I have a very short statement to make. Particularly those members who are at the table will notice a new device that is there on the table. I wish to advise members that that relates to a project that has commenced to modernise the sound reinforcement equipment in the chamber. As part of the preliminary work for the project, an audio logger has been placed at the clerks table, as you can see. This device measures noise levels in the chamber and so will record the volume of what is said but will not record the words spoken. Noise levels in the chamber will be analysed throughout the day to better inform the project. The audio logger will be on the table for the next couple of days.
I present the report of the Parliamentary field visit to Canada and the United States from 23 October to 4 November 2015.
On behalf of the Standing Committee on Education and Employment, I would like to present the committee's report entitled Getting business booming, together with the minutes of proceedings and evidence received by the committee.
Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).
by leave—On behalf of the aforementioned committee on education and employment, I present the report of the committee's inquiry into the factors that discourage job creation and employment by private sector small business.
On 23 March 2015, the Minister for Employment, Senator the Hon. Eric Abetz, asked the committee to inquire into and report on matters that inhibit or discourage job creation and employment by small businesses in the private sector and/or provide disincentives to individuals from working for such businesses. The committee sought and received submissions from a range of stakeholders including small businesses, peak industry and union representatives and individuals, who all identified a variety of issues relevant to those terms of reference.
It is an article of faith on this side of the House that small business is the engine room of the Australian economy and that it drives national prosperity. Small businesses are 96 per cent of all business, employing 45 per cent of the Australian workforce. That is 4.5 million Australians, and they produce over $330 billion of national economic output per annum.
The report I present today sets out many of the positive initiatives that the coalition government has implemented since election in 2013 to improve the capacity of small business to employ. In summary, red tape has been cut. Compliance processes for small business, particularly in superannuation, taxation and employment standards, have been streamlined. The tax burden on small business has been reduced. Wage subsidies are in place to help people over 50 find work. Programs have been introduced to assist disadvantaged groups into employment also. There has been a significant investment in programs to develop the quality of job seekers through work experience opportunities and apprenticeships.
These are all important practical measures demonstrating the government's commitment to small business growth and employment. I should note also that the government's National Innovation and Science Agenda. It is one of those opportunities for small business to grow, invest and employ.
Notwithstanding the significant progress that this government has made to date, the report still recognises there are some specific areas for improvement. They are addressed in several of the report's recommendations, but I want to highlight three.
The first is the committee's proposal that a framework is established to develop a single decision tool to help small business correctly identify when a worker is an employee or a contractor.
Second, the committee recommends the Minister for Employment—together with Safe Work Australia—formulate proposals to take to COAG that will eliminate the requirement for a small business operating in multiple jurisdictions to have to engage with multiple workers' compensation schemes.
Third, the committee recommends that the Productivity Commission investigate the impact on small business of lowering the GST threshold, particularly on the importation of physical goods, and undertake regular cost-effectiveness research on the impact of GST threshold reduction.
The committee also makes recommendations in this report to assist disadvantaged job seekers find employment in the small business sector. It recommends that the federal Department of Employment work with jobactive providers to ensure that ancillary service providers might also receive Australian government funding for the assistance they provide in placing jobactive clients into employment.
We recommend that the Australian small business ombudsman, small business commissioners, chambers of commerce, business enterprise centres and peak small business organisations develop strategies to promote to small business the benefits of workers coming from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds.
The committee recommends that the Australian government reassess the policy case for taxing the redundancy payouts of persons over the age of 65 to encourage people to stay in the workforce.
Taken together, the committee has 14 targeted recommendations, which, if properly implemented, will ensure that Australian small business will continue to grow and employ freely. To the entrepreneurial women and men of Australian small businesses, I want to say that the Australian government is here to support you and to encourage you to invest and employ your high-quality staff.
My thanks go to the Deputy Chair, the Hon. Alannah MacTiernan MP, and to each of my colleagues on the committee, including the previous Chair, Mr Ewen Jones MP, for their hard work and professionalism. Thanks are also extended to the inquiry participants—individuals and organisations—which took the time to write submissions and speak to the committee. These participants provided invaluable insight into the small business environment and the issues that are faced by them on the ground, in this nation, every day. I commend this report to the House.
I move:
That the House take note of the report.
I rise to support the recommendation that the House accept this report. In particular, I compliment our new Chair on his very bipartisan approach to his chairmanship. It has been a delightful change of experience in that regard. I look forward, in the very short time that we may be working together, to doing something quite constructive.
This is a pretty modest report into what is really a very challenging area—that is, how do we provide the ecosystem in which small business can thrive? The Chair has set out some of the indicators that tell us just how important small business is to our economy. I want to pick perhaps five issues that I think are significant and I would like to comment on.
One is payroll tax. We had a significant number of representations about the issue of payroll tax. In one sense, we might say: 'Well, payroll tax is a state tax. What are we doing talking about this federally?' But we know that the tax mix, the way in which we collect taxes, the different taxes that we have and our taxing arrangements are inextricably linked. What we do at a federal level affects what we do at a state level in terms of providing a stable base for states to function on. I have to say I find payroll tax an increasingly inequitable and indefensible tax. I know that state governments are reliant on it. Let us make it very clear that this is a tax that is affecting small business. If you look, you will see variation across the states as to the payroll threshold at which this tax kicks in. In South Australia, an annual payroll of as low as $600,000 brings with it the imposition of a payroll tax.
It has been a popular tax in a way because it is one that is not easy to avoid. But I believe that, in this day and age where we are going to increasingly find it a struggle to ensure that we have sufficient jobs for our community, a tax that actually imposes a disability on people who employ people, as compared to those who might invest in labour-saving devices, is going to be increasingly unattractive and indefensible. I would really urge us all to think very deeply about this. I think we collect around $22 billion a year in payroll tax across the states. We are saying very clearly to those employers, 'Please think twice about employing someone because we are going to, regardless of your profit, impose a disability on you if you invest in staff as opposed to capital.'
We also had a number of submissions about the increasing difficulty for small business in employing apprentices. In particular, there was concern about the abolition of the Group Training program. I think the Group Training program for apprentices was a great boon for small business because it meant that an entity took fundamental responsibility for the engagement of an apprentice and small businesses would then participate in the training and employment of that apprentice over the three- to four-year period of their apprenticeship. It certainly made it a lot easier for small businesses to participate in the apprenticeship training program. Then we saw, in that 2014 budget, in the first year the funds were cut by about 20 per cent and then the program was to be abolished. I think that is a very retrograde step for training in this country, but also, again, it differentially disadvantages small business.
I note a small issue that we paid some attention to. This is something that governments of all political persuasions have not dealt with: the issue of redundancy payments for over 65s. It is a small issue but one that we do need to address. More and more people are working beyond the age of 65. We treat their redundancy payments in a very different way to the redundancy payments of people who are under 65. That is having the impact of causing people to retire earlier than they otherwise would.
Another issue that was raised by many people making submissions to us was the question of the GST threshold. The GST threshold for low-value imported goods. That immediately gives a 10 per cent advantage to people who are retailing overseas: they are not required to pay GST on sales that are under $1,000. According to the ABS in the 2013-14 figures—the last figures they have that we were able to access—that is a $6.7 billion value to those below threshold goods. That is a massive disadvantage for people that are building bricks and mortar shops in Australia or even selling online within Australia. It is much more than just 10 per cent, because with it comes a whole range of other exemptions—tariffs, import duties and customs. When we combine all the consequential advantages—the GST exemption itself, the tariffs, the import duty and the customs—the submissions we received valued the overall discount that is being delivered to these overseas retailers, as against our Australian retailers, at between 20 and 25 per cent.
In 2015 we had a statement from the former Treasurer, the former member for North Sydney, that they were going to do something about that, but we have yet to see action. Our side of the House has pledged that we will work cooperatively with the government on this. We see this as a real problem for small business and we want to address it. I think our recommendation in the report could have been a bit stronger in light of the strength of those submissions, but we obviously need to work together. We want to work together to bring the issue to the attention of the public and try to generate some movement on it.
The final matter is an issue that is very dear to my heart and was the subject of a couple of the submissions. That is the role of access to the NBN. Increasingly, small business is operating in a global environment. It is needing to compete—whether it is offering services or goods, it is competing internationally. We are entering into more and more free trade agreements which are giving overseas countries more and more access to an increasing range of services to be delivered within Australia. Yet we are hamstringing our economy and our people by having a second-, third- and often even a fourth-rate product. No matter how enterprising and talented our businesses are and how developed their skills are, unless they have access to the same sorts of upload and download speeds that their competitors have in this region and across the world they are not going to be able to take their proper place and be properly rewarded for their enterprise and creativity.
So we have a recommendation that urges us to speed up the implementation of the delivery of broadband and to particularly focus on those areas where there are many small businesses. I would add to that that we need to ensure that in that process we are installing a 21st century technology, not a 20th century technology. With that I thank the staff and again thank all of the committee members who have worked very cooperatively on preparing this report.
The debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
With your indulgence, Mr Speaker, I thank the member for Perth for her bipartisanship and the investment she made in the timely completion of the report. We also wish our committee secretary, Mr Robert Little, a speedy recovery from an operation. We look forward to having him back for the next committee report. I move:
That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate.
Question agreed to.
On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties I present the following reports: Report 159, Treaty Tabled on 1 December 2015, and Report 160, A history of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties: 20 years.
Reports made parliamentary papers in accordance with standing order 39(e).
by leave—Today I present two reports for the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties: Report 159 and Report 160.
Report 159 contains the committee's views on the Agreement between Australia and the Republic of Austria on Social Security. Report 160 is a brief history of the committee to mark 20 years since it commenced its work.
The proposed Agreement with Austria is the latest Australian bilateral social security agreement. These agreements serve to coordinate pension payments between the signatories and avoid double liability payments for persons working in both countries. The proposed agreement consolidates three existing agreements between Austria and Australia on social security. The initial agreement was signed in 1992 and has been regularly updated and amended. As a result, it has become cumbersome and difficult to negotiate. The new agreement will be easier to read and more accessible. For both countries, transitional provisions are included to make sure that people paid under the current agreements will continue to receive the same benefit at the same rate.
The Australian Bureau of Statistics estimates that in 2014 there were some 19,240 Austrian-born people in Australia and 12,740 of those were aged over 60. Evidence to the committee stated that under the current agreement, Austria pays 3,868 people in Australia approximately $14.4 million annually, and Australia pays 864 people in Austria approximately $4.8 million. The committee recommends that the agreement between Australia and the Republic of Austria on social security be ratified and that a binding treaty action be taken.
The second report marks a significant milestone for the committee and for the parliament more broadly. The parliament resolved to set up JSCOT in May 1996, and the committee met for the first time on 17 June 1996. The 1996 reforms saw all treaty actions signed by Australia tabled in parliament and subject to parliamentary scrutiny through the committee's processes. Treaties have become increasingly complex. Australians are more connected to the broader world through trade, education and migration. International agreements increasingly affect not only broad issues of state but the actions and responsibilities of individual citizens. The majority of treaty actions are now subject to a public inquiry process, allowing all Australians to have a voice in the treaty-making process. In 20 years, JSCOT has considered over 800 treaty actions and produced 160 reports.
This report includes a history of the treaty-making power in Australia as well as the development of treaty-making practice and procedure. It also includes a summary of the committee's reports to date and provides some useful statistical data. The committee is also holding a full day seminar here in Parliament House on 18 March to mark the occasion. The event will bring together parliamentarians, academics, public servants and members of the public to look at the effectiveness of the 1996 reforms. It is an opportunity to look back over the past 20 years and forward to the next decades. Presenters will talk about what works, what could be done better, and how parliamentary scrutiny can ensure that Australia's treaties are always in our best interest. I would like to invite colleagues to join us for this important event. Full details, including information about the program, are available from the secretariat or on our JSCOT website.
On behalf of the committee, I commend both reports to the House.
by leave—As the chair of the committee has outlined, report No. 160 is a reflection on the 20 years since the establishment of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties and there will be a seminar on Friday which will provide an opportunity for plenty of considered reflection. When I joined the committee, we were up to report No. 90. We are now up to report No. 160. So the committee has occupied plenty of my parliamentary time and energy over the course of the past decade.
I want to mention one of the committee's reports which related to Timor Sea treaties. Back in 2002, East Timor became a sovereign state and signed two treaties with Australia, relating to petroleum in the Timor Sea. When the treaties committee considered these treaty actions, we received 87 submissions. Given the events around East Timor's creation, the treaty inquiry attracted more public attention than it might have done in other circumstances. Most submissions to an inquiry are concerned about its impact on Australian interests, either individually or as a nation. But in this inquiry many submitters wanted to ensure that Australia was treating East Timor fairly and not taking advantage of its fragility. The committee stated:
Continued ill ease at the vulnerability of East Timor was reflected in expressions of concern to the Committee that Australia had failed to treat its northern neighbour fairly in treaty negotiations.
Nearly 15 years later, this issue remains unresolved. Indeed, when I finish here, I am going to speak to a rally of the Friends of Dili on the Parliament House front lawn, organised by Peter Job, expressly around this issue and the need for Australia to negotiate a maritime boundary with East Timor, which is yet to happen.
The treaties committee was initiated by the Howard government to give comfort to those on the political right who were suspicious that the power to enter into treaties was being used by Labor governments to pursue left-wing agendas—and some of them had a rather conspiratorial view about the role of the United Nations as well. But I think over the years it has received considerable support from the left of politics who have wanted to use the committee to scrutinise the globalisation and free trade agenda of large corporations. It has also received support from independent observers, who have seen it playing a positive role in ensuring that treaties receive more scrutiny than they used to, and that the states, stakeholders and the general public are given an opportunity to express a view about them.
While I cannot speak for Senate committees, I do think there are grounds for thinking the treaties committee to be the most important committee that a member of the House of Representatives can serve on. Whereas other committees depend on ministers to give them work and a lot of their work can end up gathering dust in bookshelves, the treaties that are signed by governments are always referred to the committee, and governments do not proceed to ratify a treaty until they have received and considered the committee report. I think that treaties committee reports are taken seriously by government, and, during my time, many of our recommendations have been adopted.
I am pleased that the treaties committee has been able to achieve unanimous reports, by and large, and that we have been able to do so on controversial issues such as nuclear nonproliferation and disarmament, even though committee members come to issues like these from quite different perspectives. A spirit of common sense and goodwill has been evident in the committee, both during my period as chair after 2007 and as deputy chair post the 2013 election.
The biggest frustration for committee members and the public alike is that we do not get to see the text of any treaties while they are being negotiated. They only come to us after they have been signed, and people understandably think that we are being presented with treaties on a take it or leave it basis and that the committee is a bit of a rubber stamp. I think it would be better if the committee had some form of access to treaty negotiations while they were being conducted, as I understand happens in relation to, for example, the United States Congress. For example, in relation to free trade agreement negotiations, we have made a recommendation that, prior to commencing negotiations for a new agreement, the government should table in parliament a document setting out its priorities and objectives, including independent analysis of the anticipated costs and benefits of the agreement, and that that analysis should be reflected in the national interest analysis accompanying the treaty text.
I have enjoyed working with some very talented and professional staff of the committee secretariat as well as numerous entertaining, intelligent and conscientious colleagues. It has been a great pleasure to serve on this committee, notwithstanding the amount of reading involved.
I think the issue of the arrangements that nations enter into to regulate their affairs has never been more important. On the one hand, I detect a great yearning around the world for people and nations to be genuinely sovereign and capable of managing their own affairs and making their own decisions. There is a strong push-back against the use of trade treaties to promote the free movement of goods across borders regardless of its impact on local jobs or local standards of environment protection and consumer safety. The strong opposition to the Trans-Pacific Partnership from both Republican and Democrat US presidential candidates is a classic example of this. There is strong opposition around the globe to the free movement of people, whether under the auspices of the UN refugee convention or not—how else do we explain Donald Trump or UKIP for the rise of the European populist anti-migration parties?
I think that allowing countries the freedom to make their own decisions is important, but at the same time we need to have an effective international rule of law and we need to have a United Nations capable of resolving conflicts wherever they occur; otherwise we will continue to witness the terrible misery and hardship which has blighted our world in recent years. So, having effective global conflict resolution processes, while at the same time giving people around the world a real say in the decisions that impact on their lives, is a massive challenge. That is why I believe the treaties we negotiate and the way we negotiate them has never been more important.
On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories, I present the committee’s report entitled Governance in the Indian Ocean Territories—Final report: Economic development and governance. I seek leave to make a short statement in connection with the report.
Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).
by leave—The inquiry was referred to the committee in March 2015 by the Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development. The terms of reference directed the committee to examine governance and administrative arrangements in the Indian Ocean Territories, and identify opportunities for economic diversification and development.
In June 2015 the committee tabled an interim report which focused on some aspects of economic development where the evidence on how to proceed was clear and consistent. The committee made recommendations to reopen the Christmas Island casino, to allow international students to study on Christmas Island again and to improve sea freight services.
Today the committee tables its final report for the inquiry and makes 19 recommendations. It builds on the economic development recommendations of the earlier report before turning to address longstanding service delivery and governance issues.
In assessing what else is needed to stimulate economic activity in the Indian Ocean Territories the report looks at ways to increase tourism. Recommendations include establishing closer links with Tourism Western Australia to facilitate access to tourism support services, and measures to promote the Indian Ocean Territories as a unique destination with capacity-building assistance for the local tourism associations from Tourism Australia.
The committee also makes recommendations to improve land management. The need to conduct a detailed geological survey on Christmas Island is a priority, as is clarifying the operation of the land trust on the Cocos (Keeling) Islands. A crown land management framework which makes clear the principles governing the release of crown land and processes that developers need to follow to lease and purchase crown land is also essential.
Throughout the inquiry, it was apparent that there is dissatisfaction amongst residents with the management and delivery of services. At one point there were valid concerns that fire and emergency services on Christmas Island were in jeopardy when existing arrangements were due to expire and new arrangements had not been negotiated. Although ultimately resolved, such a situation should never be allowed to occur again. The committee makes a number of recommendations to improve consultation with the community and increase transparency and accountability.
It also became apparent that the role of the Indian Ocean Territories Administrator has diminished over time. It appears that public servants within the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development have assumed some of the responsibilities that were previously assigned to the Administrator. Successive Administrators have also sought to make the role their own. The result is that the Indian Ocean Territories communities are increasingly uncertain about who is responsible for what. To remedy this, the committee recommends that the role and responsibilities of the Indian Ocean Territories Administrator be clarified, including outlining specified delegations.
The final chapter of the report examines options for reform. At the local level there may be scope to streamline and amalgamate some functions of the Indian Ocean Territories shire governments. However fundamental reform may be needed to achieve significant improvements in governance for the Indian Ocean Territories.
It has been over two decades since the proposal for incorporation of the Indian Ocean Territories into a state or territory was last mooted. Bringing governance arrangements into line with the rest of Australia could significantly improve investor confidence and enhance economic prospects. Therefore the committee recommends that the Australian government fully investigate the option of incorporating the Indian Ocean Territories into a state or territory as a longer term solution for the Indian Ocean Territories.
Initially this would involve making formal approaches to the relevant state and territory governments and extensive consultation with residents of the Indian Ocean Territories. Although significant reform of this type would not be without its challenges, it may be the most appropriate way to achieve a stronger foundation and new strategic direction for the Indian Ocean Territories, and in the best interests of all those who live there.
On behalf of the committee, I wish to thank everyone who contributed to the inquiry, especially residents of the Indian Ocean Territories, for sharing their views and experiences.
I also acknowledge important contributions from the current Indian Ocean Territories Administrator, Mr Barry Haase, former administrators and retired public servants.
Finally, I thank the secretariat for their hard and dedicated work for the committee. Thank you to our secretary, Dr Alison Clegg; inquiry secretary, Sara Edson; and our researcher, Samantha Leahy, who are here today.
Mr Speaker, I commend this report to the House.
Does the member for Cowan wish to move a motion in connection with the report to enable it to be debated on a future occasion?
I move:
That the House take note of the report.
The debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for a later hour this day.
I move:
That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate.
Question agreed to.
On behalf of the Standing Committee on Infrastructure, Transport and Cities, I present the committee's report entitled Smart ICT: report on the inquiry into the role of smart ICT in the design and planning of infrastructure, together with the minutes of proceedings. I move:
That the House take note of the report.
Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).
by leave—This report had its genesis in the 2014 inquiry by the House infrastructure and communications committee into infrastructure planning and procurement. During that inquiry, the infrastructure and communications committee received evidence outlining exciting new developments in the application of smart ICT to infrastructure. The committee determined to explore this further and the smart ICT inquiry was born. The inquiry began under the House infrastructure and communications committee, led by its chair, Mrs Jane Prentice. In October 2015, that committee was disbanded and two new committees were formed. This inquiry was adopted and completed by the House Infrastructure, Transport and Cities Committee.
It is a testament to the importance attached to this inquiry that former committee members, and particularly the former chair, have maintained a close interest in its progress and outcome. During the inquiry, the committee recognised the increasing possibilities inherent in new technologies and systems. These technologies, if used effectively, can transform the design, construction and management of infrastructure assets, and improve the operation of transport, communications, energy and utility systems.
These technologies are transformational, with the capacity to increase the productivity of the Australian economy. In order to achieve this, however, governments and industry must be aware of the potential of smart ICT and must invest in the technologies, skills and systems to make the transformation a reality. That is the core of this report.
In its recommendations, the report urges the government to take a more coordinated and integrated approach to the development of smart ICT and its application to infrastructure planning. The central recommendation of the report is the formation of a smart infrastructure task force based on the UK model. This task force will provide national coordination between governments, industry and researchers for the development and implementation of smart ICT in the design, planning and development of infrastructure and in the maintenance and optimisation of existing infrastructure.
The development of capacity within and between governments is central to a successful task force, and several recommendations address this issue. The committee considers that the collection and management of data is the key to the development of smart infrastructure. Data makes the management of existing systems possible and allows us to explore ever more efficient and effective ways of doing things. Information is the bedrock of innovation.
The committee has recommended that the smart infrastructure task force be given responsibility for the national coordination of protocols and standards relating to infrastructure data and the development of an objects library. It has also recommended that the National Archives of Australia be given the resources to oversee the development of a whole-of-government infrastructure data strategy.
The committee has also recognised the capacity of smart ICT to transform emergency management and disaster planning and remediation. It has called on government to give greater recognition to the capacity of new technologies and systems, including recognizing public safety communications systems as critical infrastructure.
I would like to thank all those who have contributed to this inquiry. The committee received a significant amount of high-quality evidence which, nonetheless, only scratched the surface of this fascinating subject. I thank my committee colleagues and the secretariat for their hard work, enthusiasm and patience in seeing this report through the transition between two committees. Lastly, I would like to thank the members of the former infrastructure and communications committee for having the vision to investigate this important issue, and in particular the former chair, Mrs Prentice, for her support in seeing this report through to a successful conclusion.
On behalf of the committee, I commend this report to the House.
The debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
I move:
That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate.
Question agreed to.
I present the report of the Australian Parliamentary Delegation to the 36th AIPA General Assembly, held in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, from 6 to 12 September 2015. I ask leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with the report.
Leave granted.
The 36th AIPA General Assembly was held last year in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. It was an honour to attend this important forum of the ASEAN Inter-Parliamentary Assembly as leader of the Australian delegation. Last year was a significant year for ASEAN; 2015 had been identified as the year in which the ASEAN community was to be established. Although it is not yet complete, we applaud ASEAN and AIPA for their considerable and ongoing efforts to establish the institutional and cultural structures required for an ASEAN community. As was noted during the first plenary session, ASEAN community building is a process rather than an end point. It is an ongoing and evolving process and one that Australia supports. In this context, the General Assembly focused on inclusiveness in building an ASEAN community. The assembly also dealt with important regional concerns, including gender, political and security matters, economic growth and development, and social issues. Of note, the ongoing tensions in the South China Sea were remarked on by several delegations. And, interestingly, the timing of the assembly coincided with the South-East Asian haze being present across much of Malaysia. Certainly the haze was readily apparent to the delegation in Kuala Lumpur. Both of these issues reinforced to the delegation the importance of AIPA in working towards resolving important transnational concerns in the region.
One of the key meetings for the delegation was a formal dialogue session with representatives of ASEAN member countries. The dialogue session was an important opportunity to discuss cooperation and engagement between our parliaments. The warm discussions with our regional colleagues covered opportunities for parliamentary cooperation, including capacity building for legislators and staff alike, and cooperation to address people-trafficking, violent extremism, disaster management, agriculture, human resource development, and financial services. One of the most common messages during the dialogue session was how much our regional colleagues appreciate and value parliamentary exchanges with Australia and the clear benefits for capacity building and cultural understanding that arise on both sides.
The delegation also had the great honour of meeting with the Speaker of the Malaysian House of Representatives. We had a thorough and candid discussion with the Speaker about the challenges faced by both of our parliaments and the opportunities that lie ahead. On behalf of the delegation, I thank the Speaker for graciously giving his time and thoughtful contributions, especially during a very busy time for him as President of the General Assembly.
In addition to representing Australia at the AIPA General Assembly, the delegation attended appointments to reaffirm Australia's ties with Malaysia. The delegation met with members of the Malaysian Youth Parliament, young Malaysian political staffers and business representatives, and a range of organisations that promote political moderation, innovation and entrepreneurship. The delegation was also honoured to travel to the Selangor State Legislative Assembly and meet with the Speaker, who gave generously of her time and her perspectives.
Australia has had a multilateral relationship with ASEAN since 1974, and our ongoing presence at AIPA general assemblies reinforces Australia's commitment to engaging with South-East Asia. On behalf of the delegation I would like to record our thanks to the host of the 36th General Assembly, the Parliament of Malaysia, for its excellent hospitality and a very well-run meeting.
Before concluding, I would like to take this opportunity to express the delegation's appreciation to all the staff at the Australian embassy in Kuala Lumpur. They were simply fantastic. The embassy made arrangements for the delegation's meetings and engagements beyond the AIPA General Assembly, which enhanced the visit's overall success. I congratulate and thank very much the secretary who accompanied us, Peggy Danaee, who did an excellent job with organising me and my federal colleague the member for Chifley, Ed Husic, for all the events and meetings we needed to attend. And I would like to thank the honourable member for Chifley. He was a fantastic ambassador for Australia and also for his local community. He can be very proud of his efforts. He participated very strongly in formal and informal discussions, and it was a great aid to have him there; he is not a bad bloke, with a good sense of humour.
If you asked members of the broader community to list the greatest challenges facing our farmers and agricultural production, they would probably place drought at the top of the list, and at times that is no doubt true. But the more constant threat is that of invasive weeds and pest animals. One study estimates that our battle with weeds costs agriculture some $4 billion every year. Another suggests that the loss of agricultural production attributable to pest animals is as high as $6 million each year. Of course, pest animals and weeds are also a threat to our biodiversity, so in this country we need a war on weeds, we need a war on pest animals. Our weapons will of course be many and varied, and money is always involved. It is a productivity issue and one that this parliament must take very seriously.
Of course, part of the armoury will be biological control. What is that? I think the best way to explain it quickly is to mention the word 'myxomatosis', because most Australians relate to that. Myxomatosis is, of course, the biologically induced virus that was produced to control the out-of-control rabbit population here in Australia some 70 years ago. The Biological Control Act 1984, which we are amending today, in conjunction with state and territory legislation, provides the legislative framework for assessing biological control activities to ensure that they are in the public interest and that safety is foremost in the regulatory mind.
The Biological Control Amendment Bill 2016 provides some clarification and greater certainty for biological control programs. In particular, the bill clarifies the definition of an organism under the Biological Control Act. Basically, these clarifications have been made necessary by the potential movement in the consensus in many complex areas of scientific endeavour. To take one small example—my favourite example—I refer to Minister Joyce's second reading speech, where, amongst other things, he says:
Given that there is also debate about whether a virus can be considered to be a living entity (as it is neither alive nor dead), the bill also omits the term 'live' from references to agent organisms.
The proposition is that, if it is neither alive nor dead, then it could be dead or it could be alive. It highlights, almost in a humorous fashion, how complex some of these issues in this field are. The bill is supported by the opposition, but the bipartisanship seems to digress, divert or come apart in another area of the minister's second reading speech, where he says:
The bill supports this government's strategic approach to farming smarter—
I have not seen too much evidence of a strategic approach—
as outlined in the 2015 White Paper on Agricultural Competitiveness, which supports giving farmers better tools and control methods for pest animals and weeds … Biological control is a cost-effective, highly specific and self-sustaining control method, but one that should be used as part of an integrated approach to pest management …
I do not disagree with those key points—of course biological control is an important part of our armoury, as I said. What I do not agree with is that the minister is taking a strategic or coordinated approach.
Currently we are having a debate inside and outside this place, although I am not sure you would call it a debate, because the minister has been reluctant to engage. But certainly I am driving a debate about the minister's decision to relocate the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority—the regulator in this area of biological control and the chemicals farmers use generally—from Canberra to Armidale. This is a very dangerous proposition for Australian agriculture and all the matters that are contained within this bill. The APVMA has a workforce of almost 200 people based here in Canberra. Its customers are not farmers; its customers are the big chemical companies that produce the crop protection products which farmers rely upon so heavily. The efficacy and efficiency of its work is of critical importance to the farming community. For example, the speed at which it approves farm chemicals—and, indeed, biological controls—is of great importance to the farming community. The workforce is largely made up of professionals, scientists and the like—highly qualified people—who live here in Canberra and send their kids to Canberra schools. It is a statement of fact to say that most of those people are unprepared to move to Armidale, for obvious reasons. That is going to have a huge impact on the capacity of the APVMA, the regulator, to deal with the issues we are talking about today and crop protection and other issues more generally. These are not people who can easily be replaced; if you lose scientists out of the APVMA—scientists who are not prepared to move to Armidale—you will have a great deal of difficulty replacing them. It is a very serious issue for the agriculture sector.
I know the minister is under the pump in his own electorate. He is under siege from Tony Windsor in his electorate, and, according to the polling, is now at risk. But you do not fix that problem by uprooting a major and important organisation here in Canberra and sitting it in your own electorate. Minister, that is not the solution to your problem. The solution to your problem is a coordinated approach to Australian agriculture more generally, a strategic approach to agriculture more generally, and a little bit more attention to some of the other issues that matter in your electorate, including health, education and cost-of-living issues.
But the work the minister is doing goes beyond the relocation. The minister is, I suppose as part of the government's red-tape reduction program, also looking at a range of issues in the APVMA to—in his words or words to this effect—make it more efficient and to reduce red tape. One example which is being foreshadowed is the abolition of the need for the APVMA to assess efficacy. In a cost recovery business like that of the APVMA, at first blush that might make some sense. Industry is paying for the right to have its chemicals, for example—or, indeed, its biological control method—assessed and approved by the APVMA for farm or other use. So, in a cost recovery circumstance, it makes sense that you do not want the APVMA doing what is potentially unnecessary: not only checking for possible threats to human health and other unintended consequences of the chemical or biological control involved but also testing its efficacy—in other words, sending a message to the farming community about how effective the chemical will be for them if they decide to purchase it. I beg to differ, and I am happy to have the conversation in this place, but it seems to me that the efficacy of the chemical or biological control is also very important, because I think it is fair to say that, no matter how safe the agent is, there are always going to be adverse environmental effects—maybe not in the short term, necessarily, but in the medium to long term. As time goes on we are learning a lot more about these long-term effects, fertiliser being a perfect example. Over the years the overuse of fertiliser and other sprays has affected the productivity of our soils. The efficacy issue is an important one because farmers want to be able to discern not only whether the chemical is safe but whether the use of the chemical has efficacy, in that there is a positive cost-to-benefit outcome.
My appeal to the government is that these are bipartisan issues and that a lot of conversations should be had before any dramatic changes are put in place with respect to how the APVMA assesses these biological controls and, more typically, chemicals, remembering that the APVMA is already under pressure and has already slowed down the process of farm chemical approvals. That is simply because, quite frankly, staff are worried about their future, they know they will not be able to move to Armidale and so they are taking days off—days owed to them—to look for alternative employment. So, already, the agriculture minister's thought bubble, his crazy idea, of moving the APVMA is having an impact on the processes within the APVMA and therefore already having an adverse impact on the farming community.
I was delighted when the Prime Minister intervened and said that he would insist on a benefit-to-cost ratio study on the APVMA's relocation—to the minister's electorate, of course—but I was concerned when I saw a press conference by the minister yesterday in which he indicated that he still determined to move the APVMA to Armidale, notwithstanding the fact that the Prime Minister has issued his edict: a study must be done. That study has not been completed, if indeed it has begun. I appeal to the Prime Minister once again to intervene to save the APVMA, to save that workforce to make sure those skills and expertise are retained, so that we continue to deliver to the farming community the services it deserves.
On a similar topic, today I announce my intention to ask the Senate rural and regional affairs and transport committee to hold an inquiry into a very serious problem being played out in many regional communities: flying-fox infestation. Nowhere is this issue more serious than in the townships of Singleton and Cessnock in my electorate, and this is not an issue that is unfamiliar to this place. I have spoken with the committee's chair and today I will begin a dialogue with both the Minister for the Environment and the shadow minister for the environment to shape the terms of reference. The terms of reference will need to be balanced, acknowledging both this very serious issue in our communities and the endangered species status of the grey-haired flying fox and its role in maintaining biodiversity. If the Senate agrees, I do not want the inquiry to be one of conflict; rather, I want it to be one which find solutions for local communities while recognising and respecting the sites. As I said at a rally in Singleton yesterday, surely in this 21st century we have the wit to do both—to respect and defend the science, to defend the endangered species status of the bats, and at the same time deal with the very serious issues they cause in our local communities.
In Singleton, in my electorate, the local central park has around 15,000 flying foxes in it. With the noise and odour problems, the park can no longer be used. We used to hold Anzac Day services there; we have not done that for years, simply because the presence of the bats does not allow it. Recently, sadly, the council has found it necessary to close the park. The park is no longer in use. Right next door to Cessnock East Public School, in my electorate, is a huge bat colony of at least 10,000, and that is causing all sorts of problems both for the school and for the broader community.
As the bill before us today seeks us to do, we need to respect the science and we need to respect the endangered species status of the flying foxes and their role in our biodiversity. But, to understand the impact the bats are having on the communities, I want the Senate committee to come to these regional towns, including Singleton and Cessnock in my electorate. In this place, they can learn plenty about the science and the role bats play maintaining our biodiversity, but, to understand the impacts on the communities, they really need to get out there and talk to local people about the noise, about the smell and about the way in which they have had taken away from them their capacity to enjoy the local amenities—in the case of Singleton, that local park. Surely a Senate committee inquiry taking evidence from both scientists and the community can find a way through, and surely, in this 21st century, local government, state government and federal government can find a way to ensure that the species is protected and, at the same time, that the rights of communities to enjoy their local amenities are protected.
Again, the opposition supports the bill before the House.
It is a pleasure to speak on the Biological Control Amendment Bill 2016, and I thank the member for Hunter for his contribution and for his support for the bill. In an example not dissimilar to that put forward by the honourable member, recently, in a small village in my electorate by the name of Boonah, there was a bat colony. No bats were harmed, but the colony's roost was very strategically removed, at a time outside the mating season for the bats, to the immense pleasure of the local residents.
The removal of the colony has changed immensely the outlook, lifestyle and quality of life of some of the residents. Bats, when flying overhead, release droppings. In regional areas, the major source of water collection is rain off the roofs. When this mixes with flying-fox faeces, it can have an unsavoury taste, as one can imagine. So there were health issues that have been addressed. So I indicate to the member for Hunter that there are successful examples of colonies being moved on—and I wish strength to his arm, because I know I know how devastating and unwelcome these colonies can be to a community.
The bill amends the definition of 'organism' for the purposes of the Biological Control Act 1984 to specifically include viruses and subviral agents. It also omits the term 'live' from references to organisms. The need for the bill has arisen out of an ongoing contemporary scientific debate as to whether a virus can be classified as an organism and as a living entity. The amendments will provide greater certainty for stakeholders who research, deliver and benefit from biological control programs, including scientists, farmers, land managers and the community.
What is the Biological Control Act 1984 used for? It is apt that one would ask that. The Commonwealth act and mirror legislation in the states and territories provides a legislative framework for assessing proposed biological control activities to ensure that they are in the public's best interest. The act includes structured consultation requirements which provide an opportunity for the community to have their say about proposed biological control activities. The act then provides for the declaration of the target organisms.
What would the Biological Control Act 1984 mean for my electorate? In my electorate I have quite a range of diversity, but the main economic driver in the electorate is, without a doubt, horticulture. This horticulture consists of the brassicas—cauliflower, cabbages—as well as carrots, beans, corn, potatoes and rotational crops in the way of legumes, including mung beans and soy beans. It is an incredibly fertile area. We also have a close relationship with the tourism sector, and this Biological Control Amendment Bill assists both of those growing economic drivers.
The bill also relates to eradicating rabbits. The member for Hunter spoke about the myxomatosis program back in the 1970s, which to date has been the most successful eradication program. I know there are many local farmers in my electorate who have an ongoing battle to control rabbit populations on their properties, despite the Queensland rabbit and wild dog fence running right through the middle of my electorate. In particular, in the Lockyer Valley, where much of South-East Queensland's vegetables are grown, there has been a drastic spike in rabbit numbers over the last couple of years, with local farmers saying that 2015 has been the worst year ever for rabbits. Rabbits are bad news for the crops I mentioned earlier—lettuce, broccoli and especially carrots. As we well know, rabbits love all of these, and the loss of stock for farmers has the impact of driving up prices because of spoilage out of paddock. Of course that spoilage then rolls through and has an effect on the hip pockets of mums and dads when they are buying fresh produce from retailers. This bill holds the potential to finally control rabbit numbers in a fast and effective way. The bill introduces the use of a virus which will limit wild rabbit populations to about 15 per cent of potential members. Such a measure would no doubt be well received. Without these agents, annual costs to agriculture alone would be more than $2 billion. That is an enormous amount of money that can be saved.
The other pest that the Biological Control Amendment Bill seeks to address closer to home for me is the carp. We have some beautiful waterways in my electorate. Wyaralong Dam is probably the most recent dam constructed in my electorate, and there are also Moogerah Dam, Maroon Dam, the Teviot Creek system, Christmas Creek and the Logan River system, just to name a few. These waterways provide a wonderful tourism economy—we are strategically located within an hour and a half of the Gold Coast and an hour and half from Brisbane, and for those families looking to come down and have a camping experience it is a wonderful area. We need to protect these water systems in many ways, and carp are a natural enemy in these waterways. You can see the presence of carp because they eat away at the banks, chasing moths. They are very predatory—they eat a number of native species, fish included, that cohabit these waterways. It is another pest that is a serious problem for both farmers and tourism operators.
The pristine waterways and dams in the Scenic Rim and Lockyer Valley have long been a tourism drawcard. However, during the last decade introduced carp have ravaged the natural ecosystems of our local waterways. But there is some good news. Just last Saturday in Wyaralong Dam there was a carp eradication competition held—a very industrious and entrepreneurial event. There were 251 competitors and they removed no less than 1,250 carp from the dam. In addition, they also raised over $5,000 in the eradication program, and they have put the money towards purchasing new young fish species to be introduced back into the dam. This bill seeks to fight the nationwide carp problem with cyprinid herpesvirus 3, which will reduce the pressure introduced carp species are placing on natural ecosystems. Many people in my electorate are eager to see this method trialled in the Scenic Rim region where waterways have been downgraded significantly due to carp infestations. I have made representation to the Minister for Agriculture, requesting trials for this herpesvirus to be held in some of my local waterways, where trials can be contained and fish cannot go out to sea. That request was not a brainchild of mine—it was driven by a very motivated community who first heard about some of the work being done with the CSIRO and made the request directly to my office and about whether or not trials would be possible. I believe the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Agriculture has made the request through to the relevant peak body and is awaiting feedback from them as to whether or not Wright could be considered as a trial area given our heightened motivation to eradicate this pest series, the carp. More to the point, biocontrol agents have been used successfully in Australia to control pests and weeds that have had a significant economic and environmental impact. The cost of agricultural production losses attributable to pest animals was estimated to be more than $620 million in 2009. In 2004 a study estimated the agricultural cost of weeds alone to be nearly $4 billion per annum.
Biocontrol agents can be bacteria, fungi, viruses or predatory organisms, such as insects. They are highly specific and usually found in the native home-range of the invasive species. Biocontrol is a cost-effective solution to managing invasive species and generally does not require reapplication once established—unlike chemicals or poisons, where you need to go back continuously. Once the costs of testing and introducing control agents are met, the ongoing costs are small and the cost-benefit ratio of the control is high.
Candidate biocontrol agents undergo extensive testing to assess risks to domestic, agricultural and native species, and the release of control agents requires approval under a number of different pieces of legislation, the first of which is the Quarantine Act 1908 (Biosecurity Act 2015) for the importation and release of the control agents—fungi, insects, virus et cetera. The other two are: the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 to assess environmental impact and for inclusion on the live-import list; and the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Code Act 1994 to assess the safety and efficacy of the agent.
Biocontrol may reduce the spread and density of infestations or reduce numbers to a level where other controls are no longer necessary. More commonly, other methods are still required to achieve the desired level of control, and an integrated management approach using a combination of control methods is recommended. This may include chemical controls, such as herbicides or baits, or physical controls, like the mechanical removal of weeds, ripping burrows and/or the use of competitive crops or pasture and grazing management.
In closing, I want to touch on the point made by the member for Hunter on the relocation of the APVMA and take this opportunity to thank them for the work they do. It is not inconceivable that we should have a government department which works closely with farmers located strategically in a regional base. It is not beyond the realms of possibility that we should consider that—and I am sure that at every stage the Deputy Prime Minister is strategic in his thinking and always assessing the national benefit. I also want to acknowledge the work that CSIRO does in this area. Biosecurity should be paramount for Australia—we are geographically isolated from anyone and we have natural barriers. It is in our nation's best interest to protect and secure our native species. At any stretch, we should eradicate pests. I commend the bill to the House.
The biosecurity of this great nation is one of the most important issues we face and a constant challenge. We are an island nation, and this has provided significant natural barriers to foreign pests and diseases—significant but not infallible. There have been incursions which have cost the country dearly, and at the base of almost every one of those has been human intervention.
Our forebears brought in rabbits for food and for hunting, only to see them take over the country and cause devastation. In recent times the introduction of myxomatosis and calicivirus have helped manage them, but the time will come when the rabbit population develops resistance to both of these, and a new control mechanism will be required. Foxes were introduced about the same time, and the impact of them on native species has been, and still is, significant. It is interesting that there is not much that will eat a dead fox—even a crow struggles. We could use a good biological control agent for them, because baiting and shooting have some effect but will never eliminate the problem.
Perhaps the greatest invader, the infamous cane toad, is an example of good intent resulting in disaster, because of a lack of knowledge and the abandonment of the precautionary principle of environmental management. Brought in to control the cane beetle, it has been one of the most damaging invaders. It is a good example of what not to do, but, having said that, it is also a great study for the future—as long as we learn from our mistakes. It is interesting to observe how the front of the toad invasion sees massive numbers of toads inflict serious ecological damage, followed by a rebalancing of the environmental balance, where the toad population stabilises to a more manageable number. We need more work and study on this example of how we got it wrong to make sure we do not make the same mistakes again.
In Western Australia, like the rest of the country, biosecurity has been an ongoing challenge. We see new invasive species enter to be classified as 'the highest priority for removal'. Then, as the response by authorities proves inevitably inadequate, we watch those species get moved down the categories from 'eradication to prevent the spread of'; then 'to prevent the spread of in certain areas'; and then to 'it is now endemic' and landowners, who usually expect governments to control them, are expected to control them on their own land. For example, in my area narrow-leaf cotton bush has simply dropped down the categories, without government forcing the issue and now, to all intents and purposes, has become endemic. And blackberry has taken over huge areas of state managed land in the South West to the point that, again, eradication has been abandoned and replaced by an effort at containment.
I would also like to mention an invasive species, which is having a huge impact in my electorate, and that is feral pigs. Feral pigs are an absolute curse to landowners, especially farmers. They damage crops and pastures, and do enormous damage to soils. When you see how they dig it up, they can do a huge amount of damage. But, equally, they are a risk to people. My own son was down in the back paddock—I think he was going to change the irrigation with a four-wheeler motorbike—when he got a sense of something coming at him. Fortunately, he turned the motorbike sufficiently for the feral pig, with its decent sized tusks, to hit the side of the bike and lift it off the ground. He was fortunate to be able to get away from it. It was a very large feral pig. Feral pigs carry a huge weight and can do enormous damage to not only the pasture, the ground and the soils but also, if you happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, humans. The saddest part of the feral pig problem in my part of the world is that many are deliberately released by weekend hunters. The hunters release them into the wild with a litter and then come back later just to hunt them. This is deliberate desecration of our great south-west environment, and it has to be fought with all possible vigour.
This bill amends the definition of an 'organism' for the purpose of the Biological Control Act 1984 to specifically include viruses and sub-viral agents. It also omits the term 'live' from references to organisms. The Commonwealth act and mirror legislation in the states and the Northern Territory provide a legislative framework for assessing proposed biological control activities to ensure that they are in the public interest—for the reasons that I mentioned earlier in my speech. The need for the bill has arisen out of ongoing contemporary scientific debate as to whether a virus can be classified as an organism and as a living entity. Because viruses are incapable of reproducing without a host, the majority scientific view at this point in time is that they are not organisms. Some scientists would, however, consider a virus to be an organism. Biological science, by its very nature, is constantly evolving in light of new knowledge and evidence. 'Sub-viral agent' is a taxonomic category that includes viroids, satellite viruses and prions—agents that are smaller than viruses and have some of their properties. This category is included because it is plausible that sub-viral agents may be useful as agents for biological control in the future.
There is no requirement that all proposed biological control programs be submitted for consideration under the biological control legislation. Most biological control agents are not a source of controversy and all biological control agents are subject to other rigorous approvals and scientific testing under other legislation. The biological control acts of 1984 to 1986 were created to solve the issue of a court injunction on the release of biological control agents for the weed Paterson's curse. The injunction was lodged by a small group of graziers and apiarists in South Australia, as they considered the loss of Paterson's curse a threat to their livelihoods. The act provided an equitable means of assessing whether the proposed release of the biological control agents was in the public interest.
Since 1984, the act has been used to declare three biocontrol targets and agents. Rabbits and rabbit calicivirus disease organisms were declared in 1996. The combination of the calicivirus, or rabbit haemorr—haemorrhagic disease virus, RHDV—
What was it again?
How about you say it, and we will all be right! The combination of it and myxoma virus has suppressed wild rabbit populations to about 15 per cent of their potential numbers. Blackberry and blackberry leaf rust were released in 1991 and 1992. Leaf rust has slowed the rate of spread and reduced total biomass, particularly in Victoria. To combat Paterson's curse, seven different types of insects have been approved for release in Australia. Six of the insects have been established in the field and they are helping to suppress the weed as part of an integrated management approach.
The amendments will provide greater certainty for stakeholders who research, deliver and benefit from biological control programs, including scientists, farmers, land managers and the community. The amendments are consistent with the original intent of the act, which was established to provide an equitable means of determining whether a proposed biological control program is in the public interest and, where appropriate, to authorise the release of biological control agents. The bill will not affect the existing basic scientific, technical or safety procedures and standards applying to biological control. We need this level of confidence.
Biological control agents will continue to be subject to considerable testing and approval processes prior to release in Australia. The act then provides for the declaration of 'target organisms', for example, the weed Paterson's curse, and 'agent organisms', for example, the crown weevil. It contains provisions to ensure that biological control activities are subject to liability protection and can proceed without interruption by litigation. The Australian Chief Veterinary Officer and Australian Chief Plant Protection Officer provided scientific advice during the drafting of the bill and supported the approach.
I will go back to where I started. We are an island nation. This has given us significant national barriers to foreign pests and diseases. But, as I said, while such barriers are significant, they are not infallible. I spoke earlier about feral pigs, and I will raise this subject once again in finishing my comments today: this is a significant and growing problem. My area in the south-west is not the only area that has this problem. The fact that we have people actively releasing pigs to then hunt them later does not in any way reflect the enormous cost that this brings to landholders and farmers, or the risk to people who might find themselves confronted by one of these feral pigs if they are out in the bush or even in farmland, as I mentioned earlier in my speech. On that basis, I commend this bill to the House.
It being just on 1.30 pm, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order No. 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour.
The Syrian crisis began five years ago today, with all parties to the conflict having committed war crimes and human rights violations during this time. Around half a million people have lost their lives and 11 million people have been forced to flee their homes, including more than 4.5 million refugees.
This morning I attended the launch of the exhibition 'Syria: the faces behind five years of crisis', a collaborative effort across a number of international NGOs including Amnesty International, CARE, UNICEF, World Vision, the Australian Red Cross, Caritas, Oxfam, Save the Children and Transform Aid. The exhibition reminds us that behind these staggering statistics are the faces of real people, their families and the lives they have lost.
Despite the recent cessation of hostilities and peace talks, the situation on the ground in Syria remains dire for millions of people, with many struggling to survive without access to lifesaving humanitarian aid as a consequence of actions of warring parties and insufficient funding for humanitarian appeals. Most people who have fled Syria have found themselves in overcrowded and underresourced refugee camps in Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey or in limbo in muddy makeshift camps on the wrong side of barbed wire fences in Europe.
I urge the Australian government to significantly increase our financial contributions to the humanitarian effort in Syria and to refugee-hosting countries in the region, to increase our diplomatic efforts to demand that all parties to the conflict abide by the rules of war and protect civilians, to accelerate the resettlement of the 12,000 Syrian refugees to Australia and to consider increasing our refugee intake.
On 7 March I attended the Penshurst Toastmasters contest night and would like to thank the Toastmasters for their invitation and for all their efforts in our community. There are over 800 Toastmasters clubs across Australia, New Zealand and Papua New Guinea and there are Toastmasters clubs in 135 countries around the world. It is a diverse group of people who come together at Toastmasters clubs, including at Penshurst. Of course, Toastmasters provides an invaluable service for people wanting to improve their public speaking skills and confidence.
I was very impressed at Penshurst by the strong sense of purpose amongst the Toastmasters who were there and the very collegial and supportive environment within the club. People came from other Toastmasters clubs in the Sydney area to judge the contest that was held on the evening and there was very constructive feedback provided to all participants. I want to thank Terry Likidis, the Chairman of Penshurst Toastmasters, for his kind invitation. I have also been to Hurstville Toastmasters and look forward to attending other clubs in the region, such as Oatley, Riverwood, Southern Sydney Toastmasters and Revesby in the coming months. Congratulations again to everyone at Penshurst Toastmasters.
The Turnbull government's decision that Navantia is the preferred bidder for two naval supply vessels is another cruel blow to Australia's ship workers and steelworkers. The government's lame excuse that Australia does not have the capability to build the vessels is insulting and unconvincing. This is a $2 billion contract that could support up to 3,000 jobs, but it seems they are all going overseas, when Australian ship workers and steelworkers are desperately looking for work. The Turnbull government's recent release of a defence white paper and a vague announcement about a defence precinct in Adelaide will do nothing to secure the jobs of ASC shipbuilders who are facing retrenchment.
This is a government that talks about innovation and asks the private sector to be bold but fails to lead by example when it has the opportunity to invest in research, innovation, training and Australian job creation. The Turnbull government is now presiding over the demise of Australian shipbuilding, just as it presided over the demise of Australian car making. The government is well into its third year in office and has had three defence ministers. No amount of spin or blaming the last Labor government will excuse the Turnbull government's incompetence, dithering and broken election promises regarding the submarine contract and other naval vessels.
It is time the Turnbull government showed some faith in the capabilities of Australian industry and the Australian workforce and invested Australian dollars in building a future for Australians.
Over the last few weeks it has been my absolute privilege to support a number of great local projects which have received support through the government's Stronger Communities Program. This program is delivering great capital support for a number of sporting clubs and other associations in my electorate.
Members, players and supporters of the Glenelg Lacrosse Club will greatly benefit from upgrades to lighting at Barratt Reserve at West Beach. I was pleased to be able to provide support under the Stronger Communities Program to help with the lighting upgrade. I would like to thank player and committee member Stephen Mortimer and his team for recently supporting a 'politics in the pub' event with the Prime Minister. Stephen is a regular in the Australian Sharks lacrosse team and has been a pleasure to deal with.
Two other clubs I was pleased to support with funding through the Stronger Communities Program are the Edwardstown Bowling Club and the Fulham United Football Club. Both clubs will be upgrading their lighting, which in turn will increase visibility during competition and training. I was very pleased to visit the members from the Edwardstown Bowling Club last week, to drop in and say hello. I was also pleased to donate a disability access ramp to the club, to make access to the bowling greens easier for those who have a disability and elderly competitors.
I have also been able to announce or progress funding for a range of other local sporting clubs, including the Plympton sports club and the Seaton cricket and football club. All of these clubs rely on the hard work of volunteers who put in their time to make our communities a far better place. I am very proud to be supporting them with projects which will assist those who participate in the clubs. I will continue to provide that support long into the future and look forward to making more Stronger Communities Program announcements in the future.
Today we found out that a second Spanish paper—Sabemos in Madrid—has reported 'El exito de Navantia desata la polemica en Australia', which translates to 'The success of Navantia unleashes controversy in Australia'. Too right there is controversy, because this government has sent 3,000 shipbuilding jobs to Spain. They have offshored our naval shipbuilding industry. And what do we find in this article? We find out that now, on the back of the supply ship contract, which is termed a 'megacontract' by the Spanish, they are after our frigates, they are after our patrol vessels and they are after every bit of naval shipbuilding work that South Australia might conceivably get.
So what we have here is a government which has betrayed the shipbuilding workforce of South Australia. On Friday I was down with the ASC workforce as they were looking down the barrel of unemployment. Those opposite talk about contracts, but they have sent them offshore.
The last part of this article is the disgraceful comment by Minister Johnson, saying that the ASC could not build a canoe. When we have this government talking down Australian industry, what else do you expect? (Time expired)
Last weekend, I had the pleasure of attending three major events in O'Connor, spread over 1,250 kilometres.
On Friday, I attended the 107th Wagin district agricultural show. It is also the 44th year of its incarnation as the two-day Wagin Woolarama. It is one of the region's biggest events and was attended by over 22,000 people. While there, I visited the Himac machinery display to discuss with manager Darren Tindal his new training plans for his Albany based staff. Himac has been granted $29,000 in industry skills funding to upskill its workforce, which will be a great boost for Albany.
On Friday evening in Manjimup, I helped celebrate the 100th anniversary of the Warren district agricultural show. It was great to join the President of the Royal Agricultural Society of Western Australia, Dr Rob Wilson, in recognising the great work of local ag society members past and present.
Finally, on Sunday I travelled to the Central Wheatbelt for the opening of the Corrigin Recreation and Event Centre. The federal government contributed $500,000 to this project, but it is the Shire of Corrigin and the local community who deserve the greatest praise for stumping up over 60 per cent of the funding for this $6.93 million multipurpose facility. It takes a lot of fundraisers to meet that budget. A huge vote of thanks goes to the Corrigin netball, hockey, squash, football and cricket clubs, the Corrigin ag society, the Shire of Corrigin and the local businesses and community members who generously donated toward this great amenity.
The main function room at the centre—the Cyril Box room—overlooks the meticulously tended playing fields. There is a squash court adjoining the indoor netball and basketball courts, which open outwards onto a huge entertainment— (Time expired)
I take no pleasure in rising today to talk about Greens preferences in the upcoming federal election. It is an issue that I wish I did not have to spend time on, but Senator Di Natale's recent comments on this matter make it something that everyone in Australia who cares about progressive policy needs to pay attention to.
The Liberal Party are currently suggesting they will direct preferences to the Greens in seats like my own, in exchange for the Greens running an open ticket in marginal electorates. An arrangement like that would make it more likely that the Liberals will win marginal seats and, ultimately, form government. Senator Di Natale continues to refuse to rule out such an arrangement. Indeed, the Greens candidate in Chisholm, a marginal electorate in Victoria held by Labor by around one per cent, today confirmed that it was an option.
I say to Mr Di Natale and to all people who care about progressive policy outcomes in this country that politics is not a game. This kind of behaviour might seem like clever politics, but helping elect Liberal MPs in marginal seats and risking electing Liberal governments betrays the progressive cause.
Do the Greens prefer Labor's $30 billion investment in needs based school funding in their country, or do they prefer the Liberals' cuts to school funding? Do they prefer Labor's guaranteed uni funding over the Libs policy of deregulation and $100,000 degrees? Do they prefer a parliamentary vote on marriage equality or Malcolm Turnbull's plebiscite? Do they prefer Labor's policy of a price on carbon and a robust RET, or do they prefer the government's Direct Action plan? If the Greens prefer Labor's policies on these issues, Senator Di Natale should immediately make it clear that he will recommend preferences for Labor in all seats in the coming federal election— (Time expired)
It is time for the National Anti-Gangs Squad to take on the new gang which many of you may have heard of—that is, the Apex gang, based in Melbourne. Founded in an average suburban street in Dandenong, the violent Apex street gang has no clubhouse, no colours and no real structure. It makes it very hard for police to target. Just last week, the gang was linked to aggravated burglaries. They have been involved in car thefts, riots and assaults. Police officers have also been targeted, as there is no respect for the police. But on Saturday night they went to a new extreme, where they thought it was a great idea to storm Melbourne's Moomba Festival.
Back in 2010, I developed the National Violent Gangs Squad policy for precisely this reason. This policy was based on what happens overseas, where the US and UK authorities have both local and federal agencies working together. I highly recommend that the Australian government, with the state government, divert the resources, or add to the resources, to ensure that the Apex gang is now targeted by the National Anti-Gangs Squad. They are causing absolute fear in the streets of Melbourne. How dare they think they rule the streets of Melbourne? How dare they have no respect for authority? How dare they destroy the good time families were planning to have on Saturday night in Melbourne? It is time to act, and it is time to act now.
I rise today to condemn the Turnbull Liberal-National government for closing the office for Tweed Heads veterans. The office was previously located at the Centro shopping centre at Tweed Heads, but recently the office was suddenly closed. This means that our veterans now do not have a dedicated office to access the services they need. Instead, they have been told to go to Centrelink. They have been told, 'Go off to Centrelink, and try to get some services and support there.' Make no mistake about it: this is the doing of the National Party. This shameful act is the responsibility of the Nationals, and they will be held to account for this.
The dedicated Tweed Heads office had provided our veterans with the critical services and support they desperately both deserve and need. Our veterans deserve so much better than this. These are the people who have fought for our nation. We must always remember them, and we must honour them. So many of our local veterans are elderly, and they want a dedicated office with staff so that they can speak one-on-one about their concerns. They do not want to have to access services on a computer, and they do not want to have to access services at Centrelink. They want to have, as they had before, their own office at Tweed Heads to access services with the staff whom they knew and trusted.
The fact is that National Party choices hurt, and the choice to close the Tweed Heads office for veterans is one of the meanest and cruellest of all. It has caused great distress amongst our veterans. I understand that our local veterans are very disappointed with this closure. As their local MP, I continue to stand with them and our community against these very cruel and unfair cuts. (Time expired)
Earlier this year, I was honoured to be appointed patron of the North Sydney RSL sub-Branch. As someone who has never served in uniform, it was a humbling experience to be asked to be patron for a group of men and women who have fought for our nation and whom I admire greatly for all they have done for Australia. I was also honoured to serve as patron alongside Robert, or Bob, Clark, who served in World War II and was a leader in the veteran community. I was very sad to learn that Bob fought his final battle last weekend. I pay tribute to his contribution to Australia in this, its parliament.
Bob Clark was born and raised on the lower north shore of Sydney. He was of that generation who did not hesitate to answer the call of service when our nation and the very democratic values that define us were under threat. In World War II, he served in the 2/5th Independent Company, which was formed in 1942. The 2nd/5th saw action in Papua New Guinea and its commando squadrons led reconnaissance missions and raids against the Japanese as part of Kanga Force.
Just as he served his nation in war, Bob continued to work for his community. He was particularly proud of his role as a volunteer fireman in Willoughby, where he served for 25 years. He became actively involved in the veteran community, particularly through the Anzac Club in Cammeray and the North Sydney RSL Sub-Branch. He served as its president and more recently as its patron and was awarded life membership.
To Bob's family including his four children and to his many friends in the veteran community I extend my sincerest condolences. Bob Clark, your service to Australia will not be forgotten.
Colleagues, Thoona, a jewel in the crown of Indi, just west of Benalla, has a population of 200. Next weekend it is going to swell to the grand population of over 500. Why? Residents of Thoona are busy emptying their bins in preparation for one of the biggest events of the calendar. Residents will rally from noon on 19 March for the annual wheelie bin championships. The wheelie bins, the vessels which traditionally hold rubbish, are turned on their side, have wheels added and become mighty racing machines. Eight heats will be held throughout the day, alongside demonstrations from shearing expert Sput Ellis, an alpaca exhibition from Thoona Alpacas and children's activities with Benalla Scouts.
This day is run by the Thoona and District Progress Association. To Rob and Scoop Humphries, well done. To publican Mark Williams, terrific work. Last year we raised over $17,000 for the Royal Children's Hospital. This year, if you have nothing else to do, head north up the highway to Benalla and then west. There will be bands, entertainment, auctions and spinning wheel. I am looking forward to seeing which of those wheelie bins runs the fastest, is the best decorated and raises the most money. Come and join me, colleagues.
I would like to inform the House about Sound Expression, a wonderful music therapy centre in the heart of Bennelong which helps children with special needs. Last week I observed their inspiring work firsthand and sat in on a lesson with Alex, a seven-year-old autism sufferer.
Music is particularly motivating and enjoyable for children with autism, as it is structured, predictable and non-threatening. For many children music can be a way in to connect and build confidence, resilience and social engagement. This benefit also extends to adults. This morning I attended the Parkinson's Australia Action Framework launch, where the power of music for sufferers of Parkinson's disease was acclaimed.
When Alex picked up his instrument, he was instantly connected with the music being played, in turn forming connections with the players around him. I also saw a video highlighting the progress of another student who refused to speak two years ago but now sings with his teacher and plays complex melodies on the piano. The change in his behaviour and demeanour was incredible.
I would like to congratulate Iani and all her team at Sound Expression. They do amazing work and are a real asset to families across the entire Bennelong community and beyond.
I rise to speak about the Syrian conflict and the more than a quarter of a million people who, sadly, have lost their lives. I do that knowing that the parties are sitting down in Geneva now to strike for peace, and I wish them well.
However, I also want to note that there are many Syrians of Palestinian background who are not able to access the same resources as other refugees, particularly those registered with the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees in the near East—the UNRWA. Sadly, these people are not able to access the same resources, because they are not eligible for movement to Australia or Canada. I call on the minister, who is here in the chamber, to consider this historical anomaly. They cannot ever come to Australia because they are registered as refugees in another location. I would ask the minister to be blind regarding the history of harm and merely consider each asylum seeker's claim on their merits, rather than rule out these 80,000 Palestinians. This is going back to the creation of Israel in 1948, when they fled the conflict seeking peace and harmony. Now, because of that historical conflict, they are excluded from the opportunity to be resettled outside of this horrible Syrian conflict. Hopefully peace will come from the Geneva peace talks, but, if not, we should consider the claims of these refugees.
I rise today to commend those Vietnam veterans who are participating this week in the VetRide 2016. The Service and Sacrifice Tour over six days commenced yesterday north of Melbourne at Seymour, and travels through Benalla, Albury, Wagga, Cootamundra and Yass, where the Victorian riders will be joined by a group of Vietnam veterans from Queensland for the ride into Canberra. The tour concludes on Sunday with a 17-kilometre ceremonial ride in which they will pass the Australian War Memorial before stopping at the national Vietnam Memorial on Anzac Parade, where a service will be held. Participating in that service is expected to be Major General Jim Molan, retired, and also Dave Sabben, a veteran of the Long Tan battle, which occurred some 50 years ago. 18 August this year is the 50th anniversary of the Battle of Long Tan where so many Vietnam veterans were involved. May I congratulate all those who are involved in this initiative, including Paul Beraldo, Ron Hall and Maurice Benson. This is a very worthwhile endeavour. When you see the Vietnam vets out on the road, give them a hoot as they go by. I hope that if the divisions of this chamber allow it I might be able to join them for a few kilometres on the road as well.
Sitting suspended from 13:51 to 13:56
Today marks five years since the commencement of the conflict in Syria. So it is appropriate that this day, though a very sad day, should be acknowledged in this place. Today—and, indeed, every day—we should be thinking about the millions of people affected by this conflict and thinking also about what we can do. So this morning I was very pleased to join the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the Assistant Minister for Multicultural Affairs and member for Reid, the Leader of the Greens, and many parliamentary colleagues in an event to mark what has happened and what continues to happen in Syria and—amidst some hopeful news today—to recognise the scale of the challenge. Indeed, this event, which brought together the faces behind five years of crisis, spoke eloquently to the challenge that is before the world.
The images bear far more eloquent testimony than any words can of the human consequences of this extraordinary struggle. Statistics cannot bear testimony to it either, but the statistics bear repeating. Nearly half a million people have been killed; half of Syria's population—more than 11 million people—have been displaced and nearly five million are refugees. Today, we should think about the generosity of the Australian people in responding to this challenge and think about what more we as a nation can do to restore peace and restore human rights in that part of the world. In doing so, we must acknowledge the leadership of our civil society and call on this government to echo that leadership with real action.
Today, I raise the issue of Cessnock Road, at Testers Hollow, which is to become a new part of Paterson. Testers Hollow is one of those unusual situations where—during floods, as occurred in January—the community is cut off from Maitland. I have already had a meeting with Bob Pynsent, the mayor of Cessnock City Council, and I have had discussions with Mayor Blackmore from Maitland City Council. One of the problems is that you have different views from each council on how to rectify the situation. Cessnock council want a new bridge over Testers Hollow. Maitland council want the approval of development on the high sections leading into Maitland.
I need the two councils to sit down together with the state minister to work out a solution. I know that the member for Hunter has raised this on a couple of occasions and we are both in agreement. The federal government cannot work forward until there is a unified agreement between the councils on how to approach the situation, but the problem must be rectified. Communities cannot be landlocked for days on end. This occurred in January, and previously it occurred just nine months before that. It is too regular an occurrence. We need urgent action to address it.
By way of background, looking at the cost of the overpass at Maitland railway station, which was $45 million, you would have to work out that the figure for building a high bridge over Testers Hollow would be in the order of $60 million to $70 million for about 500 metres of road. We need an affordable and effective solution for these people so that they are no longer blocked from getting into Maitland or Kurri. (Time expired)
Figures released today reveal that community legal centres have been forced to turn away more than 160,000 people in need each year, yet next year the Turnbull government is planning not to increase but to cut funding to community legal centres, this time by more than 30 per cent. It is a disgrace. The government must reverse the cuts that it is planning immediately, before any more damage is done. Community legal centres play a vital role—
In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded.
Mr Speaker, on indulgence, the Minister for Justice and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Counter-Terrorism will be absent from question time this week while he attends a number of conferences in Europe with French, German and United Kingdom counterparts to strengthen security ties and discuss further opportunities for law enforcement, cooperation and intelligence sharing. The Minister for Foreign Affairs will answer questions on his behalf.
Treasurer, we already know that the budget is scheduled for 10 May. Is that the date the Treasurer will actually deliver it?
I thank the member for his question. The budget is on 10 May and it is going to be very important budget, because it is going to be a budget that is all about supporting Australians and backing them in to make this successful transition in our economy. The transitioning of our economy is the most important challenge facing the country economically, and the way we are going to meet that challenge is by backing investment and ensuring that the investment that drives jobs, the investment that drives growth, can be supported through the budget measures of this government.
Those opposite have very different plan. Their plan is to chase higher and higher levels of spending with higher and higher levels of taxes. Their plan is to tax investment at a time when we need to be ensuring that the investment will flow so the growth will flow and so the jobs will flow, and that will be the focus of the budget on 10 May.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister advise the House of the need to amend the Commonwealth Electoral Act to ensure that both houses of parliament reflect and respect the will of the people?
I thank the honourable member for his question. There is nothing more important than that the voting system that we use to elect this House and the Senate translates as effectively and accurately as possible the wishes of the Australian people. So Australians are entitled to expect that, when they vote for the Senate, the outcomes will reflect their choice, and that is why the government has introduced legislation to reform the Senate voting system. It will simplify the ballot paper and stop the gaming of the system by preference whisperers and backroom deals.
We know that what has been happening with the Senate voting system has been anything but democratic and anything but transparent. The reality is that dozens of micro-parties were established and group voting tickets were filed and negotiated—in some cases, three per party. Voters had no idea where their preferences were going to go, and, in reality, many of the outcomes of the Senate election did not fairly reflect the wishes of the people. The only solution is to ensure that the Australian people have the choice that they make and that they decide where their preferences go.
This was not, until recently, a controversial matter. The Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, as we know, had unanimously recommended changes to the voting system, and, consistent with those recommendations, our reforms will deliver just that transparency. As honourable members know, the member for Brand, Gary Gray, said in this place on 12 May last year:
It would be a travesty for Australian democracy if these careful and thought-through reforms were not in place in time for the next federal election. These reforms will significantly strengthen our democratic process …
Labor were 100 per cent committed to these reforms until, in a cynical and hypocritical exercise of political gamesmanship, it suited them to change their mind.
The reforms will ensure that there will be optional preferential voting above the line, with advice to voters to number one to six boxes, at least, in the order of their choice; but, if they number fewer than six but at least one, the vote will still be valid. So that is a good saving provision to ensure it does not result in informal votes. Optional preferential voting below the line will be established, with advice to number least 12 of the boxes in the order of the voter's choice. Group and individual voting tickets will be abolished. Who will succeed? Who will win out of this? The voter. The voter will make the decision, and their decision will be reflected in the composition of the Senate.
The members for Bendigo, Wakefield, Parramatta and Moreton were consistently interjecting. They will cease interjecting if they want to remain in the chamber.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Isn't it the case that the Prime Minister has made a deal with the Greens political party to change the Senate voting rules so that, if he wins the election, he can force absolutely anything he wants through the parliament, just like John Howard did with Work Choices? Isn't this part of the government's plan to force through measures from the 2014 budget which are still listed in the Senate?
Government members interjecting—
Members on my right will cease interjecting—the members for Bass, Lyons and Deakin.
I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. I have to say I am surprised; after such a stirring address at the National Press Club, when he talked about unemployment and the economy, I thought we may have got a question on that. But it is extraordinary—the Leader of the Opposition has such a short attention span that, in the time it took him to get from the Press Club to the House of Representatives, he has forgotten all the economic issues he was talking about earlier.
The Leader of the Opposition's question is no more than a rather miserable conspiracy theory. He knows full well that the reason we are supporting the reform of the Senate voting system is precisely the reason he and his party supported it until very recently. It is precisely the reason the member for Brand still supports it. The member for Brand knows, and the Labor Party know full well, but they choose not to say it anymore, that the system has been gamed and that it did not and does not accurately or fairly reflect the will of the people.
Our job is to ensure that the dysfunction in the Senate ends and that every member of the Senate can say that they have been the result of a considered decision by the Australian people voting collectively. That means that Australian voters should choose the preferences. They should determine how votes are cast, not backroom deals and preference whisperers who, until very recently, the Labor Party used to condemn.
It says a lot about the shameful cynicism of the Leader of the Opposition that, until recently—and I say this with great respect to the former chairman of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters—there was no more eloquent advocate of Senate voting reform than the member for Brand. He was committed to it; he explained it. He is a former general secretary of the Labor Party. He understood it perfectly and he understood the importance that the parliament is seen to work, that the parliament does work and that it is seen to represent the will of the people. That is why he advocated those changes. That is why we all advocated them. That is why everybody supported them—until now, when, in this very cynical switch, the Labor Party is opposing them. The Leader of the Opposition should go back to his better nature and support these changes to the Senate voting system in the Senate today.
Ms Owens interjecting—
The member for Parramatta will cease interjecting.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister update the House on how the government is successfully managing the transition from the resources boom to a new, stronger and more diverse economy?
Opposition members interjecting—
The members on my left will cease interjecting.
I thank the honourable member for his question. Last week in South Australia we saw a lot of evidence of the type of investment in innovation that is going to ensure that Australians—
Mr Champion interjecting—
The member for Wakefield is warned. He will not use props.
that our children and grandchildren, have the great, high-wage jobs of the 21st century. Our priority is to ensure that the Australian economy continues its successful transition from one that was driven by a mining construction boom—an enormous and very welcome mining construction boom—to one that seizes the opportunities of these most exciting times in human history. We have never before seen such global economic growth in both scale and pace. Supercharged by technology, the opportunities have never been greater, but to succeed in seizing those opportunities, to continue that successful transition—which we are experiencing—we need to be more innovative, more competitive and more productive.
Every lever of government policy is pulling in that direction. Our innovation agenda represents a $1.1 billion investment to ensure that Australian children acquire the digital skills and literacy of the 21st century, that our great academic scientists and researchers collaborate better with industry and that investment and entrepreneurship is encouraged. Earlier today, together with the minister, we announced the composition of the new board of Innovation and Science Australia, composed of academics, business leaders and entrepreneurs. That is the team that will help us lead our science and innovation agenda and deliver the industries and the jobs of the future.
Those same priorities drive the government's defence white paper. We need to ensure that our defence dollar not only strengthens our armed forces in terms of the acquisition of new capabilities but also serves to build up and expand our local defence industries, from big manufacturers to technology start-ups. In South Australia last week—
Mr Champion interjecting—
The member for Wakefield will leave under 94(a).
we visited the Fugro Laser Airborne Depth Sounder, an Australian technology developed originally for the Navy and now exported right around the world. Defence technologies lead the way—
Mr Champion interjecting—
The member for Wakefield will leave immediately, or I will take more severe action.
The member for Wakefield then left the chamber.
in other countries manifestly.
The Prime Minister will resume his seat. I warn all members that, when they are asked to leave under 94(a), it is a requirement to leave immediately. There have been a couple of instances this year where members have deliberately lingered. I am giving fair warning: a persistence of this will lead to a naming.
The Australian economy is strong, resilient and innovative, and we are transitioning well. In the December quarter, we saw real GDP grow by three per cent from a year earlier. Our annual growth was faster than any of the G7 economies—300,000 new jobs were created last year, the strongest growth since 2006. We are seeing strong growth and strong progress, but we need continued innovation to support it. (Time expired)
My question is to the Prime Minister. Isn't it the case that the Prime Minister is changing the Senate voting rules so that if he wins the next election he can ensure that students will be paying $100,000 for degrees? When will the Prime Minister stop being tricky and be up-front with the Australian people about his plans for the Senate?
Government members interjecting—
The members on my right will cease interjecting. The member for Corangamite and the resources minister will cease interjecting.
The Leader of the Opposition's conspiracy theory knows no bounds. Apparently, according to his conspiracy theory, the only reason the government is supporting Senate voting reform is all of these consequences he has listed. Presumably that was the reason his party supported Senate voting reforms until only a few weeks ago. We were all on a unity ticket, until very recently, and now, of course, because it does not suit his immediate political objectives, he has decided to go against it.
The real problem for the Leader of the Opposition is how he can reconcile that with the strong position that was taken by the Labor Party formerly, before the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. That position was advocated day in, day out by his shadow spokesman. The member for Brand was advocating that day after day— making the case in this chamber, on the radio and on the television—and now, suddenly, the Leader of the Opposition has pulled the rug out from under the member for Brand because it does not suit his purposes any longer. Even the member for Gorton, I noticed on Sky News, was asked today to concede whether the changes in the Senate would be an improvement. He said, 'Well, they could be better, but it's being thrust upon the parliament'—he complained that it was being 'thrust upon the parliament'. I think the Electoral Matters Committee reported in 2014, and a year ago the government was being chastised by the member for Brand for not getting on with the job.
Really, the Leader of the Opposition has to do better than this. If he is interested in the big issues confronting the Australian economy he should be asking why his policies are so destructive of jobs and investment. Why is he proposing to increase capital gains tax, right at a time when we need more investment? Why is he proposing a set of policies that will lower house prices, increase rents and reduce entrepreneurship? He talks about jobs. Every policy he as announced to date is calculated to reduce business activity and reduce employment. Do we really think we are going to see more jobs in the construction industry, for example, if we take no steps about the CFMEU's disregard for the law? Apparently the law is not important in terms of the construction industry. And of course he feels that reducing the value of housing is going to encourage more construction. Really, the lack of understanding of the dire consequences of their policies is marked. The Labor Party does not understand the economy, and if they are given a chance to lead it they will put it at great risk. (Time expired)
My question is to the Treasurer. The average Australian family contributes around $20,000 a year to superannuation. A large percentage of Australians will be dead before they are eligible to use the money. Will the government allow Australians the right to access part of their super to buy a home or to support their family in difficult times? What is the point of slaving for 50 years to never enjoy the benefits of your own hard work?
I thank the member for his question, and I am sure he is equally concerned about those who are at the Queensland Nickel plant, where he has had some involvement in recent times, and I am sure he must be very concerned about their entitlements and their future. I know that our member for Herbert is very concerned about those Queensland Nickel workers, and I want to commend the member for Herbert for his outstanding work on their behalf. And I commend those on this side of the House, particularly the Minister for Employment, who has committed some $2½ million to support the transition for those workers who will be affected by that plant with which the member for Fairfax has had some involvement.
But the member asked me about issues with superannuation, and this government has been engaged in a process of ensuring that we have a retirement income system that is fit for purpose for the 21st century. In last year's budget we changed arrangements around the pension to make sure it was fit for purpose and to ensure that those who were on a pension, who had low assets, would actually get more support and that those who were in a better position to support themselves, who had higher assets, would no longer become dependent on a part pension. When the Prime Minister took up office, he really put the second phase of the retirement incomes review on that agenda, and the government has been working through the issues around superannuation. The Assistant Treasurer last week outlined, in response to the Murray review, that our superannuation system has to be fit for the purpose of ensuring as much as possible that people are not dependent on a pension or a part pension, and how you frame your changes to superannuation about that purpose.
Those opposite have a plan to tax superannuation for no other reason than to raise revenue to chase higher levels of spending. That is their plan on superannuation—just to tax it. There is no plan in there to make superannuation better; there is no plan in there to make superannuation more flexible or to offer more choice. In fact, those opposite oppose choice in superannuation. Those opposite oppose someone in their own employment choosing their own fund into which their superannuation will go. Those opposite oppose the idea of having better governance of superannuation funds. This side of the House is focused on delivering superannuation changes that are fairer, that are more flexible, that offer more choice. That is what the government is working on, and we will continue to do that up to the budget, and we will make those announcements at the appropriate time. But the incentives that are provided in the superannuation that is there is to ensure that those Australians who are at risk of being on a welfare payment, on a pension or on a part pension, in their retirement can avoid being in that position, and that is what the government's measures will be designed to do.
I would like to advise the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon former member of this House Mr Barry Haase. Welcome back.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources. Will the Deputy Prime Minister update the House on how the government's policies are facilitating jobs and investment in agriculture? How is the delivery of these policies restoring agriculture as a fundamental pillar of the Australian economy?
I thank the honourable member for his question. It is absolutely apparent that the most important thing in so much of regional Australia is jobs. Throughout Australia it is about jobs. It is about making sure that we bring about an economy that brings stronger jobs growth, and we on this side absolutely believe in that stronger jobs growth. And we have seen it in the member's own seat, in Page, near the town of Tabulam, with the expansion of Ridley Bell's blueberry farm—600 new jobs in an area where there was not employment in the past and where we are driving that employment factor forward, because we believe that it is so vitally important that we give people the opportunity of a good job.
In the area we also have 22 full-time-equivalent positions going into warehousing. It is all about driving this agenda. And it is not just there, not just around Tabulam. It is also making sure that at the Costa Group's new tomato factory at Guyra we bring forward new jobs as well. With their expansion there are 170 new jobs in that area for the people of Guyra. That means the town is going ahead.
Opposition members interjecting—
I know the Labor Party is not very interested in jobs, but at Thomas Foods at Tamworth we have further jobs, with the expansion—200 new jobs at Tamworth. This is vitally important. To the north of the area, in Toowoomba, with the new airport that has been put in by the Wagner brothers, we see that we have further facilitated the growth of jobs in that area, especially in the horticultural industry. It is quite apparent that our belief in making sure that we get new jobs is based on our knowledge of the areas. I was also very pleased to see that the Labor Party—
Opposition members interjecting—
It is good to see you are referring to your old colleague. The Labor Party, too, has had a survey to see if they are interested in jobs. They had the candidates for Page and Richmond. How did they spell Page? P-a-i-g-e. Paige and Richmond—it sounds like a wonderful young couple down at the surf club. They cannot even get the name of the seat right. This is how ridiculous it is. They put it on a forum, and who was the grand light at that forum? It was you! It was Bill Shorten. I wish to table the community town hall forum at a seat we have never even heard about: the seat of Paige!
My question is to the Prime Minister. The Treasurer, in his last answer, and the Prime Minister have been deeply critical of the member for Fairfax's actions in relation to Queensland Nickel. The Prime Minister said the member for Fairfax had 'let down the workers' and the only thing that the Prime Minister was concerned about was that the workers were looked after. So why, according to reports, did the Prime Minister receive $50,000 monthly payments from PlayUp while PlayUp workers were not being paid? Hasn't the Prime Minister let down the workers at PlayUp?
I am not going to dignify that question with an answer. The honourable member knows full well that that question has nothing at all to do with my responsibilities as Prime Minister and relates to a commercial transaction which, I might say, was quite misreported in the The Australian Financial Review. But I will, on this occasion, address this matter. This is not a matter within my responsibility as Prime Minister, but I will address the matter nonetheless, given that the member has raised it. The facts of the matter are these: when we were in opposition, my wife and I invested in a company called Revo, which had an online business—a start-up technology company.
Gambling.
That is not correct. When I became a minister I sought to sell the shares in the company. The company is a private company. It was the company's request. The shares were sold, at their request, to an entity associated with it called Revo Nominees. The purchase price was to be paid in 12 months or when a capital raising had been completed, whichever came earlier. Those were the facts and that was all disclosed. Twelve months came and went and the money was not paid. My son, representing our company—or my wife and I—sought recovery of the money. It came to a negotiation with the company and some payments were made. Regrettably, as is often the case in those circumstances, most were not.
But everything was completely and utterly at arm's length—absolutely at arm's length. From our position vis-a-vis the company, the honourable member should know that and the innuendo he has sought to raise is completely unworthy. The reason I say it is unworthy is this: the member for Fairfax's position with respect to Queensland Nickel is that he, at all times, was in charge of Queensland Nickel. He ran that company; he was responsible for it. We had no management involvement with the Revo company. Our position was simply as an investor and then subsequently as a creditor. So our dealings were entirely at arm's length, and, in that sense, his attempt to draw some contrast is completely improper and he, as a Queen's Counsel learned in the law, knows how improper it was.
My question, of substance, is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer advise the House of the importance of a strong budget to support jobs and growth in our transitioning economy? Is the Treasurer aware of any threats to the rebalancing in our economy from the mining investment boom to a more diversified economy?
I thank the member for Lyons for his question. His keen interest in the economy is not something which has been shown by those opposite, who today seem more interested in calendars than they do in the economy. Our economy, as the Prime Minister said, is transitioning successfully. We had three per cent real growth to the end of last year, outstripping most advanced economies of the world. This growth is delivering real jobs—some 300,000 in the calendar year last year, the strongest jobs growth we have seen since 2006, when the coalition was previously in office.
This transition has been driven and backed in by the confidence of Australians. They are the ones making this transition happen. Consumer confidence is up 11 per cent in the last six months, and confidence in the economic outlook over the next 12 months is up 20 per cent in the last six months. Successfully managing this transition is the key economic challenge facing our country, and it is the key challenge that the budget will be seeking to address later this year. That budget must continue to control spending and it must provide the right signals to promote investment. This will drive growth, which will then drive jobs. It is very important that the budget does control that expenditure. Those opposite are always happy to spend money that other people have earned, but on this side of the House we know that every dollar that you spend in this budget must be fit for purpose and must do its job. That is why we continue to have a strong approach towards budget repair and fiscal consolidation that will see government expenditure as a share of the economy on MYEFO fall to 25.3 per cent over the next four years.
But those opposite have a very different plan. Their proposal is to increase spending beyond that which is currently occurring, because we know that those opposite are already saying that they oppose $13 billion in savings that are before the parliament. They are voting against $13 billion, including billions of savings that they themselves proposed. They are opposing $13 billion in savings. On top of that, since the last budget alone, they have announced more than $11 billion in increased expenditure, and there are some $35 billion of savings that they are letting the Australian people believe they will reverse if they are elected to office. So, before they even start, they are some $60 billion behind the MYEFO statement last year.
The Leader of the Opposition now says that he thinks that budget repair cannot be 'an optional extra'. Well, under the opposition, it is not even an option, because what we see from them in their approach to budget repair is that they have come up with $1 billion worth of savings to pay for $60 billion worth of expenditure. They have come up with $7 billion in higher taxes—because what we know about those opposite is that they will tax and tax and tax because they want to spend and spend and spend. Tax and spend is no plan for jobs and growth.
My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to his previous answer. Why, according to reports, did the Prime Minister cause an agreement to be reached to ensure that his private company would be repaid more than $1 million before the workers employed by PlayUp received the $1.2 million in wages that they were owed?
I believe I dealt with this in my previous answer, but let me be quite clear. While my wife and I invested in Revo Pty Ltd, which is the company that had the PlayUp online site application, at no time were we responsible for or involved in the management of the company, nor did we have any insight into the management of the company other than such accounts as the company produced for the benefit of their shareholders and investors. The responsibility for paying employees is, obviously, something that lies with the management of the company and the directors of the company, and we did not number among those people. We were very much outside investors.
Just to recap, the investment was made in 2012. When I became the communications minister in 2013, I disposed of a large number of investments, with the objective of ensuring that our portfolio was comprised, as far as possible—at least in terms of financial equity assets—of large managed funds, and that is, broadly speaking, the position that it reached. So we sought to sell the shares in Revo.
It is a private company. It needed the consent of the board to sell the shares. They proposed that the shares be sold to an associated company, Revo Nominees Pty Ltd. So that was at their request and it was their decision. I would have preferred to have sold them to a third party, but it was a private company and we were in their hands in that respect. The payment of the purchase price was, as I said, due in a year or when they did a capital raising. The payment was not made after 12 months. Then, in an entirely arms-length manner, our son, Alex, negotiated with the company to secure payment terms. Some of those payments were made; most of them were not. So, at every level, it was a completely arms-length transaction.
Now, there may well be criticism of the directors; there may well be criticism about whether an administrator should have been appointed sooner. All of those criticisms can be made, but they cannot be directed at external creditors such as us. The honourable member knows this full well, and his attempt to compare that to a business that is actually controlled, or that has been controlled, by another honourable member here is quite unworthy, and it is a very, very low and unworthy smear from someone so learned in the law as him.
I heard, thank you, moron. My question—
The member for Charlton will stop interjecting. Let's start the clock again. The member for Dobell has the call.
My question is to the Minister for Industry, Science and Innovation, representing the Minister for Employment. Will the minister outline to the House the importance of a productive building and construction sector to Australia's economy? What steps is the government taking to ensure that this sector continues to create jobs for Australians, and are there any obstacles to increasing the productivity of this vital sector into the future?
I thank the member for Dobell for her question, and I can tell the member for Dobell that building and construction is Australia's third largest employer, accounting for almost a million jobs across our economy, and therefore it is critical that it be as productive as possible.
Regrettably, in the productivity stakes, building and construction is a serious underperformer. In fact, in the December quarter last year, 68 per cent of all work days lost were in the construction sector. In construction, there were 16.7 days lost per 1,000 workers, compared to 1.8 days lost across all industries. That is an extraordinarily bad result: in the December quarter, 68 per cent of all work days lost were in the construction industry, and their average was 16.7 days per 1,000 workers, compared to 1.8 for workers in all industries.
So building and construction is a laggard part of the economy, and we could do some thing about that right now by passing the Australian Building and Construction Commission bill and the Registered Organisations Commission bill, both of which the Labor Party continues to oppose, and we could put a tough cop on the industrial beat. But Labor will not do that.
Instead we get honeyed words from the Leader of the Opposition today, down at the National Press Club—honeyed words from a snake oil salesman—about how he is in favour of full employment. But who in this House is not in favour of full employment? Which member of this House is against full employment? Certainly not anyone on this side of the House. I suppose the Leader of the Opposition is also in favour of world peace! We are in favour of world peace too. And he is probably in favour of ensuring that there should be no child living in poverty by a certain year, reminiscent of his hero, Bob Hawke, to whom he is no hero. In fact, it reminded me very much of Dewey Finn, played so admirably by Jack Black, in the film School of Rock, who, when asked about his education philosophy, quoted that wonderful song by Whitney Houston:
I believe the children are our future
Teach them well and let them lead the way
Show them all the beauty they possess inside
I could sing it, Mr Speaker, but it would detract from the seriousness of the House. This is the kind of pathetic, platitudinous rubbish we got from the Leader of the Opposition at the National Press Club today. If he wanted to show he was genuinely in favour of full employment, he would pass the ABCC and the ROC bills and do something about it rather than talking about it. This side of the House is getting on with the job of providing jobs and growth.
Opposition members interjecting—
The member for Hunter and the member for Chisholm will cease interjecting. In responding to an interjection the member for Dobell made an unparliamentary remark. I ask her to withdraw that now.
I withdraw.
My question is to the Treasurer. Last year the Treasurer was critical of Labor's tobacco excise increases but today it is reported that the government is also considering an increase in the tobacco excise. Does the Treasurer still agree with himself?
The member for McMahon seems to have caught the budget speculation bug which is going around the place. It happens every year—it runs all the way up until May. He has misquoted what the government has said about these issues. What I have said about these issues is that those opposite are always looking for higher taxes because they cannot constrain themselves on spending. They are the ones who always just cannot hold themselves back between Australians' pockets and their ambitions for higher and higher spending.
So you'll put the excise up and cigarettes will go down?
The member for McMahon will cease interjecting.
We have the Leader of the Opposition out there saying that he was going to achieve full employment. It reminded me of the member for Lilley: 'The four surpluses I announce tonight.' I remember how all those opposite put it all in their newsletters and they sent it out far and wide promising those surpluses. This government is being very honest with the Australian people about where the budget is. If you go to our MYEFO document last year, we are very candid and we know the expenditure havoc they caused with the budget will take many, many budgets of disciplined, determined action by those on this side of the House to control. If they want to assist with that task, there are $13 billion of savings that they could pass to ensure that the budget is brought towards balance. They could pass the ABCC Bill today, which would ensure that we could improve productivity in the building industry. We could do that if they wanted to support the legislation. They can support other reforms. They can back the changes we have made to innovation. They can back our proposals for multinational tax avoidance, which they voted against in this place. What we have seen from those opposite is one big fat No every time we want to make savings, one big fat No every single time we put forward positive structural reforms that will support jobs and growth.
My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Will the minister advise the House how the defence white paper and the Defence Industry Policy Statement will support defence industry jobs in Northern Australia, including in my electorate of Leichhardt?
I thank the member for for his question, and I acknowledge his advocacy on behalf of the 1,300 defence personnel who are based in his electorate. The Australian government has announced the most comprehensive plan for the Australian Defence Force in living memory. We want to build the most capable and agile and powerful fighting force that we are able to establish, that will defend not only our people but also our interests. We are absolutely committed to increasing spending in defence to two per cent of GDP, after it was slashed by Labor to the lowest level as a percentage of GDP since 1938.
We are investing in new-generation technologies. We want to grow a defence industry here in Australia that is able to create jobs while assisting in the defence of our country. Already 25,000 people are employed in defence industries, and about 3,000 small to medium enterprises are involved in our defence industries. It makes sense strategically and economically for us to enhance our home-grown defence industries. Our investment will be about $1.6 billion in boosting our local defence industries—including $730 million for the Next Generation Technologies Fund and $640 million for a defence innovation hub, which is all about commercialising the strategic technological breakthroughs that our innovative, creative people are capable of.
Over the next 10 years this government will be investing $14 billion to enhance and develop Northern Australia, and in the member's electorate of Leichhardt we will be upgrading facilities, we are purchasing 12 offshore patrol vessels to replace the Armidale class, and we are going to be developing HMAS Cairns. This defence base is exceedingly important, and I am told that for every dollar we invest in HMAS Cairns five dollars is generated in the Cairns community. Trent Twomey, who is the chairman of Advance Cairns, has said that the government's investment in HMAS Cairns will be huge for the local economy. We are also upgrading Lavarack barracks in Herbert and the RAAF Curtin and Learmonth bases in Durack, and in the Northern Territory we are investing about $8 billion to increase facilities there. So we are improving our defence capability at the same time as we are building a home-grown defence industry that will generate more jobs and more opportunities for small to medium enterprises, supporting the development of northern Australia. We are committed to ensuring that our Defence Force is capable and agile and protects our interests.
My question is to the Prime Minister. It is reported today that the government is considering increasing the tobacco excise. Just two weeks ago, the former Prime Minister described this plan as 'a workers' tax that would slug smokers'. Does the Prime Minister agree with the man he replaced or will the government increase the tobacco excise?
Members on my right will cease interjecting. The member for Gorton and the member for McMahon are warned.
I have to remind the Leader of the Opposition that increasing tax on tobacco is not an original idea. In fact, I proposed it in my budget reply speech in 2009. It is hardly original. One of the aspects of tobacco taxes, of course, is that everybody agrees that it is the tax that people should avoid by not smoking. Indeed, the reduction in the level of smoking is probably the single biggest public health success in terms of changing behaviour. But, having said that—
Ms King interjecting—
The member for Ballarat will cease interjecting.
we are now in the annual fever which builds up and up in budget speculation. We will get lots of questions of this kind, essentially designed to find out what is in the budget. All I can say to the honourable member opposite is that he will just have to wait until the budget and then he will discover what tax measures are contained within it.
My question is to the Minister for Resources, Energy and Northern Australia. Will the minister update the House on the significance of the first gas being produced at the Gorgon LNG facility in my electorate of Durack and the competitive edge that Australia's energy sector derives from innovation and new technology?
I thank the member for Durack for her question. I remember the last time I took a question from the member for Durack, who has the largest electorate in the country, I said the Prime Minister's electorate could fit into Durack 53,000 times, but her electorate is so big that England could fit into Durack 12 times. One of the jewels in Durack is the Gorgon LNG facility on Barrow Island. Yesterday I had the pleasure to visit the LNG facility with the member for Durack, the member for Groom, Senator Back and the member for Brand, the shadow minister. As the member for Durack said, it has already started producing gas and soon will have its first shipment to Asia, which will be in a matter of days.
The Gorgon facility, at nearly $70 billion, is Australia's largest ever private sector investment. The figures are absolutely enormous: some 10,000 people were employed on the Gorgon facility; 99 per cent of that workforce was Australian; nearly 1000 local suppliers were used. The pipeline is more than 800 kilometres, which would go from Melbourne to Adelaide. Every shipment of gas from Gorgon carries enough gas to fill a Japanese household for one year. It is just an enormous project. ACIL Allen Consulting has estimated that, over the life of the project, it will provide some $70 billion worth of federal revenues and will add more than $400 billion to GDP.
Gorgon is just part of the golden age of gas in Australia. By 2020 it will be one of 10 projects that sees Australia overtake Qatar as the world's largest exporter of LNG. Australia will face fierce competition for future markets, particularly from the United States, which has started to export LNG.
But what sets Australia apart from others is its innovation. Companies like Santos have worked with IBM on big data analytics. Woodside is using autonomous vehicles underwater. At Gorgon they have the world's largest carbon capture and storage facility, which will reduce emissions by up to 40 per cent, and they have the largest subsea infrastructure that has ever been built. They have employed more than 1000 engineers and it shows that established industries like resources and energy can be at the forefront of innovation and technology. While first gas from Gorgon may not be discussed at every Australian household table, it is something that we can be very proud of, because it shows that we are using innovation to advance Australia's—(Time expired)
My question is to the Prime Minister. Last year when speaking about Labor's responsible plan on tobacco excise, the health minister said:
…this is a grab for money, it's a political statement and I don't like it.
Does the Prime Minister agree with his Minister for Health: is raising tobacco excise to levels recommended by the World Health Organization a political statement or a grab for money?
It is clearly a revenue raising measure and so I suppose in that sense it will generate revenue for the government. But the arguments around tobacco taxes are very well understood.
Ms King interjecting—
The member for Ballarat is warned.
I understand the honourable member's interest in discerning what the contents of the budget are, but I would remind the honourable member that governments of both political persuasions at different times have increased tobacco taxes. As Leader of the Opposition, I proposed it myself in 2009. I would say it is not an original idea. The honourable member—while I welcome her interest in the contents of the budget—will just have to wait until it is delivered.
Ms MacTiernan interjecting—
The member for Perth will cease interjecting.
My question is to the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection. Will the minister please update the House about the impact of the government's successful border protection policies have had on the number of children in immigration detention? Will the minister also explain any alternative policies?
I thank the member for Petrie most sincerely for the question and for the interest he has in these matters of making sure that we can get kids out of detention, because nobody wants to see anybody in detention, particularly children. I am very proud to be able to report to the House today the number of children in detention—children who came off boats to try and settle in this country—is now down to 34. That is a significant achievement. I have repeated to the House on a number of occasions that we want to get that number down to zero, and I am determined that we will get it down to zero. Not only do we want to stop the boats but we want to make sure that we can get children out of detention as quickly as possible.
It has not always been this successful in this country in terms of border protection policy. When the Labor Party was in government, a couple of people who are sitting on the opposition front bench now were prominent ministers in the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd years. If Mr Shorten was elected at the next election, they would be prominent ministers in a Shorten government. I think it is important to point out a couple of the records of members opposite. The member for McMahon, the shadow Treasurer who has now come up with this disastrous negative gearing policy which is going to drive down housing prices and drive rents up, is the Chevy Chase of this parliament, let me tell you. Everything he touches turns to dirt. He is the Clark Griswold—he presides over every policy disaster. Whether it is in government or in opposition, he is a disaster. Let me read out his record. There were 25,000 people who arrived illegally by boat when he was the immigration minister. Almost 400 boats arrived on his watch, over 4,000 children were taken into detention and six detention centres had to open when he was the minister for immigration.
Since we have been in government—as I have said to this House before—we have had no successful boat arrivals since I have been the minister in this portfolio. We have had no deaths at sea. The number of children in detention, as I say, is now down to 34. Bearing in mind that he was solely responsible for the children in detention, 4,000 under his watch went into detention. Eight thousand in total went into detention.
Why did you vote against the Malaysia Solution?
The member for Sydney!
They presided over 17 new detention centres opening in total. We have presided over 13 closing.
What about Malaysia? You never answer that.
The member for Sydney will cease interjecting.
We have a very serious threat when it comes to border protection because people smugglers are still putting people on boats. People still want to come to this country illegally. The government have been absolutely resolute in our stance in relation to this area of public policy—that is, we are not going to allow people to drown at sea; we are not going to allow boats to restart. But, if Mr Shorten is elected at the next election, rest assured that people, like the man coming to the dispatch box now— (Time expired)
My question is to the Treasurer. Last year, the Treasurer said:
The Government has made it crystal clear that we have no interest in increasing taxes on superannuation either now or in the future.
Does the Treasurer stand by this remark? Will the Treasurer rule out making changes to superannuation which reduce the retirement incomes of low- and middle-income Australians?
I thank the member for the question. If he was paying attention to my earlier answer, he would have noted that, after the change of leadership last year, the Prime Minister put the full review of retirement incomes back on the table. That was the new policy setting of the government. The new policy setting of the government is to look at what the purpose of superannuation is and run that rule over every aspect of how superannuation arrangements are devised to ensure that people who are risk of being on a pension or on a part pension are the focus of where those incentives must go.
What we are doing is ensuring that superannuation is fit for purpose—just like we ensured that the pension would be fit for purpose. Those opposite opposed the savings measures and opposed the measures that made the pension more sustainable. We will wait to see—once the government has finalised its views on this matter and these are announced, at the latest, in the budget—whether they are prepared to support the second phase of our retirement incomes review.
What we know on this side is that we have been dealing with these issues sensibly and methodically. We have not run out there with a sort of grab bag of policies—the headline-grabbing stuff that the member for McMahon has done. As the minister for immigration has just reminded us, the member for McMahon is the architect of increasing capital gains tax by 50 per cent on investment in this country. He is the architect of a policy which is not just dealing with existing housing, as we learnt in this House when we last met, but going to say that, if you want to invest in a commercial building, you cannot negative gear that either; if you want to invest in shares and you are going to use those practices, you cannot do that—and, indeed, in some cases, in distributions from partnerships and sole trader arrangements; and the capital gains tax changes apply not just to property but right across the full bore of assets that are subject to capital gains tax. This is the architect of a tax and a tax change that are going to punish investment at a time, in the transitioning of our economy, when investment is the key thing we need.
That is why those opposite cannot be trusted to manage the transitioning of our economy which is going to continue to deliver great prosperity for Australians. They cannot be trusted. They have learnt nothing in their time in opposition from their disasters in government—absolutely nothing. As a result, those on this side of the House, I think, can look forward to the budget with great promise because that budget will focus on investment and on supporting Australians who are out there working, saving and investing every day, and making that transition happen.
My question is to the Minister for the Environment. Will the minister advise the House of what steps the government is taking to protect and open to the public foreshore land on Sydney Harbour, particularly at the former submarine base HMAS Platypus on Neutral Bay? What will be the benefits to the Sydney community of the government's approach?
'Best minister in the world'!
They never said that of you!
Honourable members interjecting—
Members will compose themselves. The minister has the call.
Opposition members interjecting—
You are welcome at any time, my friend.
I want to thank the member for North Sydney. He has been a great champion of cleaning up the Platypus site of the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust—not just as the new member for North Sydney but when he was a councillor for North Sydney and, in particular, when he was working as an adviser to Senator Robert Hill, who, at that stage, had responsibility for establishing the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust. He was one of the architects of this great monument to Sydney's history. It was an important role because the Labor government under Prime Minister Keating—prior to the Howard government—had wanted to sell a lot of that foreshore. That decision was reversed under the Howard government, and it was taken forward.
What has happened under the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust—with the support not only of the member for North Sydney but also the support of the former Prime Minister, the current Prime Minister; they have all been advocates of its work—is that we have seen more than $216 million invested. We have seen a dramatic clean-up of places such as Cockatoo Island, Platypus and Chowder Bay and the incredible restoration there as well as the conversion of the magnificent North Sydney area to sustainable public use forever.
Against that background, what we have seen is that $43 million has been allocated to clean up the former industrial and naval site of HMAS Platypus. That project is now almost overwhelmingly complete. The next great phase is to create one of Australia's great inner urban public parks. That was announced while the now member for North Sydney was campaigning for the seat: it was his initiative, along with others within the community. He campaigned for it, he advocated for it and he won that commitment from the federal government. So we will deliver a new public park as part of the HMAS Platypus clean-up for the people of North Sydney, for the people of Sydney and for the people of Australia.
There are very few new public parks created in inner city areas. This will be one. So the clean-up is now overwhelmingly done. The next phase is to move to community consultation, community involvement, community design and community ownership and naming of this site. The member for North Sydney will help lead that process. He has delivered with it a $20 million contribution and commitment from the federal government, so in a short time he has already made a difference. Over a long period, this government, over successive incarnations, has made a huge commitment to protecting and preserving the Sydney's foreshore. I congratulate the new member. (Time expired)
Mr Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister. The Treasurer has today confirmed the government will make changes to superannuation concessions, but just two weeks ago the former Prime Minister described changes to superannuation tax concessions as:
… a seniors' tax, in the shape of more taxes on super.
Does the Prime Minister agree with the man he replaced? Will the government make changes to superannuation concessions?
The honourable member's inquiry is understandable, but he will have to wait until the budget to find out what is in it. Obviously the budget speculation bug will continue to infect the honourable members opposite, right up until budget night.
One thing we do not have to wait for is the Labor Party's self-described 'Positive plan to help housing affordability'. This proposes very significant changes to tax. Earlier, in an answer to a question from the member for Sydney, we were talking about tax on tobacco. One of the reasons tobacco is taxed is to make it more expensive, and the more you tax anything the less likely people are to use it because it is more expensive. That is the purpose of so-called sin taxes. Apparently, the Labor Party think investment is a sin, because they are increasing taxation on investment. They are going to increase capital gains tax by 50 per cent.
It is a signal example of the difference between the government's approach and the opposition's that tomorrow we will be introducing into this House legislation that will provide a tax incentive for people to invest in start-up companies and, if they hold the investment for a substantial period, they will get a capital gains tax exemption.
Ms Butler interjecting—
The member for Griffith is warned!
So we are actually providing tax relief for the express purpose of encouraging investment. What Labor is doing is proposing to increase tax, which will have, inevitably, the same consequence: it will discourage investment. You increase the tax on something, you will get less of it; you lift the tax off, you will get more of it. That is Labor's approach.
The rest of the honourable members' housing affordability project will result in house prices being reduced, new homebuyers being squeezed out of subdivisions and the amount of rented property—that is to say, property available to tenants—reducing over time so that, inevitably, rents will go up. So house prices will come down, new homebuyers will be squeezed out because when they go out to buy a home and land package in Camden or the outskirts of Sydney or Melbourne, when they go out to do that, they will find that they will be crowded out by investors because that is the only asset class people will be able to negative gear. So they will be crowded out, and then elsewhere in the market, in properties that are bought and built for tenants, the investor owners of that will only be able to sell them to homebuyers. Inevitably, rental property will diminish and rents will go up. What an extraordinarily bungled outcome by an opposition that does not understand the first thing about the property market.
Mr Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister. I was delighted to host you recently on a visit to Rockhampton and talk about water infrastructure, namely the raising of Rookwood and Eden Bann weirs. These projects could create 2,100 new jobs as we suffer a downturn in coal. Prime Minister, could you update the House on what you got out of the trip and whether the Commonwealth would consider this as a priority project for Queensland? How far off is an announcement confirming whether Rookwood and Eden Bann weirs have been successful?
I thank the honourable member for her question. I enjoyed the visit to Rockhampton and the visit to the site of the Rookwood weir at Rookwood Crossing with the Deputy Prime Minister. The three of us share a common passion for water infrastructure. As the Deputy Prime Minister has observed: you can make money out of mud, but you cannot make it out of dust. Water is the source of life. We recognise that the Fitzroy River basin is the second largest water catchment in Australia, but with very limited amounts of regulation, weirs, dams and so forth, so there is plenty of opportunity there.
Turning to those specific projects the honourable member mentioned, the funding applications from the Queensland government, with whom we are working closely, are currently being reviewed by an independent technical panel which will report next month to the Deputy Prime Minister, the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources. The innovation we found in North Queensland was remarkable. Going beyond the honourable member's electorate to Bundaberg, we saw the Sweet Sensations Farm, an avocado and macadamia nut farm, started by two young farmers from South Africa, Craig Van Rooyen and his wife. They came to Australia, they got a block and they created their horticultural orchard operation. Of course the big challenge was flying foxes and birds. They were a huge issue, costing them 30 per cent of their crop. So what did they do? They are smart people who are technically adept. They got the best advice, and they have developed the most impressive, noisy, lights-flashing computerised drones that swoop out at night and chase the flying foxes away. They have reduced the losses on their farm from 30 per cent to five per cent. What an outstanding accomplishment. The honourable member for Hinkler, naturally, was with us in his electorate.
Northern Australia is Australia's future. It has enormous resources, not least of which are the brilliant and enterprising people who live there. The huge water resources and the huge potential for agriculture there, enhanced by greater irrigation, is immense, and we are putting the dollars behind that vision. We will see great investments in water in northern Australia that will enable us further to capitalise on the huge opportunities in East Asia as that becomes the centre of most of the world's middle-class.
My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to his previous answer in which he indicated that the government's tax policy would be announced on budget day. Previously, the government's position has been that there will be a tax statement in advance of the budget. Is the government's position now that the tax statement has been cancelled along with the green and white paper on tax?
I thank the honourable member for his question and appreciate his curiosity about the timing of government statements on tax. I can assure him that all of the government's tax policy will be set out, in full, in the budget, and I look forward to him welcoming the budget. I can say this: our budget, the budget that the Treasurer presents, will be one that will support growth, jobs and investment. The measures that the shadow Treasurer has announced already are absolutely calculated to reduce employment, to reduce investment and to hold the economy back. He is seeking to place an additional tax on investment. It is absolutely guaranteed to discourage investment. If you increase the tax on investment, you will have less of it. That has to follow. He understands that, but he does not care. He thinks we can manage with less investment.
The honourable member should understand that what Australia needs now is more entrepreneurship, more investment and more employment. The so-called negative gearing policy of the Labor Party is absolutely calculated to stand in the way of entrepreneurship. Most small businesses in this country—some of which become big ones—start off with one person's human capital. They get a job and they have income from that. Then they go and borrow some money, invest and take some risks. If it goes well, they can employ people and they can build up a business and it will create opportunities. Under the Labor Party, that path to entrepreneurship is blocked because that would-be small business man or women will not be able to offset any losses on that investment against their income. They will have to fund them out of their after-tax income, unless, of course, they already have substantial investment income. If you are wealthy enough to have lots of investments and you have investment income, then you can do it. So who loses out? It is the young would-be entrepreneur and the small business person building on their human capital. And this is from a party that claims to speak up for equality.
The Labor Party's policy that they will implement if they come into government will increase rents, reduce house prices and undermine the growth of business and business formation. It is calculated to slow the economy right at the time when we ought to be encouraging its continued growth, which is what we, for our part, will continue to do. On that note, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
Mr Speaker, I seek to make a personal explanation.
Does the member claim to have been misrepresented?
Yes.
Please proceed.
I have been misrepresented by the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister criticised the management of Queensland Nickel, stated that I was in control of the management of Queensland Nickel and responsible for the decision not to pay workers' entitlements. This is not true. I was not in control of the management of the company at the relevant time and the decision not to pay workers' entitlements was not made by me or any director of any company that I own shares in.
Ms Henderson interjecting—
The member for Corangamite will cease interjecting.
The sole decision was made by the administrator of Queensland Nickel, who decided not to pay workers' entitlements. In relation to the management I say that in 2009, when BHP was planning to close the plant, the nickel price was $7.50 a pound. Today it is $3.90. That is the best—
The member for Fairfax has stated where he has been misrepresented.
I have a question for you, Mr Speaker.
Mr Brendan O'Connor interjecting—
The member for Gorton is about to be thrown out. He has already been warned. The member for Herbert has a question for me.
I do not expect you to have the answer here, Mr Speaker, but I would like to ask you a question. If a member of this House was subsequently found to be a shadow director of a company when he made representations in here, would he be guilty of misleading the House?
The member for Herbert will resume his seat.
I present the Auditor-General's Audit reports No. 25, Delivery and evaluation of grant programmes: Department of Industry, Innovation and Science; Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development; Department of Social Services, and No. 26, Defence's management of the Mulwala Propellant Facility: Department of Defence.
Ordered that the reports be made parliamentary papers.
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 a letter from the honourable member for Ballarat proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:
The Government undermining Medicare.
I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.
More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—
We heard in question time today some of the consequences of this government's decision to change the Senate voting rules. Sitting in the Senate, unable to be passed because of the actions of this opposition, are several health measures that this government has wanted to inflict on the Australian people. Sitting in the Senate, of course, are the increases to Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme co-payments for general and concessional patients, making medicine more expensive. It is $1.3 billion extra that patients will be paying to access medicines.
Of course, there are also the changes to the safety net which mean that, while some people might reach the safety net earlier, they will get a lot less back when they actually do. Again, it is a cut to the safety net. We are also waiting to see introduced a number of regulations which will see a co-payment introduced for pathology tests; the scrapping entirely of bulk-billing incentive for pathology, leading to a co-payment; and major changes to bulk-billing incentives for diagnostic imagine, which will see, because patients have to pay for both pathology and diagnostic imaging tests up-front if they are being charged a co-payment, in the case of diagnostic imaging hundreds of dollars for people to access tests such as an MRI. This is what the government wants to do with its Senate voting reforms. If it gets them through and calls a double dissolution election, you can bet your bottom dollar that this is what they want to do.
It is worth reminding people just what an appalling record this government has when it comes to the health of our nation. This government at every single opportunity has attempted, through budget, after Mid-Year Economic Financial Statement and in every single policy it has introduced, to undermine our universal health insurance scheme that is Medicare. It is worth remembering that the Abbott-Turnbull government took the decision to cut $57 billion out of our public hospital system, meaning that it will not be able to keep up with demand in our public hospital systems across the nation. Those cuts have already started, but the bulk of them start next year. If you have tried to get into a public hospital recently for elective surgery, if you have tried to get into an emergency department or if you are waiting for an operation and you think it is bad, just you wait to see what this government is about to inflict on this nation when it comes to public hospital funding.
We have seen this government cut millions of dollars out of preventive health programs—programs that are trying to tackle obesity, tobacco and alcohol consumption in this country to keep people well so that they do not end up in our acute system. They are trying to reduce demand over the longer term.
We heard again the government in the 2014 budget cut funding to public dental, but over the weekend, not satisfied with that, the government is now toying—pretty seriously, I understand—with the idea of cutting the kids dental program. That is a program we are very proud of on this side of the House. We knew how important it was to try to address the issue of oral health for young Australians, because the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare had reported most distressingly that the amount of under-five-year-olds who were losing their baby teeth due to tooth decay had increased and was continuing to increase in this nation. It is a scheme that in essence introduces a Medicare benefits scheme. It is now integral to the entire universality of Medicare that we have a kids dental scheme that one million children in this nation have taken up. This is a program that this government has now got in its sight.
You thought that they could not do much more, but we saw in the 2014 budget three separate attempts to introduce a GP tax and make sure that patients trying to access general practitioners were paying a co-payment. They continue to do that by stealth by continuing the freeze on Medicare benefit schedules. This is seeing patients start to have larger co-payments charged and in some cases patients who were never charged co-payments starting to have to pay those as well. All of these measures still sit in the government's budget. Some of them have not passed the Senate, because of Labor's opposition, but you can bet your bottom dollar: you give this government any single chance at the next election and almost immediately you will see those measures put in place.
I want to go back in particular to the cuts to public hospitals. Given just how widespread the cuts to our universal health system, Medicare, and the sustained attack this government has inflicted on Medicare have been, it is hard to concentrate on the detail, because it has been so widespread. But $57 billion of cuts to our public hospital system has very real consequences. When Labor was in office we knew we were facing a very real problem when it came to access to public hospital services, including elective surgery, emergency department and keeping up with demand as people age and we have more and more chronic disease. The acute system is coming under substantial pressure. So we took a year to commission the National Health and Hospitals Reform Commission to look seriously at what you need to do to Australia's healthcare system—prevention, primary care, community based care and our acute system. What do we need to do to make Australia's health system work better and how do we make sure that we have the funding to do so?
What did the government do when it came to office? It basically threw out every single one of Labor's healthcare reforms and it has used health purely as a cash cow for the budget. It has used health to take money constantly out of public hospitals, dental and now our kids dental, prevention and general practice. And what has happened? We are now seeing the results of that across this nation. The $57 billion out of public hospitals saw the Premier of New South Wales—not someone who is overly familiar with our side of politics—say that it was simply unsustainable. What you have at the moment is the government running around and trying to come up with a last-minute deal to get it out of political strife as it heads into an election. It is a deal—if it does the deal that we have heard about—that will see the acute sector on its knees in this country. As I said at the start, if you are a patient trying to get into a public hospital for elective surgery or you have been in an emergency department recently or you are currently in hospital and you are struggling, you can guarantee that this is about to get worse because of the Abbott-Turnbull government.
The government's latest MYEFO budget talks about what it wants to do to pathology and diagnostic imaging. I have spent a bit of time in pathology labs and in radiography clinics over the last few weeks having a chat to patients, pathologists and radiologists about the impact of the government's decisions. The government is trying to say, 'This is no big deal. It's really not going to have much of an impact on patients or, if it does, it is all the fault of radiographers and pathologists in particular.' It is taking $650 million out of pathology and diagnostic imaging for incentives that make sure that patients are bulk billed. Bulk-billing is important to try to keep fees down in the system, but it makes sure that we keep these vital tests affordable for patients. In the case of diagnostic imaging in particular, the cuts are significant. For example, multiple scans are required for a woman diagnosed with breast cancer. That woman, who was previously bulk billed, will face up-front costs of up to $554 for mammograms and ultrasounds with these cuts in place and will be left around $300 out of pocket, even after receiving all of the Medicare rebates. For many of the patients who are now bulk billed, those sorts of costs are simply unaffordable. This is what the government has wanted to do to our health system, and it will do it if it is successful with Senate reforms. The government has simply tried to slash and cut Medicare and has tried to introduce a two-tiered system in this country. This is the Turnbull government proving that, no matter who the leader is, you can only ever trust Labor when it comes to maintaining Medicare, strengthening Medicare and investing in our universal healthcare system.
I find the scaremongering of those opposite regarding Medicare nothing short of embarrassing given the coalition government's record of standing up for a world-class health system with affordable access. I want to remind people of a couple of things. When Dr Neal Blewett introduced the second reading of the bill, he said:
... everyone will contribute towards the nation's health costs according to his or her ability to pay—
with contributions made through the tax system and the Medicare levy of one per cent. He went on to say:
Basic health care should be the right of every Australian.
Further, Making Medicareis a publication that takes up the story of how Labor began developing a proposal for national health insurance against the wishes of many in its party who supported the preventive, community based health system with salaried doctors. It describes the tortuous introduction of Medibank, which finally came into operation and then morphed into the current system.
What is interesting is the pious approach by those on the opposite benches—that they are holier than thou in the way in which they defend Medicare. When we look at the history of the introduction of Medibank and opposition within their ranks, they were not uniform. It seems that the member for Ballarat is so completely at a loss this year when it comes to new ideas that she has fallen back on the age-old Labor policy of extensive and timely fabrication. This is to be expected from a fatigued and boring opposition who wail and fear-monger at alleged health cuts, when their own government sliced $550 million worth of Medicare savings in pathology services and redirected it to what they deemed as 'other government priorities'.
Mr Snowdon interjecting—
Member for Lingiari, it does not matter what you say to intervene. Sometimes it is better to have the truth on the table. You cannot play a holier than thou attitude when you make similar cuts.
Mr Snowdon interjecting—
I will be interested to hear your comments. It was the opposition's dear leader himself, the member for Maribyrnong, who claimed:
... if you withdraw funds from Medicare, you will invariably put up the price of healthcare for all Australians.
Tell me, member for Ballarat, how does your government's policy record stand up against this statement? Alternatively, the coalition government has a clear path forward when it comes to health. In the case of pathology, we are removing a feeble and defective incentive of between $1.40 and $3.40, which is paid directly to pathology providers. Pathology companies have, in some cases, complained about the impact our government's changes will make to shareholders—to shareholders, not patients—which demonstrates what is really motivating these organisations.
With Labor's condemnation of this coalition policy, it seems Labor has finally been exposed as the party of big business, rather than the party for each individual Australian, regardless of circumstance. Under this government, we have sent a strong message that Medicare is not a guaranteed bankable revenue where corporations cash in on taxpayer money. As a government, therefore, we are making it clear that not only should every Australian have access to a first-rate service but that the system of health care we promote is one that is sustainable and relevant to consumers in the future.
Australians deserve the Liberal-National government, which sees health care as a priority, not just as a playground for party tricks and policy flips as the Labor opposition does. Australians deserve better than the six years of anxiety and instability that Labor gave them.
Those opposite on occasion seek to preach on MBS indexation. I am flabbergasted that their memory of their own government should be so incredibly poor. I am glad the coalition government is doing much more work in the area of Alzheimer's, given the difficulties it is posing to some of our Labor colleagues. It was Labor who introduced the freeze on MBS indexation when they were in government—and they seem to have forgotten that. It was Labor that froze the indexation of Medicare rebates. It was apparently okay for Labor to freeze the MBS indexation, but those opposite are suddenly outraged that a coalition government would dare to do the same. Hypocrisy, thy name is Labor!
As a government, we are making it clear that not only should every Australian have access to first-rate services but also the system of health care we promote is one that is sustainable into the future. This means, to quote the Labor spokesperson for health herself: 'The opposition would be kidding itself if it didn't recognise there were challenges in the budget and that savings needed to be found.'
Ms King interjecting—
That is fine; that is not a problem. Let me also go on to give some other quotes, just to jog the memory of the member for Ballarat. 'There is no area that is going to be exempt. We have to look across the board,' said Catherine King on 22 February 2015 on Sky News'sAgenda. Let me share a couple of others with you.
… we did think we needed to make savings in pathology. … Now, they didn’t like it, they weren't chanting in the street saying that was terrific, they didn’t like it.
That was Labor's spokesperson, Catherine King, on 6 January 2016.
In government, Labor worked with the medical profession to improve the quality and safety of Medicare, and where savings were realised, they were reinvested back into the health system.
So said Labor health spokesperson Catherine King on 27 September.
Ms King interjecting—
Can I remind the member for Ballarat: it is great that you have selective memory, because your quotes are clearly there for all to see.
You're selectively quoting, Ken.
It is not selective quoting. And let me also say:
Some of those savings did go back into the health Budget, not all of them …
This was Labor's health spokesperson, Catherine King, on 6 January 2016 at the press conference.
Ms Plibersek interjecting—
The member for Sydney might want to interject, but she also went on to say:
We will put a cap on selected Medicare items from 1 November this year where excessive fees are being charged or where Medicare may be being used inappropriately …
… … …
The Government will also tighten regulations around diagnostic radiology services so that those taking the images hold minimum qualifications. … it will produce savings of $45.8 million over four years.
What happened to bulk-billing, Ken? It went up.
Actually, they did not go up as much as you projected, Member for Ballarat.
Yes they did.
No they did not. I think you need to go back and read what is in there.
Ms King interjecting—
Let me keep going. That is why the once-in-a-generation review of the Medicare Benefits Schedule is so imperative for Australia. The review is looking at all of the more than 5,700 Medicare items, ensuring they are relevant and effective. This is a prime example of the sensible policymaking that the opposition were too lazy and distracted to achieve in the six years they had in government. To quote the former Labor health minister Nicola Roxon:
Without reform and a careful and methodical approach, the system will cannibalise itself. Because in health there is a continuous clamour for more and more funding with no regard to where the money comes from.
I am proud to be the assistant minister for health in a government committed to improving our health system in a way that Labor never managed to get around to. I am proud to be part of a government that treats the Australian public's health as a priority.
We are digitising our payments scheme, bringing government processes into line with a modern, innovative Australia. This will ensure a more efficient system that processes more than $42 billion worth of payment transactions every year.
I have every faith that the great work of this government in ensuring that every Australian, regardless of circumstances, receives health care will not be drowned out by a few bitter voices from those opposite. And it is interesting, hearing the continuous interjection from the shadow minister—
It is. It has hit a raw nerve.
It has hit a raw nerve. And I will not be lectured on Medicare by those opposite. They do not have a leg to stand on, given the six years of misery they had in government, where they cared little for the circumstances of the people they claimed to represent. I wholeheartedly reject their flip-flopping as they seek to condemn the current government for policies and pathways they so recently supported. It is great that it has hit a raw nerve with you, Member for Ballarat, because, when you think back on the period of when Labor produced its reports and had key areas, they never fully implemented those reports. There was never a full commitment to the funding, nor was there, in the forward estimates, the money that was required.
Ms King interjecting—
Let me say to you, Member for Ballarat: the selective memory, and some of the things that you have raised and challenged, are coming back to haunt you—the same as they will haunt the member for Sydney. So I strongly support the process in which we are engaging with the medical profession and with state and territory governments in achieving outcomes.
We all know which is the party of Medicare. We know who it is that established Medibank in the first place and who cut it, when it was Medibank, and who had to reintroduce it as Medicare, because Labor has always been the party of universal health care—health care that depends more on your need for services than on the credit card in your wallet.
We have seen from those opposite: a $57-billion cut to hospitals and a four-year freeze on GP rebates; $650 million cut from pathology and diagnostic imaging; almost $1 billion cut from health programs, including $200 million from the flexible funds that fund the services in your communities that are being closed down right now—drug and alcohol services, Aboriginal health services and others; the GP co-payment; and the increased cost of medicines proposed by those opposite. But perhaps the most distressing for me was the news on the weekend that the kids' dental program is going to be closed down.
Let's just take a little bit of a trip back in history. The Howard government killed the Commonwealth dental program that had been seeing 200,000 people a year. They killed it dead. In the year 1995-96 there was $105 million committed by the Commonwealth to dental programs. In 1998-99 that had dropped from $105 million to $6 million. Instead, when the system turned into a disaster, we had the ridiculous Chronic Disease Dental Scheme that the member for Warringah, as health minister, introduced. It was supposed to cost $90 million a year, and it ended up costing $80 million a month. It had 1,000 complaints made against it. It had patients billed for work that did not happen. It had dentists charging twice. It had one dentist ordered to repay more than $700,000 after admitting to incorrectly billing 293 times.
What did we do? We restored money to Commonwealth dental programs so that people on those ever-expanding waiting lists could be treated, so that more dental chairs could be opened across the country and so that young dentists coming out of university could get the experience they needed. Most importantly, we said that 3.4 million Australian children would go to the dentist every two years as easily as they now go to a GP, getting $1,000 worth of work: check-ups, fluoride and basic cavity treatment—all of the basic treatments that would mean those kids started life with good dental care. We know that, if you start well, your teeth are much more likely to last well through your life. We know that if you have early problems in dental care not only does it mean you are likely to have bad teeth for the rest of your life; it also means you are more likely to have bad general health.
The government have already cut $125 million from this. They cut $400 million or so from public dental programs and so on and $125 million has already been cut from kids' dental health. Now they are going after the rest of it. One million children have had treatment under this program. More than two million children are still eligible. Maybe the government will increase the tobacco excise, but who could tell from the conversation today. We know the health minister and Dr Laming up the back do not support it, but maybe it will be passed. They are not going to focus on multinational tax avoidance. They are not going to make cuts to very-high-income superannuants. They are maybe or maybe not going to increase the tobacco excise. Instead of any of these sensible improvements worth $100 billion to the budget bottom line that Labor have already proposed, they are going to go after the kids' dental program.
We know Australian children are already suffering poor dental health, with many children having to go to hospital under general anaesthetic to have all of their teeth pulled out. Instead of actually supporting the program that would prevent that poor dental health, they are going to go after kids' teeth. It really does beggar belief that, of all the things this mob opposite can think of to do to balance the books, the one thing that they come up with is cutting access to dental care for children.
It is always good to engage in a health debate. It almost seems that nothing changes each year when we have them. But, fundamentally, what is this about? Medicare, at the heart of the Australian health system, is growing at an unsustainable rate from around $10 billion to $16 billion and, in 10 years from now, to $34 billion. We have to be able to have some sort of constructive discussion with the other side about real ways to reform and restructure Medicare to make sure it continues to deliver. Of course, Labor have a very short memory. They do not remember that they, themselves, took half a billion dollars out of pathology when they promised those savings would be reinvested into the health system. No, that has been erased away and they just take the cheap shots at the government of the day.
I know that there are a couple of healthcare enthusiasts on the other side. Certainly I congratulate the shadow minister for the fact that she at least turns up to the odd clinic to talk to patients and providers. But actually working in a hospital, as I do every fortnight, I get a fairly privileged look at exactly what is happening in Queensland hospitals. One great observation is that state governments that get serious about provision, reducing waiting lists and shortening time at casualty departments can do it. The one thing I noticed about Campbell Newman's era of running the health system was that the waiting list started to decline and Queenslanders got their operations. I know it is very tempting to dance around on the grave of a former premier, but I can tell you one thing: when you needed an eye operation, you knew you would get it under Campbell Newman's premiership.
Already now, those waiting lists are bloating out again. Why is that? Fundamentally, we have to remember that four-fifths of Australians get completely free Medicare services in this country. If you look at equivalised health earnings, that means that pretty much anyone earning more than double the minimum wage is quite probably paying no out-of-pocket expenses whatsoever under Medicare. That is something to be extraordinarily proud of. If both sides of parliament did not support that, it would not be the case in 2016.
But way more concerning, I think, is Labor's attitude. When given the choice between treating the poor and treating the sick, it is the sick that miss out under Labor. In Tasmania, if you have so much as a minimum wage job, you are denied the services of much of Tasmania's public health system because you are too wealthy to be treated. That is a complete disgrace. It is appalling to see state hospital and dental services turning away patients under Labor because they have a job. It is ridiculous. The member for Bass has told me of young working women who could not get a hole in their teeth fixed under the state dental system because they had a job. How outrageous! They are automatically ineligible. This is Labor's fixation on free health care, whatever the cost.
At the moment the percentage of bulk-billing in diagnostic imaging and in pathology is sitting in the high 80s. The odds that they are out-of-pockets are extremely slender in both pathology and diagnostic radiology. With respect, you have to look at the enabling structures in pathology and diagnostic imaging way more deeply than the shadow minister has done. You cannot just wander the corridors. You have to understand the cost of the equipment and the massively increasing volume of testing and the ability to do that and you have to look at whether the federal government can do this more efficiently. If you are stuck with a fee-for-service system, you almost cannot extract any savings whatsoever.
What are the three big challenges in health? Ageing—I am glad that people are living longer; technology—we have to find better ways to treat more people; and, lastly, the cost of human capital. In diagnostic imaging and pathology it is the workforce bill that is relatively small compared to the large cost of technology. Driving technology is the key. In a fee-for-service system, you have to look twice at paying blanket bonuses to those sectors because we know it may not change behaviour. A lot of those surpluses are simply pocketed by the provider, which is, in many cases, a large corporate entity.
Where two large corporates control the market, with the greatest respect, if one of them decides to change from a bulk-billing practice, they will see patients walk across the road. They will get the doctor to tick the box on the diagnostic imaging or pathology form and they will look around, because the day the policy changes the competitor across the road will put up a sign: bulk-billing is delivered here. That is the market effect that that side does not understand.
If we can improve pathology and diagnostic radiology and if we know that we can do it more efficiently and learn from the private sector that does it far better than the public sector, we have a chance to fund the cancer measures and the hep C cures. These are areas of expanding opportunity for the Australian health system that will keep it one of the best in the world. We should no longer be comparing it to the US. We must now match the achievements of the European health systems—and we can under the coalition.
In a few short weeks time the Australian people are going to be sent to an early election. As the government scrambles around for a few policies to put before the Australian people, we know that they are going to be condemned for 2½ years of health policy disaster. They will be rightly condemned for their policies when it comes to primary health care. There was the GP tax mark 1, 2 and 3 and then, through the back door, GP tax mark 4—the tax which the parliament refused to pass—that they are trying to force doctors into introducing by freezing Medicare rebates; and the vicious $57 billion worth of cuts to public hospital systems.
The member for Bowman asked, in a comical sense, just now: why are waiting lists blowing out in the state of Queensland? Why is it that in his friend the member for Bass's state of Tasmania they are having problems meeting the demand for public dental treatment? If he wants to ask why they are having these problems, he need look no more further than the $57 billion worth of cuts that his own government is visiting upon the people and that he put his hand up and voted for. It is those very same cuts which are seeing hospitals in New South Wales without doctors. Could you ever think of such a thing: hospitals having no doctors? We are seeing proposals to increase costs of medicines, which are going to hit pensioners and average wage and salary earners hard, locked in the Senate at the moment—the very same Senate that the government is cynically trying to push legislation through this week so that they can control the Senate in a future parliament. We are also seeing an absolute blow-out in the cost of private health insurance. Year after year we are seeing increases of close to six per cent under this government's watch. If the families of Australia are struggling because of the increased costs, they will know who to blame in a few short weeks time.
On the weekend I had the opportunity to talk to Annabelle Lavender, a constituent of mine from Albion Park in New South Wales. She is a pensioner. She is living with cancer. She came to me deeply concerned about the government's cuts to the bulk-billing rebate for pathology services. She said to me that people in her position will not go and have their blood tests done. She needs to have a blood test done every three months. She sees her haematologist once every six months. She is not alone. She has made the point quite clearly to me that this is her No. 1 issue when it comes to the next election. If this government is re-elected, things are going to get worse.
In Senate question time today we saw the minister who was recently elevated to cabinet and who has responsibility for regional health declare to the Senate, in response to a question from Senator Lines from Western Australia, that there had been no cuts to hospitals throughout the term of this government. The Premier of New South Wales disagrees with his senator. The Premier of Victoria and the Premier of Queensland—in fact, every Chief Minister and Premier of every state and territory in the country—disagree with that statement, because they know that they are being faced with the very real prospect of having to close down hospital beds, increase waiting lists for elective surgery and close services in community health. These are the results of this government's cuts.
It is time that the member for Bowman re-forms his Praetorian Guard. We know it was the member for Bowman who was so active in ensuring that the former Prime Minister be thrown out of office because of the impact that his disastrous Medicare plans were having on their electoral prospects. It is time for the member for Bowman to start organising again, because there is one thing that we can be absolutely sure of: the people of Australia will punish the member for Bass, the member for Bowman and all of those Country Party members who are putting their hands in the air and voting for this government's cuts to Medicare and hospital funding. They will punish them if there is not a change in policy.
What we have at the moment is a different Prime Minister and a different Treasurer peddling the same health policies that they took to their first budget. It spells disaster for public health in this country, and the people of Australia are onto it. They know that this government has no policies. That is why the government is spending so much time talking about the opposition. It does not have not a policy of its own. What it has done in health has been an absolute disaster.
It is always a very great privilege to follow the member for Throsby. He certainly puts some effort into his speeches, even if they lack any substance. I have been in this place long enough now that it might be time to reflect on a bit of history around health. Let's go back to 2008 when Kevin Rudd was the Prime Minister and we had wall-to-wall state Labor governments. In my electorate in Dubbo, at the time of the then Premier—I cannot remember if it was Iemma, Carr, Rees, but it was a Labor government; it does not matter who the leader was—the local staff were buying supplies from the local vet to keep the hospital going. Then Kevin Rudd came along. Remember the revolution in health? Remember we had a revolution in a lot of things? We had the revolution in health, which was the policy where the Prime Minister dressed up as a doctor for an entire year and travelled the countryside having photo opportunities, looking very serious in hospital surgical wards and waiting rooms to show his concern for health. Despite the fact that hospitals and health are the primary responsibility of the states, he saw this as a wonderful opportunity to have his health revolution. What did we end up with? Does anyone remember the GP superclinics? There were going to be 150 GP superclinics, I think; we ended up with about seven. Then we had the Divisions of General Practice Network that was working very well; it was under the imprimatur of the doctors, they had ownership of it, and it was providing services in that space. We ended up with the Medicare Local. Despite the fact that we still do not know what a Medicare Local is or what it does, we saw large amounts of federal funds go into these Medicare Locals. The GPs lost confidence in the primary health system. I have to say it has taken a new minister and government to restore some semblance of normality into the primary healthcare system.
We have heard a lot of talk here from the shadow minister and others about our children and the health of our children. But I ask you one thing: will our children be thankful when they get older and those of us in this room, the baby boomers, get to the stage of needing high-level care? It is a fact that we are going to be the generation that will live longer than any generation in the past. Are they going to be thankful for the fact that, when they go to the cupboard to fund aged care and health care when we reach a peak in 2030, the cupboard is completely bare? Will they be grateful that we will be paying every cent to cover the interest from overseas debts that the Labor Party incurred when they were in government? What we owe to the people of this country, especially the younger people, is to be responsible. We need to have a medical system that is sustainable and will cover the needs of this country into the future. Quite frankly, when it comes to caring for the elderly and sick, this is as good as it is going to get. We are facing a huge crisis coming up. It is about time that those opposite stop trying to pretend that we can solve a problem like this by throwing money around and by wearing surgical garb and dressing up as doctors.
I am going to pay a tribute to my state colleagues in New South Wales. A month ago, the Premier came out to Dubbo and opened stages 1 and 2 of the Dubbo Base Hospital. In the last 18 months, 30 new doctors have moved to Dubbo. There are new hospitals at Gulgong, Parkes and Peak Hill in the central west. The people of the west are getting genuine care, and confidence is being put back into the health system.
The Medicare Locals are a failure, and we have moved on. GP superclinics are one of those tales that our grandchildren will tell around the campfire in years to come, saying 'Remember when grandad talked about the greatest health failure in all time— (Time expired)
I want to thank the member for Parkes for reminding us all why the National Party have a problem in the bush in terms of health care and about the stupidity of this government. When Malcolm Turnbull became Prime Minister, there were those of us in this place who thought that we might actually see something different, that we might see some change in public policy and move on from the 2014 budget with its cuts in health. There was a valid expectation that the $57 billion worth of cuts to the hospital system would, in fact, be reversed and that he got the message from the community saying, 'Malcolm, this is not acceptable.' After all, why did the member for Warringah end up being necked? He was necked because of the 2014 budget. The current Prime Minister is sticking to the initiatives of the 2014 budget: $57 billion worth of cuts to the public hospital system.
Let me explain to those opposite what that means for regional communities such as my own. At the Alice Springs public hospital, 80 per cent of its patients are Aboriginal people. If you put together the cuts to the hospitals with the three attempts at the GP tax and co-payments, what they are doing is attacking the most vulnerable people in the community. The government talk about their desire to close the gap. If they actually get these things through the Senate and into law—if there is a change at the next election and they control the Senate—they will penalise the weakest and the sickest in the community. The sickest in the community will be asked to pay more for their services. These are people with massive chronic disease problems who need to regularly see the doctor and to regularly have pathology tests. How the hell do you expect to close the gap if you charge people so much that they will defer their intention to seek assistance from a doctor or to get a pathology test? Pathology tests are, ultimately, very important. We know about the level of chronic disease in the bush and the enormous problems with diabetes. In one community I went to recently, there was a seven-year-old girl with stage 2 diabetes. She was looked after by an Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Service. If you attack GP payments in the way being proposed, it will cost that health service and its ability to deliver health outcomes for those communities.
Let's be very clear about this. This is not just a matter of talking about who is fiscally responsible. This is talking about what is fundamental to most Australians: their health care, the universality of the healthcare system and the importance of that universality to making sure all Australians, regardless of who they are or where they live, can get good access to the same level of medical treatment, whether they live in Alice Springs, Dubbo, Utopia, in the Northern Territory, or Sydney. What we are seeing here is a deliberate attempt by this government to hit the weakest, the poorest and the sickest in the community.
Now we have this stupid proposal, this absolutely asinine and stupid proposal, to cut the kids dental scheme. I am not a doctor, but I do know that there is a relationship between rotten teeth and your general health. If you do not look after the rotten teeth of young kids, you are putting yourself in a position where you are looking at the possibility of these kids getting chronic diseases which will end up costing the community a great deal of money and, most assuredly, will mean a lower life expectancy for those children. That is happening today.
If you cut the Medicare system in the way which is being proposed, if you continue with these stupid cuts to the public hospital system, you are penalising these people. You are making sure that the sickest and poorest in the community suffer as a result of your decisions. These are conscious decisions of the Prime Minister, his cabinet and the backbench, who are supporting him. When he became Prime Minister, I am sure many of them would have thought, 'We won't be living through the 2014 budget again.' Well, you are, because we will make sure that at this forthcoming election every Australian understands what you are doing and trying to do to the healthcare system and what you are doing in terms of undermining universality of health care in this country. Every Australian will be able to make a judgement about you, the 2014 budget, where we are today and the way in which this Prime Minister has deceived the Australian community. (Time expired)
Last week I had the pleasure of attending Wyong Hospital. It was fantastic to meet with the nurses, the doctors and the admin staff. They really do an amazing job. Is very important that we support quality health care and our local hospitals. I know that the member for Robertson is a strong advocate for health care in her seat of Robertson and spends a lot of time at Gosford Hospital as well.
Whilst I was at Wyong Hospital, the opposition leader was also on the Central Coast on his national limp lettuce tour. This time he was peddling lies to the media about Medicare and, in particular, pathology. He turned up at a pathologist in North Gosford. The sad thing about this is that to get attention, instead of going out there and launching his reckless negative gearing policy, he has to prey on the most vulnerable members of our community—seniors and chronically ill people. To do that is really, really low. That is how low those opposite have become.
To make it worse, standing right next to the opposition leader and encouraging him with her nodding head was the reluctant Labor candidate for Dobell, who happens to be a senior manager with Central Coast Local Health District. Obviously she was on her lunch break. How typical of the HSU delegates in Dobell—participating in a campaign of lies and deceit. The lies and deceit of the opposition have to stop. At the end of the day it is nothing but lies, when it comes to pathology.
My colleague here, the member for Macarthur, and I were discussing this really top-quality fact sheet that we came across called 'Facts about Medicare—the truth'. The truth is that you can go out there with your scare and deceit campaign, stating that this miniscule budget change to payments to pathology providers—between $1.40 and $3.40—will mean a $30 increase in pathology fees. That is a load of rubbish. This quality fact sheet that we have states the truth: the government has made no changes to Medicare rebates for pathology services, including common blood tests and Pap smears. Changes that were announced in the MYEFO relate to the payment worth between $1.40 and $3.40 that is paid directly to the pathology corporation. It is separate from the Medicare rebate. It has nothing to do with patient's Medicare rebate.
Mr Conroy interjecting—
The member for Charlton thinks it is all a big joke. Maybe you should sign up for the dental program. Anyway, a recent report produced by the Grattan Institute confirms that there is no justifiable ground for large pathology corporations to introduce a $30 co-payment for blood, urine and Pap smear tests, based on the loss of a small payment worth $1.40 to $3.40.
This is not about the patient. This is about the shareholders. The hypocrisy of those opposite! You have no credibility whatsoever on this issue. In government, you cut $550 million from pathology services. It is disheartening that we see the opposition leader, the Labor Party and an HSU advocate and paid staff of the Central Coast Local Health District out there peddling lies, creating a scaremongering campaign, and using panic examples, which we have heard here today during the MPI, of our most vulnerable community members—panic examples none of which are verified.
Labor is always intent on scaring the Australian public. Why does their modus operandi always include making up campaigns that deliberately mislead the Australian public? They are scaremongering, because what else have they got? They talk about their positive plan, but what is the positive plan? All we are hearing is negativity, negativity, negativity. We have not heard a positive thing yet. All we hear about is your campaign of lies and deceit. You are trying to distract the public from the truth about your weak negative gearing policy.
Opposition members interjecting—
You can laugh now, but the Australian public are not going to like it when there is a shortage of rental properties and you cannot allow people to invest in their homes. Property values will go down and you are stopping people from investment. (Time expired)
In talking about health, it is interesting to note that the federal minister will not come to the table. The lead speaker could not spend one minute talking about their positive policies, and the last speaker got stuck on negative gearing, because that is apparently to do with health. It just shows that when it comes to health, that side of the House have absolutely nothing. They are a collective of empty shells that do nothing but make cuts to health. Let us talk about what they are doing.
We do not know who would lead a re-elected Turnbull-Abbott government. They do not even know. In the last sitting week, the Prime Minister refused to confirm that he will stay the full term. But what we do know is that a re-elected Turnbull-Abbott government will cut another $60 billion in health, they will sell off Medicare piece by piece and they will bring back their GP tax, which this so-called obstructionist Senate is stopping. Had it not been for Labor, every Australian would be paying, at a minimum, an extra $7 to go to the doctors. The government will continue their perverse cuts to pathology and diagnostic imaging. It surprises me to say this, but Prime Minister Turnbull is actually worse than Tony Abbott. Not many people would believe that, but that is actually how it is going. He has gone places that even Abbott would be too scared to go!
So let us talk about health and let us talk about what happened. I take up the comment of the member for Dobell that $57 billion in health cuts is 'miniscule'. That just shows how arrogant, out of touch and empty that lot over there are. In the three years that we were in government that I was here for, we looked at 22 cancer clinics across this nation—$3.2 billion invested in rural and regional areas. Those opposite want to attack the super clinics. We have two in our area: one in my area, in Wallan, and one in my neighbour the member for Scullin's electorate.
How many did you finish?
The Bass yabby wants to open his mouth! The government were too chicken to open them. They would not open them because they were a Labor policy. What the clinics have done is cut waiting lists for people to see doctors, and they have also meant better health outcomes for the community.
How many did you open? What was the target?
So while you sit there, babble on and carry on in your own little world, let us look at what we did. We also spent $4.95 billion on health, and health is a very important thing. In fact, it was so important that the Liberal Party arranged for their own branch members to come and cut the ribbon and do the opening! Those opposite voted against the rural and regional national health and hospital fund. Every rural and regional member in this House that sits on that side should hang their head in shame, because they did not support better outcomes in rural and regional health. We spent $4.95 billion and the only thing that the minister would turn up for was to cut the ribbon. Those opposite would not support it. They would not go there and say, 'We don't think you deserve this,' but that is exactly what their actions did. Their actions said very clearly that rural and regional people do not matter. Those opposite did not want to support the building of these facilities; they did not want to support rural and regional people.
We had the member for Bowman talking about the old dental scheme that was in place. That was the scheme that the so-called economic geniuses of the Liberal Party—
You killed off the chronic dental scheme.
We did. It was budgeted for $90 million per annum and it spend $90 million a month—12 times what you budgeted for! Seriously, you people should not be in charge of lunch money. You cannot count. We brought in something that has actually helped two million young Australians—making sure kids get good access to dental care. Those opposite want to cut it; they want to remove it. Why do they hate kids and good teeth? Every single medical report supports exactly what happened: our dental scheme means that kids get better teeth and better health outcomes. These are the things that matter to people.
Now those opposite want to off-load Medicare overseas. They want to have your patient records sent overseas and not processed here in Australia. For a government that is supposed to talk about jobs, so far all we have learnt is that they want to send jobs to Spain, they want to send jobs from the Australian Taxation Office to the Philippines, and now they want to offshore Medicare. It is an absolute joke that the government could get worse than the Tony Abbott government, but they have. They have, because every one of those members opposite is an empty vessel that does not support health, does not support universal health care and has never actually backed it. From the day Medibank was brought in to today, they have had this— (Time expired)
The member for McEwen has just regaled us, and in so doing, he has proved to me one thing: he is the political equivalent of a threatened species. He may well become an endangered species. Who knows? He might not be here to talk about the future of health care.
For those that are listening to this debate, I will make one statement, and it is clear: you would not believe it from what has occurred in this chamber today, but both sides of this House are committed to universal health care. Nothing could be truer than that statement. It is a fundamental truism, and no amount of hyperventilation on the part of those opposite will make that not so.
I was reflecting on the fact that this is a discussion of a matter of public importance, but really, to be honest, it is a matter of rank hypocrisy. Maybe we should change the name of what we do after question time, because Mr Deputy Speaker Broadbent, you know, because you have been in this place much longer than me, that it was Labor that introduced the freeze on the MBS indexation and Labor also cut funding from the extended Medicare safety net and from a range of Medicare item numbers, including GP mental health services. So I will not—and I think those on this side of the chamber ought not—accept lectures from those opposite about MBS indexation arrangements. Quite frankly, despite the amount of hyperbole that I have heard from those opposite in respect of this matter of rank hypocrisy, their record speaks for themselves.
You do not necessarily need to take my view of this; there are others that have indicated that there is a need for reform. In fact, Nicola Roxon, in her capacity as Minister for Health and Ageing in October 2011, said:
Without reform and a careful and methodical approach, the system—
That is Medicare or the MBS—
will cannibalise itself. Because in health there is a continuous clamour for more and more funding with no regard to where the money comes from.
So what are we going about doing? Well, what we are going about doing is what you would expect of an adult government: we are undertaking a review. We are looking at 5,700 Medicare items with a view to ensuring they are clinically contemporary and effective. This is the kind of rational, sensible policymaking that those opposite were too lazy or perhaps too short-sighted to achieve in their six years in government.
Having embarked upon that process of rational review and clinical consideration, why do those opposite shriek about what we do?
They shriek about what we do because they know that it is critical. They know that the cost of Medicare to the Commonwealth has blown out from $8 billion 10 years ago to $20 billion currently, and in 10 years time it will be $34 billion. So there is a need, in the management of the economy, which we are responsible for, to ensure that we are careful about this. Why do we need to be careful about this? We need to be careful about this—I wind all the way back to the beginning—because we are committed to universal health care.
Those opposite say that we are undermining Medicare. Unfortunately for them, 275 million Medicare services were provided to patients in the 2013-14 year. More than four out of five of those services were free to patients—that is 80 per cent. Australians access more than a million MBS services per day. That is the highest level the system has reached since its inception.
Why are we talking about Medicare? We are talking about Medicare because Labor cannot help themselves; they simply revert to type, and their type is to run these not-so-scary scare campaigns—and this is another example of it. I remind those listening that we are dealing with a matter of public importance, which I think should properly be described as a 'matter of rank hypocrisy'. In any event, they revert to type because they know that, if they campaign on their recently announced package regarding negative gearing, they will be punished at the ballot box. I have it on reasonable authority that,8 when the proponents of their negative gearing policy walked into the caucus room and proposed it, most people on the other side thought they were talking about putting the car in reverse. We are here talking about Medicare because they do not want to talk about their policy of negative gearing— (Time expired)
The discussion is concluded. I thank all members who participated.
I rise today to speak on and totally support the Biological Control Amendment Bill 2016. Amongst a number of things, this bill amends the definition of an organism for the purpose of the Biological Control Act 1984 to specifically include viruses and sub-viral agents. It also omits the term 'live' from references to organisms.
One of the areas I am most passionate about in relation to this bill is the proposal to start the process for release of the cyprinid herpesvirus 3 for the control of common carp known as the European carp, Cyprinus carpio. I announced this initial program at the Australian Fishing Tackle Association gala dinner on the Gold Coast on 27 July last year. All of those assembled from the fishing industry were extremely excited, because it is an opportunity to get rid of the carp biomass which fills our inland waterways, particularly through the Murray-Darling Basin. At that time I was Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment and had responsibility for the Murray-Darling Basin Plan.
Everyone, from fishers to farmers to environmentalists—the community as a whole—supports this program. This virus is specific to carp—carp only. It does not transmit to our native species. The CSIRO and others have been doing exhaustive testing. It does not transmit to our native birds or mammals; it is carp specific. It gives us the opportunity to remove 80 to 90 per cent of the carp biomass from our rivers.
The carp introduced over 100 years ago have been detrimental to our inland rivers. As I travelled the Murray-Darling Basin, many people would say to me: 'I remember, as a boy, this river was clear. We used to go down there, and—whether it was catching the hardyhead or the Murray cod or the perch—there was no problem. Then the carp started to explode in their population.' The carp destroy the bottom; they create their own environment. Destroying the existing environment stops the breeding habitat of our native fish.
This program is critically important, but it probably still has two years to run before it can be fully implemented. A number of issues still need to be addressed in relation to the rollout. A benefit of this program is that we will we see a reduction in the turbidity of the water. Remember that most of this water is potable water, not only for our cattle but also for human consumption. If you have travelled these waterways, you will know that they are almost a soft lime green in colour as a result of the turbidity in the water. The carp destroy the bottom, they destroy the vegetation and they destroy the habitat and breeding grounds of our native fish. That is why we have seen a reduction in our native fish stocks, particularly throughout the Murray-Darling Basin.
Implementing this virus will reduce the number of carp. But that is perhaps where we will face the biggest issue. As we termed it at the time, it will need a 'Team Australia' approach. We have a selective rollout of this virus, and the effect on the carp will be such that it will take approximately two to four days to kill them. We need to get the carp out of the water. We cannot allow the carp to die and break down in the water in these volumes, because it will exacerbate the situation in relation to the potability of the water. It will not be good for the cattle. It might be good for farmers to put on their paddocks, with the increased protein, but it is not good for cattle and not particularly good for humans. If we do not get the carp out of the water, there will be an increased cost in treating the water so that it is fit for people to drink. So we need a 'Team Australia' approach. It does not matter whether you are the National Farmers' Federation, the National Irrigators' Council, the Australian Conservation Foundation, the recreational fishers or the tourists—we need the whole of the community to come together under a 'Team Australia' approach.
In the process and the plan put forward by the Invasive Animals Cooperative Research Centre, there is an education program to be embarked on. Whether it is using the whole of the community or indeed getting new people into a Green Army style project, we need to focus on individual areas, work backwards from the mouth of the river—because the virus will not travel as quickly upriver because of the flowing water—and get the carp out of the water.
It is estimated that there could be one, two or three million tonnes of carp. We also know that, roughly, the biomass of carp in our river system is about 80 to 90 per cent of the total, so it is a big problem. Once this virus is released there is no turning back. Once it is in the water, it is in the water. It has proven effective in other countries that have released it into their water systems for the removal of the carp. The issue that we have is getting the carp out of the water system. The process of evaluation has been ongoing. The process of education needs to begin and the process of building the teams to address the situation will become urgent.
Of course there is a cost associated to this, estimated to be at least $50 million. This $50 million is a lot of money, but I believe that it can be structured out of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan through the sale of Commonwealth environmental water. The excess water that they have could fund it. It could be addressed as part of a structural adjustment mechanism funding plan, because it improves the river and, as you improve the river, there will be a multitude of benefits downstream to all those who are involved. What we need to do, though, is not repeat the cane toad episode. That is why these measures and biological security controls are being put into place and it is why the exhaustive testing is being undertaken. We do not need to repeat the cane toad issue, but we do need to remove the carp from our water system.
A number of people that have come out particularly strongly, and one of the people who is very strong on this—who also happens to be one of my constituents—is a researcher with the New South Wales Department of Primary Industries. He is an amazing young man named Matt Barwick. Matt Barwick is an expert on this and he has been studying the upside and the possible downsides. He has been a part of building the plan. He is one of the key organisers and orchestrators of this virus release control program.
They say it will be two years before it can be introduced. I do not want it introduced until we are 100 per cent sure and we know it will be effective, but I also do not want it delayed unnecessarily and in particular I do not want it delayed because of financial constraints. As I said, there is a possible cost estimated at around $50 million to introduce this. It is estimated that the economic impact of the carp in our river system is around $500 million a year.
I want you to consider a future with clean, healthy rivers. There is less cost in treating the water for a potable water supply—you do not get all the sediments and the suspended matter in there creating the turbid green water, so you reduce costs there. Importantly, you will increase tourism. You will increase tourism into our inland river systems, which benefits regional and rural Australia because people will go there fishing. They will go there fishing to catch their dream fish, the Murray cod. They will go fishing to catch their perch, their hardyheads or their redfin. I must admit, the redfin is a species introduced into Australia, but it is not creating the environmental damage that the European carp is.
As we increase the tourism in regional towns, it will actually help to pick up some of the slack caused by the cyclic peaks that occur with the agricultural industry. It provides greater continuity. It provides greater cash flow for all those businesses in those towns—not just the fishing tackle shops, but the camping grounds, the hotels, the restaurants, the fuel shops and, in fact, everyone in these towns. I cannot stress how important it is to put this control agent, the CyHV-3 herpesvirus, into our water as soon as possible.
The CSIRO, through their Australian Animal Health Laboratory, have been doing extensive research. They advise me that the virus does not threaten any native species. I know they have said that before, but what is important is that they have also tested 14 fish species, as well as crustaceans, mammals and birds, to be confident there will be no transfer to native species. These species include our iconic Murray cod, the silver perch and the golden perch, and a few more fish, amphibians and reptiles are currently being tested. What is also critical to understand, before people get excited about introducing this virus into the water, is that the virus is not able to be transmitted to human beings, and that is important.
What are the downsides? After fairly forensic examination of this whole process, the only downside is if we do not come together as 'Team Australia' and work to get the carp out of the water. There needs to be management plans put into place once these carp are removed—we do not want a stinking biomass sitting on the bank of the river. We need to look at ways of utilising them for fertiliser and perhaps for animal feed. We need to do something with them, but we need to plan ahead. We need to fund that plan and fund it effectively and efficiently so that there are no hiccups on the way. As I said, once the virus is released into the water, it will spread, so we have to step up to the plate, manage the situation and deliver a real outcome for all Australians.
There are many other positive aspects to this bill, particularly in relation to rabbits. As a young fellow growing up, I remember the plagues of rabbits as I would travel. They introduced myxomatosis, and that knocked them over for a while, but they got used to that. Then they introduced calicivirus, and that knocked a large number of rabbits over, but again they are getting used to the virus and developing measures within their system which stop it being so effective. One of the other parts of this bill is allowing for the introduction of a new strain or additive to the calicivirus, which will have further impacts on rabbits.
Australia would be a wonderful place if our forefathers had not introduced European carp, foxes and rabbits—or, indeed, deer—to Australia. These have all been destructive to our environment. Unfortunately it is hard to eradicate all of them, but where we have an opportunity, and particularly with carp, we must seize that opportunity. Or, as I said at the speech, what we have to have is 'carp diem'. We have to seize the day and we have to remove the carp. I strongly commend this bill to the House.
In dealing with the organisms and defining what we mean in the regulations pursuant to the various acts involved, previous members speaking on the Biological Control Amendment Bill 2016 have all talked about the problems of introduced species, and I have the unenviable task of representing in this place two of the worst fatalities to the Australian environment. Get a map of North Queensland's midwest plains, where you could drive for some 600 kilometres and just watch rolling, rich black soil plains as far as the eye can see, on either side of the road. The sun map of Queensland says that across this area are the best natural grasslands in Australia. The map does not now say that, because seven million hectares, an area the size of Tasmania, has been heavily infested with the prickly acacia tree. And I think we are now ready: the minister could take cognisance of the fact that although we have had a lot of fighting about how to go about eradicating this plant we now have it right, and the time to strike upon this pestilence is now.
The most endangered species in Australia—except for Australian farmers and railway workers!—is the Julia Creek dunnart. It is a pretty little fellow, a bit like a miniature kangaroo, if you like. It is a carnivore, and it eats insects. The insects lived on the Flinders and Mitchell grasses, the natural grasses for this area, which are excellent grasses for cattle, sheep, kangaroos or whatever. But the grasses have been replaced with the prickly acacia tree, which has no leaves on it for most of the year. It shoots a bit of green leaf, after the wet season, and then that's it; it lies dormant and is just a big mass of prickles for the rest of the year, so there is nothing for the insects to live on. The grass does not grow under these trees. So the insect is gone, and of course they are the food for the dunnart, so it is rapidly racing towards extinction.
And I cannot help but mention the colossal damage done by the green movement in this country. I took my grandchildren to the museum in Brisbane, where they had the most endangered species in Australia, and, quite rightly, it was the dunnart. It said that the danger to the dunnart was because of hard-hoofed animals 'pugging down the ground'. For a good laugh, it would be hard to beat this one. The ground is on all the geographical maps as vertisol soil—cracking clays. For 600 kilometres in the latter part of the year, if the ground is cracked open, down to a depth of two feet, it just cracks. And we have no less an institution than the Queensland Museum—it obviously got this information from some other ratbag organisation—saying that it is the pugging down of the ground that is destroying the habitat for the Julia Creek dunnart. Vertisol soils, which to a layman are cracking clays, by very definition cannot 'pug down'. This is all very funny, but it gives some dimension to how science in Australia has been raped and pillaged by the green movement in this country. If you go back 30 years, I think a lot of people like myself would probably have been regarded as a bit green, but never did we see or envisage the sort of extremism and antiscience that has set in. These are people for whom, if it does not fit in with their view of where Australia should be going, then it is wrong. They cannot see scientific reality, and here was a classic case of it.
The toads: I find that the only efficient way to dispatch with toads—my son bashes them on the head with a golf club or something like that, because they poison one of his dogs, continuously—is with an air rifle. That is the quintessential implement for removing a toad—nice, clean, quick, and away it goes. My wife has run around with plastic bags, and has poured disinfectant, and all sorts of weird and wonderful things, and that is not where we want to go here at all.
I think the most important, serious issue that continuously vexes us all over Australia—from the botanical gardens in Melbourne to the street of Cairns in Far North Queensland, but my home town of Charters Towers is one of the places that has been most devastated—is flying foxes. In Charters Towers some 50,000 of them harbour fairly regularly in a beautiful park that was on the best-selling Christmas card in Australia one year—the old Boer War memorial band rotunda in the middle of the park, with magnificent trees, some of them 130 or 140 years old, some of them towering up some 100 feet. They are all destroyed, all gone. No-one is game to set foot in the park, because the ground is covered by the flying foxes' droppings, and they are in the trees, so they can drop their droppings on you while you are walking around. And these animals are carrying the most terrifying diseases. The Nipah disease in the Malaysian isthmus is an Ebola-like disease. Around 250 people contracted the disease and 116 died of the disease. Those bats—flying foxes—from there carried the disease south into Indonesia, and Indonesian bats carried them south into Australia. So let's start with Nipah.
The SARS virus, which reportedly killed some 200 people in eastern Asia, is also carried by flying foxes. In some cases they are the delivering vector; in other cases they are the originating vector, but this we are absolutely certain of: the bats carry a lyssavirus. Every person who has ever contracted lyssavirus in Australia has died. The 60 Minutes program showed the agonising death of a little boy on an island where there are still bats. I hope and pray that someday somebody comes along and pursues the Minister for Health in the Queensland government and sues them personally under the criminal clauses of the negligence common laws of Australia. I have never been a person who has advocated putting people in jail, but when you know that this danger is there and you can remove it, and you do absolutely nothing, then you are responsible. I have no hesitation in saying to the Minister for Health in Queensland, whoever it might be: when people contract this disease it is your responsibility to remove those flying foxes from population centres. It is so simple. People in Charters Towers had terrible trouble and they kept their lawnmower running underneath the trees for two or three days. And God bless them, because we now know that is one sure way of getting rid of them. Put a radio in the tree and turn it on full volume. In the case of Charters Towers park, put radios in the trees. The beautiful centre of our town has been completely destroyed. Trees, some of them 150 years old, are completely destroyed. I would be very loath to allow children to run around in that park. In the days of my youth, we used to play football on it barefoot.
I will go through the diseases. Firstly, there is lyssavirus, which is a rabies type disease. Everyone who has got it has died. There is the hendra virus—it would appear that two out of every six people who have contracted the hendra virus have died. They tested 119 bats—most of the bats were ones that had fallen out of the trees or had been involved in an incident with human beings—and 16 of them tested positive for lyssavirus. In other words, they had had lyssavirus or, at that moment, still had the disease in their systems—a disease that is very transferable to human beings. So, you have hendra and lyssavirus and you have leptospirosis. I rang up one of the doctors—I think it is probably best if I do not mention the town—and, reading between the lines, I said, 'This looks like leptospirosis.' He said, 'The doctor diagnosed it as flu, and the symptoms were almost identical.' I said, 'Is that two?' and he said, 'No, it is three deaths in the last 15 months that I would have diagnosed as leptospirosis. They were not my patients, but if they were I am certain I would have diagnosed it as leptospirosis and they would be alive today.' I do not think it is an exaggeration to say we are probably losing five to 10 people every year in North Queensland from either (a) leptospirosis or (b) doctors misdiagnosing. I am not blaming the doctors, because it is very difficult to separate one from the other. Everyone comes in with a bout of flu. Are we going to test them for leptospirosis? Probably we should—I am just saying it is another disease. Salmonella is another disease, and in the countries just north of us they have Nipah, which killed 116 people in one outbreak, and SARS, which killed over 200 people in the last outbreak. All of them are being carried by this fairly dirty animal.
I am part of a family that have lived in North Queensland for 150 years or more—I am dark and come from Cloncurry, and I often claim that I have First Australians somewhere in the family tree—and we have no memory of flying foxes being in these numbers. I have been on the planet for going on to three-quarters of a century, and I have never, ever seen the proliferation of flying foxes such as is taking place today. I have heard the pathetic ravings of the green brigade. They will say, 'We have invaded their habitat.' In the days when these towns were little tiny hamlets of 100 people, there were no flying foxes. You would not see a flying fox in a million years in a place like Charters Towers. Its natural condition is very barren and arid. You will not find any self-respecting flying fox in the old, ubiquitous ironbark trees—that is for certain—or in the bloodwood trees. These are the local, natural species. You will not even find them in a black wattle tree. But you will find them in the mango trees and the fruit trees in your backyard and in the beautiful myriad of other trees that we grow for their beauty and their flowering. We human beings, homo sapiens, were the species that created a paradise there, and it is the flying foxes that have invaded that paradise. For the First Australians, the boomerang is actually an instrument shaped particularly for taking out a flying fox, but I do not have time tonight to go into that. (Time expired)
I join others that have contributed to the debate on this bill to amend the Biological Control Act 1984. Those of us that live in regional Australia understand the impacts of biosecurity threats, dealt with through biological control mechanisms, such as those outlined by the member for Kennedy and, certainly, the member for Paterson before him. They go to how important it is for our ability as a nation to produce food and fibre, and also protect the environment that we are indeed blessed with in this country. So I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate on the Biological Control Amendment Bill 2016.
The member for Paterson's contribution was specifically around the issues of cyprinid herpesvirus 3, for the control of common carp, which is relevant to my state and relevant to my electorate, where the only incursion of European carp has occurred in two lakes in Tasmania, those being the adjacent lakes Lake Crescent and Lake Sorell. Through the extraordinary work and passion of Inland Fisheries Services in Tasmania—John Diggle, Chris Wisniewski and others—although it was said eradicating carp could not be done, they are well on their way at Lake Crescent. I particularly thank Greg Hunt, the Minister for the Environment, for the support that the Commonwealth government has shown to the Tasmanian government to manage and continue the work to eradicate, through largely mechanical means, the carp in both Lake Crescent and, increasingly, Lake Sorell. It was said it could not be done, but, as I said, Lake Crescent is a living example that it can. It is expected that, within the next 12 to 18 months, the last of the European carp that have been found in Lake Sorell will also be captured and destroyed. It is no mean task, because you only need one fertile female for the infestation to start all over again, all of sudden.
They have used a number of mechanisms, from netting to tracking—putting tracking devices on key species to be able to identify where the fish are in the lake at any one time. Ironically, the very dry period that we are experiencing in Tasmania has added to the ability to get on top of and hopefully eradicate that invasive species, which is quite extraordinary. I had the opportunity a number of months ago to fly out of Hobart and see the very deep blue of the lakes that you typically see in the Central Highlands. Lake Crescent was clearly a lake that was recovering, the carp having been removed, and it was a different colour, and you could see the brownness, the muddiness, that was quite evident at Lake Sorell, which is still a work in progress.
I note also, within this amendment bill, the highlighting of gorse, which is an invasive species that has proliferated in Tasmania over a very long period of time and has caused huge economic losses to many landowners as well as environmental impacts, not least of all in providing a habitat for the rabbits that were introduced so many years ago into this country. There are strategies in place to remove gorse, but it has become truly an invasive species of the first order.
This afternoon I want to focus most of my comments on a really tragic situation that exists at the moment in Tasmania, and that relates to POMS, or Pacific oyster mortality syndrome, a virus known as ostreid herpesvirus-1 microvariant. The disease has caused very high mortality rates in farmed Pacific oysters in Europe, in New Zealand, in South Korea and in Australia—in New South Wales. It does not affect any other oyster species. But it has also recently been discovered in the south-east of Tasmania, with tragic consequences, in areas including, in my electorate, the lower Pitt Water, the upper Pitt Water, Blackman Bay, Little Swanport and Dunalley Bay; and, in the member for Franklin's electorate, Pipe Clay Lagoon. It has also been confirmed in a population of wild oysters in the Derwent estuary. There is a suspicion also of infection at Great Bay on Bruny Island. It is presenting a challenge not only to the oyster farmers, and the small businesses that most of them are, but also to the state government in terms of developing an appropriate response to a disease of this magnitude. It has attracted a great deal of media attention.
I had the privilege—dubious, I guess—of hosting a meeting at Dunalley on Tuesday of last week, along with my Senate colleagues Senator Abetz and Senator Parry, and Senate candidate Jonno Duniam, with representatives of the oyster industry in Tasmania, including Oysters Tasmania, represented by Neil Stump; Cremorne Pacific Oysters; Bing-i-Oysters; Marion Bay Oysters; Fulham Aquaculture and Bangor Wine and Oyster Shed, represented by Tom Gray; and Cameron oysters. Cameron's is a business that not only breeds oysters for sale but also operates one of the largest hatcheries in the state. This has affected their local customers as well, albeit that the biosecurity risk has been deemed such that the state government have allowed movement of oysters from the Cameron's hatchery to clean areas within the state. That is a really positive sign. In the past, 80 per cent of Australia's Pacific oyster spat has been provided out of Tasmania and at the moment the restrictions are still in place, most notably with South Australia. There are also Barilla Bay oysters; Oyster Lease No. 96; angasi oysters at Taranna; Blue Lagoon Oysters—Sue Madden and Phil Glover hosted us at their facility; Southern Cross Marine Culture, Dr Tim Pauley; and others. It was a very well-attended event.
A number of things came out of that. Indeed, the Commonwealth stands ready to assist in a number of different ways, when the industry is clear about its strategies. It really is about focusing on the future, and out of this adversity there will be the capacity to build a more resilient, more robust and more diversified industry that will be able to live with the reality of POMS being part of the industry in which they are involved. That is how the future must be. It will involve producing spat and breeding oysters that have resistant characteristics, and I believe that, with resolve and with goodwill and support from both state and Commonwealth governments, this industry can continue to thrive and be a very important sector for our state. As I say, a couple of key points came out of the briefing that I was privileged to host. I thank all of those businesses I have just mentioned for attending and for the time and the insights they provided me and senators and candidates who attended the briefing. It was about future proofing, if you will, the industry—the concept of the potential for a strategic working group comprising state, federal, industry and grower representatives, and looking at the long-term consequences for the industry and what facilities and catalysts for support are needed to rebuild a new and more robust industry with the knowledge from this experience that has been gained over the last few months, albeit a very difficult experience. We have to be cognisant that each business will need to have different strategies and the outcome has to be flexible to accommodate those different business operations where possible. There are indeed some talented people there, not least of all Dr Tim Pauley, who I am sure will be able to make worthwhile contributions to such a strategy.
The other suggestion that came out was a media campaign, or an education campaign, to encourage awareness about the fact that the consumption of those oysters that are available for sale present no concern for human beings. It is important to note that any oysters from Tasmania, or other areas of Australia, that have been impacted by POMS are as healthy and as tasty as ever. The impact that it has had on those fish—they are really just a hollowed out shell—is truly extraordinary. A lot of these people are significantly in hock to their financiers and so at this stage their lenders have been cooperative, they have been understanding and I think that that is testament to the quality of those businesses and I hope there will be an opportunity for them to continue to rebuild. An education and a media campaign can also highlight to customers and consumers that it is likely that there will be a price rise in these products in the near term. We can think about those foods that are a commodity—if you take a restaurant in Melbourne or wherever it might be, whether it is Crown Casino or somewhere else, if you think about the products that they order every week, there is seasonal fish and there are seasonal meats and different things but the staple is oysters. There is always a dozen oysters for sale at nearly every restaurant around Australia. I think there needs to be an awareness campaign about the fact that oysters may well need to be repriced as a way of supporting the industry. That is certainly not something that we would want to see those large purchasers of oysters taking advantage of. As I mentioned before, there has been a biosecurity restriction lifted for the movement of oysters around the state, and that is good news because none of the hatcheries in the state have tested positive at all to the virus. I mentioned that over 80 per cent of all Pacific oysters supplied in Australia come from my home state, and one would hope that no other restrictions are put in place by other states given that the biosecurity restriction has now been lifted.
The town of Dunalley went through bushfires in 2013 and that was indeed a tragic experience—over 30 per cent of the population left the area at that time. Already 70 people have lost their jobs in that region and we want to make sure that we can retain in the area the skills and the knowledge that those people have built up through their employment in the region. I am having conversations with Minister Hunt about specific Green Army projects that may well be able to engage those employees who have unfortunately, tragically, been put off to, for example, recover all the shells and do the clean-up work that needs to occur so we can retain them in the area and they can be the base of a new industry.
The Biological Control Amendment Bill 2016 makes the legislative amendments required to support national programs for the biological control of damaging pests and weeds. How many of us remember learning about the cactoblastis moth that was the biological control for prickly pear? Some of us first found out about the positive control relationship when studying high school science; others were only first acquainted when studying environmental biology at university. It allowed us to see the intricate and complicated life cycle relationships that can be beneficial for our environment. Ultimately, the agricultural base was helped by other initiatives in this biological control. Most of those controls related to the use of invertebrate and plant cycle relationships, and from that other strategies were developed which involved the use of natural virus enemies for different species.
The bill before the House clarifies the definition of an organism under the Biological Control Act 1984 to reflect the use of viruses and subviral agents or an agent organism to target organisms for biological control activities. This is consistent with the requirements of national biological control programs for pests and weeds that impact agricultural production and the environment; and it is aligned with the original intent of the act.
Viruses are known to be effective agents for biological control and have been used successfully in Australia to control wild rabbit populations. Rabbits were first brought to Australia as a ready source of food for the early settlers. They were far more used to catching and cooking rabbits as a meat source than they were trying to mimic the catching and cooking techniques for kangaroos and goannas used by our first peoples. They were a great food source and the rabbits were true to their description—they were admirably suited to the Australian environment and soon agricultural lands were being compromised because they 'bred like rabbits' and they were everywhere. The associated economic and environmental impacts needed to be addressed. The combined effect of myxoma virus, or myxomatosis, released in Australia during the 1950s and then calicivirus, the rabbit haemorrhagic disease virus, which was released in1996, limits wild rabbit populations to about 15 per cent of their potential numbers.
In some scientific circles, the concept of a virus being considered as a living organism is yet a subject of debate. For anything to be listed as a living organism it must be able to reproduce; viruses need a host to reproduce. In light of this debate, the bill clarifies the definition of an organism for the purpose of this act, and omits the term 'live' to remove any ambiguity. The bill provides strengthened legislative authority for future biological control programs where scientific consensus recommends the use of viruses or subviral agents as an agent or target organism. By removing any doubt about the status of a virus under the act, the bill provides greater certainty for stakeholders who deliver and/or benefit from biological control programs, including government agencies, researchers, farmers, land managers and the general community.
The act only applies to the Australian Capital Territory, including Jervis Bay, which is a neighbourhood of Gilmore. The act is already supported by mirror biological control legislation in all the other states and the Northern Territory. So a very clear definition for biological control is that it is an important tool for managing these invasive pests and weeds that impact on agriculture and the environment by using the pest's natural enemies. Biological control agents include insects, fungi, bacteria and viruses that specifically target a pest. Typically there is also a need to have an active human involvement in the management role—that is, we usually have to introduce that biological control.
Unfortunately, biocontrol is not a silver bullet and will not solve all of Australia's invasive species problems, because effective agents are not always found. In the case of the two rabbit viruses—myxomatosis and calicivirus—virus-host co-evolution has led to a decline in effectiveness of the viruses over time, as rabbits have developed or attained resistance to them. This is similar to how bacteria can develop resistance to antibiotics. As a result, we are continuing to search for new strains to counteract these effects. Government, in conjunction with scientific research, is applying skills to provide solutions for managing invasive species of national significance including: mammals, predominately rabbits; fish, starting with carp; weeds that affect agriculture and/or the environment; and invertebrate pests.
There are some significant case studies. CSIRO scientists, for example, are undertaking rigorous tests to determine the safety and suitability of the candidate biocontrol agent, cyprinid herpesvirus 3, in managing European carp numbers in Australia. Some may ask: so what? Carp was introduced quite a number of years ago to facilitate some of our European residents' love of this particular fish. It too has been a very disruptive and damaging environmental addition; it has out-competed many of our natural species by increasing the turbidity of rivers and creeks, as it is a bottom feeder and kicks up the mud. Our recreational fishermen and women find great joy in catch and release of trout on many of our waterways and sometimes they bag enough for a meal. There is a significant associated amateur fishing industry which brings seasonal tourism to many parts of Australia, particularly the inland, where this is a favourite past-time, but there has been a significant decline in the ability to hold such events as the species competition with carp has been extraordinary and has led to a decline in freshwater fish population diversity overall.
Jervis Bay, which is referred to in particular in this amendment to the bill, is a magnificent destination. Large tracts of the bay have been set aside as protected marine parks in order to preserve the species diversity and population number increase. There is no way that we should not be in a position to protect all the species in this environment with biological control, where applicable.
We as a nation still need to control rabbits, as they have developed some resistance. Initially, the release of the two rabbit biocontrol agents led to a dramatic reduction of Australia's rabbit population. That reduction has recovered more than $70 billion to the agricultural industries since 1950. There still needs to be a lot more research into the methods of overcoming that resistance. Even in the coastal villages in Gilmore we are overrun by rabbits and very often we run over them on the road, because they run everywhere.
Another school-learning memory is evoked when we mention the dung beetles, which in their behavioural pattern bury dung and, as a consequence, reduce bush flies. Now there is another dung beetle which will continue this amazing process. Of course, the economic gains are related to a reduction of fly attacks on our livestock and, as a consequence, a better value at the saleyards.
In 2014, CSIRO researchers released French and Spanish spring-active Onthophagus vacca and Bubus bubalus dung beetles in Australia's latest effort to improve dung burial. Burying dung improves pasture productivity, sequesters carbon and controls buffalo and bush flies. We are all aware that biological control is essential for weeds, and there is a growing demand by producers for an agent that tackles Crofton weed, also known as sticky snakeroot or Mexican devil. It has been smothering the native bush in Australia since the early 1900s, but now the release of a new biological control agent brings in hope to manage this invasive weed. During the 1990s, I was a part owner of land near Oberon. The previous owners had allowed serrated tussock, Yass tussock, blackberries, thistles and so many weeds to prosper that several paddocks could only carry three head of cattle. Manual and chemical removal were the only form of control. So there is much work to be done on further research against so many other species. Manual removal is slow and tedious, but so too is biological research.
When I moved to Gilmore, there was a delightful looking yellow daisy in many of the paddocks, yet others nearby were completely clear. This intrigued me until I spoke to some of the farmers. I was looking at none other than fireweed, a toxic plant that sterilizes a paddock until the plant is completely eradicated. We do actually have a program for biological research for fireweed—a cooperative venture with research in South Africa. Naturally, there is always a need for extended funding as it takes many seasons to establish effectiveness of any biological control method. There have been villages in Africa where the seeds of the fireweed have been accidently mixed with cropping seeds, ground and baked in native breads, and the whole village has become ill, with many dying as a consequence.
Initially, I pursued an unusual pathway for eradication of this weed. It involved the allocation of correctional service clients to carry out the task of manual removal. This could have had two major benefits: one was the eradication of the noxious weed and the other was a possible reduction in recidivism, because anyone who has had the task of removing fireweed would never want to be in a place where they had to do it again. However, farms are seen as private property, so, consequently, that was not a possibility. Biological control seems to be the best solution in this case.
This brings me back to the central focus of the bill at hand—amendments to include viruses as part of the spectrum of organisms for biological control. I have only touched lightly on the economic benefits of biological control. While the following quote relates specifically to the control of weeds, it is equally applicable to other aspects of biological control and lays a foundation for future research directions. According to R McFadyen's keynote paper written for the Cooperative Research Centre for Australian Weed Management, Return on investment: determining the economic impact of biological control programmes:
In >100 years of weed biological control, few economic impact assessments of biological control programmes have been undertaken, and all were successes. Yet biological control is still largely paid for by governments, who need proof of the return on their investment. Cost/benefit analyses can also be used to rank biological control against other management methods. A recent economic impact assessment of all weed biological control undertaken in Australia since 1903, including both successes and failures, demonstrated annual benefits of $95.3 million from an average annual investment of $4.3 million (Aus$, 2005 values), a cost/benefit ratio of 23:1. Even with the enormous economic impact of the prickly pear success excluded, the cost/benefit ratio of all other programmes was 12:1. The benefit came from 17 successful programmes: two, which are usually considered failures, in fact returned strongly positive benefits because small reductions in the weed problem nevertheless resulted in considerable cost savings.
The scarcity of economic studies has many causes: long period from commencement to full field results; difficulties in assigning monetary values to biodiversity and social impacts; and difficulties in assessing impacts of biological control. The Australian study demonstrated the economic returns from partial successes, where these reduce the costs of other management methods. It also demonstrated the importance of obtaining baseline economic data before starting biological control and at intervals during the agent release period. Seeking advice from economists at all stages of a biological control programme must become as routine as consulting statisticians.
But, in addition to the agricultural benefits, there are tourism opportunities, especially in relation to getting rid of carp from our waterways and protecting places like Jervis Bay from invasive species. Carp reduce our native populations, reduce our wealth of diversity and, as a consequence, severely degrade our tourism potential. It is, most definitely, not just the environment that benefits; it is the whole community on so many different levels.
I commend the Biological Control Amendment Bill 2016 to the House.
I rise to speak on the Biological Control Amendment Bill 2016, which is an important piece of legislation to both the agricultural industry and, of course, the environment. The bill is intended to clarify the definition of an 'organism' to specifically include viruses and sub-viral agents due to ongoing scientific debate as to whether a virus can be classified as an organism and as a living entity. Because viruses are incapable of reproducing without a host, the majority scientific viewpoint at this time is that they are not organisms. Some scientists, however, consider a virus to be an organism, and biological science, by its very nature, is constantly evolving in light of new knowledge and evidence. The amendments will provide greater certainty for stakeholders who research, deliver and benefit from biological control programs, including scientists, farmers, land managers and the community.
It is important to reflect on the important role that biological control plays in managing pests in Australia. Right now, pests are doing enormous damage to our flora and fauna. Feral cats are wiping out entire species, feral dogs are destroying livestock and feral pigs may well be eating to extinction our sea turtle eggs and hatchlings and, of course, the loggerhead turtle in my region. Mon Repos Beach, one of only two loggerhead nesting locations in the world, is right in the middle of my electorate. The turtle eggs and hatchlings are under threat not only from feral pigs but also from foxes. Between 2014 and 2015, foxes were responsible for the loss of around 66 per cent of turtle clutches on some beaches along the Woongarra coastline. The joint state and federal program, called the Nest to Ocean Turtle Protection Program, is providing $7 million over four years to help with fox detection work. In November last year 65 new fox dens were identified, with the use of fox-detection dogs, the Dob in a Fox campaign and searching targeted areas.
In Australia feral animals typically have few natural predators or fatal diseases and some have high reproductive rates. As a result their populations are not naturally diminished, and they can multiply rapidly if conditions are favourable. Feral animals impact on native species through predation, competition for food and shelter, destruction of habitat and the spreading of disease. They can also cause soil erosion. While domestic livestock can be removed from degraded areas until these areas are revegetated, it is much more difficult to keep feral animals out of these same areas. Feral animals can carry the same common diseases as domestic animals and are a source of reinfection of wildlife and livestock, which works against efforts to control costly diseases such as tuberculosis. Feral animals are also potential carriers of other animal diseases and parasites. It could be disastrous for our environment if there was, for example, an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease or rabies in Australia.
It is not only feral animals that are a risk. There are strict biosecurity requirements in place to protect Australia from exotic pests and diseases that could seriously harm humans, animals and our economy—and for good reason. Let's look at the case of Johnny Depp's dogs Boo and Pistol, for example. They arrived in Australia on a private jet and did not meet the import requirements. Dogs imported into Australia must be accompanied by a valid import permit. They have to undergo relevant testing and health checks and be signed off by a government veterinarian from the exporting country to ensure pests and diseases from overseas are not brought here. Dogs can potentially carry a range of diseases, including rabies. Rabies is not present in Australia, but it can seriously affect some people.
It appears that there are no hard feelings. When Mr Depp was asked at the recent Grammy Awards if he 'still loves us in Australia', his answer was: 'Of course, I love Australia. I think that guy, Barnaby, invited me to stay at his house for some reason.' If Mr Depp does decide to visit the Deputy Prime Minister in New England, I would also urge him to consider popping in to Woodgate, Bargara or Buxton. I would certainly love to show him around. If our good friend Mr Depp needs a formal invitation, I am very happy to write to him on the Deputy Prime Minister's behalf and to invite him back to Australia to visit some of our cultural areas.
While it would be great if we could rid the whole country of these invasive pests, this is just not achievable in many cases. But there are a number of methods available to control feral animals. These methods include conventional control techniques such as trapping, baiting, fencing and shooting—and, of course, there is biological control. Biological control has been successfully used in the past and is an important tool for controlling pests and weeds and mitigating their impact on the economy, the environment and the community. Biocontrol agents can be bacteria, fungi, viruses or predatory organisms such as insects. They are highly specific and usually found in the native home range of the invasive species. Biocontrol is a cost-effective solution for managing invasive species and generally does not require reapplication once established, unlike chemicals or poisons.
Probably one of the most well-known, successful uses of biological control in Australia was the release of the myxoma virus, which causes myxomatosis. In the 1920s rabbit populations had got completely out of hand and rose to more than 10 billion across the country. Rabbits are absolutely detrimental to our environment, and their introduction to Australia was an absolute disaster. The release in 1950 of the myxoma virus—the world's first vertebrate pest biocontrol—killed 99.8 per cent of infected rabbits. Since its introduction resistance to myxomatosis has grown, and in 1996 the calicivirus was released. The combined viruses have contained wild rabbit populations to about 15 per cent of their potential numbers.
Without these biological agents controlling the rabbit population it would be a very different story. The annual cost to agriculture alone would be in excess of $2 billion, and, even with the biological control, rabbits are causing more than $200 million in production losses every single year. But that is just the tip of the iceberg. It is estimated that the cost of agricultural production losses attributed to pest animals was more than $620 million in 2009. A 2004 study estimated that the agricultural cost of weeds to be nearly $4 billion per annum.
Let's not forget that it is critical that the biological control agents introduced into Australia do not become pests themselves. The classic case of this is the cane toad. Cane toads were introduced into Australia in 1935 as a means of controlling pest beetles in the sugarcane industry. Since then the cane toads' range has expanded through Australia's northern landscape, and they are moving west at an estimated 40 to 60 kilometres per year. Cane toads reached Brisbane in 1945, the Iron Range on the Cape York Peninsula by 1983 and the tip of the cape by 1994. By 1995 their westward expansion had reached the Roper River in the Gulf of Carpentaria in the Northern Territory. By March 2001 they had reached Kakadu National Park, and in February 2009 cane toads crossed the Western Australian border with the Northern Territory—over 2,000 kilometres from the site they were released 74 years earlier. To the south, cane toads were introduced to Byron Bay in 1965 and then spread to Yamba and Port Macquarie on the north coast of New South Wales in 2003.
Cane toads have an array of highly toxic chemical defences available to them at almost all stages of their lives. The toxins occur in their skin and organs and can be secreted by large glands at the back of the animal's head when it is threatened. As a result, toads will poison many predators that attempt to eat them. Although some may recover, many individual predators die when they are first exposed to cane toads, and populations soon start to decline. Unfortunately, there is no broadscale way to control cane toads, but scientists are developing a better understanding of the impacts they are having on the environment and the ways in which assets, such as rare and vulnerable wildlife, can be protected.
This bill does not change the existing basic scientific, technical or safety standards that are applied to biological control. Considerable testing is done prior to the release of biological control agents to ensure that they will not pose a threat to non-target species such as native and agricultural plants.
There are some great examples of biological control used to fight other pests such as prickly pear and Paterson's curse. In the 1920s the cactoblastis moth was used to control prickly pear which was, at the time, smothering large tracts of north-east Australia and spreading rapidly each year. Prickly pear is thought to have been introduced as early as 1788 and had spread to Chinchilla by 1843. The larvae of the cactoblastis moth eat the leaves and seed pods of the prickly pear. The release and spread of cactoblastis moth in Australia virtually destroyed the prickly pear population. A massive 24 million hectares of densely infested land was brought back into production after the moth was introduced. Remaining prickly pear infestations are now manageable using traditional chemical and physical techniques.
In my electorate of Hinkler a tiny wasp has been utilised to help save the iconic pandanus trees on Fraser Island. According to the Burnett Mary Regional Group, the island's pandanus trees have been devastated in recent years by Jamella, a small leaf-hopper insect. The leaf-hoppers were accidentally introduced to southern Queensland in the early 1990s via an infected plant from north Queensland. The predatory wasp did not survive the same journey, giving the leaf-hoppers an unchecked head start on the southern pandanus populations. The pandanus leaf-hopper sucks the pandanus sap from the leaf sheaths and exudes honeydew. This sugary substance encourages the growth of mould, and the terminal growth points of the leaves then rot, especially if the trees are already stressed by other environmental factors.
But the release of a sandfly sized native wasp in October last year at several locations on the island, as well as in Bundaberg, was the first stage of rescuing these iconic plants. The wasp lays its eggs in the leafhoppers' egg rafts, where immature wasps eat the developing Jamella, and it has been successfully used in the northern part of the state. Treatment of pandanus affected by the leafhopper has historically been through stem injection pesticide treatment. This is reasonably successful but extremely onerous, and it is difficult to access all plants in coastal areas.
It is important to touch on what could happen if this bill is not passed. There are a number of future opportunities to use viruses to control damaging pests such as the common carp. The bill supports the pending national release of a new strain of rabbit haemorrhagic disease virus or RHDV—known as K5—for the biological control of wild rabbits. The K5 release is proposed for spring 2016 and is part of a $4.4 million national program funded by governments and industry, including $1.2 million of Australian government funding. A considerable amount of planning, research, development and community consultation is required prior to the release of K5. If the bill is not passed, it may impact state and territory governments, landholders and community groups who have prepared for a spring 2016 release, and it may also lead to additional costs for program partners. The benefit-cost ratio of the calicivirus program is estimated to be 563 to one.
The bill, if passed, may also be used to authorise the proposed national release of Cyprinid herpesvirus for the control of the common carp. Through the Invasive Animals Cooperative Research Centre, Australian scientists have determined that the naturally occurring carp herpes offers a genuine option for the biological control of carp. Following seven years of testing, scientists are confident that the virus is specific to carp and does not cause diseases in other species, including Australian native fish, birds and amphibians. Planning for a potential release of carp herpes is underway and the environmental, economic and social benefits of successful biological control of carp are likely to be considerable.
This bill is an important step in being able to continue to fight pests and weeds in Australia with biological control. I commend the bill to the House.
In summing up, I note that the Biological Control Amendment Bill 2016 amends the Biological Control Act 1984 to support national programs for the biological control of damaging pests and weeds. It will provide greater certainty for stakeholders who research, deliver and benefit from biological control programs, including scientists, farmers, land managers and the community. Biological control agents have been used successfully in Australia in the past and will continue to be an important tool for controlling pests and weeds and for mitigating their impact on the economy, environment and community.
The bill amends the act by clarifying the definition of an organism to specifically include viruses and subviral agents. The definition of an organism is a matter of ongoing scientific debate, and the amendments will remove any ambiguity, making it clear into the future that, despite scientific debate, the act is intended to support the declaration of viruses as agents and targets for biological control activities. Viruses are proven and effective agents for biological control: the combination of myxoma virus and calicivirus continues to suppress wild rabbit populations to 15 per cent of their potential numbers, saving our agricultural industries up to $2 billion every year.
The act is part of a mirror legislation scheme, and the Commonwealth will continue to work with the states and the Northern Territory to ensure that there is a nationally consistent approach.
There is broad community support for the use of biological control agents as part of an integrated approach to managing pest animals and weeds. The bill does not change the existing basic scientific, technical or safety features and standards applying to biological control. Biological control agents will continue to be subject to considerable testing prior to release in Australia.
The bill will support the Australian government's $1.2 million commitment to support the rollout of a new strain of rabbit calicivirus. This is part of a long-term national program to mitigate the significant environmental and economic impacts wrought by rabbits. That said, I commend the bill to the House.
The question is that the bill be now read a second time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
I want to briefly comment on the previous legislation before the House: the Biological Control Amendment Bill 2016. As the then acting federal minister for the environment, I was involved in the ministerial council that authorised the initial release of the calicivirus, so I am aware of the matters which the assistant minister addressed. Good luck with that!
Labor supports the Australian government's commitment to reforms for Norfolk Island. Self-government has challenged the Norfolk Island community to provide government services to modern Australian standards. That is something which I know disappoints many, but the fact is the services that have been provided to Norfolk Island residents have not been to the standard that other Australians have been able to enjoy.
As you may well know, Mr Deputy Speaker Irons, given not only the way you wear your ties but also your deep knowledge, there have been numerous inquiries since 1979 over matters to do with Norfolk Island. These have included a royal commission, 12 parliamentary inquiries and 20 commissioned expert reports. Norfolk Island has proven difficult for the Commonwealth government over some decades, and various successive governments have sought to inform the governance arrangements on Norfolk Island to ensure that Norfolk Islanders are seen as part of the wider Australian family and are treated as part of the wider Australian family in the same way as their family members who might live in Sydney, Brisbane, Melbourne, Perth—or Alice Springs, for that matter—are treated. There has been a deficiency in the standard of services and particularly in terms of infrastructure, which has frustrated the development of the island.
I might comment on another tie while I am here. We have just had the pink leave and the red arrive, Mr Deputy Speaker Mitchell. I am pleased to see the new Deputy Speaker has let the pinko leave and has let the red ones in.
Whilst distracted by the change in chair, I am absolutely committed to ensuring that people who may be listening to this debate understand that the Labor Party is committed to supporting these changes to the territories legislation. When in office, Labor started the reform agenda for Norfolk Island, and indeed I was the parliamentary secretary responsible for territories in the mid-1990s. We started this exercise then—talking to the community about the need to look at the taxation arrangements that applied on the island and the need to look at the infrastructure and services that the island needed, to try and bring about an understanding in the broader community that we as a government at that point were committed to engaging in a discussion with the Norfolk Island community about what change might look like. Ultimately, and later, Labor started further reform with the passage of the Territories Law Reform Bill and initiating the roadmap for reform in 2011 with the people of Norfolk Island under the aegis of Simon Crean, who was then the minister, together with providing emergency funding assistance and investments in infrastructure to lift economic opportunities on the island.
This process has been continued by the current government, and Labor supported the Norfolk Island Legislation Amendment Act 2015. Of course, Norfolk Island means much to us. As Australians, it is a significant part of our colonial history and a very important part of Australia in the Pacific Ocean.
This 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 Islands. Commonwealth legislation in this bill to apply to Norfolk Island includes the Fair Work Act and other employment laws and the Commonwealth Electoral Act to ensure the Norfolk Island community is properly represented in this parliament. For the first time, the default position will be that laws passed by this parliament apply to Norfolk Island unless it is expressly stated in the legislation that they are not to apply.
Having had responsibility not only for Norfolk Island but also for representing the Indian Ocean territories, I have deep insight into the processes in consideration of Commonwealth legislation applying to territories generally and specifically, in this case, to Norfolk Island. That includes, in particular, what a territory community requires in consideration or consultation before Commonwealth legislation is extended to a territory.
As we know, the minister has already noted that this amendment bill is one among others that will come before this parliament regarding the application of Commonwealth legislation to Norfolk Island. As the minister said, the legislation requires complex transitional arrangements. As I pointed out earlier, the bill extends the Fair Work Act and other federal employment legislation to Norfolk Island.
The electoral arrangements are significant and are of particular interest to the member for Canberra, who will be speaking following me. Currently there is no single member of parliament formally representing and advocating for the community of Norfolk Island. This bill, for the first time, provides dedicated representation for the Norfolk Island community in the parliament by including voters in a single federal electorate, the division of Canberra. Voting will be compulsory, as it is in the rest of Australia, and the community of Norfolk Island will have Senate representation through the senators for the ACT.
Some people might ask why this is. Why is it not New South Wales? The fact is that it is a territory, and for Norfolk Island to be included in the state of New South Wales or Queensland for the purposes of Commonwealth electoral law, there would have to be a referendum in New South Wales or Queensland to allow the state to incorporate Norfolk Island as part of the state. This is true of Norfolk Island as it is true of Christmas and Cocos Islands, who are in the electorate of Lingiari in the Northern Territory—you might think that is strange—which I was first elected to in 1987. It does not seem that long ago.
It looks it!
I should not refer to the attendant who is here, but she is a person I have known all my life and she can appreciate that the ageing process is not kind to all of us. It has certainly been kind to her if not kind to me. She knows that I just get uglier by the day. It is something we cannot help.
In any event, as I know from that long experience with the Indian Ocean Territories, people are exercised, as they rightly should be, by the need to have representation and to have people articulating their concerns and voicing their interests in this place. Hitherto, that has not been possible. There have been people who have been able to vote in any electorate, effectively, of the Commonwealth. Many chose to vote in the seat of Canberra, but others chose to vote in the seats of Brisbane and elsewhere. So this is very important. Whatever else happens—and that includes the incorporation using New South Wales law on the island—the Commonwealth minister is ultimately responsible. It does not matter what state laws apply, even though Norfolk Islanders are not represented in state parliament, the fact is that any one of those state laws can be overridden by the federal minister. So when we talk about this it is very important that people understand that there will be a particular onus on the member for Canberra, who will have the responsibility of representing their interests broadly, including in relation to state-type powers that might exist and relate to agreements between the Commonwealth and the New South Wales government in the application of laws from time to time. That will be her responsibility, as it is mine for the Indian Ocean Territories.
We need to understand, more broadly, that when we discuss these issues they are of intense interest to the people of Norfolk Island as they are, and have been, to the people of the Indian Ocean Territories. We should be in no doubt that there has been, in the case of Norfolk Island, some division over support for these issues. But I am very confident, as I am sure the member for Canberra is, that the overwhelming majority of people on Norfolk Island understand the importance of this legislation and the measures that have been taken by the Australian government with the support of the opposition. We have been happy to work in a bipartisan manner with the federal government, and we look forward to continuing to do so with matters to do with Norfolk Island and, indeed, the Indian Ocean Territories. That does not mean we always have to agree, but it does mean that we can try and work cooperatively on important issues such as this.
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. 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. 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 will commence on Norfolk Island on 1 July 2016. These are very good examples of where the citizens of Norfolk Island ought to be able to expect the same level of concern and support as the rest of the Australian community. I am pleased to be able to say now that the people of the Indian Ocean Territories can look forward to the extension of these child support arrangements.
The bill will make minor changes to the definition of Norfolk Island Regional Council to remove the requirement that the council be a body corporate. The regional council can be properly constituted under the New South Wales local government framework, as has been agreed between the Commonwealth and the New South Wales government.
The purpose of the Passenger Movement Charge Amendment (Norfolk Island) Bill 2016 is to amend the Passenger Movement Charge Act 1978 so that most departures from Norfolk Island to another country will attract the passenger movement charge, which is what you would expect. The bill recognises the special air transport arrangements in place on Norfolk Island, whereby travel to the mainland may require transit through an international country from time to time. The bill provides that a person is exempt from liability for passenger movement charges if they depart Norfolk Island for another country, or for an installation in the Joint Petroleum Development Area, with the intention of returning to another place in Australia within seven days.
Air travel can be problematic for offshore territories, and I will expand on that in a moment. It is an issue of timing and regularity of services as well as of costs. From time to time, there are issues with severe weather conditions and sudden changes in schedules or cancellations. Islanders often have to travel for medical, educational, business and other reasons that mainlanders—as those of us who live here on the mainland will be referred to—absolutely take for granted, having daily access in our communities. This is particularly important when you contemplate the need for people to travel for health reasons, which is regular and needs to be properly understood. Seven days to travel from an island to the mainland to avoid a charge if travelling through another country may appear quite adequate, but I would counsel people to think carefully about this. It may well be that we have to revisit this issue over time because seven days may not be adequate. It is something I have experienced when flights have been cancelled; if flights are irregular at best, the cancellation of one flight does not mean you get on the next flight—that flight may be full. Unless additional flights are put on, it may well be that the seven-day period will expire prior to that person landing back in Australia.
Let me just re-emphasise that Labor supports these reforms. In short, the Australian citizens on Norfolk Island deserve equal access to that of other Australians to services, whether on the mainland or the other external territories. Federal Labor remains committed to working in partnership with the people of Norfolk Island to ensure this occurs and to harness the opportunities before them.
I am sure the member for Canberra will give expression to the view that we have utmost confidence in the future of Norfolk Island, that we believe there is the potential for healthy economic development, but that requires a lot of Commonwealth expenditure. Infrastructure expenditure on the island requires that there be some give and take in the taxation arrangements. Hitherto, the islanders have not been charged Australian taxation. This will change so that, like every other Australian, they will be able to expect the Commonwealth government not only to properly represent their interests in this place but, most importantly, to understand their peculiar and particular needs—and infrastructure on Norfolk Island is a particular need. If we upgrade that infrastructure appropriately, it is very clear there is a sound basis for further economic development.
We should also reflect upon the importance of the human capital on Norfolk Island. There is absolutely no doubt about the interest or capacity of the people of Norfolk Island to achieve great things for themselves and their community and, indeed, the broader Australian community. But it is important that every Australian and every person living on Norfolk Island knows that universal health care will be provided to them. It should not be the amount of money you have in your wallet or on your credit card that says that you can have good hospital treatment or good medical treatment. They, like every other Australian, should have full access to universal health care. A similar situation should apply with respect to education. Many young people on Norfolk Island have a great desire to better themselves, and their families want that for their children, and we want to encourage that.
I conclude by saying that Norfolk Island is an interesting place. When I was there in the mid-1990s, I had dinner with a man by the name of Mr Hickey. I used to play rugby against him when he lived here in Canberra, where he owned a surveying business. Mr Hickey, who has since died, was originally from Norfolk Island. On this occasion, he had gone back to Norfolk Island and we were having dinner at a restaurant. The waiter asked, 'What would you like?' and I said, 'The steak looks fantastic. I love steak and eggs,' which I do, occasionally. The waiter said, 'We can help you with the steak, but we don't have any eggs.' Mr Hickey said, 'I can fix the eggs.' With that, he got off his chair, walked out of the restaurant and across the road to his house. He went to the chook shed and got two eggs and brought them back so that we could have steak and eggs. It is a wonderful, hospitable place. My experience of meeting people on Norfolk Island has always been one of joy in many respects—not excluding the fact that sometimes we have disagreed on particular things. But we know that they are intensely proud of who they are and where they come from, and we want to support them in whatever we do in this place.
I commend the member for Lingiari for his speech and thank him for the support and advice he has given me since I have been the member for Canberra. As you heard in his eloquent speech, he has been working on this issue of the external territories for many decades—I know he chokes when I say that!—and he is a wealth of knowledge. I would like to take this opportunity to thank him for his commitment to the betterment of the people living in the external territories and particularly for his support on this issue since I have been the member for Canberra.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on the Territories Legislation Amendment Bill 2016 and a related bill. The legislation continues the ongoing process to reform the governance of Norfolk Island, which came about following a range of reviews over many years by the member for Lingiari and many others in this House. It particularly came about following the report by the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories into the current situation on Norfolk Island. The committee, of which I was a member, produced the report Same country: different world—The future of Norfolk Island. The report looked at the island's prospects for economic development in the wake of falling tourism figures, in the wake of a budget deficit and in the wake of other ongoing financial concerns. As I and the member for Lingiari have mentioned, those matters have been well documented over many years through many parliamentary reviews and many consultants' reviews since Norfolk got self-government in 1979.
The committee recommended that, as soon as practicable, the Commonwealth government repeal the Norfolk Island Act 1979 and establish an interim administration to assist the transition to a local government type body, determined in line with the community's needs and aspirations—and I underscore that. Those reforms are now well underway. Last year this parliament passed legislation that extends federal taxation, social security and Medicare to Norfolk Island from 1 July this year. The legislation we are debating today continues this reform agenda by extending a broad range of Commonwealth laws to Norfolk Island. I remember talking about this in my first term, when the former minister, Simon Crean, introduced a range of Commonwealth laws. From memory, there was FOI and there were a range of other appeals, AAT type pieces of legislation. So this has been an ongoing process of reform over many years.
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 Cocos (Keeling) Islands. This amendment will have the effect of making the default position that all Commonwealth legislation apply to Norfolk Island, as it does to other parts of Australia. This legislation also amends the Commonwealth Electoral Act to ensure that the Norfolk Island community is properly represented in this parliament.
Norfolk Island will formally join my electorate, the electorate of Canberra, making me and the two senators from the ACT the federal representatives of the residents of Norfolk Island. The electorate of Canberra has traditionally had a connection with Norfolk Island, with the member for Canberra having sat on the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories, and the residents of Norfolk Island having been able to vote in the default electorate of Canberra if they have chosen to, because voting in federal elections has been optional.
Until now, as you have just heard—and because it has been optional—Norfolk Island has had a unique electoral arrangement. It has not been compulsory for residents of Norfolk to vote or to enrol to vote in federal elections and, if they did choose to enrol, they could nominate to enrol in any Australian electorate with which they had a connection—perhaps where they had lived previously or where family members live. If residents had no such connection, they could choose to enrol in one of two 'default' electorates, as the member for Lingiari has just mentioned: the electorate of Canberra, here in the ACT, or the electorate of Solomon, in the Northern Territory.
At the 2013 federal election, 90 residents of Norfolk Island voted in the electorate of Canberra, and this was the largest number of Norfolk Islanders voting in any one electorate. What this unique system has meant, in reality, is that there has been no single member of parliament who is formally tasked with representing and advocating for the community of Norfolk Island. I remember how, on one of the committee visits with the member for Solomon—and she had people from Norfolk Island vote in her electorate as well—we were meeting with members of the community but we were playing a dual advocacy role. In my view, under the current arrangements, there has been a democratic deficit.
With the changes contained in this legislation, the requirements to enrol to vote, and to vote, will apply on Norfolk, just as they do anywhere else in Australia, and Norfolk will formally join the electorate of Canberra. The significance of this particular reform cannot be underestimated. From now on, for Norfolk Islanders, voting will not only be a right and a privilege but also a responsibility. Compulsory voting is one of the defining features of the Australian democracy, and Norfolk Island should be no exception. From now on, Norfolk Island will have dedicated representatives in our federal parliament—me, as the member for Canberra, and my colleagues in the other place, the two senators for the ACT.
I know that there are many residents of Norfolk Island who have expressed concerns about these reforms. There have been various iterations of these reforms, and I note there are concerns about them. They have wondered why Norfolk should join an electorate some 2,000 kilometres away from it. They wonder how I, as the member for Canberra, along with the senators for the ACT, can represent them when we are not permanently based on the island but on the mainland. Today I want to say to these people: I understand your concerns. I really do. I appreciate that it is not going to be easy or straightforward, but I make a commitment to you, as I have made the commitment to the people of Canberra here on the mainland, that I will do my very best to represent you, to advocate for you, and to understand your concerns.
As these wide-ranging governance reforms are implemented, the interface between residents of Norfolk Island and the Commonwealth will increase. For the first time, residents will have access to Commonwealth department agencies and services, such as Medicare, Centrelink and the tax office. As their federal member, I will be here to assist Norfolk Islanders in making this transition, to ensure they get the assistance they need in making this transition, to ensure their concerns are represented and acted upon, and to ensure that residents of Norfolk Island see the benefits that I know these reforms can unlock.
As the new federal representative for Norfolk Island, I will not be starting entirely from scratch. For the last six years, I have been getting to know the people of Norfolk Island, both as a member of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories and as a representative of one of the two default electorates. I have visited Norfolk more than 10 times since I have been the member for Canberra. My aim is to visit it three times a year. I have attended committee hearings and held mobile offices. I have attended business roundtables, taken part in Bounty Day celebrations, spoken at and attended a number of women's functions and Labor functions, and been to school presentations.
In particular, over the last two years, I have had regular correspondence with a great number of Norfolk Island residents about the proposed governance reforms. I will be the first to acknowledge that support on the island for these reforms is not universal—far from it. Many residents of Norfolk Island want to maintain the status quo of self-government. Many of these residents have been openly critical of me for my small role in this reform process, and they have been critical of these reforms, which they see as undemocratic.
But others have written to me to express their gratitude for these reforms and their hope that these reforms will provide them with the opportunities they have previously been denied. They are parents who see that having access to Medicare and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme will be life-changing for their family. They are job seekers who know that access to Newstart payments or jobseeker support will mean they no longer have to rely on donated food parcels to feed the family each week.
One of the concerning trends I have noticed, having been up there more than 10 times since I was elected in 2010, was witnessing the economic deterioration for families. We all know that many people on Norfolk Island work two, three or four jobs to make ends meet and to put food on the table. What I noticed every time I went back there, from my consultations with members of the community, was that more people were accessing food bank, which is a way of getting food hampers. That just underscored the fact that people were doing it tough on the island and were reaching out for these food parcels. I also know from letters and messages from retirees and older residents that they are looking forward to having, for the first time, the security of the aged pension.
A little over a year ago, I wrote an opinion piece in which I explained why I supported governance reform. I wrote this piece before I knew exactly what the new governance model would look like and before I knew that Norfolk Island would join the electorate of Canberra, making me the federal member. I wrote:
There is no point in having self-government for self-government's sake. It is now clear to me that the current governance arrangements have met only the most basic social and economic needs of Norfolk residents. For self-government to have my support, it needs to be stable, economically responsible, democratic, sustainable and in the best interests of the people it serves. This is not the case under the current governance model on Norfolk Island. There will be democracy on Norfolk Island under a new arrangement.
We now know what this new governance arrangement will be, and I stand by my statement that it will bring democracy—genuine democracy—to Norfolk Island. I will represent all residents of Norfolk, including those who did not want these reforms and including those who have been very critical of me, to ensure that they get to have their say about how they are governed on election day.
These reforms have had bipartisan support, and I would like to thank the Minister for Territories, who is here tonight, the member for Bradfield, as well as the former minister, the member for Mayo, for engaging on this issue in a positive and bipartisan way, both here in Australia and on Norfolk. Both ministers have had an open-door policy for me when it comes to discussing these reforms and making representations on behalf of the people of Norfolk Island, and I very much look forward to that continuing.
I would like to put on the record my very great appreciation of the five members of the Norfolk Island Advisory Council, who have been overseeing the transition on the Island—and it has been very tough for them. I take my hat off to them; I salute them, because this has not been easy, and they have also been subject to criticism—a lot of support, but a lot of criticism as well. So I want to thank Melissa Ward, who was the chair of the council; Duncan Evans; Eve Semple; PJ Wilson; and Wally Beadman. As I said, their job has not been easy, but it is of vital importance for the future prosperity, security and success of Norfolk Island.
I also want to thank the current Administrator of Norfolk Island, the Honourable Gary Hardgrave, who has been through some pretty rough health issues while implementing the reform on Norfolk Island, and also former Administrator Neil Pope, as well as their staff. And I want to take this opportunity to thank Jen Pope, who was very actively engaged in the community, particularly with the food bank.
I also thank my fellow members of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories, many of whom have been engaged in the issue of governance reform on Norfolk for their entire parliamentary careers. I cited the member for Lingiari but I also want to take this opportunity to again thank former senator Kate Lundy for the work she did on Norfolk Island. She was also very actively involved in reform and many of the reviews.
Reforms of this nature are never easy, never straightforward. These are significant changes, and the residents of Norfolk Island are right to be passionate about them. So I would like to thank the people of Norfolk Island who have engaged in this reform process—those who participated in the inquiry, those who have written to me, those who have led the debate on the island. While we have not always been in agreement, I know that you are all committed to bringing out the best for Norfolk Island. Norfolk Island is home to an incredibly unique history and culture, and the story of Norfolk is one that is intrinsically linked with the story of Australia. It is in the interests of all Australians to keep this history and culture alive and vibrant for centuries to come, and it is in my interests, as the future member responsible for the islanders, that they have access to opportunity, equality and fairness. That is my primary concern.
I am very pleased to rise to deliver these summing-up remarks in the second reading debate in relation to the Territories Legislation Amendment Bill 2016 and the Passenger Movement Charge Amendment (Norfolk Island) Bill 2016. Let me thank members who have participated in this debate. I thank the member for Lingiari, who has had a long involvement with Australia's external territories, including himself serving as Minister for Territories, and who has been a strong supporter of reform on Norfolk Island. I also thank the member for Canberra, who has represented a number of constituents on Norfolk Island in this parliament, as we have just heard, and has taken a broad view of her responsibilities to be an advocate for the people of Norfolk Island. And she has worked effectively as an advocate for members of the community. Norfolk Island will become formally part of her electorate of Canberra on the commencement of the provisions of the bill that is before the House this afternoon. I also want to acknowledge the work of all members of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories, particularly its chair, the member for Cowan, and I want to acknowledge the work of the senator for the ACT, Zed Seselja.
Prior to the introduction of these bills, I had the opportunity, as minister, to visit Norfolk Island, on 28 and 29 January, and that was a very worthwhile and informative visit. I had the chance to meet with members of the advisory council, under the leadership of Melissa Ward, and I thank her and all members of the council for their work. I met with the Administrator, the Honourable Gary Hardgrave; with officials of the Commonwealth government and of the administration of Norfolk Island; with the Council of Elders; and with representatives of the business community, particularly the tourism sector. I also had the opportunity to meet quite a number of Norfolk Island residents.
The package of bills before the House this afternoon is another step towards the Turnbull government meeting its commitment to provide reform in relation to Norfolk Island. Norfolk Island is the only community in Australia that has been routinely excluded from national laws, frameworks and programs. Successive governments of both political persuasions have taken this approach, under the belief that self-government, established on Norfolk Island in 1979, would be able to provide the community with appropriate federal, state and local functions. This is no longer a reasonable approach to take. The standard of government expected by Australians in 2016 is much different to that in 1979. Regulation has become more sophisticated to keep up with modern life. Government services have become more complex and difficult to deliver. A community of some 1,500 people cannot be expected to meet these challenges on its own. Norfolk Island is falling behind mainland standards, and the gap between the standard of services on Norfolk Island and those in comparable communities on the Australian mainland has been growing.
The reforms given effect to by the bills before the House this afternoon, combined with reforms set out in the legislation already passed by the parliament in 2015, will begin to address these problems. The central proposition in these bills is that Commonwealth laws should apply to Norfolk Island as they would to any other part of Australia. Where Commonwealth laws are excluded from applying to Norfolk Island, that should occur only because the Commonwealth government has made a conscious policy decision to exclude them. In some cases, this decision in respect of a particular law will have important consequences for the Norfolk Island community. For example, the Fair Work Act will be extended to provide employers and employees on Norfolk Island with the same workplace relations framework that applies throughout the rest of Australia. The national minimum wage will be phased in and the introduction of modern awards will be delayed for two years on Norfolk Island so that businesses have time to adjust. Employees will have the same protections as are currently enjoyed by their counterparts on the mainland. In other cases, the changes will be minor. For example, the territories bill will extend the Gene Technology Act 2000 and the jurisdiction of the Gene Technology Regulator to Norfolk Island. Though this may seem to be a minor change, there is simply no good reason to exclude Norfolk Island residents from the operation of that legislative framework.
Importantly, in addition to applying Commonwealth laws, the territories bill will ensure the Norfolk Island community is properly represented in the Commonwealth parliament, giving Australians living on Norfolk Island a say in how the laws which affect them are made. Enrolment and voting in federal elections will be compulsory, as it is for other Australians. Norfolk Islanders will vote in the division of Canberra and will be represented by ACT senators. The ultimate outcome of these changes is that Australian citizens on Norfolk Island will have the same rights and responsibilities as those in other parts of Australia. The standard of federal services delivered on Norfolk Island will improve and Commonwealth laws will provide an environment which encourages private investment, trade with the mainland and opportunities for economic growth.
The Australian government's goal continues to be ensuring a strong future for Norfolk Island—a future that provides opportunities for jobs and growth, supports vulnerable residents and fosters a strong and vibrant community. The bills before the House this afternoon, if passed, will represent another step in that direction.
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.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Labor supports the Law and Justice Legislation Amendment (Northern Territory Local Court) Bill 2016, which makes technical and uncontroversial amendments to a range of Commonwealth acts in recognition of recent changes to the Northern Territory's court system. The bill is necessitated by the Local Court Act 2015 of the Northern Territory, which passed the Northern Territory legislative assembly in April 2015 and is expected to enter into force in May of this year. That Northern Territory act makes a number of changes to the Territory's court system. Relevantly, for the purposes of the Commonwealth government and for this parliament, it consolidates two of the Territory's courts, the Local Court and the Court of Summary Jurisdiction, and renames as 'judges' those presently styled 'magistrates'. This is of course a matter for the Northern Territory government and for the Territory legislative assembly, but it does have federal consequences.
One of the innovations of Australia's Constitution is that jurisdiction and powers conferred by federal legislation are frequently exercised by state courts and judicial officers. In this respect, nomenclature is important and legislation must be drafted precisely. Commonwealth legislation recognises that different levels of judicial officers in the states and territories who exercise different jurisdictions often have quite different levels of expertise. The different titles of 'magistrate' and 'judge' have been convenient markers. They are used in several Commonwealth acts to distinguish between the different functions that are to be conferred on those different kinds of judicial officer. In a surprising number of cases, Commonwealth legislation confers particular functions on different kinds of judicial officers, and it is that surprising number of acts that are dealt with in this bill—these being acts which use terms like 'judge', 'magistrate' and 'court of summary jurisdiction'.
The intent of this bill is that the restructuring of the Territory's courts effected by the Northern Territory's Local Court Act 2015 and the Northern Territory's renaming of its judicial officers does not change the present operation of the kinds of provisions I have referred to that are in Commonwealth acts—that is, provisions which confer functions on judicial officers by reference to the titles that they hold. In keeping with that intent, the bill amends a range of existing pieces of legislation, and adds a provision to the Acts Interpretation Act 1901. The amendment there is to provide that, as a general rule of interpretation, in Commonwealth legislation the term 'magistrate' would include Northern Territory Local Court judges; the term 'judge' would not include Northern Territory Local Court judges; and the term 'court of summary jurisdiction' would include the Northern Territory Local Court.
The bill further amends references to those terms in Commonwealth acts which separately define those and similar terms. 'Magistrate' includes NT Local Court judges in the Bankruptcy Act 1966, the Customs Act 1901, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, the Excise Act 1901, the Extradition Act 1988, the International War Crimes Tribunals Act 1995, the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner Act 2006, the Marriage Act 1961, the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act 1987 and the Quarantine Act 1908. In each of these acts, the term 'judge' or 'magistrate' is used, and this bill preserves the current division of responsibilities or the current conferral of responsibilities on the judicial officers referred to in those acts as either 'magistrate' or 'judge'. There are two acts in which 'judge' will be defined as not including Northern Territory Local Court judges, and they are the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Act 1986 and the Royal Commissions Act 1902.
There are four more pieces of Commonwealth legislation that are dealt with in this bill which have, again, consequential amendments dealing with the change in title that has been effected by the Northern Territory act of last year. The term 'state judicial officer' will be defined as not including Northern Territory Local Court judges in the Judicial Misbehaviour and Incapacity (Parliamentary Commissions) Act 2012. Another term, 'magistrates court', will be defined as including Northern Territory Local Court as a court of summary jurisdiction for the purposes of small claims proceedings under the Fair Work Act 2009. The final amendment is to the High Court of Australia Act 1979 so that service as a judge—that is the new title—of the Northern Territory Local Court will not of itself qualify a person for appointment as a High Court justice under the High Court of Australia Act 1979.
As can be seen, this bill tries to capture all of the references in the Commonwealth statute book to these terms—'judge', 'court of summary jurisdiction' and 'magistrate'—so that, despite the change by the Northern Territory legislature to the title of its judicial officers, there will not be any change in effect to the divisions of responsibility of and the conferring of functions on those Northern Territory judicial officers by the various Commonwealth acts that do that. The bill also contains a number of transitional provisions to ensure that current arrangements under various acts are not disturbed.
As I have said, and as would be clear from this speech, these changes are technical in nature, they are distinctly uncontroversial and they preserve the existing operation of the federal judicial system. I commend the bill to the House.
I thank honourable members of parliament for their contributions to this debate on the Law and Justice Legislation Amendment (Northern Territory Local Court) Bill 2016. As the member for Isaacs noted, it is really non-controversial in its various amendments. Indeed, the restructuring of the Territory's courts and the renaming of various officers does not change the divisions or provisions of the roles. The amendments to various and several of the acts actually preserve the conferral of responsibilities on the judicial officers as they stand currently. The bill also includes transitional arrangements which are technical in nature and, once again, as the honourable member for Isaacs noted, non-controversial. I thank him and his colleagues for their support of the bill.
The government is pleased to facilitate and support the passage of the Law and Justice Legislation Amendment (Northern Territory Local Court) Bill 2016, which ensures the anticipated Northern Territory court reforms are fully supported in the federal sphere. This bill allows Northern Territory Local Court judges to continue to lawfully exercise their current jurisdiction and powers in Commonwealth matters. A range of Commonwealth acts needed to be amended to ensure there were no unintended effects or consequences arising from the Northern Territory reforms.
This bill was prepared in close consultation with the relevant departments which administer legislation amended by the bill, and I thank them for their cooperation and support, as I thank the members of this parliament for their contributions. I commend this bill to the House.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
I am pleased to continue my remarks on the Migration Amendment (Character Cancellation Consequential Provisions) Bill. The legislation does not deal with a policy matter—that was dealt with in a previous bill; this is just a series of consequential provisions that are designed to ensure a certain consistency over a range of visa classes, as I understand it. We on this side of the House, when this matter was submitted for consideration to our caucus, said that we wanted to have a look at the triggers that underpinned the visa cancellation on the basis of the character test because we believe that there is a very real argument that these triggers are too sensitive. When we look at the legislation it does seem a little crazy. It sets out the provisions that can lead to the cancellation of a visa. Section 501(3A) of the Migration Act says 'For the purposes of the character test, a person has a substantial criminal record'—and it is 'substantial criminal record' that can be used to trigger a review of their character. So it says a person does not pass the character test if that person has a substantial criminal record, and they then proceed to define what a substantial criminal record is. I think this is where we see that this is not a terribly well crafted piece of legislation. It says
(a) the person has been sentenced to death; or
(b) the person has been sentenced to imprisonment for life; or
(c) the person has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more;
So on the one hand we are saying it is substantial if it is the death penalty or a life sentence, and then we go on to say but it is also substantial if it is a term of imprisonment for 12 months or more. I have to say that there are many people who are convicted of nonviolent offences that many of us would consider not substantial or not generating a substantial criminal offence. The trigger of 12 months I believe is too sensitive a trigger and it has caused us to catch up in this a whole raft of people who are not people we would necessarily want to be sending back home.
This issue came to my attention most graphically when I was contacted by the family of a 53-year-old man who had not even been conscious of the fact that he was not an Australian citizen as he had been here since I think he was some 10 months old. He had been a good citizen of this country; he had been working in the north and he had somewhat of a psychotic episode as a result of which he set fire to a structure, and he was charged with arson and sentenced to prison. He served his time and on all accounts he was an exemplary prisoner. He went onto medication and he was receiving treatment in a more holistic way for his condition. In the past he had been a member of the Army Reserve and he had been in a relationship for some 25 years. As I said, he had spent the vast majority of his life in Australia, and had considered himself to be an Australian; he had served with the Army Reserve and indeed his whole family—his parents, his siblings and his partner of some 25 years—all were in Australia. This gentleman had, as has been accepted, a bit of a psychotic episode. He acknowledges that he committed an offence of arson during that time, and he served his time in prison only to find that after his release from prison instead of going back to his family he was taken to the Northam detention centre and then subsequently to the Christmas Island detention centre as his visa had been cancelled.
We made a number of representations on this gentleman's behalf. I am very pleased to say that the minister acted, eventually, with a good deal of compassion in this case, and the gentleman has had his visa restored and has been able to resume his life. I want to use this as a descriptor and an explanation for why we believe that setting 12 months' imprisonment as the trigger for the failure of that character test and therefore for the mandatory cancellation of a visa is far too sensitive, particularly in circumstances where people have lived in this country for the vast bulk of their lives. It is also important to use this as an alert for those people who have come out here from the United Kingdom—and I have come across many such people over the years of my public life—who, for all intents and purposes, consider themselves to be Australian citizens. Because they were on the electoral roll on 25 January 1985, they can vote; and because they have full voting rights, they do not see any particular reason to take that extra step of becoming Australian citizens. This gentleman and his family are now very alive to the real risks posed to anyone who has not taken out Australian citizenship when eligible to do so. We also know that there are provisions in place which expose people holding dual citizenship to a more severe stripping of their rights.
I call on the government to consider a review of the triggers for the character test. On our side we have made a resolution to review those triggers. I agree that we want to have the capacity to deport from this country people who behave in such a way as to undermine the safety and security of our community. It is quite proper that we do have the powers to deal with that, but balanced against that there has to be some sense of what is reasonable. We must consider the length of time a person has spent in this country, particularly where that person has come to this country as a child, has spent all their formative years in this country and has no other family outside of Australia. We must take care that there is sufficient provision within the legislation to ensure that we are not rounding up all the bikies or terrorists whom we might want to be rid of. We must make sure that we are not enlarging this too greatly.
Again, I would point to what strikes me as the strange wording of the legislation, which equates a prison sentence of 12 months with a life sentence or even the death sentence. The death sentence is obviously a reference to penalties imposed in a foreign country. It is a strange reference—given that we have taken such a stand internationally against the death penalty. If we are trying to establish a regime that takes into account actions that have occurred in another country, then we should be looking at cases where a court in a foreign country has convicted a person for an offence—an offence which in Australia might lead to a lengthy prison sentence but which in that country would have led to the death sentence. There are jurisdictions around the world where women, in particular, are sentenced for actions which would not even be considered a crime in Australia—such as adultery. Notionally, the way in which we have structured this trigger, if a woman had been found guilty of adultery—(Time expired)
The coalition was elected by a huge mandate in September 2013 to deliver strong government to guarantee a safe, secure Australia. This bill, the Migration Amendment (Character Cancellation Consequential Provisions) Bill 2016, is about implementing that promise to the Australian people.
I welcome common-sense notions on the statute books and the codifying of our community values and expectations. This bill has never been more timely or more important. This bill will strengthen the government's ability to deal with unlawful, fraudulent or criminal behaviour by noncitizens. The character test has not changed significantly since 1999. Since then, the situation has changed dramatically, with streamlined processes and higher volumes of temporary visa holders for economic and other purposes. The proposed changes strengthen and widen the powers to refuse or cancel a visa on character grounds.
The government will be able to act if there is a risk, as opposed to a significant risk, that a person would engage in a wide range of criminal conduct, according to the explanatory memorandum accompanying the bill. Reasonable suspicion that a person is, or has been, associated with a group involved in criminal conduct will be sufficient to refuse a visa. Such conduct includes people smuggling, genocide, war crimes, a crime involving torture or slavery, or a crime that is otherwise of serious international concern, even if there is no actual conviction. A person found guilty, even if no conviction was recorded by an Australian or a foreign court, of a sexual offence involving a child will be out. The measure also allows the minister to require state and territory governments to disclose personal information that may have a bearing on character. The most important point that this government wants people to take away is that entry into, and staying in, Australia by noncitizens is a privilege, not a right. The Australian community expects that the Australian government can, and should, refuse entry to noncitizens, or cancel their visas, if they do not abide by Australian laws.
I want to bring to this debate a real lived experience of what it is to be an Australian and what Australian values are. The whole issue of Australian values has become the mission of one of my constituents, Mr Robert Suann. At first, I construed Mr Suann's ardent fervour to hammer home the point of values education on Australian values as some sort of anachronistic and atavistic agenda—well meaning but sort of unimportant. However, the more I listened, the more I realised how important the issues of values and character are to the very fabric of our society. Robert always reminds people of the riots in Cronulla, his home town, in 2005, and of how many of those involved could not identify with our Australian notions of the good and the upstanding. One understands Robert and his motivations a great deal more when one is informed that, for 70-odd years, Robert has been a boy scout.
The question for our community is: how can we take back common-sense, good, wholesome, traditional values from the scrap heap of history? One very easy and effective way is to stop the dilution of those values by persons of nefarious character. There should be no shame in saying that we have values and principles, and that this coalition government is willing to stand up for them. Visas should not be thrown around like confetti. Visas should not be sold to the highest questionable or criminal bidder. Visas are a golden ticket. In my home state of Western Australia, there is a saying that FIFO—referring to fly-in fly-out workers—should really stand for 'fit in or fly out'. Of course, that is the parliamentary version of that re-imagining of the FIFO acronym. I firmly believe that a fit in or fly out approach, or a 'Team Australia' approach, should also apply to our migration program.
The Migration Amendment (Character Cancellation Consequential Provisions) Bill 2016 provides the springboard to get to another key idea that has gone completely off the radar—that is, the idea of rights and responsibilities. Under the previous six years of Labor misrule and chaotic misgovernment, the balance of rights and responsibilities became only a question of rights—or, more succinctly, a question of: what can I get and what rights do I have?
In the context of visas and entry to the Australian homeland, this attitude will defile the integrity of the system and our society. By turning a blind eye to gross and aberrant characters, and by accepting all in good faith, we expose our people to unknown dangers. Enoch Powell's 'rivers of blood' may not have run, but that was because of the strong actions taken by successive conservative governments. I am proud to be part of a government that is bold in its actions and resolute in its decisions.
Let me get back to the idea of cancelling visas, as it fits into the rights and responsibilities paradigm. It is a question of balance or an equilibrium equation. It is a case of looking at the very fundamental building blocks of what it is to be a nation and a society. One looks to the societal contracts of Rousseau or Locke, and there it is in line 1: to protect the bodily integrity of each citizen and the integrity of the state. Even the visual idea of the contract is relevant to this debate—surrounding cancelling visas and making it easier for the minister to do so. After all, the Australian government is honouring its side of the contract or deal by protecting the bodily integrity and security of the person. But they are not living up their side of the deal—the deal being that, if one comes to this country, then one has to play by the rules as they stand, not change the rules because one does not like the rules. The minister of the day has a direct mandate and democratic imprimatur of the people. This is more powerful than a foreign, far-off institution or body. This legislation, through the increased power to the minister, empowers the people.
Let me now speak about the specifics. The Migration Amendment (Character Cancellation Consequential Provisions) Bill 2016 will make a number of amendments to give full effect to the substantive amendments made by the Migration Amendment (Character and General Visa Cancellation) Act 2014. These amendments will ensure that noncitizens who commit crimes in Australia, or who pose a risk to Australian society, are considered for visa refusal or cancellation.
This government has protected Australians by previously introducing a revocation power for the minister to personally set aside, in the national interest, decisions by his delegates or the AAT. The amendments in this particular bill will ensure that mandatory cancellation powers are consistent and comprehensive throughout the act so as to enact the original intent of the government's 2014 changes.
Our primary responsibility as legislators in this place is to protect the citizens of Australia. That is our first job and our first priority. The changes outlined in the bill are the first real attempt to update the security and protection features of the visa program since the mid-1990s. The world is a different place now. The changes outlined here demonstrate this coalition government's—and the Australian community's—low tolerance for criminal, non-compliant or fraudulent behaviour by those given the privilege of holding a visa to enter or stay in Australia.
Let me just mention the great unmentionable: the hardworking battler—the underpaid, overworked taxpayer. A weak or low threshold for character tests dilutes the nature of our system and costs us all more in the long run. Security is an expensive business. Prevention is always better than a cure. Prevention is also always cheaper than a cure.
The people we seek to remove from the Australian community, or ban from entering the Australian community in the first place, are against us. They are people who hate freedom. They hate us because we Australians love freedom. It is not enough to have an Australian residency visa to be an Australian. One needs to live the values, the hopes and the dreams of an Australian. One needs to embrace the history of Australia. This bill is carrying the message of John Howard, when he said in 2001:
We will decide who comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come.
This government is continuing that strong tradition of putting the Australian people first. Under Labor, the people smugglers and evil doers came first. Career criminals, drug peddlers and others like them were put first.
This bill will ensure that the confidential information that is critical to decision making will be given the same protections as other character provisions in the act. This bill will give full effect to the policy of mandatory cancellation. It puts beyond doubt that a noncitizen who is subject to a mandatory character cancellation decision will be removed from Australia.
This bill has given this government the strengthened ability to identify noncitizens with character concerns by amending the definition of 'character concern' to be consistent with the character test contained in section 501 of the Migration Act. Noncitizens who meet the amended and broader definition of being of character concern may have a personal identifier disclosed in accordance with permitted disclosure provisions of this act. This amendment has ensured that the minister's power to cancel a visa will not be affected or limited by any visa cancellation provisions of this act.
It is this government's commitment to ensure that noncitizens who pose a risk to the Australian community are dealt with effectively and efficiently. This bill will allow the detention of a person who is reasonably suspected of being subject to visa cancellation, as well as requiring the release of that person as soon as the officer becomes aware that there will be no cancellation.
This government will also ensure, via this amendment bill, that a person whose visa has been cancelled by the minister under section 501BA of the Migration Act will have any outstanding visas or visa applications they hold cancelled by operation of law. With this bill this coalition government is showing foresight in pulling down the shutters on that type of person setting foot on our golden soil. This should not be a land of opportunity for the young criminal. We will not and cannot let this nation ever become known as a soft touch.
In the final analysis the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection has the power, under section 501 of the Migration Act 1958, to refuse a person's application for a visa, or cancel a person's visa, if that person fails to satisfy the minister that he or she passes the character test. The Migration Amendment (Character Cancellation Consequential Provisions) Bill 2016 will amend the Migration Act to ensure that the substantive amendments made to the Migration Act in late 2014 are given full effect and to ensure that the character-related provisions are dealt with consistently through the Migration Act—not through Human Rights Watch or any other limp-wristed, loony-Left, leaf-eating Luddite organisation.
During the 2011-12 financial year 88 people had their visa applications refused and 157 people had their visas cancelled on this basis. This is a paltry figure, given that we know that Labor's legacy was 30,000 people in community detention awaiting processing. It is a pathetic figure, given that we know that paperwork was often and regularly destroyed, forged or fabricated.
I am calling on the minister to use these new powers with gusto. I make this call because it is what my constituents of Tangney would want—to protect the safety and security of all the people of Australia. That is the mandate that I have in this place.
Just when you thought there was nothing further this government could do to make our migration and visa system more obscure, difficult and unfair, it has done it again. While the most egregious provisions are already law via amendments to the Migration Act through the Migration Amendment (Character and General Visa Cancellation) Act 2014, this bill exacerbates the damage to our system of rule of law and justice. I therefore speak against the Migration Amendment (Character Cancellation Consequential Provisions) Bill 2016 and urge colleagues to reject it as yet another exercise in cynical, nasty, dog whistling against those who are 'other'.
The Law Council of Australia has branded this bill a departure:
… from accepted rule of law and procedural fairness standards, and as a result, may adversely affect protection claims made by asylum seekers, in some circumstances risking refoulement.
The concerns which led the Law Council to recommend against passage of the bill in its current form include: retrospective amendments to the Migration Act, the minister assuming the role of the courts in assessing criminal conduct, the extension of certain visa cancellation provisions to new groups and the disclosure of information in relation to the cancellation and character provisions.
With regard to retrospectivity in the bill, the Law Council explains that this may mean:
… visa holders may have their visa cancelled for previous actions or omissions that did not give rise to a cancellation at the time. This gives rise to risk of refoulement of people with a genuine need for protection.
One example the Law Council gives is:
… where a person serving a sentence of imprisonment may have failed to make representations to the Minister or Minister's delegate about the refusal or cancellation of their visa as stipulated in section 501CA, not realising that the failure to do so would lead to their removal pursuant to the proposed amendments to section 198(2A).
The Asylum Seeker Resource Centre has expressed its concern:
… about the use of a broad, discretionary power where the Minister may overturn a decision of a review tribunal. The Minister's power is exempt from the rules of natural justice … and will be exercised to 'trump' the considered decision on the merits of a review tribunal. The ASRC believes that a lawful decision of a Tribunal should be subject only to judicial review, which is an option available to the Minister, rather than a use of a discretionary power. The amendments proposed in this Bill would extend the Minister's cancellation powers even further, and are unnecessary in light of the broad powers which already exist in the Migration Act, which provide for the Minister to cancel a person's visa in the national interest …
The proposed amendments in this Bill would mean that those subject to the Minister's cancellation power could be detained if there is a mere 'reasonable suspicion' that their visa will be subject to cancellation under the Minster's power. Like the amendments ushered in by the Character Act, this section effectively makes a determination that a person has been involved in criminal conduct despite the absence of a criminal conviction. Section 501CA(3) of the Migration Act effectively allows the Minister to assume the role of the court in assessing criminal conduct, replacing a proper criminal court process with an administrative process.
The present bill extends the application of subsection 193(1)(a)(v) of the Migration Act to persons serving a sentence of imprisonment who are not thereby required to be informed that they have only two working days to apply for a visa after they have had their visa cancelled personally by the minister under section 501BA.
The Law Council observes that this could result in the deportation of a person who is serving a sentence of imprisonment and whose visa was cancelled before they had the opportunity to seek judicial review of the cancellation. The Law Council notes the justification set out in the explanatory memorandum for this denial of procedural fairness is that a person will generally have had their visa cancelled by a delegate and would have been informed at that point. The council:
… considers that this does not appear to be a sufficient justification for denying a person in this situation a fundamental aspect of their right to procedural fairness ...
(a) it is not onerous for the Department to provide a detainee with notice of timeframes within which they can apply for a further visa and information pertaining to the duration of their detention, and this would guarantee procedural fairness; and
(b) some detainees may have difficulty in understanding their legal options and rights for various reasons, such as restricted access to information and/or legal advice and representation while in detention, lack of familiarity with the legal system, or unfamiliarity with the English language. This is further compounded by the strict limits on timeframes for applications in detention and lack of access to legal advice.
Similarly, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights has concluded that it is unclear how this amendment is necessary or reasonable. It said:
The committee notes that no specific explanation is provided for why the Bill includes amendments that a noncitizen who has had a visa cancelled by the minister personally under section 501BA does not need to be informed that they may only apply for a visa within 2 working days. Moreover, given the time critical nature of a person's response to cancellation, no justification is provided as to how it is sufficient that such information will have been provided previously in a different context, particularly given the very serious consequences for the individual concerned and given their pre-existing vulnerability as a person in detention.
The Asylum Seeker Resource Centre has noted:
Given the potentially life-threatening consequences of removal if no other application is lodged, asylum seekers should not be intentionally deprived of information relating to the further options open to them and should have a full opportunity to exercise the rights available to them. It is not onerous for the Department to inform people of their rights: the stated justification in the Explanatory Memorandum is disproportionate to the potential consequences. People in detention must be advised about their rights to apply for any visas, otherwise they may be detained or their detention continued because they were not informed of their options.
With regard to the issue of extension of visa cancellation provisions to new groups, I note that the previous amendments to the Migration Act through the Character Act already dangerously extended visa cancellation powers by, among other things, lowering the threshold from 'significant risk' to 'risk' of a person engaging in criminal conduct or harassment or where a person represents a danger to the Australian community or risks being involved in activities disruptive to the Australian community.
The Law Council notes that these amendments have led to a significant number of people being placed in detention even before charges have been determined by the courts, and, in some instances, the person has been later found not to have been guilty of the offence. In some cases, the person has been found not to have been guilty of the offence and has nevertheless been kept in detention.
Significant concerns about the Character Act were also raised by the Refugee Council of Australia and the Australian Human Rights Commission, among others. These concerns have included the considerable risk of prolonged indefinite detention, especially in relation to refugees who cannot be removed to their country of origin due to the risks that they may face persecution or other forms of serious harm in their country of origin and stateless people, who have no country which is obliged to accept them. They also include: the mandatory nature of the visa cancellation powers, which significantly decreases the capacity of the system to consider the individual circumstances of a case before a person is detained; the very low thresholds for visa cancellation which trigger visa cancellations even in the absence of a real risk to the community; and the continued trend towards increasing the personal discretionary powers of the minister, including to reverse carefully made decisions by merits review tribunals.
As the Refugee Council observes:
These concerns have increased since the introduction of the Character Act. There has been a very significant increase in the number of people being detained as a result of visa cancellations. This has included people on permanent refugee visas as well as on bridging visas, and stateless people, all of whom are now at risk of indefinite detention. As at 31 January 2016, there are 549 people being detained as a result of visa cancellations.
The Refugee Council of Australia has surveyed its members to gather initial information on this rapid increase in visa cancellations. The council commented:
Significant concerns so far raised include:
We have already seen these visa cancellation provisions result in a death in Yongah Hill, with a refugee whose visa had been cancelled burning himself to death. There are also concerns that the mixing of detainees with visa cancellations contributed to the death of another young asylum seeker in August 2015.
The bill also expands the definition of character concerns so that a wider range of noncitizens may be required to disclose personal identifiers, including noncitizens who have been found not fit to plead in relation to an offence and noncitizens who are reasonably suspected of association with criminal groups or persons involved in criminal conduct. The Law Council notes that the amendments in this bill build on the problematic section 501 of the Migration Act, which essentially allows the minister or a delegate to make a determination that a person has been involved in criminal conduct despite the absence of a criminal conviction. There are no criteria in the act to determine criminal conduct and no definition of what is meant by association.
The Law Council observes that the act and these amendments are likely to legitimise 'a process of guilt by association'. It therefore considers that conferring a broad executive discretion for the minister to determine that a particular group or organisation is involved in criminal conduct is unacceptable, particularly in circumstances where the consequences are to limit freedom of association and to expose noncitizens to the possibility of being deemed of character concern.
This bill further provides that character concern may be based on a risk assessment by ASIO. Given that only citizens can access AAT merits review of an adverse security assessment by ASIO, this is of serious concern. I have spoken in this place before about the cruelty and unfairness inherent in a system that can allow an unaccountable security agency to make a security assessment of a person based on facts or allegation that the person is not allowed to know.
For those persons who have been assessed to be refugees and therefore cannot be returned to their home country, the result of a negative security assessment is indefinite detention. In March 2012 the Joint Select Committee on Australia's Immigration Detention Network, chaired by Daryl Melham MP, recommended that alternatives to indefinite detention, such as control orders, be developed for refugees in this situation who cannot be repatriated, but so far this has not occurred. The committee also recommended that refugees and asylum seekers have access to merits review in the AAT.
The former Labor government introduced a limited system of review by a retired judge of negative security assessments, but the outcome for a refugee whose negative security assessment is upheld remains indefinite detention. In my view, noncitizens should have access to the AAT as citizens do. It is simply not sustainable for a country that professes to believe in human rights and rule of law to keep refugees who have been convicted of no offence in the dark indefinitely about why they are assessed to be a security risk and to keep them in detention indefinitely. I venture to say it is Kafkaesque.
Finally, it is useful to look at the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights' conclusions regarding the following rights and obligations that are engaged by the amendments in this bill. First, non-refoulement obligations: the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection's non-compellable powers are insufficient protection against non-refoulement, and international law is very clear that administrative arrangements are insufficient to protect against unlawful refoulement. Second, the right to liberty: the bill reduces important procedural safeguards. Third, the right to freedom of movement: this freedom applies to both citizens and permanent residents who have lived in Australia for a long time and regard Australia as their own country. Fourth, the obligation to consider the best interests of the child: certain provisions, such as those relating to the discretionary visa revocation process and mandatory visa cancellation, do not appear to provide for consideration of the best interests of the child. Fifth, the right to equality and nondiscrimination: the mandatory visa cancellation of individuals sentenced to 12 months or more in prison is likely to disproportionately affect individuals with mental health concerns, which establishes prima facie that there may be indirect discrimination.
In its submission, the New South Wales Council of Civil Liberties made some recommendations in relation to the act and this bill's amendments, which I fully support:
In summary, this bill is yet another example of the lack of transparency and accountability that are hallmarks of the immigration department and this government as a whole. I urge colleagues to reject it and to call for a review of the entire legislative framework governing the character provisions of the Migration Act.
I rise to speak on the Migration Amendment (Character Cancellation Consequential Provisions) Bill 2016. The bill makes a number of amendments to give full effect to the earlier substantive amendments that were made by the Migration Amendment (Character and General Visa Cancellation Act) 2014.
What were those amendments originally designed for? It was to send a message that if you are a noncitizen of this country and you engage in criminal and antisocial conduct, you will be deported. I will go through the five main points in the provisions of the earlier 2014 act. Firstly, they provide for mandatory cancellation of the visa of a person who is serving a prison sentence where the minister is satisfied that the person fails the character test as they have a substantial criminal record or have been found guilty of sexually based offences involving a child. A noncitizen with a substantial criminal record or a noncitizen that has been found guilty of a sexually based offence involving a child does not deserve the enormous privileges that come with living in this country.
Secondly, the previous bill broadened the power to refuse or cancel visas by including additional grounds on which a person will not pass the character test. Thirdly, the previous bill provided that a person does not pass the character test if there is a risk—rather than the previous 'significant risk'—that they would pose a danger to the Australian community. That was simply lowering the standard. Quite simply, someone that poses a risk of danger to the Australian community and who is a noncitizen does not belong in this country.
Fourthly, the previous bill amended the definition of a substantial criminal record so that a person sentenced to terms of imprisonment totalling 12 months or more, rather than the previous two years, would not pass the character test. We have seen the lenient sentences of many of the judges in this country. The message is: if you engage in criminal activity and you are sentenced to 12 months or more in jail and you are a noncitizen, your visa will be revoked and you will be deported. Fifthly, the amendments allowed the minister to set aside decisions by a delegate or a tribunal and cancel a visa if the minister thinks it is in the national interest. Ministers of this parliament, quite correctly, should be able to cancel the visa of a noncitizen if the minister thinks that is in the national interest.
The provisions in this bill that we are here debating today will simply give full effect to the policy of this government of mandatory cancellation of visas, by putting beyond doubt that a noncitizen who is the subject of a mandatory character cancellation decision is available for removal from Australia if they do not seek revocation within the relevant time period or are unsuccessful in having their visa reinstated. That is the message. If we are to maintain social cohesion in our country and if we are to continue to give people from all parts of the world the opportunity to be citizens of this country, then this is necessary policy.
Despite the member for Fremantle's comments, I understand that the Labor Party is supporting this—although the member for Fremantle's speech really puts a doubt over that. In the shadow minister for immigration's speech on this bill, he said:
… it is becoming clear that the government—
That is the coalition government that I am a member of—
is utilising ministerial discretion to cancel visas on character grounds to a greater extent than was the case under the former Labor government.
Well hear, hear! This government will stand up for the rights of Australian citizens to go about their lawful business without being subject to the criminal activity of unlawful citizens.
How timely it is that we are debating this bill here in parliament today. We saw last weekend on the streets of Sydney and Melbourne a multicultural war, with hundreds of people rioting in the streets of our two major cities. I have a report from news.com.au which I think is worth reading to show the chaos on our streets. It says:
Melbourne's annual Moomba Festival descended into carnage as hundreds of rival gang members brawled in the CBD … Armed with knives and guns, about 200 members of the Apex and Islander 23 gangs—
Ethnic based gangs with many members who would be noncitizens—
were heard chanting "f**k the police" before launching an all-out brawl that turned Federation Square and surrounding streets into a riot zone.
Police were forced to use batons and pepper spray to break up the warring street gang youths as they punched and beat each other.
A number of people were treated for injuries in the city and taken to hospital after the clash …
These are not the scenes that we want to see on our streets. That is why this legislation is so important. We want to send a message, as the government, that that type of conduct by ethnic gangs—by noncitizens—is completely unacceptable and will result in their deportation.
It was not just Melbourne; it was also in Sydney as well on the weekend. The same article says:
In Sydney, a bloodthirsty brawl erupted outside popular CBD concert venue the Metro Theatre …
It was described as the worst rioting in a decade. The article continues:
The Daily Telegraph reports that two women were seen shoving each other and screaming "f *** the police, f*** them dogs" as they were being subdued.
We have a serious problem in this nation if we give people all the wonderful opportunities that our country offers and yet they come here with so little respect and they disrespect our police in such a manner. This is why we need the provisions to deport them. If you think that I am being tough on these people—and it does not matter what nation they are from—who should be deported, in my support I will quote a recent interview by Mark Colvin of a Deng Adut, a gentlemen who was one of our young Australians of the year and a prominent south Sudanese born lawyer. He called for deportation. He said:
… many of them—
those engaged in the riot, his fellow South Sudanese expatriates—
would be better off if the Australian government sent them back to South Sudan.
He said:
… the best way to help them is actually to consider deporting most of these kids, that are there to cause problems for themselves, their parents and the community at large, and wider Australian community.
He went on:
Because everyone wants to be in peace. Everyone wants to—no-one wants to be assaulted, no-one wants to be in trouble. Everyone want to go home when they come from work, go home and sleep—not being assaulted.
He was then asked this question by the interviewer:
You're saying that if there are young south Sudanese men who are causing problems they should be deported?
DENG ADUT: Yeah.
… … …
It is harsh, but what is, what is there for them, what is life is it there for them? Being in jail every now and then? Go to jail every two months, every three months, every six months, every seven months?
Some of these spend last at least, least 10 years going before the court, so what's the point of keeping these kids here? What's the point?
They're not adding anything to this economy, they're not helping their parents, and they're not helping anyone. And my opinion is basically—it is not working.
We offer enormous opportunities in this country, and Deng Adut—I hope I pronounced that correctly—is an example of the opportunities we give to people from overseas, to refugees. His story: someone who came to Australia illiterate, penniless, a teenager traumatised physically and emotionally by war in South Sudan. In his speech on Australia Day, to show the opportunities this country offers, he said:
I had to wait until I became an Australian citizen to know that I belonged. As an Australian I am proud that we have a national anthem. It's ours and to hear it played and sung is to feel pride, pride that we are a nation of free people.
He continued—this is Deng Adut, someone who escaped from the war in South Sudan:
Australia opened the doors of its schools and universities.
Australia educated me. How lucky I became. How lucky is any person who receives an education in a free land and goes on to use it in daily life.
… … …
I was lucky. You are too. Freedom from fear is about acceptance of our common identity. For we Australians in 2016 freedom from fear is almost taken for granted. We had better take care to keep it.
That is what we are doing in this legislation. We want to make sure that Australian citizens feel free to walk in any part of the country. We want to make sure that the scenes that were seen in our cities, our capital cities of Melbourne and Sydney, over the past weekend never happen again. Those people should be arrested, they should be sentenced and if they are noncitizens they should be deported. We owe it to the refugees and to the migrants of this country who have come here and want to live their lives in peace and to take hold of the opportunities our country offers. That is why the coalition will stand up and we will take tough action on this. We will send a message to noncitizens that if they are engaged in criminal activity, their visa will be ripped up and they will be deported. With that, I commend this legislation to the House.
We are here debating the Migration Amendment (Character Cancellation Consequential Provisions) Bill 2016 because the government will not agree with the amendments passed in the Senate when the provisions in this bill last came before it. The Senate said, 'We'll pass your bill, but we want some changes.' The Senate said, 'We want kids out of detention', and it passed amendments to the bill to get kids out of detention. 'We want to have', said the Senate, 'mandatory reporting of abuse that happens in detention.' The Senate said: 'All child abuse and other assaults witnessed in detention centres must be reported to the relevant independent authorities. Failure to do so should be a criminal offence and currently departmental staff are required to report abuse only to the department.' So the Senate said, 'Let's have applying in our detention centres similar laws to some of the laws that apply here on the mainland, where if you see abuse it is a requirement to report it.'
The Senate also said, when a version of this bill last came before it: 'Let the media into the detention centres to see what's going on. The government say this is being done in our name and we are funding it, including in other countries, so then let's at least be able to test the government when they say everything is fine in this detention centres, when the government say, "We're running them to the best of our ability", but we hear report after report of abuse and of rape. Let us let the media go in and shine a bit of sunlight into these places so that we know what is being done in the Australian people's name and with the Australian people's money.' That is what the Senate said when this bill was last bowled up to it.
And the Senate said, 'Let's also reverse and remove these provisions that make it a criminal offence for people, like doctors, to speak up when they see abuse happening.' Doctors, as well as many other officials, but doctors and other health professionals in particular, are there to make sure people are healthy. They have taken oaths; their obligation is to speak out when they see harm being done to someone. And what is this government's response to that? It is not to stop doing harm; it is to silence the doctor! It is to say, 'We will jail you for a couple of years if you speak out when you see a child being abused.'
The last time this proposal was brought before this place, the Senate said, 'We want some changes.' Faced with that, what does the government do? The government could come back and say, 'Let's debate those changes.' The government, heaven forbid, could even agree and say: 'Yes, we will make it illegal to put children in detention. We will require the mandatory reporting of abuse.' You would not think that too many people would cavil with that. You would not think that too many people, even in the government, would have a problem with saying that, when someone sees abuse taking place in a centre run by Australian money, they have to report it to the relevant independent authorities.
But the government cannot even bring itself to do that. So what does it do? It goes away, parks the bill, with that with Senate amendments, and comes back and cuts out the bits of the bill that it likes and reintroduces the bill. Then it comes in here and talks about events that have happened in the last three or four days to justify this bill that has obviously been sitting there for some time. The government comes back and says: 'No, what we want is just the bits of it we like. We want to continue to run a race to the bottom on refugees. In this bill, we want to give the minister broader power to effectively target noncitizens to be able to cancel their visas.' At the moment, there are provisions that allow the minister to cancel visas, and they are sometimes exercised. But the minister has to be satisfied that the person is a significant risk and is engaging in conduct that people in Australia would find objectionable. Now the minister needs only to reasonably suspect it, whether or not they have been convicted of any conduct of the kind that is objectionable. The minister just has to reasonably suspect something and we will see removal, again, or restriction of appeal rights.
So you have the minister coming back and saying: 'I hear the parliament saying to me that it would like kids out of detention. I hear the parliament saying to me that it would like the media in detention centres. I hear the parliament saying to me that it would like us to mandatorily report child abuse. Forget about that! I just want the powers to be able to beat up on people who come here seeking our help. That is what I want.' Shamefully, in an election year, Labor signed up to it again. Every time the government comes in and says, 'Can we beat up on refugees a bit more?', Labor says: 'How much of a blank cheque do you want? Let's walk hand in hand down the aisle towards the election to make sure that this is another election, yet again, where, instead of putting forward positive visions for the Australian people, where instead of the election being about reaching for the stars, we are going to engage in a race to the bottom. How can we help you? How can we help you so that we in the Labor Party can be "small target" on refugees? As long as you tell us that a piece of legislation has a national security imperative, we will sign up to it.'
We saw that not only with this but also with metadata. Anything that the government wanted, Labor was prepared to sign up to. And now we are seeing it again on refugees. We see it when the minister comes in to this place and defends the treatment of Baby Asha and the treatment of children who are now here in Australia. Some of them are going to Australian schools and the minister still will not give then some basic security that they are going to be allowed to stay here. What do we hear from the so-called opposition? Not a peep! It is left to the Greens, again, to be the real opposition on the issues that matter.
When it comes to the question of immigration, I think everyone understands that it is a complicated issue and everyone understands that we should do everything we possibly can to ensure that people do not die at sea. Of course we should do that. You will not find a member of this place who disagrees with that. The question is: are we really the kind of country that cannot come up with a better way of doing it other than to sanction child abuse? That is what detention is. Not only are we sanctioning child abuse in detention under the government's and Labor's approach; with this bill and with the government's refusal to accept Senate amendments we are sanctioning the nonreporting of it. We are saying that we will not make it mandatory for someone who comes into contact with a child who may have been abused to report it to independent authorities. Can you imagine if that happened here on the mainland? Can you imagine if that happened with one of our kids? Can you imagine any instance of someone living in our community as a citizen here on the mainland in which a government or a political party would sanction the idea that a professional does not have to report abuse when they see it? Of course not! We would all find that reprehensible. Yet, with this bill, we are sanctioning it offshore.
There is yet to be one argument put forward as to why we should not allow the media in. Why not? Why not let the media into detention centres to see what is going on for a bit of oversight? Obviously they are not going to be there all the time, but why not allow them to see what is being done in our name? These are not prisons. These are not prisons in the legal sense. They are prisons in a practical sense, but they are not prisons. The people in there have not committed a crime. So you have people who have not committed a crime, staying in a place, either on an island that they cannot get off or surrounded by cages, and they cannot get out. This is being done in our name. Why not let the media in? Why not have a bit of transparency? There is no argument about that at all. What can possibly be the reason, after everything that we have heard about Baby Asha, for the government continuing to say that it is all right for doctors and health professionals to face a jail term? There are no answers to that, just a request for more powers, and the Labor Party is all too happy to co-sign it.
What could we be arguing for instead? We could be doing a number of things. We could recognise that this country used to do things differently. Look back to the era of Malcolm Fraser, where we had a regional solution where we said people who need processing are going to find somewhere to be processed. Maybe it will be Australia, maybe it will be a different country, but we will strike an arrangement with others who can take them in. And do you know what? It stopped the boats and it ended mandatory detention in the form that we know it now. Yes, people were held for a while and then they were processed, but then they were settled, because the government then looked at people who were fleeing and risking their lives and those of their families and said: 'There has to be a better way. We have to be able to take some of these people in and diminish the risk that people will die at sea.' They did it in a way that did not involve locking people up indefinitely. They did it in a way that did not involve locking kids up until they broke.
That is what we can do again. That is what we should be debating. If you are going to bring a migration bill, listen to what the Senate has told you and ask how we can do it differently and what we could do. We hear a lot about the people smugglers' business model and that we need to break it. People smugglers are again referred to in this legislation. I will tell you one thing: the people smugglers' business model is built on desperation. There are thousands of people in camps in our region—in Indonesia, in Malaysia. Many of them have already been determined to have been refugees, but they are stuck in these camps, waiting for years and years, and they do not see a way out. It is not surprising; despite there being thousands of people in the camps, Australia some years only took a couple dozen of them.
So they are stuck there. Along comes someone who says, 'Tell you what: if you give me a bit of money, I'll hop you on a boat and take you to Australia.' Because they have been waiting there so long and they do not see a way out, many of them do it. What do you do in that situation? One of the things we could do is immediately start taking a couple of thousand from those camps—well within our existing refugee intake—and bring them here. That sends a signal to people in those camps that Australia is taking people again and that maybe, if I wait my turn, I do not need to get on a boat. If I wait my turn, maybe Australia will take me too—or, if not Australia, somewhere else.
Let's immediately take some from the region. Let's put in effort on cooperation like they did 40 years ago with other countries who could take in some of these refugees so that people know that they maybe will not go to Australia but will go somewhere. All of a sudden you start to inject hope again, and then you have discussions about a migration system we can be proud of—one where we accept that Australia, as a wealthy country in the region, has an obligation to take in some people who are coming here seeking our help. It is not a limitless obligation but it is an obligation for which we could do much more than we are doing at the moment. Then, when people see Australia is taking people and other countries are taking people, the incentive to get on boats is reduced. That is what everyone who works in this field and has experience with these people will tell you.
If we did that, we could start having—especially in an election year—a debate about immigration that we could be proud of. Instead we are here racing to the bottom again. It is disappointing to know that the government is doing it. You expect that, but it is disappointing that they are doing it with the full support of the Labor Party.
I rise to commend the Migration Amendment (Character Cancellation Consequential Provisions) Bill 2016 and the amendments therein. The amendments within the bill allow for the complete implementation of the significant amendments established through the Migration Amendment (Character and General Visa Cancellation) Act 2014. The coalition government—this government—is intent on maintaining and ensuring the safety and security of Australia and its citizens now and into the future.
The changes within this bill ensure that the coalition government fulfils its mandate to protect the people entrusted to its care, whether they be first nation people, third-generation Australians or recent migrants and refugees. This government seeks to protect everyone in its immediate care. Our government, through the legislation we pass and the values we hold fast to, seek to affirm right and good character of all our citizens and those endeavouring to be citizens.
It is in the interest of us all to advocate for character within our society that reflects the values we stand for—values that are underpinned by the rule of law, the freedom of religion, the freedom of speech and the freedom of association, among many others that we hold dear in this country. Conversely, it is the role of our laws and justice systems to ensure that those who do not abide by our values can be dealt with accordingly.
In Australia we will always welcome people to our great country, but this requires that those whom we welcome do not just benefit from the rights that are afforded by Australia but also meet their obligations as Australian citizens. A principle central to the Australian project is the principle of mutual obligation. We may be conferred rights by our citizenship, but alongside those rights come responsibilities. We are given the right to freedom of speech, freedom of association and freedom of religion—as the American founders called it, 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness'—but alongside that come responsibilities to uphold the rule of law and abide by those laws.
At the heart of the Australian project is a group of people living together, seeking to build a future that is based on prosperity, harmony and security. The character of nations is merely the reflection of the character of their constituent individuals. The Australian society reflects millions of individual lives and the private characters that are expressed through those lives, so it is important that we preserve this project through acts like this. As John Howard said in 2001, 'We will decide who comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come.' This migration amendment bill of 2016 is merely an extension of that principle so clearly articulated by the Prime Minister back then.
In the electorate of Canning, the people I represent care very much about preserving the Australian project. I have a lot of migrants in Canning. It was a pleasure to participate in a citizenship ceremony on Australia Day this year in Mandurah, which sits in the heart of Canning. We welcomed new citizens from all over the world: the continent of Africa, Asia, Europe and even from North America. My wife is in fact a migrant from North America. When she came to this country and took on citizenship she embraced both the rights and the responsibilities afforded to her by her citizenship. In Canning we care very much about preserving the fabric of our society. It is disheartening when we see examples like the one reported in the Mandurah Mail in 2014 of a resident on a protection visa who appeared in court for robbing a man outside an ATM. This was one of many crimes that he had committed. It turned out that he was convicted of the robbery. This happened before we made this amendment. I welcome this amendment because it allows the minister to exercise his responsibilities and ensure that people of bad character are not afforded citizenship. This bill will allow us to prevent men like this from entering our communities and creating unnecessary havoc. As some of my colleagues have already said, prevention is far better than cure. This measure allows the minister to prevent situations evolving where we have unsavoury characters ruining the dynamic in our community.
Furthermore, the mandatory character cancellation measure will strengthen our level of protection and allow us to identify where a person is suspected of being of concern. The minister's bill fulfils one of the election promises made by the coalition government prior to being elected in 2014. The bill demonstrates the government's clear and continuing commitment to ensuring that noncitizens who pose a character risk to the Australian community are dealt with effectively and efficiently. Some might ask: why weren't these changes made by the character act in December 2014? Due to the complexity of the Migration Act, several consequential amendments that should have been made to the Migration Act were not identified until after the character act commenced in December 2014.
There are two key amendments and I will outline them briefly. The first is that the new removal powers being introduced in this bill will put beyond doubt that noncitizens who do not seek revocation of a subsection 501(3A) cancellation decision in accordance with section 501CA of the Migration Act within the prescribed time frame, or whose request for revocation is refused, are required to be removed as soon as reasonably practicable. Removals are currently being conducted under a different removal power, but this will put the matter beyond doubt. The second is that it will ensure that confidential information that is critical to decision-making under the mandatory cancellation provisions receive the same level of protection that is currently afforded to confidential information relating to the other character provisions. This is important during the revocation stage. The AFP may have information significant to the decision but which would be detrimental if it were made available to the person seeking revocation—for example, a man was convicted of a child sexual abuse case and served six months, but the AFP advised that he is being investigated for being part of child internet pornography ring. This provision allows law enforcement agencies like the AFP to conduct their investigations without compromising those investigations and still be able to revoke visas.
The mandatory cancellation provisions introduced in December 2014 have resulted in an initial spike of noncitizens having their visa cancelled and subsequently being placed in immigration detention. Noncitizens who have had their visa mandatorily cancelled are able to seek revocation of that decision. A noncitizen awaiting a revocation outcome may remain in immigration detention or leave Australia and await the outcome of their revocation request in their home country. If the revocation decision is favourable, that person would be able to return to Australia.
As someone once said, 'If a speech be good it need not be long; if a speech be bad it must not be long.' I argue that my speech and this bill are the former. They are good. Therefore I commend this bill. The government's clear and ongoing commitment is to ensure that noncitizens who pose a risk to the Australian community are dealt with effectively, efficiently and comprehensively. I commend the bill to the House and thank you for your time.
It is good to have this opportunity to speak on the Migration Amendment (Character Cancellation Consequential Provisions) Bill 2016. This is certainly a bill about accountability. It is about the expectations that this country has of people who come to our shores—the expectation that the law will be abided by and that people will fulfil responsibilities to act in a way that is good for the community. It is one of the things that is obvious to us all—how often issues regarding crime and antisocial behaviour are genuine concerns that people relay to us. People want to feel safe in their homes; they want to feel safe on the streets. They do not like to see crime committed on the streets. They like to see their suburbs in the best possible way. Not just federally but at all levels—federal, state and local—it is right that we are all focused on the primary concern of government: keeping people safe.
Just on Sunday I was at Harmony Day at Ballajura at Karijini Oval, and the issue that came up quite often was: what was happening in the local carparks. Karijini Oval is right next to South Ballajura Primary School. There is a car park on one side. There is the main entrance to the primary school on one side. Wyperfeld Gardens is the name of that street. And on the other side—Badgingarra Gardens and Karijini Court—there is another car park. Both car parks, as I understand it, are owned by the Department of Education. Basically they are provided for the school.
What irritates local people is when, as early in the day as 5.30 pm, in the school's main car park, there are people selling drugs. It is a terrible thing. On the other side, on the Badgingarra side, I have been told that the PE teacher has had to go out and clean up needles and even condoms in that car park before the kids move through the car park to go to a set of basketball courts or across to the Karijini Oval next to it. These are the things that obviously worry people and that do not impress people.
Someone said to me, 'Ballajura, or this part of Ballajura, used to be good when I first moved here.' I think that, really, Ballajura is still good.
I had the opportunity just yesterday to speak to the policeman responsible, Senior Sergeant Wal Brierley of Ellenbrook Police Station. He is aware of the issues in Ballajura. And it is good. The police work very hard there, and I commend them for the work they do. I asked him and one of his sergeants, 'Where do these troubles come from in Ballajura? A lot of people do talk about them.' He said to me that, a lot of the time, crime is inflated by social media and there are perceptions that it is worse than it is. I think that is probably right. I said, 'Where do the people who are responsible for the volume crimes—the burglaries, assaults et cetera—come from?' He said, 'Well, there are some domestic issues in Ballajura. Probably, in a suburb of over 6½ thousand houses, that is not surprising.' But he did say that most of the burglaries are committed by people who come from outside the suburb. So, whilst I have mentioned these great and serious concerns about drug dealing and other antisocial or criminal acts that might be taking place around South Ballajura Primary School, there are very good people in Ballajura and they need to be protected and defended, because most people are not involved in crime and the numbers of local people involved seem to be very small indeed.
South Ballajura Primary School is not far from the South Ballajura shops where, sadly, the antisocial actions of a small number of people have caused Australia Post to temporarily close their SPB, their street posting box, at that shopping centre. It is a small shopping centre. It has a Woolworths and a number of other little shops—a coffee shop et cetera. But it is only about 500 metres from the school. So you have these two places where not good things happen. But what a great example this is of an opportunity where CCTV could be of benefit. So I look forward to working with the police and the City of Swan and the Department of Education to progress that sort of option because I think it is a good one for local people to protect the good people of Ballajura from those who would seek to make their lives harsh and difficult. I do look forward to that.
More specifically on this bill, a lot has been said and written recently about the number of people who have had their visas cancelled on character grounds and are in the process of being deported. I saw a media report which said that it was over 1,050 people. And I think that that is great. I think that is absolutely great.
I think that it is important that, again, when we get down to accountability, there are expectations in this country, when people swear the oath or make the affirmation for their citizenship, that they will obey the rules and the laws of this country. That is not specific to this bill or really about this bill, but obviously we now have laws in this country whereby those involved in terrorism, if they are dual citizens, can have their citizenship revoked and be deported, after all the usual processes. And that is also very good news. I am very pleased to be part of a government that brought that law to the parliament and that it has now passed through the parliament.
But, as I said before, there are over 1,000 people who have had their visas cancelled who are in the process of being deported or have been deported—people involved with bikie gangs; people involved in organised crime—who basically, again, having failed the character test, are now facing that moment of accountability where they have not shown that they are good citizens and that they have been involved in things that are not part of being a good member of this Australian society. So, again, accountability is now coming home to roost. I think we are up to 19 bikies who have had their visas cancelled and have either been deported or are in the process of being deported. I think that is outstanding. And I do believe that the crime to do with drugs is going to be impacted by these sorts of good decisions. I think we should be very firm with people who place our society at risk.
All over the country crime remains an issue. All over the country ice is increasingly an issue. We hear about that all the time, whether it is in the regional centres, in the country or in the suburbs. It is through measures like this that the federal government helps our state and territory colleagues, and even local governments, to combat the organisations that are behind some of this drug manufacture and distribution. I think that that is exactly what we should be doing.
I very much appreciate this bill. This bill has clarified and fixed up a few small issues with regard to the overall issue of visa cancellation on the basis of character issues. We should be doing exactly this sort of work to help all of those involved in the fight against drugs and the fight against criminal behaviour on the streets of our cities. On that basis, I will remind the House that the two key amendments involved with this specific bill are to make sure that removals can be conducted and that there are no issues with that, and to make sure that it is absolutely authorised and is a very appropriate and simple process with regard to dealing with those who seek to have their cancellation overturned. That is important. Also, there is the amendment that the AFP may have the information significant to the decision but which would be detrimental if made available to the person seeking revocation. That is an important part as well—having the information that is necessary for the best and simplest visa cancellation process. These are the things that will be achieved through this amendment.
I look at these sorts of laws and this sort of legislation and I see a very direct correlation between the work that we can do here in the parliament and what is taking place on the ground in our suburbs. Sadly, in the drug trade, for instance, there are small operators. There is no doubt about it. But ultimately, in so many cases, there are levels of organised crime involved. Sometimes it is bikies; sometimes it is others. It is not always the case that people are arrested, charged and convicted. When you have these sort of laws where you can look at the character of people involved and at their organisations and associates, they will help keep our streets safe. That legal ability which is successful, normally, before the courts and in the appeal process. It is so important that we have these sorts of capacities.
I look at places like Ballajura and other places around Perth and around the electorate of Cowan as well—whether it is Lockridge, Beechboro or Wanneroo—and I know that in all these places there are drug issues. Fundamentally, the suburbs are full of great people who just want a safe life, a good life and a good future for their families and themselves. There is no doubt about that. But we must have every available option to deal with those who are creating these problems on the streets. We must look for things like this which can help the state police, territory police and federal police deal with these sorts of problems. If we can get these people who are potentially up to no good out of the country because they are not citizens, we should certainly use all of these options.
Together with the other actions that the government has taken with our Safer Streets Program, particularly with CCTV and lighting in the suburbs, these are the ways in which we, here in the federal parliament, can help out there on the streets to make sure the lives of people are as good as they can be. I commend this bill to the House.
My colleagues have spoken on this bill at length, so I do not wish to reiterate some of the detail of the provisions in this legislation, but I want to reinforce that these changes are necessary to ensure that the substantive amendments made by the Migration Amendment (Character and General Visa Cancellation) Act 2014 are given their full effect and that the character provisions are dealt with consistently throughout the Migration Act.
As we have heard from my colleagues, these amendments enhance the government's ability to address character concerns presented by noncitizens in the Australian community. This demonstrates this government's clear and continuing commitment to ensuring that noncitizens who pose a character risk to the Australian community are dealt with effectively and efficiently. We are talking about a certain category of individuals that present a risk to our country. It is this risk that we want to ensure is mitigated as much as possible.
The key amendments in this bill relate to the new removal powers, which will put beyond doubt that noncitizens who do not seek revocation of a subsection cancellation decision in accordance with a section of the Migration Act within the prescribed time frame, or whose request for revocation is refused, are required to be removed as soon as reasonably practicable.
The mandatory cancellation provisions introduced in December 2014 have resulted in an initial spike of noncitizens having their visa cancelled and subsequently being placed in immigration detention. Noncitizens who have had their visa mandatorily cancelled are able to seek revocation of that decision. So there is a course for them going forward. A noncitizen awaiting a revocation outcome may remain in immigration detention or leave Australia and await the outcome of their revocation request in their home country. If the revocation decision is favourable, that person would be able to return to Australia.
I want to say a few words about the communities that I have been speaking to on the issue of migration and integration into our community. Some of the churches and religious denominations in my electorate of Hindmarsh have come to me with some views on immigration, which I have taken on board. For example, they were very passionate about our country reaching out to the Syrian refugees. The decision we took last year to accommodate 12,000 Syrian refugees was a great decision. We reacted promptly and compassionately to the situation involving those refugees. From speaking to the Minister for Social Services and the Minister for Immigration, who is working on the project of integration with the Syrian refugees, I know that a lot has been done by the government not just in terms of financial resources; there has been a dedicated focus by government agencies working with service providers, such as the Australian Refugee Association in my electorate of Hindmarsh.
I want to run through some of the organisations that have been involved in contacting me. I recently attended World Prayer Day, which was all about Cuba, at the St Andrews by the Sea Uniting Church at Glenelg. I commend them on the work they are doing in the community more broadly, whether it be Mary's Kitchen, which I have been to at Christmas time twice now, I think. Reverend Adam Tretheway does a great job down there, as do all the volunteers at Mary's Kitchen. Reverend Malcolm Rawlings from the Henley Fulham Uniting Church has contacted me, along with some members of the parish. President Joe Cutillo and others from the Lockleys Catholic Parish Senior Citizens Club have raised various issues with me which I have taken on board. Whether it be foreign aid or matters of integration of refugees, our government is acting appropriately. In relation to our near neighbours, Julie Bishop, who has just returned from Fiji, has told us about the wonderful work the Australian government, the armed services and the aid agencies are doing in Fiji. This happens on so many occasions, whether in the Philippines after the cyclones or in Nepal after the disasters there. When there are natural disasters around the world, the Australian government and the Australian people band together and contribute with open hearts and open wallets to help countries and citizens in need.
My family has been to the Adelaide West Uniting Church at Brooklyn Park on a number of occasions. So I know from personal experience that there are very generous members of their community who have a vested interest in contributing to a safer and a better world. The list goes on of churches in my electorate. Ron Roberts from the Glenelg Church of Christ and everyone down there do a great job in looking out for the disadvantaged not only in our local communities but also overseas, as religious organisations do so well.
In talking about the contribution of community groups, I would also like to pay tribute to some of the Meals on Wheels organisations for the work they do in my electorate. I recognise, amongst others, Colin Humphreys from Edwardstown, Heather Franks from Henley and Grange, and Robert Boyle from West Torrens for their work and that of all their volunteers. There is also a great group in Glenelg North. As I am sure we all know, Meals on Wheels are committed, display great teamwork and are dedicated to helping residents in their local communities. I have been on meal runs a number of times, as I am sure some of my colleagues in this place have. Residents value not just the quality of food they provide but also the personal contact from the drivers and other helpers.
In taking this opportunity to speak on this bill, I want to pay tribute to the migrant community leaders who have had a great impact on my local community and wider society. The Manager of the Italian Pensioners of Thebarton, Francesco Violi, was recently recognised in the Australia Day Honours and is widely regarded by his local community as the driving force behind the work of the Italian Pensioners. I pay tribute to him for his passion for his community and for the hard work he does. I also pay tribute to Kelley Russo, Executive Officer of the PISA Italian Meals and Services. PISA make great quality food for Italian seniors in particular. I recognise John Mitroussidis, President of the Western Macedonian Brotherhood. George Genimahliotis is President of the Pan-Macedonian Federation at Mile End. I have been to a number of their events, including a Melbourne Cup function. There was a lot of colour and vibrancy, and a good afternoon was had by all who attended. Well done in bringing a number of communities together to celebrate in fellowship. They have done a great job in integrating their many communities. Mr Deputy Speaker, I am sure you recognise the contributions such organisations in your own electorate make.
On that fine note, well done to all these organisations and their members. It has been great engaging with you over the journey of my first term in parliament. Your contributions to our community and your hard work and dedication are valued. I pay tribute to you and thank you for your service to our community.
I rise to speak on the Migration Amendment (Character Cancellation Consequential Provisions) Bill 2016. In doing so, I would like to echo the words of the former Prime Minister, John Howard, who said famously, 'We will decide who comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come.' For it is our strict and fair immigration policies that have delivered us a safe and stable Australia. Australia is a nation built by migrants. A healthy and sustainable migrant program has always been at the heart of that growth and, indeed, at the heart of our nation's prosperity.
Consecutive waves of migration have delivered strong and prosperous multiethnic population centres. I am the son of migrants who travelled to this country from Italy and seized the opportunity to work hard for their fortune in this nation, and who have been rewarded in many more ways than can be measured financially. I am, in essence, the product of the strong and fair migratory system which has, of course, long existed in this country. You need only look at the current state of affairs across Europe to see a case in point for the systematic failing of immigration policies in the European Union.
Whilst one must always be careful in drawing comparisons when it comes to policy, it is abundantly clear to me that when migratory processes breakdown chaos quickly follows. In the European experience, we have seen large numbers of people crossing the Mediterranean Sea at their peril—a situation which occurred in our own waters under the failed policies of the Labor governments not that long ago. In the European experience, they have forfeited the ability to apply a rigorous character assessment of migrants, and the result has been profound.
Those that advocate an open door migratory policy should heed the dire warnings which have been laid out by the European experience. The other end of the spectrum, arguably, is occupied by the example of Australia's comprehensive and fair policies enacted and enforced under this government. Whilst this government has stopped the flow of illegal maritime arrivals into this nation, we also remain committed to ensuring that our migration policies, across the board, deliver the best possible outcome for our national interest. It is of course critical that we maintain a strong process to ensure that only people of good character are granted entry into Australia via visas.
Australia enjoys some of the safest and happiest communities in the world and whilst we face many challenges as a country we cannot benefit from granting people of poor character entry into our home. There is an expectation in the community that the government will act in a responsible manner in this space. If we are to remain a safe and prosperous society, we must continue to exercise due diligence when it comes to character assessment. The safety and security of our citizens is the foremost priority of this government, and it is against such a compact that we continue to strengthen our immigration standards, as we do in this bill today.
This bill makes a number of amendments to the Migration Act to improve coherency and consistency in the character related provisions, consequential to the amendments made by the Migration Amendment (Character and General Visa Cancellation) Act 2014. Crucially, this bill ensures that confidential information that is critical to decision making under the new character cancellation provisions receives the same level of protection as that currently afforded to confidential information relating to other character provisions in the Migration Act. It aligns the definition of 'character concern' in the Migration Act with the character test, to ensure consistency and coherency between the operation of the two related provisions and to ensure that the department is able to identify noncitizens who have a criminal history or who have character that is of concern.
This bill will also give effect to the policy of mandatory cancellation. It will put beyond doubt that a noncitizen who is subject to a mandatory character cancellation decision is to be removed from Australia if they do not seek revocation within the relevant time period or, indeed, if they are unsuccessful in having their visa reinstated. That will deliver a better process for our citizens. Consistent with the original intent of the character and cancellation act, this will facilitate the lawful disclosure of noncitizens' identifying information where a noncitizen is suspected of being of a character of concern.
This bill demonstrates this government's clear and continuing commitment to ensuring that noncitizens who pose a risk to the Australian community are dealt with effectively, efficiently and comprehensively. It has been documented that, since this government brought in tougher cancellation provisions, there have been more visas cancelled. It stands to reason. The media, of course, have kicked up a fuss, particularly about our cousins across the ditch in New Zealand who have had their visas revoked, but I must stress that these actions are never taken lightly and that, in a vast majority of cases, individuals of ill repute have been removed from our country because of their own actions. In a sense, they are authors of their own circumstance.
Access to Australia via a visa or the grant of Australian citizenship is a high privilege. It is a privilege that billions across the planet will never achieve, notwithstanding that many of them aspire to it. It is absolutely essential that we ensure that those who visit this country are of good character and it is absolutely right that we revoke the visas of those who do not meet that exacting standard. Our comprehensive and secure migratory program protects that privilege, and I am proud of the coalition's record in this space. We have consistently made the tough decisions when it comes to immigration policy in Australia, and it is no different today.
It is not enough that we screen candidates thoroughly in the visa process. We must ensure that whilst they are in our nation they meet their mutual obligations under their visas. It is paramount that we hold each and every person to account for their actions. In doing so we deliver a clear message that we demand that those on visas adhere to our expectations as a nation. I again echo the words of former Prime Minister John Howard: 'We will decide who comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come.' Indeed, I wholeheartedly agree with the intent of this bill, which ensures that we will decide who will stay in this country and that they will deliver on their mutual obligations.
This government is delivering a safer and more prosperous nation, and it is doing it without compromising our long-held position on tough but fair migratory policies. It is in the national interest that we continue to deliver a targeted and fair program, and we should never relinquish our capacity to cancel visas and indeed citizenship of those of poor character. 1 commend this bill to the House.
I rise to speak in support of the Migration Amendment (Character Cancellation Consequential Provisions) Bill 2016. In 2014 the Australian government put forward the Migration Amendment (Character and General Visa Cancellation) Act to strengthen the character and general visa cancellation provisions in the Migration Act. This has ensured that noncitizens who commit crimes in Australia or pose a risk to the Australian community are appropriately considered for visa refusal or cancellation. This migration amendment bill builds on our successes since 2014 and includes further amendments. I will touch on these amendments in a moment, but I want to first explain the importance of what we are doing.
From day one, since we came to government in September 2013, we promised the Australian people a strong, prosperous economy and a safe and secure Australia, and that was very important. It is one of government's primary obligations, of course, to protect Australian citizens and ensure that we keep Australia safe. You will know that we stopped the boats; we stopped illegal immigration into Australia. We increased defence force spending, and we have strengthened anti-terrorism laws, and all these things are very important. In relation to the boats, we know that the Australian people were very clear at the last election, after 800 boats carrying 50,000 people had arrived due to the cancelling by Labor of the Pacific Solution. It caused chaos in our community. It really galvanised people in support of having sovereignty over our borders. And since we have been able to stop the boats and the drownings at sea and so forth, we have now been able to take legitimate refugees, and we have announced some 12,000 from Syria who will be allowed to come in. These are people who are fleeing for their lives. One thing I know is that the department and the minister ensure that there is proper security and health checks.
We have also increased defence spending, which had almost $16 billion ripped out of it in the six years leading up to 2013. It is very important that the men and women of the Australian Defence Force have the adequate equipment and hardware to ensure that we are cutting-edge, that we play a leading role in Asia, and we want to have the best defence force locally. Our 2015-16 budget delivered on our promise to grow rather than cut the defence budget.
I had the opportunity through the Australian Defence Force Parliamentary Program to visit Afghanistan in 2014 and meet some of the men and women in the Australian Defence Force who serve our nation. And I want to say very publicly here in this place that I thank them for their service—the men and women of the ADF who live in Petrie and in Brisbane and throughout Australia. I thank them for what they have done. It was really an opportunity for me, as someone who has never served in the ADF, to go there and see firsthand the great work that the men and women of the Army, the Air Force and the Navy do over in Afghanistan. In 2015 I had the opportunity to go to HMAS Stirling base in Western Australia and have a look at a submarine fleet and the frigates and so forth over there and to talk to many of the men and women in the Navy and thank them for the great job they are doing as well. I support the federal coalition government's commitment to continue to increase spending. It is very important.
Since our election the government has invested more than $22 billion in defence capability projects, and obviously new projects were announced in the defence white paper last week, which looks at how, for the next 10 years and beyond, we are going to adequately equip the ADF men and women with new hardware to make sure that we are cutting-edge in our region. We have strengthened anti-terrorism laws as well in the past couple of years, which is very important. We have passed new laws to strip dual nationals who have been convicted or suspected of terror offences of their citizenship.
And I must say, getting back to our refugee intake, that it is very important that we have those proper security checks and health checks. If you look at the flood of people who have come into Europe in the past 12 months or so, and the recent terrorist attacks in France, where it was reported that some of those terrorists came in with the flood of refugees, hiding amongst them, it just goes to show—and I know that people in my electorate want to make sure that legitimate refugees who come to this country are properly checked for both security and health. I know for sure that the Department of Immigration and Border Protection, and the minister, are making that happen. So we have done a lot in the past couple of years to ensure that Australia has its sovereignty back in place and that we have a better equipped defence force and sovereignty over our borders.
The first responsibility of a national government is the safety and security of its people. In this migration amendment bill we are not talking about terrorists, but we are talking about the safety of Australian people in the electorate of Petrie and all around Australia—simple law and order. This bill will enhance the government's ability to address character concerns presented by noncitizens in our communities. This bill specifically introduces new removal powers, so noncitizens who do not appeal a cancellation decision in time or whose request for revocation is refused are required to be removed as soon as reasonably practicable. In my electorate I have many people who were born overseas. Regularly, every few weeks, I attend citizenship ceremonies in my electorate of Petrie. I have people from all over the place who have moved into Australia and become Australian citizens, which is great, but many of them are just living here on a permanent basis and are not Australian citizens. Those who have become Australian citizens are from places like South Africa, New Zealand and other parts of Africa. There are many Europeans as well. They are playing a great role in contributing to the Petrie electorate, and I thank them for it.
This bill also ensures that people who have committed serious crime or have been to jail do not have the opportunity to remain living in Australia. If they have committed a serious crime—whether it be murder, rape or some sort of drug dealing—they are the sorts of people that we do not want in this country. We do not want those people living here in our country, and this bill ensures that we have the opportunity to make sure that they are not able to stay here. I support that 100 per cent. The minister has the opportunity to look at each individual case as well, if there are particular circumstances where people may have reformed and might be able to stay and play a part here, which I think is important as well.
The bill ensures confidentiality of information to ensure confidential information critical to decision making under the new character cancellation provisions receives the same level of protection currently afforded to confidential information relating to other character provisions in the Migration Act. It demonstrates this government's clear and continuing commitment to ensuring that noncitizens who pose a risk to the Australian community are dealt with effectively and efficiently. I know that the Australian people, and particularly the people in my electorate, support this 100 per cent.
It was reported in the Herald Sun on 9 March 2016 that, under the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection's watch:
More than 1000 foreign-born residents, including bikies and organised crime figures, have been ordered out of Australia in the past 15 months.
These 1,052 people 'failed to meet minimum character requirements under migration laws'. This is very important. It gives the government an opportunity to determine that, if foreign-born residents who are not Australian citizens are involved in illegal gangs or crime, they are not welcome here. They are not welcome to stay here and they will be deported. That is very important. The article continues:
Italian crime figure Francesco Madafferi has also lost his residency status and will be deported, as will a former Iraqi refugee after a criminal case against him relating to a $6 million drug smuggling ring is concluded.
As Minister Dutton said:
There is no greater responsibility of any government than to protect the community. The public is acutely aware of the criminal threat that outlaw motorcycle gang members pose. They are violent thugs that peddle drugs and misery for a profit, and Australians are sick of it. If foreigners come to our country, join bikie gangs and commit serious crimes and think they can remain here, they are wrong.
He is absolutely right, and this has the support of the people who I speak to in the Petrie electorate. We do not want people coming into this country who break the law or do the wrong thing. It is a privilege to live in Australia—an absolute privilege. If people are going to break the law it gives the minister and the government of the day the opportunity to send them packing. Let us be clear about that: you will not be welcome to stay if you commit a serious crime. It is a privilege to live here.
I want to thank all the people in my electorate who obey the law and do the right thing. It is not just the people who are born here but the migrants who have come here—and attend those citizenship ceremonies that I have been to—who play a wonderful role in our community. They are raising their families, going to work, getting involved in the community and volunteering. There are so many good people whom I meet at those citizenship ceremonies, and I thank them for it. But we do support this bill, in particular, and I thank the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection as well as staff from the Department of Immigration and Border Protection for enforcing these policies. We thank you for your public service and so do the Australian people. I thank the minister for the work on this bill, and I commend the bill the House.
I rise to speak on the Migration Amendment (Character Cancellation Consequential Provisions) Bill 2016. Before I get to the nuts and bolts of the bill, I want to tell you why immigration and migration are good for our country. This evening, out in the courtyard of the parliamentary annexe here, we had the very first concert for the Parliamentary Friends of Australian Music. It is called the Parliamentary Friends of Australian Music, but who was there? A young Scottish immigrant by the name of Jimmy Barnes, who came across here as a 10-pound Pom sort of thing. What about Suze DeMarchi? That is hardly an Australian name. The whole thing about immigration in this country is about what people add to us—the depth of flavour and the depth of character that immigration brings to our country. While we are talking about the music industry, look at Glenn Shorrock. He is English. Then there is John Farnham, Tina Arena, Michael Hutchence, Joe Camilleri and the boys from Hunters and Collectors—who have strong Irish roots. It is all about who we want in this great country. It is about what they add to us.
Wave upon wave, generation upon generation, decade upon decade, century after century, people from all walks of life, from all around the world, have come to our country to make a better life for themselves and their family. We are without doubt, and with great pride, the single most successful migrant nation on the face of the earth. Whilst—
Mr Husic interjecting—
my good friend sitting at the table there, the member Chifley—we do make sweeping assertions about people, by and large Australians take people as they come, as individuals. It is not about the colour of your skin. It is not about your ethnic background. It is not about whether you are Catholic or Protestant. It is about whether you are prepared to muck in and have a go.
There is a lot of talk about the way we change these things, and I always talk about my great-grandfather, who arrived here in 1902. He was a qualified civil servant in Wales before he came here, but he could not get a job in the Queensland civil service because he was a Catholic. Tiger O'Reilly said that he would have played a lot more test cricket if the Don were not a Mason and Tiger were not a Catholic. When we talk about migration, we are talking about the barriers put in front of migrants and how they work around them.
I have done many jobs in my life. My favourite job and the one I most identified with was as an auctioneer. I worked in sheds where we had a forklift driver and foreman who could not read or write English. He was of Italian background. He had actually served with the Italian army during the Second World War. He used to call all us auctioneers 'Mr Touchy', because we used to touch the people who went past as we took their money. He could not read or write English, but he never got run over, he never missed a load and he could read a docket perfectly. He knew which set of Z-purlins was going on which thing. He could do the whole lot because he had been given that opportunity.
In the last 25 years, we in this country have made it very hard for immigrants to get that start. For the Italians the Greeks, the Polish, the Irish and everyone who came to Australia post the Second World War, there was the opportunity to get a start doing anything. No matter their background, the ability to get a start in a shed or a factory or push a broom and build on that for their family was always there. But, little by little, things like workplace health and safety—and we do not want unsafe workplaces—and red tape have precluded a whole non-English-speaking generation from being able to get a start in Australia, get that job that they want, and it is mainly men. As men we are largely identified by what we do.
When someone comes across to Australia and does not speak English, it is very difficult. I would hate to go to another country where I had to learn to speak another language; at my age, I think I would find it incredibly difficult. I would seek out another Australian, going as far and as wide as I could possibly go to find them. I would accept and obey the laws of the land, but I would find it very hard to adapt and, if nobody gave me a start, I would find it very hard to provide for my family.
I think one of the biggest challenges today when it comes to immigration is: how do we get a first-generation migrant, especially one who does not speak English, into the system? How do we get them that start to be able to provide for their family—to get that grubstake and put the pole in the ground and say, 'This is mine; I'm going to work for it'? No matter what kind of people have come through, it was the first generation that worked hard and took any job there was. The next generation became doctors, solicitors and accountants. They were the ones that made sure they did so because of what their parents sacrificed for them. The migrants that come to Australia now are no different, but they have been precluded, by red tape, from being given that go.
In my city of Townsville, we had a whole heap of trouble trying to get African migrants, Somalis and the like, into rental accommodation. When they turned up, the rental agents were not really keen on it because they did not understand their customs. The migrant resource centre came to me. I rang one of the local real estate agents who had a big rent roll and I said to him, 'You won't just be getting that family; you'll be getting the entire community. The entire community will come round and make sure that that person does the right thing by that property.' Once that barrier was knocked down and they got an opportunity in that space, they went on to prosper. Those people are now part of our community. When you came to Townsville to our intercultural festival, you will see how proud we are of our different ethnicities and of our diversity.
There are exceptions. There are people who come here and bring bad habits from their land. There are people who come here and abuse what is given to them by the Australian people. They are the people that this bill is about. They are the people that we do not want here. Out of five million Vietnamese, to pick a number, there might be 25 or 1,000 or 50,000 who are no good. They are the people that we do not want in our country. That is what this bill is about.
This bill is not about persecuting people. This bill does not mean 'one mistake and you're out'. This bill is not about that. This bill is about the kind of people that we do not want in our land. People who are chronic criminals or violent criminals who make that their life's work and go out of their way to do that do not belong in our society, and they should go home and never be allowed back here. It is a fairly simple proposition.
The changes in this bill are necessary to ensure that the substantive amendments made by the Migration Amendment (Character and General Visa Cancellation) Act 2014, or the character act, are given their full effect and that the character provisions are dealt with consistently throughout the Migration Act.
On this side of the parliament, there is a general will to make sure that the first order of government is to secure its country's borders and keep its people safe. That is our first order. Whether it is Scott Morrison, the member for Cook and now Treasurer, or Peter Dutton, the current minister, we hold that duty very close to our hearts. If we stop the boats, if we make sure that our borders are secure, then we can move in this space and be the generous nation that we are. That is why we are able to not only raise the migrant intake limit from 13,750 to 18,000 but also to take an extra 12,000 on top of that. We will take our time to make sure that they are the right people—that they are the most at risk, the most persecuted; that they are the people that most want a second chance; and that they are the people that want to come to Australia.
No system is infallible. But, if someone steps out of the line over here and continues to step out of line, committing a violent crime or dealing drugs or doing any other sort of crime, they do not deserve to be in this country and we will send them home. That is what this bill is about. These amendments enhance the government's ability to address character concerns presented by noncitizens in the Australian community. The bill demonstrates this government's clear and continuing commitment to ensuring that noncitizens who pose a character risk to the Australian community are dealt with effectively and efficiently.
In Queensland bikie gangs have been running roughshod in areas on the Gold Coast. When the Liberal-National Party coalition was in power, they brought in the VLAD laws and made sure that the bikies were shut down in Queensland. We do not want them in our country. Some of these bikers are from other countries; some of them are not Australian citizens. They should be excused from being in Australia and sent home.
Due to the complexity of the Migration Act several consequential amendments that should have been made to the Migration Act were not identified until after the character act commenced in December 2014. This says that we are doing this as we go along—when we find the holes, we will plug them up. We have made a commitment to the Australian people that we will make sure we are ever vigilant on this. The price of vigilance here is a lot less than the price of being slack, the price of letting border policy go and letting these people stay in the country. It costs a fortune to keep someone in jail, and I know they will serve their sentence here but we will send them out after that.
The new removal powers being introduced in this bill will put beyond doubt that noncitizens who do not seek revocation of a subsection 501(3A) cancellation decision in accordance with section 501CA of the Migration Act within the prescribed timeframe, or whose request for revocation is refused, are required to be removed as soon as reasonably practicable. Removals are currently being conducted under a different removal power but this will put the matter beyond doubt. We are serious about this, and we are saying to people that we welcome you in our country and we will make sure that this is a great place to be, but you must respect our laws, you must respect our customs, you must respect our people, you must respect that you live in a society which does not condone this sort of action, so what we have to do is make sure that these things take place.
This bill will ensure that confidential information that is critical to decision making under the mandatory cancellation provisions receive the same level of protection that is currently afforded to confidential information relating to the other character provisions. This is important during the revocation stage; the Australian Federal Police— who are doing a fantastic job—may have information significant to the decision but which would be detrimental if it was made available to the person seeking revocation, for example a man has been convicted of a child sexual abuse case and has served six months but the AFP advise that he is being investigated for being part of child internet pornography ring. That is a fairly stark example and is not the sort of thing that many people are comfortable with, but we should make sure that we are trying to deal with these things.
The mandatory cancellation provisions introduced in December 2014 have resulted in an initial spike of noncitizens having their visa cancelled and subsequently being placed in immigration detention. Noncitizens who have had their visas mandatorily cancelled are able to seek revocation of that decision. A noncitizen awaiting a revocation outcome may remain in immigration detention or leave Australia and await the outcome of their revocation request in their home country. If the revocation decision is favourable, that person would be able to return to Australia. We are not saying it is impossible—we are not saying it is an open and shut case. What we are saying is that we want a country where people feel safe and we will attack the individual who has transgressed; we will not attack an entire cohort of people.
It is similar to the lockout laws in Queensland and Sydney, where everyone has been punished for the actions of a few. If we apply the same logic that the Queensland government is applying to the lockout laws in Queensland, particularly Brisbane, with live music and that sort of thing, we would see an entire cohort of people expelled from Australia. That is not fair, that is not right. What is fair and what is right is that the person doing the damage, the person throwing the punch, the person committing the crime, the criminal, the grub, the dross of society, should be made accountable and we should go to the ends of the earth to make sure they are put out of our country. It is the same as the drink safe precincts in Queensland—we should be attacking the individual who is transgressing, we should be making the fines appropriate. At the moment they ban people from drink safe precincts for 10 days. These people are only going out once a fortnight. Make the sentence correct—get rid of these people out of the drink safe precincts, make sure that criminals are no longer welcome in Australia, and make sure that we are doing the right thing for everyone. We will end up with a better and more welcoming Australia and better people in this country. We have a great country—we are a multicultural country, I am from a multicultural state and my city is very proud of its heritage and traditions. We should be proud and we should support this bill.
I begin by thanking members for their contributions to the debate on the Migration Amendment (Character Cancellation Consequential Provisions) Bill 2016. I emphasise to the House that this bill is a technical bill that will ensure that the character and cancellation provisions in the Migration Act operate effectively and as intended following amendments made in December 2014 by the Migration Amendment Act 2014. It is a bill that does not go beyond the intention of the substantive amendments made by the character act passed by parliament in 2014. In relation to the substantive amendments made by the 2014 act, a key amendment made by the act was the introduction of mandatory visa cancellation for noncitizens in jail serving a full-time custodial sentence of imprisonment and where that sentence is for at least 12 months imprisonment or they have been found guilty of a sexually based offence involving a child. The purpose of those mandatory cancellation amendments was to quickly and effectively capture noncitizens who pose a risk to the Australian community by cancelling their visas and considering their case while they are still serving a term of imprisonment. To date the vast majority of noncitizens who have had their visa cancelled under the mandatory cancellation power are repeat offenders with multiple criminal convictions in Australia or have committed serious or violent offences.
The amendments made by this bill will ensure that the mandatory cancellation related powers introduced by the 2014 act are given their full effect and operate coherently with the existing character cancellation powers in the Migration Act. These are important consequential amendments required to ensure that the noncitizens who pose a risk to the community are dealt with effectively, efficiently and comprehensively. For those reasons I commend the bill to the House.
The question is that the bill be read a second time.
A division having been called and the bells having been rung—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: As there are fewer than five members on the side for the noes in this division, I declare the question resolved in the affirmative in accordance with standing order 127. The names of those members who are in the minority will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. I thank members for attending.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
I move:
That this bill be read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
) ( ): Tonight, I would like to raise the issue of the Syrian Civil War. Today is the fifth anniversary of the protest against the Assad regime that was met by gunfire. It started as a protest movement and developed into a full-blown conflict. At least a quarter of a million people have died and the vast majority of those involved in this conflict are civilians. Half of Syria's prewar population of 22 million is now displaced, with many forced to flee either to neighbouring countries or, now, around the globe in search of security. Since 2011, life expectancy in Syria has fallen by 15 years. Six thousand schools in Syria have now closed, and almost three million Syrian kids are now without a school or a formal education. It is now on record that people are starving in many of the besieged cities.
The Syrian government, with its brutal crackdown on peaceful protests, bears primary responsibility for the humanitarian catastrophe that has unfolded. Syria has become the breeding ground for extremism and the ideology of hate. The barbaric rule of ISIS in eastern Syria and north-western Iraq has brutalised, enslaved, tortured and murdered thousands. It is dreadful to think that this is all occurring under our watch.
Labor has provided the government with bipartisan support for Australia's intervention in Iraq against ISIS, or Daesh. We have a responsibility to work alongside the international community to protect vulnerable citizens from mass atrocities. At the invitation of the Iraqi government, I think that does give us a sound legal basis upon which we are operating both in Iraq and now with what we are doing in Syria. Australia is already one of biggest per capita contributors to the military effort with our troops in Iraq. Australia has sent, effectively, one soldier per 24,000 citizens. We are helping the government of Iraq protect its own people and its territory from strikes being made from across the border—from Syria—and from within Iraq itself.
While providing this bipartisan support, Labor has consistently called for a parliamentary debate of our involvement in Iraq and Syria, and, effectively, the Middle East. This is something that does require the attention of parliament and, more so, the attention of all the members that make up this establishment. Decisions about Australia's national security have to always be above party politics, but under no circumstances should it ever be beyond our scrutiny.
Labor believes that Australia can, and should, be doing more in helping victims of the Syrian conflict. At the 2016 Supporting Syria and the Region conference in London, our Liberal government offered a mere $25 million. This compared with a UK government that pledged $2.6 billion. It does seem to many that, as the Syrian crisis has worsened, Australia's contribution to the humanitarian relief has lessened. A measure of a government's compassion is how it responds to the global call for help. Labor stands with the Australian people in calling on the government to play its part in meeting this humanitarian crisis. There is an urgent need for more food, medical supplies, shelter, fuel and other emergency relief for the people of Syria. The people of Syria need all of that, but they need more—they need peace. The humanitarian emergency will only end when this war ends.
The diplomatic and political efforts towards ending the civil war in Syria are difficult—no-one can deny that. The path to peace is complex and certainly may be slow. Overnight, tentative peace talks began in Geneva. The Russian President, it has been reported, has announced that he will be beginning to withdraw troops from Syria. We cautiously welcome these developments. Only an inclusive political and diplomatic solution will bring security and safety to the people of Syria—that safety and that security that they and all people everywhere deserve and are entitled to.
Labor's proposed changes to negative gearing put jobs and growth at risk. One-third of all new dwelling construction is financed by investors every year. Changes to negative gearing will result in a loss of investment, and it will impact on housing supply. A typical new house involves up to 40 tradespeople—from bricklayers to carpenters, to electricians, to plumbers. This is the real economy that negative gearing underpins. It is at risk if the government tinkers with something that has been an integral part of the tax system for 100 years.
Two million Australians own an investment property. Two-thirds of property investors who benefit from negative gearing earn a taxable income of less than $80,000 annually. There are ten times more negative gearers who are nurses, teachers and Defence Force personnel than those who are surgeons, anaesthetists and finance managers—more than 100,000 claimants compared to less than 10,000.
Just like their infamous mining tax, Labor's proposed change to negative gearing promises big but raises very little revenue. Investors accessing negative gearing will have only one option—of going to the new home market. If you are a first-home buyer, you will be competing with all of them. And there are unintended consequences. With negative gearing and low interest rates triggering frenzied investor speculation, conservative estimates now put the Sydney market, at a minimum, 25 per cent over valuation, whereas they had it around fair value in late 2012. Now that housing has boomed again on the back of falling rates—at least in Sydney and Melbourne, our two biggest markets—the fuse is set for a property implosion. Moreover, the Reserve Bank now has no ammunition left to head off a housing crash if that fuse is lit.
It is obvious that removing the negative gearing tax benefit would set off price falls, as many heavily negatively geared investors would rush to offload one or more of their properties because they simply could not afford to hold them without the tax write-offs. With average rental losses of almost $10,000 per negative gearing taxpayer, it is impossible not to see how tens—if not hundreds—of thousands of investors would simply have to sell if negative gearing was removed entirely. The higher the losses, the less likely an investor can sustain them without being able to offset them against their annual income tax bill.
The market could easily take a couple of years to clear the sales of those looking to get out. Renters will be waiting for prices to drop before they buy; it will take a while for landlords to get their properties on the market—and the sales and loan approvals process takes months in itself. There is also the risk that, with falling prices, prospective buyers will be hesitant to catch a falling sword—that is, the falls could be larger and more sustained than analysts expect before the market hits bottom. It is important to note that the current framework allows one to go into what would otherwise be a negative cashflow investment. Negative gearing does mean you are losing money. But many innovative technology companies and software companies lose money in the early stages.
The Hawke-Keating government tried to get rid of negative gearing in the eighties. What they found was that property investors were not prepared to wear the losses, so rents spiked. It also meant that people got out of the property market, so prices went down. What such a change would likely mean for the housing sector now is that investors would want to see higher rental returns than those currently on offer. Furthermore, the government may have to play a larger role in providing social housing if investment levels are reduced. Labor would do well to heed George Santayana's advice: those that fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
It is six months since the member for Wentworth, Mr Malcolm Turnbull, became Prime Minister—and hasn't that been the world's longest disappointment? It is absolutely clear that the hard-Right, conservative rump of the Liberal and National parties still runs this government and that our Prime Minister has been prepared to sell out any socially progressive belief he may have had in order to hold onto the gig.
We still have refugees and children in detention. We are locking people up and breaking them, and this Prime Minister thinks that that policy is a good thing. The Prime Minister has kept Mr Tony Abbott's climate-change targets. He has come into this House and delivered lectures about how important it is that we continue to dig up and burn coal, when our scientists are telling us that we need to keep it in the ground. Recently he has been prepared to throw the Safe Schools program under a bus just to appease the hard Right within his party, even though it is a successful program that has been stopping bullying.
We still see this divisive plebiscite on marriage equality on the table, even though part of Mr Turnbull's subtle pitch to the community beforehand was that he was someone, as the Prime Minister, who believed in marriage equality. We are seeing repeated attacks on people's rights at work. We are seeing attacks on Medicare, and billions of dollars are still being cut from our schools and hospitals. Increasingly, people who had so much hope that the change of prime ministership might bring a change of direction understand that no such thing is likely to happen.
I was relieved when the member for Warringah, Mr Tony Abbott, was no longer our Prime Minister. Everyone around this country exhaled. We thought it might mean a change and we are learning that it is not. But what is sad to witness is not just the lack of change in the government side; it is that on so many of those issues that matter Labor has been there to give the government a helping hand. Time after time they have voted for offshore detention, to lock people up and to send them to the hellholes of Nauru and Manus Island. They have opposed the Greens' push to let 267 people seeking asylum, including Baby Asha and 36 babies, stay in Australia. Only the Greens have stood up to Labor and the Liberals in this parliament and said: let them stay. Labor and the Liberals joined together to slash the renewable energy target—a target that was working. Its crime was to be too successful. We were generating more renewable energy than people had potentially hoped for, and so what happened? Labor and the Liberals got together and said the best thing to do was to reduce the target.
We have seen every citizen in this country turned into a suspect, with an agreement to keep people's metadata for two years. Even though you are not suspected of having committed any crime, thanks to Labor and the Liberals the government now has available to it a pile of data about you. We have seen whistleblower laws restricted by Labor and the Liberals joining together. Then there are the things that hit people's hip pockets, like the Greens' move to stop banks from making profits by charging $2 to $3 ATM fees. Instead of voting with us to make that happen, Labor and the Liberals voted together against it.
Then in Melbourne in the last couple of weeks, I saw Senator David Leyonhjelm from the more guns-less services party decide that, because the Greens are standing up to say that voters should have the right to decide their own preferences, he is going to coordinate a whole range of microparties to come down to Melbourne and run against me. Maybe it will be the we-love-renewable-energy party. Maybe it will be the more-guns party. We do not know. But he is bringing his far-Right agenda down to Melbourne and saying that it is time to unseat the Greens in parliament. Well, when you have the Greens standing up against Labor and the Liberals, and then you have the more-guns party joining in to say, 'We better get the Greens out of the House of Representatives and out of parliament', you know you must be doing something right!
We will, over the next few months, steadfastly continue to stand up for what matters. We will stand up against a government that says: 'We are not prepared to ask high-income earners and wealthy corporations to pay a little bit more tax. We are going to come and slug everyone else.' We will stand up to that. When the government comes in here and says, 'We believe the only way of dealing with the issue of global migration is to lock up people, including children, until they break,' and when Labor says, 'Can we give you a blank cheque to continue doing that?' we will stand up to that every time. There is one thing that people can be absolutely confident of: we will try to turn this election not into a race to the bottom but into a reaching for the stars; it is about reaching out and speaking to the best of us.
Queensland Nickel has operated in Townsville since the 1970s. Many things have changed in this business, and many challenges have been faced, but all challenges have been overcome until now. Today, we see what can only be described as a phoenix operation being carried out by the management of QNI.
Phoenixing is a dastardly act where a company has its assets and cash moved to other related entities. The company then collapses under the weight of the debts incurred, and it is declared to be insolvent and liquidated. The rest of the company then rises from the ashes with the assets and cash stripped from the former company but free of all debts and liability for workplace entitlements.
If a casual observer looked at what has happened here, they would not be able to see any discernible difference between the illegal and unprincipled act of phoenixing a company and what the member for Fairfax and his management of this Townsville company have done. Their actions in making 237 people redundant, appointing administrators to one of the companies involved in the business and loading that company up with debt and cutting it adrift are bad enough. To then strike out under the new banner of Queensland Nickel Sales and wrest control of the refinery from the administrators they appointed, forcing the administrators to make the remaining 550 employees redundant as well, smells of malfeasance of the highest order.
There are multiple examples of the member for Fairfax using his own email account and replying to emails from other persons, signing them as Clive. What is happening is that he is acting in the role of a shadow director. They include invoices for expenses and briefings on issues around the plant. This needs to be investigated, and the member needs to be exposed as a shadow director of this firm in what must clearly be shown to be a deliberate exercise of not paying creditors and abusing staff and their entitlements.
This is a business of peaks and troughs. It has been that way forever; the price of nickel is linked to the price of steel. That is the only difference between what has been faced over decades and what is now being faced under its current management. The role of the member for Fairfax cannot be underestimated here, and I ask that it be investigated. It was his work which saw millions funnelled to his private pursuits. It was this business which became his piggy bank when the funds from CITIC stopped flowing. It was the member for Fairfax and his family who set off on a course they knew would eventually lead to this event. He states that he has retired, but his grubby fingerprints are all over this. There can be no doubt that he has operated as a controlling influence and shadow director here. There can be no doubt that the only interests he was serving were his own. There can be no doubt that the people who have given their working lives, who have done nothing wrong here, are just playthings for this man to throw away.
The options for the shell company are limited. It could be that QNI will go into liquidation. The Fair Entitlements Guarantee would then be enacted, and the retrenched workers would at least get something. However, the bulk of the entitlements and the workers' lost superannuation et cetera would simply be added to the creditors' list of the company with no cash or assets. This is the doing of the current management of Queensland Nickel Sales and all those people involved in it.
I implore Greg Medcraft, Chairman of the Australian Securities and Investment Commission, to take urgent action on this episode. I urge government bodies such as the taxation office and Federal Police to look at what has happened here and hold those responsible to account.
At the end of the day, the people who have worked at Queensland Nickel have done nothing wrong. They have produced quality products and enhanced our city through hard work in importing a product, refining it and exporting a new product. They have made our city their home. They have done nothing but work hard and produce for their employers. They have not made multimillion dollar donations to political parties. They have not made multimillion dollar purchases of stuff which has nothing to do with the efficient running of a nickel refinery. They have worked hard and produced. To have this happen should make those people involved, possibly including the shadow director, the member for Fairfax, hang their heads in shame.
I also call on the Queensland government to issue the mining lease for the Carmichael mine west of Townsville. It is this project which will see real jobs created from the port all the way out to the mine and back along the railway line to Abbot Point. It will see the growth of our region's ability to produce baseload power and push our region to the forefront in renewable energy and new industry creation.
We are a great city, and we face a real challenge today. But we will come out the other side of this with better jobs, and the member for Fairfax will have absolutely nothing to do with the future of Townsville. I thank the House.
If I mentioned tuberculosis, most Australians would believe that this is a disease that was eradicated in the 20th century; it was something that we tackled in the past and got rid of in our society. It is not the case. On the eve of World TB Day, I wish to bring to the attention of the House just how severe the issue of TB is throughout the world and how we need to renew our efforts to tackle this deadly disease.
Each year, approximately 100 million people are infected with tuberculosis. Of those, eight million develop active or infectious TB, and about 1.5 million people die. The unfortunate thing is that most of those cases are actually in our backyard, in our region. Of the people infected with TB, 58 per cent are in South-East Asia and in the western Pacific regions. India, Indonesia and China had the largest number of TB cases with 23 per cent, 10 per cent and 10 per cent of the global total respectively. In South-East Asia and the western Pacific regions, 625,000 people died from TB in 2014—more than 40 per cent of global deaths. Clearly, the burden of this disease is particularly heavy in our region.
Besides the human cost, TB in general and drug resistant TB in particular place an extraordinary economic burden on communities and trap people in poverty. It is estimated that TB will rob the world's poorest countries of an estimated $1 trillion to $3 trillion over the next 10 years. The World Bank estimates that the loss of productivity attributable to TB is four to seven per cent of some countries' GDP.
Drug resistant TB is virtually untreatable in many cases and has now been reported in 92 countries, including Australia. Failure to specifically address drug-resistant TB will result in major long-term human and economic costs and ultimately may pose a major threat to regional development and security. Existing medications are outdated and often ineffective. The existing TB vaccine, BCG, is 95 years old, and although it is effective against severe infant TB, it gives relatively little or no protection against adult TB. There are some vaccines being developed, but in reality they are 10 years away from being commercially available.
In 2014 members of parliament from 12 countries met at the annual Union Conference on Lung Health in Barcelona to form the Global TB Caucus. Members of parliament committed to ending TB as an epidemic. The members issued a statement and their commitment to ending the epidemic is known as the Barcelona Declaration. In 2014 the declaration has been translated into 15 languages and signed by over 1,000 political representatives in 100 countries. I am pleased to say that close to 100 members of the Australian parliament made that declaration today at function this morning. In September 2015, political representatives from nine countries gathered in Sydney and also formed the first regional TB caucus of the Asia-Pacific. I am pleased to say that my good friend the member for Leichhardt is the co-chair of the Asia-Pacific forum and today we hosted the first meeting of that caucus. The Global TB Caucus encourages the formation of national caucuses and the launch of today's caucus was part of that.
Over recent years Australia has been supportive of cooperative efforts to fight TB abroad. We have invested in facilities in Daru in the Western Province of Papua New Guinea, that I was fortunate to open in 2013 as the Parliamentary Secretary for Pacific Island Affairs. Australia has also been a significant contributor to the Global Fund, which since 2002 has saved an estimated 8.7 million lives by providing antiretroviral treatment for people living with HIV, TB and other diseases.
The Global Fund is seeking a replenishment for the years 2017 to 2019. They are seeking to raise $13 billion to continue this important work to fight TB. They are seeking $300 million from the Australian government, and I am hoping that the government will see this commitment favourably and commit to meeting that goal of properly funding and doing Australia's bit to fund the Global Fund to tackle tuberculosis, particularly in our region. I thank all those MPs who joined me and the member of Leichhardt for the launch of the Australian TB Caucus this morning.
I would like to respond, particularly acknowledging 24 March as being World Tuberculosis Day. I, like many other Australians, believed that tuberculosis was consigned to the history books along with sanatoriums and iron lungs. My mum was treated for tuberculosis in 1963 and spent a year in the thoracic ward in Cairns. It had a massive impact on our family. She was separated from my siblings, and family members had to care for us. I was the eldest and old enough to be able to visit my mum and spend some time with her, but my three younger siblings were too young to do so, so they were not able to see my mother for a year, until after she was released.
I thought that that problem had been solved and that tuberculosis was no longer an issue, but tonight I rise to raise awareness about the reality of tuberculosis in our communities today and in those of our neighbours in the Asia-Pacific region. In 2014, 9.6 million people were newly infected with tuberculosis. 58 per cent of those people were in the South-East Asia and Western Pacific region. In these same regions, in 2014, 625,000 people died from tuberculosis—more than 40 per cent of global deaths. Also in 2014, an estimated 480,000 people contracted multiple-drug-resistant tuberculosis.
To put a local face on the statistics, in a very recent case, only a week ago I became aware that Cairns's Business Woman of the Year and head of the Reef and Rainforest Research Centre, who has done extensive work in the Western Province of Papua New Guinea, had been diagnosed with latent MDR-TB. That is so current and so close to our community. We have lost several in my electorate in recent times, including a mother and daughter with tuberculosis from one of the outer Torres Strait islands. The grand-daughter is now being treated. It is a major issue, and this is why I am passionate about ending tuberculosis in our region.
I was pleased today to officially launch the Australian TB Caucus, along with my friend and colleague Matt Thistlethwaite. There were 15 cross-party members that originally put our names to the Barcelona Declaration, the document that was signed by more than 1,000 political representatives from 100 countries, but I am pleased to say that as a result of today's event we now have 100 representatives here in Australia that have signed that declaration. So 10 per cent of that 1,000 have been signed up here in Australia. Signatories commit to supporting R&D in new drugs, diagnostics and vaccines and demanding that every patient, regardless of age, sex, nationality or socioeconomic status, be able to access quick diagnosis and high-quality treatment.
I urge every member and senator in this place to sign the Barcelona Declaration. These activities gather momentum for caucuses around the world. In the past 12 months, I have welcomed the opportunities through RESULTS and the caucus to raise awareness about TB and to lobby for improved detection rates, treatment and prevention.
In finishing, I was in South Africa late last year, and I met with a Dr Furin, who was with Doctors Without Borders. She said to me that she had visited Daru Island in October 2015. In her words:
I have been working with TB for over 20 years. I have worked in prisons in Russia, in Siberia, and many other high-burden countries and in the most difficult of circumstances therefore nothing generally shocks me.
However, I was absolutely shocked and felt despair from what I saw in Daru, which was far worse than what I have ever experienced and the TB burden is horrific. Having said that, what is most despairing is the fact that with the right application this situation can be quite easily addressed.
It is time that we acted on this, and I certainly call on the support of this parliament to make sure that we take those actions to address this very, very serious problem.
Before I begin my comments, I want to echo the sentiments expressed by the member for and the member for Kingsford Smith. I proudly signed up to the Barcelona Declaration. I think that the words expressed by both members of parliament are crucial in putting a spotlight on this issue, and I thank them deeply for their leadership in encouraging us, as parliamentarians, to get behind this very important cause. Very well done.
I was very pleased on the weekend to attend the Mount Druitt Swimming Centre for a very special event. Mount Druitt Swimming Centre was, a couple of years ago, on the brink of closure. The then Liberal controlled council looked to close the swimming pool; it would have been filled with algae, with the grass overgrown and the 'for sale' sign put up, and that land would have gone as a community asset. As a result of a very vocal community campaign led by people like Kerri Bradbury and others—and Kerri is very modest, and rightfully acknowledges the contribution of many people in giving voice to community concern about the loss of that great community asset—they secured the pool. Now, in 2016, as a result of a great decision by the New South Wales RSL Youth Council, we were able to have the 55th Annual Youth Clubs State Swimming Championships held at Mount Druitt on Saturday. It was a terrific day.
I have to commend the organisers, the volunteers, the parents but importantly the young people, those potential future sporting champions, who participated in what looked to be a terrific event. It was very humbling that I was given the opportunity to open the event on Saturday and to extend to John Haines a deep sense of gratitude for being able to be part of the event on the day.
I was particularly pleased to also see the contribution and the participation made by the Rooty Hill RSL Youth Swimming Club. They did particularly well. I wanted to acknowledge in the House their performance, because we are rightly proud of the fact that a lot of people provide a platform for those young people to succeed and to excel. I thought it was important to be able to recognise that here tonight. I am told that the club itself had 14 swimmers compete, and they received a total of 14 gold medals, seven silver medals and three bronze. Zones 2 and 7 came first this year, and zone 4 came second. They informed me that they came third last season, when they went to Dubbo, so they have improved, and they are very happy, and rightly so, about that. Zone 4 won some four perpetual trophies on the day: female overall points score, junior overall points score, junior girls relay, and junior boys relay. I want to read the names of some of the swimmers who were successful—great local residents—like: Georgia Lee, a 19-year-old, who won a gold and two bronze medals; Amilda Kasper, 16, who won two gold medals; Shannon Fenech, 16, who won one gold, one silver and one bronze; Alana Kerri Broomham, 15, won three silver medals, good on her; Monique Portelli, 14, won two gold medals; Amarni Leuzzi, 14, won one gold medal; Shania Fenech won one gold medal; Taylah Lee, 14, won one gold medal; Hannah Woodcock, 12 years old, won one gold medal; Michael Wills, 12 years won two silver medals; Dominique Leuzzi, 12 years old, won one gold medal; Luizza Legate, 10 years old, won one gold medal and one silver; Isabel Manning, 10 years old, won one gold medal; and Grace Manning, 10 years old, won one gold medal.
They were terrific performance and they were very happy that they had done so well. It was terrific that they could perform on home ground—or in a home pool, in this case—and do our area proud. In particular, we are grateful to the RSL and the fact that they were able to hold that 55th annual championship in our area. We are enormously proud of that. Congratulations to everyone who participated. Well done. You do us all proud.
Bullying is never acceptable, and I am very proud of two local girls from the Alstonville Public School who have won awards in a state-wide antibullying competition. More than 5,000 year 5 and 6 students entered the Interrelate 2016 Say No to Bullying Primary School Poster Competition. Tia Dawes was the regional winner for the Northern Rivers, while Maddy Kelly received a 'highly commended' award. Both students are taught by Jen Roberts. The motto of Tia's poster was, 'Don't hide from the world, ask a friend for help'. Tia's explanation of her motto was:
It means if you're getting bullied or teased just ask someone you trust, maybe a parent or teacher or friend, and don't be afraid to speak up about your problems.
The motto of Maddy's poster was, 'Taste your words before you spit them out'.
Maddy, Tia and their families will attend an awards ceremony in Sydney on 18 March, on the National Day of Action against Bullying and Violence. I congratulate Maddy and Tia for both their success in this competition and the very important message that their posters are stating. The community is very proud of them both.
Deputy Speaker Scott, Lismore's Flynn Transport are going to provide two trucks—and I know this is an issue close to your heart—to transport about 150 hay bales with the Burrumbuttock Hay Runners. The Burrumbuttock Hay Runners are a convoy of trucks, as you would know that deliver bales of hay to some of Queensland's most drought stricken graziers. The hay run was founded by Farrell Freighters in the Riverina region. Since beginning, they have completed 10 trips so far, and two Lismore drivers will be part of the next convoy. The two drivers will be Flynn Transport's owner, Tony Flynn, and operations manager, Josh Duncan. They will set off on 29 March and return the following Sunday. They will load their trucks in Lismore with hay that has been donated from across the Northern Rivers before travelling south to Burrumbuttock to join the convoy.
While Tony and Josh are the people driving the trucks, it has been a local industry-wide commitment with a range of local businesses providing support. I acknowledge Brown & Hurley Group, Southside Truck Centre Lismore, Iceman Transport Refrigeration Service Brisbane, the Alstonville Agricultural Society and the Beach & Bush Distributors in Goonellabah.
House adjourned at 21: 30