or birthday such as these: happy anniversary, happy birthday and congratulations!
Last Saturday, 20 February, Cyclone Winston hit Fiji. It was a category 5 tropical cyclone. The reports that you will see in the papers today are of 29 deaths. More than 8,000 people have been put in evacuation centres. The storm has caused extensive damage right across the nation of Fiji. Essential services such as hospitals, power, water and communications have all been hit. It is estimated that 80 per cent of the power in Fiji has been compromised. Schools have also been hit, and they, in turn, are being used as evacuation centres. Roads are closed due to falling trees and power lines. Some towns, villages and informal settlements have been totally wiped out. There has been extensive flooding in Nadi, Lautoka, Ba and Rakiraki—the latter being totally inaccessible by road. Shelter and sanitation facilities have been compromised. Access to the main ports has been compromised.
It is not just Fiji that has been hit. Tonga has also been hit, with the northern island group of Vava'u experiencing extensive damage and the central island group of Ha'apai also experiencing significant damage.
Tropical cyclones are not new to the Pacific, and most Pacific Island nations have experienced them. It was only last year that Vanuatu experienced Tropical Cyclone Pam. But what we are seeing is a much greater intensity in these cyclones. Cyclone Winston had winds gusting up to 325 kilometres an hour and waves rising up to 12 metres. The ABC has reported it to be the biggest storm ever recorded in the Southern Hemisphere.
The Fiji Geelong Friendship Club in my electorate has put me in contact with the Ratawa family who live in Newcomb. I spoke this morning to George Ratawa, a person I have known for five years, about his family. He said that his wife, Letila Tatawa, and her family all come from the island of Yacata. Yacata is a small island near Fiji, which has a single village. Letila's family had two houses in the village, which were both destroyed. Their village was washed away by a large tidal wave, and winds swept through all their belongings. Her family are now in Suva in evacuation centres.
The Australian government has committed $5 million to this. I commend the government on that.
I will have a condolence book in my electorate office which I would encourage constituents to sign. I would also encourage constituents to make donations to the appeals for this tragedy. A tax-deductible donation can be made, for example, to the Red Cross at redcross.org.au or by calling 1800811700.
There being no further constituency statements by honourable members, the next item of business will be called on.
It is always a difficulty to speak on condolence motions in relation to people you have known and served with in the parliament, and Bob Halverson was a friend—as you will probably gather from some of the remarks that I will make. He had a history of engagement, particularly with our military, that reflected something that I knew in my own family. I have an uncle who was an airman. I might say he may be a little more accomplished—he has only just given up his pilot's licence, and he was flying during the end of the Second World War—but he retired as a squadron leader and was promoted to wing commander, and I notice that Bob Halverson similarly left the service of our great nation as a wing commander.
He had a period in which he was a stockbroker and a businessman before he became, in 1984, the member for Casey in Victoria. He was a very accomplished member with a great deal of interests, particularly in relation to Australia and its role in the world. If you go through and look at the nature of the service he gave, it was very much reflected in the committee work and the delegations in which he participated. I went to his maiden speech. It is always interesting to look at maiden speeches to understand where people are coming from. While I gather some may be surprised that he later became a republican, in his early remarks were on the state of the nation he said:
… that patriotism and nationalism are becoming tainted and unacceptable words and that sacrifice, courage, discipline, loyalty, devotion to duty and love of country are, to many, unfashionable concepts or embarrassing cliches.
He had a strong commitment to our flag and its design, our history, and the fact that we were a British colony. He acknowledged the role of Australia as a member of the Commonwealth and acknowledged something that I acknowledge frequently—the importance of our parliamentary system, the separation of powers and the rule of law. These were safeguarded in our constitutional arrangements. In that sense, he was an Australian very committed to the values that we all hold as important.
I was challenged to raise a parliamentary delegation that I travelled with in 1988, in which Bob was a very distinguished member. It was to the former Soviet Union at the time of glasnost and perestroika, when we were wondering whether it was going to fundamentally change. We discussed the future of the Soviet Union at that time. We had the opportunity of visiting part of Central Asia. In other words, we were in Uzbekistan, and we had the opportunity of being in Samarkand, as I remember well. Later, we went to one of the Baltic republics, Lithuania, and were in Kaunas and Vilnius. Then we were in Moscow and St Petersburg. What we found out was that Russian cities are very different to our own. I was jogging regularly at that time—I was far fitter than I am now—and I might say that, as I came back to the hotel after having run round a park for something like 10 kilometres—I was training for the Sydney City to Surf—Bob Halverson was coming out. He looked at me in horror and said, 'There's no hot water.' I said: 'You really don't know what you are talking about. There'll be hot water; you've just got to let the tap run long enough.' So I went upstairs and let the tap run and run and run, and there was still no hot water. That was fine. We went down and we found our Russian guide. We all knew his name had to be Boris and that he had to be part of the KGB. We said to Boris, 'Look, Boris, there was no hot water—you will be able to fix it tomorrow, won't you?' and Boris said, 'Yes, there will be hot water tomorrow.' So I went out the next day and I think I did 15 kilometres. I came back and there was Boris, knocking on the doors of all of the members of the delegation, singing out at the top of his voice, 'Hot water, hot water,' as he handed each one of us a thermos flask. I did not know that in these Eastern European cities they closed the hot water system down for maintenance because it was reticulated through the whole city. It gave us some fascinating insights.
Bob, of course, became Speaker. I do not know whether our former Madam Speaker, who is in the chamber, will appreciate some of the comments I am about to make. Bob played a very important role in developing a more independent role for the Speaker. It may not necessarily have been acknowledged by all. He agreed at first instance that he would robe but he was not prepared to go back, as Billy Snedden had, and wear the wig, so in that sense he was already starting to define himself as someone who took a different view in relation to the role.
He elected not to participate in coalition party room meetings. He was pressed by the opposition of the time—that was understood—but he also found that his own colleagues were a little disappointed in some of his rulings, which led to a point where there was some questioning over it. In a sense that is disappointing, because I would like to think that in a robust parliament genuine debate and discussion should be facilitated and that the Speaker has a proper role in ensuring that there is appropriate decorum but also that debate is facilitated. I think Bob was one of those who saw a more independent role as the direction to take. Not all agreed with that, which I understand, and when he elected not to seek that role any longer—I think that happened around 1998—he left the parliament.
Bob then had a period as Australia's Ambassador to Ireland and as our representative at the Holy See. It was interesting to see some of the issues that he had to deal with. Diplomatic representatives find some of these matters challenging—particularly, for example, when you are at the Vatican and people want to raise with you issues of asylum seekers and other matters—and he obviously had to deal with those. But it is generally acknowledged that, after some questionable appointments to Ireland at earlier points in time, Bob Halverson was able to restore Australia's reputation as a country that appointed people of capacity and ability to fulfil that role on behalf of Australia. It was very appropriate that, after a distinguished parliamentary career and a period as Speaker, he was able to fulfil that role for our nation and in the nation's interest.
It was a great privilege to know him. To his wife, Maggie, I say, 'We regret very much his passing.' To his children and grandchildren we all express our condolences. He was a fine Australian. He had served this nation in our military. He served this parliament. He played a distinguished role in being the Speaker and he was later a very important diplomat for Australia.
I rise to speak on the condolence motion on the death of the Honourable Robert George—otherwise known as Bob—Halverson OBE. Like the member for Berowra, I too was a great friend of Bob Halverson. Indeed, I might mention a couple of things as we go through the course of this small contribution I make in recording his life. He was, in many senses of the word, a giant of a man. He had, as we know, served in the Royal Australian Air Force from 1956 to 1981. He had enlisted as an officer cadet and topped his class in 1957. We heard that he was made an Officer of the Order of the British Empire in 1978 for his work with Britain's Royal Air Force during the Queen's Silver Jubilee, and of course he received the Centenary Medal in 2001. Those things are formal notations of what had shaped much of his life. He was a man who was about service. When he came to the parliament, it was to serve the people of Australia—a country he loved.
I came to the parliament in 1987, after he had already become a member, but over the course of time we became strong friends. Indeed, that friendship included the period when there was much discussion as to whether I was to become the leader of the Liberal Party and whether I would go on, as the pundits were saying at the time, to be the first woman Prime Minister. He was a great supporter of me in that period, and I would like to place on record my thanks for the work that he did and the encouragement that he certainly gave me at that time. As the member for Casey, he worked hard in that seat. There were many occasions when I would join him at events that were important, talking about the parliament or whatever else we were doing at the time.
In opposition, as I said, it was a fast and furious time. When John Howard succeeded Alexander Downer as the Leader of the Opposition, we settled into a pattern of being determined to win that election. Upon winning that election and during the lead-up period, Bob had been the whip. When we won the election, Bob decided that he would run for the office of Speaker. I have to say that he was a very popular member among those of us in the Liberal Party, in the coalition. Bob was successful in winning the ballot to be the preselected candidate, if you like, for the position of speaker, which is the way it is done, and then, when he was put forth in the chamber, he was duly elected to that role.
Traditionally, conservative speakers had worn the ancient garb and, as the member for Berowra mentioned, Bob refused to wear the wig, but he did wear other parts of the apparel, although slightly toned down. But that acknowledged the tradition in his mind. I think it was a very wise decision that he made, showing that the office of Speaker was transitioning. The office of Speaker, as we know, is one of the most ancient in the parliament, dating back to 1377. The only other office within the parliament which is older is that of the Clerk. The reason that the Clerk always does the first readings and so on is that he was probably, in those times, the only person who could read and the members of those early parliaments needed to be told what was in the bills. In the office of Speaker we see the traditional struggle to go up to the chair. In its history, it is an office that is strewn with people who lost their heads or lost office for one reason or another. In changing the garb, he was flagging that there was to be a transition. The way he saw it was that he wanted to change the way that question time, in particular, was conducted. As I had come from the Senate, I understood what supplementary questions were about, but it was something that was rather frowned upon when he introduced it into the House of Representatives, although there were many who enjoyed the opportunity of using the supplementary questions. There was, shall we say, a tense relationship between the government of the day and Speaker Halverson, but he held his ground. He, in my view, marked out the important position of the Speaker's independence from the government and the opposition—in the sense that the office is one of the parliament. He made that a firm position. Others have interpreted that differently, but his speakership was, I think, a turning point—and one that should be marked.
He subsequently became the Australian Ambassador to Ireland and the Holy See and he received a papal knighthood for his services to the Vatican. He was a man who was able to transition from military life to life as a stockbroker, to life in the parliament, to life as the Speaker and to life as a diplomat. He was a fine friend and an excellent servant of this wonderful country, Australia.
I rise to pay my respects to Bob as well. I came to parliament in 1996, when Bob Halverson was set to become Speaker. So my first recollection was a phone call from him. With the big loss by the Keating government, there were in that class of '96 a whole heap of new Liberal members. There were therefore a lot of members that the candidates for the role of Speaker did not know. But Bob had done his homework and he recognised that I too was a graduate of the Officer Cadet School, Portsea. When he picked up the phone to me, therefore, he knew that he would be speaking to someone who would have a similar train of thought, if you like. The motto of OCS Portsea is 'Loyalty and Service' and I immediately knew what the make of the man, having graduated in that class of 1957, would be.
The member for Mackellar reflected on the fact that Bob was the top graduate in his class. But it is also interesting to note that it was the smallest class of OCS Portsea ever to graduate. There were 30 cadets selected to attend and only 15 graduated. That is quite a high attrition rate and it says something about what it took—particularly in the fifties and sixties and the lead-up to the Vietnam War—to graduate. The motto of 'Loyalty and Service' served him well and he observed it throughout his life. The member for Berowra mentioned that in his very first speech Bob talked about love of country and his concern about some of our country's values. Bob always put that proposition about values.
I have a couple of interesting little anecdotes. When I was a first term member of parliament, it was in fact the Speaker who first led me astray. I missed my first ever division—the only one I missed in 11½ years—because I was at dinner with the Speaker, which was a heck of a good excuse. For the benefit of members here, I will pass on that it was interesting to discover that our pagers do work in Manuka—because my pager went off. I queried whether we could get back to parliament within the four minutes. Bob assured me that it was not something to panic about and that, on our return, all would be forgiven.
Unlike the members for Mackellar and Berowra, I do not have a history with any speakers before Bob. But the tension between Bob and the government of the day was clear. He had taken Prime Minister Howard at his word that he was after an independent Speaker—and I am quite sure that John was indeed after an independent Speaker, although perhaps not one quite as independent as Bob was aiming to be. There is always that tension. I think the current member for Casey, Tony Smith, is finding that balance better than any Speaker I have witnessed in the 20-odd years I have been here—and that is no disrespect to anyone else. He has found a fine way to maintain that balance. I am sure that when Bob spoke to him, as the Speaker related yesterday, at the time he was a candidate to become the Liberal Party nominee for Speaker, he would have felt some trepidation. Whilst it is a wonderful honour, it is a heck of a responsibility and that balancing act is a hard one. But Tony Smith has done it with aplomb.
I could sense Bob's pain and anguish in that two years as he tried to balance what he thought was right—right for parliament, right for the government and right for the nation. That conflict, I am sure, was something that did not sit well with him, hence his decision—as has been pointed out, his alone—to break from the parliament and leave the incredibly important and significant role of Speaker. Sue and I travelled to Ireland and were hosted in Dublin when he was the ambassador. He was as gracious as you would always imagine him to be. If all of our ambassadors and our diplomats could carry themselves with the dignity that Bob did, then it would bode well for all of us.
It is with great sadness that I note, reflect upon and pay respect to his life of service and loyalty to his country, to the defence forces and to this parliament—and to his family as well. It is clear that Maggie, his family and his grandchildren have lost a dear, dear person who loved them so very much, who led by example and who lived a life that all of us can only aspire to be so proud of. To his family: may he rest in peace—he will not be forgotten by those who knew him so well.
It is with great sadness that we heard of the death of Robert—always known as 'Bob'—Halverson, the fifth member for Casey in Victoria and the 22nd Speaker of our parliament. He passed away on 9 February, after a long battle with cancer, at his home, Kildrummie, in southern New South Wales. He died as he had always hoped: in his own home and with his family.
Bob can be remembered by the nation as having had a long and distinguished career as a senior member of the Australian Defence Force, as a hardworking and dedicated local member of parliament in his initially marginal electorate in the foothills of the Dandenongs and at the head of the Yarra Valley, as the chief Liberal Party whip and as a somewhat controversial Speaker of the House before he entered a distinguished career as an Australian diplomat. Bob was also a close personal friend and mentor of mine, someone who advised and inspired me to become the member for Murray in 1996. I first met Bob when his only daughter, Sharon, became my sister-in law married to my only brother, Grant. Bob was a big-hearted and towering figure who had a passion for our country, for the rule of law and for politics. Bob brought total commitment, passion and persistence to all that he did. He had superb organisational skills which were well recognised and rewarded throughout his career.
Bob was born in Melbourne and grew up in Footscray, so in an essential sense he was a city-centric person who later came to love country Australia. He joined the Royal Australian Air Force in 1956 as an officer cadet at Portsea. He topped the course in 1957. He was awarded an OBE in 1978 for his coordinating role with the Royal Australian Air Force during the Queen's Silver Jubilee celebrations. He attained the rank of group captain before retiring from the Australian Air Force in 1981. He served the Air Force loyally and he was very proud that his grandson James has also become a pilot. During his long Air Force career, like many other long-suffering faithful Defence Force wives, Bob's wife Maggie relocated with him around the country with their four very small children, including to some very remote and uncomfortable Air Force bases in Northern Australia. She recalls with a mixture of horror and humour how she once had to call Bob home to prise an enormous snake out of the bathroom—or was it the laundry? The louvre windows apparently offered absolutely no resistance to the local wildlife.
After leaving the Air Force, Bob briefly became a stockbroker before being elected to the House of Representatives in 1984 as the Liberal member for his beloved Casey. His hard work in that electorate and his capacity to engender deep loyalty, affection and trust from his fellow local Liberals and branches meant that this was very much a team effort in Casey. There are many who were a part of the Casey Liberal family at that time now mourning his loss.
Bob was magnificently served by his close-knit staff, who were key to his initial success in winning this marginal seat. The late Pauline Osmond, for example—the daughter of another great woman, Dame Phyllis Frost—was not only Bob's mentor and political soul mate; she was a powerful advocate of our strongest liberal values and traditions. She was also one of my closest advisers and mentors when I sought election to the federal parliament in 1995.
Bob served as the opposition party whip, a position he was eminently suited for, before being elected as the 22nd Speaker of the House of Representatives in the Australian parliament. He held that position from 1996 to 1998, when he retired from politics. Others have referred to his great interest in being an independent Speaker, giving a very balanced chairing of the chamber from the Speaker's chair. Controversially at the time, he introduced a not unfamiliar proposition in the Senate: the idea of supplementary questions. Too often, those supplementary questions had to be ruled out of order, because they were vexatious and were not within the standing orders. But the very fact that he had to hear that supplementary question meant that the point was scored and, as you can imagine, that did cause some grief to the government of the day. There was only a two-year period as Speaker but, when Bob left the Australian parliament—given he was still a man wanting to serve his country—he accepted the ambassador position to Ireland and the Holy See. There, he was a most successful ambassador, forging unique and special relationships with the Irish government; although his own background was from northern Europe, of course; given his appearance and his name. He also served the Holy See so well that the Pope granted him a papal knighthood for his services—although he was not a Catholic.
Bob retired to Holbrook in 2003 to become a prime beef producer on his property Kildrummie. The property is close to his son-in-law's property, which also grows beef and sheep. His long beloved wife Maggie helped transform a unique home at Kildrummie; in fact, the house was a converted cattle stud selling station. To go into that extraordinary home, a magnificently organised place, was to really understand Maggie's great skills as a homemaker—and someone who was until very recently Bob's life partner. Bob is survived by his wife, Maggie, and their four children and many grandchildren. He was a very special Australian, and a very dear friend of mine. May we always remember his legacy.
I understand it is the wish of honourable members to signify at this stage their respect and sympathy by rising in their places.
Honourable member s having stood in their places
I thank the Federation Chamber.
I move:
That further proceedings be conducted in the House.
Question agreed to.
I begin by acknowledging the Ngambri and Ngunnawal people, the traditional owners of the land on which we meet and of my electorate of Canberra. I pay my respects to their elders, past and present.
It is a sobering experience to each year read the Closing the Gap report, and to have the opportunity to reflect on it in parliament. The report was born out of a campaign that started 10 years ago, a campaign that brought together Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians and non-Indigenous Australians in mutual commitment to ensuring that by 2030, any Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander child born in this country will have the same opportunity as other Australian children to live a long, to live a healthy, to live a happy life.
Each year we see some progress towards meeting the Closing the Gap targets, but each year we are also reminded of the uncomfortable and persistent reality that the gap in Indigenous disadvantage remains. This year the report is no different. This year we are confronted with the fact that we are currently on track to meet just two of the seven Closing the Gap targets—just two of them. The report shows that progress in closing the gap in a number of key areas, including employment, life expectancy and reading and numeracy, has stagnated.
The good news comes in the areas of infant mortality and year 12 attainment. The target to halve the gap in child mortality by 2018 is on track, and this year's report tells us that, over the longer term, Indigenous child death rates declined by 33 per cent and the gap narrowed by 34 per cent between 1998 and 2014. Immunisation rates for Indigenous children are high. By the age of five, a higher percentage of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children are immunised than other Australian children. That is an incredible statistic, and I would like to commend all of the organisations and health services who have worked so hard to achieve this, especially the Aboriginal community controlled health organisations and their peak body, NACCHO. In my own community, the Winnunga Nimmityjah Aboriginal Health Service does great work in this area, particular in pre- and postnatal services.
We also had good news in the space of year 12 attainment. An increasing proportion of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander young people are completing year 12—up from 45.4 per cent in 2008 to 58.5 per cent in 2012-13. This means the target to halve the gap in year 12 attainment by 2020 is on track. Over the past decade, there was a 70 per cent increase in the number of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students in higher education award courses, and there is almost no employment gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous university graduates, which is a terrific result.
These figures are impressive. They are uplifting. They deliver a sense of accomplishment and pride. But these are the highlights in what is a very mixed report. As nice as it is to dwell on the successes, it is so much more important to focus on the areas where we are not on track. We are not on track to close the gap on life expectancy by 2031. Indigenous Australians will still die on average 10 years earlier than non-Indigenous Australians. Here we are, in one of the most affluent countries in the world, and Indigenous Australians are dying, on average, 10 years earlier than non-Indigenous Australians. We are not on track to halve the gap in employment by 2018. The results on reading and numeracy are mixed, with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students on track to achieve national minimum standards in just four of the eight areas measured in years 3, 5, 7 and 9. And there has been very little change in the rate of school attendance, with states and territories recording less than one per cent change in school attendance from 2014 to 2015. Not a single state or territory where the government's flagship $126.5 million truancy program operates is on track to meet the school attendance target.
When this report was released earlier this month, we heard many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander leaders express their frustration at the lack of progress, and this frustration is understandable, and it is shared, because, as the deadline for many of these targets fast approaches, we do not have time for complacency. The federal government and the state and territory governments must strengthen their resolve, must work together, must do more and must do better.
One thing that we know is that cutting front-line services is not the answer. Whether it be in health services, legal aid services or family violence and crisis services, cuts to front-line services not only stymie progress but also put at risk those gains that have already been made in closing the gap. I do believe there is bipartisan commitment to closing the gap, but as a member of the opposition I cannot help but feel the government's actions do not always match their rhetoric in this space. When speaking on this report, my colleague the member for Blair, who is also the shadow minister for Indigenous affairs, outlined his frustration at the government's decision to cut funding from the National Congress of Australia's First Peoples, who are a national voice for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.
We have also been frustrated by the government's decision to walk away from its commitment to the Gonski funding model and to needs based school funding. As we know, one of those elements is indigeneity. We need to ensure that every child is given the best educational opportunities to succeed later in life. We have seen those significant improvements, and we need to ensure that we continue to make those improvements and gains and that they do not regress in any way. That is why Labor is committed to fairer needs based funding for schools, with extra support for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students. The government was committed to this model prior to the last election but it has now abandoned its commitment.
Labor's policy will guarantee the individual attention and targeted programs that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students deserve so that they can be their best, so that they can reach their potential. I was proud to be in the chamber when the Leader of the Opposition committed, at the first COAG meeting under a Labor government, that the first item on the agenda will be setting new targets to close the justice gap, tackling the appalling and absolutely shameful incarceration rates among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. We cannot close the gap while Indigenous incarceration and victimisation rates are at national crisis levels. And that is where they are: at national crisis levels. These statistics are just breathtakingly appalling. Right now, if you are an Aboriginal man you are 15 times as likely to be imprisoned as a non-Aboriginal man. It is unacceptable; it is appalling; it is shameful.
Labor's target will focus on preventing crime, reducing violence and victimisation and boosting community safety, and that will not just be in remote communities; it will be in our cities, our suburbs, our regional centres. We call on the government to also adopt this target, to put an end to those appallingly high incarceration rates and victimisation rates. Most importantly, we cannot close the gap without genuine and respectful engagement and partnership with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. That is why we must maintain momentum to recognise our nation's first peoples in the Constitution. Labor is committed to a referendum on Indigenous recognition within the first year of taking office.
Stan Grant last week spoke at the National Press Club, which was a very stirring and moving address that really focused on a number of the key issues that have been identified in closing the gap. In his speech he said:
How many prime ministers are going to leave office and say that their biggest regret would be that they didn't do enough for Indigenous affairs?
We've heard that from Bob Hawke, from Paul Keating, Kevin Rudd and Tony Abbott. …
"What is your biggest regret?" "Oh, I could have done more".
I tell you one of the problems here, and that is why our issues seen to be something separate? Why is it pushed off to the margins of policy?
Closing the gap is not easy or straightforward, but we must persevere; we cannot have it in the margins of policy. Our failure in this respect would be our greatest shame. If governments of all levels strengthen their commitment, if they work with and listen to Australia's first people to achieve these targets, it will be the most significant political achievement of our lifetime.
Debate adjourned and made an order of the day for the next sitting.
As the representative of Werriwa, which had approximately 10,000 electors at the 2011 census identifying as Pacific Islanders, and having visited Fiji, Samoa and Tonga over the last two years, I at the outset express my solidarity with the Fijian people over the events surrounding Cyclone Winston. Currently, 29 people are dead and UNICEF estimates that 60,000 people, including 26,000 children, are living in the areas that experienced the worst effects. Also, there are a massive 400,000 people living in badly affected areas.
Obviously, I commend the Australian government's commitment of $5 million, and the reality of Australians on the spot assisting through a variety of NGOs. We need to keep monitoring that to understand the depth of the issues and be prepared to give further support.
I also join with the Chair's in commenting on the efforts of the secretariat, led by Jerome Brown, but more particularly Sonya Fladun and the research officers. The reality is that these reports often depend on the secretariat. The level of commitment, interest, knowledge and availability of members varies considerably and I have no doubt that with this particular report they put in a magnificent effort.
The background of this inquiry is the 18 June 2014 new aid directions statement, giving an emphasis to the empowerment of females in six priority areas. It was stated at the time that one of our performance benchmarks is that all of our aid investments must assist gender issues, with at least 80 per cent focused on supporting empowerment for women. Since then, the department itself, and the Ambassador for Women and Girls, former senator Natasha Stott Despoja, have certainly focused on that area. Whilst we might quibble and argue about the amount of money in the foreign aid program, we certainly do not argue about that priority. It is in line with comments by the United Nations University on 1 January 2013:
A key challenge for donors is to ensure that gender is, and remains, a development priority in an era of "priority overload" in development policy and globalization. Gender is often a cross-cutting theme in development programmes, to be mainstreamed among a range of others …. This can result in gender being "mainstreamed out".
The danger is that gender equality will be subsumed into wider discussions about inequality reduction in order to reduce priority overload, so negating the importance of gender issues …
Australia clearly recognises that.
The basic theme of this inquiry outcome was the reality that we have to be in this for the long haul. We have to understand that there might not be immediate short-term gains from investment of foreign aid. We have to assess very clearly the local impacts and understand cultural values. The need—and I think the Chair particularly stressed this as one of his constant maxims—for data collection, looking at outcomes and making sure that we know of the evidence that is necessary. Fundamentally, we have to understand the diversity of the region. Clearly, we have large populations in Indonesia and in the region, including in small island states such as Tuvalu. We should not be too judgemental about the way in which these societies operate. However, on a broader front, nearly 70 per cent of Pacific women reported sexual and physical abuse. Estimates are that 40 to 70 per cent have been assailed by family members.
The inquiry attracted significant public interest. Six national states made submissions through their embassies and a very broad coalition of NGOs made their points known: Oaktree, ACFID, Oxfam, CARE Australia, Gavi the Vaccine Alliance, Slavery Links Australia, the International Labour Organization (Pacific Office) et cetera. Of course, they would, given the seriousness of these problems. ActionAid Australia said:
… addressing [violence against women and girls] in humanitarian settings is crucial to ending the cycle of vulnerability, marginalisation, exclusion and poverty …
Papua New Guinea has a maternal mortality rate of 733 per 100,000, and it is also extremely high in the Solomons, Vanuatu, Kiribati and the Federated States of Micronesia. Only 55 per cent of women in Papua New Guinea have 'skilled birth attendance' at their births. Cambodia has a death rate of 206 per 100,000. Timor-Leste has similar figures.
The situation on a broader front, as Oxfam said, is that despite their very broad support for the Millennium Development Goals, this report is necessary because our region is particularly not going forward with the progress that the other parts of the world have. Oxfam said that the Pacific is falling behind in the global fight against poverty. It noted that almost one third of the Pacific's 2.7 million people live in poverty and made the comment that poverty is not just about having enough to eat; it is also about basic rights and opportunities for all and the prevention of unnecessary deaths.
With regard to the state of our region, we note that in PNG in 2009, whilst 53 per cent of males and 59 per cent of females were dependent on subsistence, the men actually earned twice as much. The recommendations are extremely broad. Perhaps the most important is that we lift the proportion of foreign aid specifically going to this sector from five per cent to eight per cent to 10 per cent over a five-year period. That, of course, is in line with the government's emphasis on this part of the aid budget. The outcome of the report is that we feel that, even though the government has focused on it and even though our DFAT people are in the job of making sure there is an emphasis, we need to put more money in. I have to say that, whilst we did not want to single out particular countries, during the course of the inquiries there were projects and issues that emerged in a single nation. One of them was to explore ways to extend programs addressing violence, such as those being run by the Fiji Women's Crisis Centre, which the next speaker and I were privileged to attend, and linking those programs to similar initiatives operating in Australia.
The report calls on us to encourage governments in the region which have not already done so to prioritise the approval of national plans for UN Security Council resolution 1325. Further, the committee recommends that the Australian government prioritise work with governments in the Indo-Pacific region, non-governmental organisations and the scientific research community for the development of effective low-cost assessable medicines to treat AIDS. The committee also recommends that the Australian aid program retains a focus on ensuring that clean water and access to satisfactory sanitation and hygiene is available, especially in schools. On that front, of course, we should focus on ensuring that all education programs are designed to keep girls in school and addressing the issue of sanitation facilities by providing facilities that can be adequately maintained and serviced locally.
On the question of political participation, the current status is pretty lamentable. Some of the countries—Papua New Guinea in particular—have taken a backward step over recent years. We can say that Samoa, perhaps, is commendable by regional standards, but in fact the overall status of women in leadership roles, being role models and being able to affect policy is dire in our region. The committee recommended that the Australian government prioritise girls' and women's leadership and political participation, and integrate these as a priority across the region. In line with that, there is the need to fund women's advocacy organisations throughout the region. It is clear that they often do not have a voice in society that has any effect upon government. It was the unanimous recommendation of the committee that we do fund those organisations. In the same vein, the Australian government needs to increase research and programs supporting leadership and female empowerment in agriculture and key employment sectors for women.
In conclusion, it was very reassuring that there was such a high number of submissions from a broad spectrum—governmental and non-government, both here and overseas. Clearly, the whole focus in our region is one in which we, whilst being a major aid donor and a major form of assistance, have to be mindful of our image of being too paternalistic and too judgemental. We have to make sure that we fully maximise the possibility of getting local on-the-site advice from women's organisations, liaising with them in situations where they are not otherwise represented and making sure that our staff have close continuing contact with those organisations.
Since her appointment as foreign minister, the Hon. Julie Bishop has insisted that addressing gender inequality, particularly in our neighbouring region, be a priority for a government. The members of the Human Rights Subcommittee of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade welcomed the opportunity to advance this agenda, with an inquiry into empowering women and girls and into the human rights issues confronting women and girls in the Indian Ocean and Asia-Pacific region.
When you look at the nations this region includes, there is a great difference in size and character, but they all have their own challenges. To take just one example, we need to look no further than our nearest neighbour and friend, Papua New Guinea. Just look at some of the stark facts. Five women die every day in childbirth, the highest maternal mortality rate in the world. More than 90 per cent of women and girls have been victims of domestic violence. In Australia, we have one doctor for every 302 residents. In PNG, there is one doctor for every 17,068 people. In a country challenged by geography, challenged by more than 700 villages—85 per cent of the population lives outside Port Moresby—and challenged by more than 800 different languages, there are just 51 doctors outside the capital city. Five point five per cent of babies die before they are two years old. In Australia, we spend $6,600 per capita on health every year and there is always a call for a bigger spend; in Papua New Guinea, it is just $67.
So where to start for this inquiry? There are so many challenges, but, equally, there are a plethora of faith based, service, government and non-government organisations providing aid and support programs into these countries. Indeed, one of my ongoing frustrations is the lack of coordination between these many groups. While I appreciate the need for statistics and factual data, it is disappointing that many organisations operate in silos. We need better coordination and better cooperation and we need to share the information. We heard that some groups simply monitor other groups and then express strong views on how programs should be delivered, having never actually operated under the difficult conditions in these countries. To me, there seem to be fewer organisations actually delivering programs on the ground. So recommendation 32 attempts to resolve some of this by calling for improved data collection and reporting. Another frustration of mine is the amount of duplication and programs operating in parallel without collaboration or coordination. One of the successful organisations in the Pacific is the Fiji Women's Crisis Centre, who also provide support to neighbouring countries. They have established a variety of programs addressing key issues which can be adapted to other countries and social situations. They run courses for men in the community, including local football teams, and have established a 'male champion' program. Rather than reinvent the wheel, the Fiji Women's Crisis Centre is well positioned to deliver these programs into other parts of the region, as identified in recommendation 23.
As you can see from the size of this report, Madam Deputy Speaker, there is no one easy solution to these many challenges, but many of the recommendations make good, common sense. Recommendation 18 states:
The Committee recommends that Australian Government agencies working in the Indo-Pacific region take advantage of opportunities to partner with faith based networks where they play a major role in delivery of health care services and care support.
Many of our faith based organisations have been in these regions for decades. They know the local people, they often speak the local dialect and the local people have learnt to trust them, so surely we are better delivering programs through these existing networks and organisations than establishing a separate operation to do it in parallel at greater expense. We could get more value for our aid dollar by delivering through these faith based organisations. There are other practical solutions. Recommendation 5 states:
The Committee recommends that the Australian Government:
Once again, these are practical solutions, supporting women in leadership roles who can be mentors to other women in the community and protect their rights.
The next section, 'Violence against women and girls', recommends that the Australian government engage with governments in the Indo-Pacific region to highlight the extent of violence against women and girls and the persistence of the problem. So I was delighted to be a member of an all-party delegation, with then Minister Ciobo, at the end of last year. We went to Fiji, Tonga, Samoa and the Solomon Islands, and we looked at the problems there during the 16 Days of Activism Against Domestic Violence. Minister Ciobo led the way in highlighting the Australian government's desire to address these issues in those countries, and we had some very interesting meetings with governments in those places.
As the Minister for Foreign Affairs has observed, when women are able to actively participate in the economy and in community decision making, everybody benefits. Section 7 of the report refers to women in leadership. The Pacific Women's Parliamentary Partnerships Forum is a great initiative, but we still have a long way to go.
Disappointingly, no women were elected at the recent election in Vanuatu, despite so many good candidates. That was a very disappointing outcome.
I understand that not everyone supports a quota system for women to be elected to parliament, but there are other ways of achieving it. I congratulate the President of Samoa, who has decreed that, in the upcoming election, in 10 per cent of the seats there will be a woman elected—but not at the expense of the man. Say a woman does not get as high a vote as a male candidate. The 10 women who get the highest votes will be deemed elected. But the male candidate will also be elected. So the voters in that constituency will have two members for that term. The President is increasing the size of parliament to make sure that there are women represented in the parliament, which is a novel way of achieving it.
In Papua New Guinea, we were very disappointed when Dame Carol Kidu retired, and there was no quota system in place; we were concerned. But it was great that we had three strong women elected, and I pay particular tribute to Julie Soso Akeke, the first ever female governor to be elected. She is the Governor of Goroka in the highlands, a very difficult part of Papua New Guinea. Julie is doing an amazing job.
Significant improvements have been achieved through our aid program in 2014-15. A new gender equality fund and a revised strategic direction will increase progress towards meeting our gender equality target and empowering women and girls. This fund supports commitments to advance international efforts on critical gender equality issues, including ending violence against women and girls and promoting women's leadership. The government has set a target requiring that at least 80 per cent of investments, regardless of their objectives, will effectively address gender issues in their implementation. However, there is no doubt that additional funding in this area would be of incredible benefit and is sorely needed. Indeed, achieving many of our recommendations will require more budget allocation. I trust that this report will also value-add to that agenda and make a positive contribution.
I thank the member for Berowra for his always-professional chairmanship and his untiring commitment to human rights all around the world during his time in this place. His new role is most fitting.
I also thank my fellow committee members for their valuable contributions. It is particularly worth noting that these recommendations have bipartisan support, as we all share a genuine desire to remedy the plight of so many women and children in our region. I give my appreciation to the inquiry secretariat, Sonya Fladun and her team, who worked tirelessly to source appropriate witnesses and managed to pull together some very disparate evidence and submissions. I commend the report to the House.
Debate adjourned.
Ordered that the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
Federation Chamber adjourned at 11: 30