I have received a message from the Senate transmitting the following resolution agreed to by the Senate.
That the time for the presentation of the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters on its inquiry into financing of the participants in the political process be extended until 22 June 2016.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Australian government recognises the enormous economic potential of northern Australia and is committed to its development.
Today I introduce a bill to establish the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility. The facility will address gaps in the infrastructure finance market for northern Australia and is an integral part of the government's plan for northern Australia.
The White paper on developing northern Australia, released in June 2015 and driven in large part by Senator Macdonald and Warren Entsch, identified the vital role that infrastructure plays in unlocking economic opportunities globally, nationally and in northern Australia. The white paper included almost $1.2 billion in policies to support the construction of new roads and water infrastructure in the North.
Northern Australia has just 5.6 per cent of Australia's population but contributes over 11 per cent of Australia's GDP and covers over 40 per cent of our landmass with significant agricultural, energy and resource assets. Its proximity to Asia provides an opportunity to service the burgeoning middle class in Asia. According to Ernst and Young the Chinese middle class is expected to reach one billion people by 2030, with India's middle class reaching 475 million people by 2030. Northern Australia has great potential for economic and population growth, but it needs the right backbone economic infrastructure to drive that growth.
The government has already committed nearly $5 billion, of its $50 billion nationwide investment in transport infrastructure, to northern Australia.
These investments include over $3 billion for northern sections of the Bruce Highway and over $470 million to be distributed across the Cape York Region Package, North West Coastal Highway and Northern Territory Regional Roads Productivity Package.
Despite this investment by the Commonwealth government, infrastructure in northern Australia continues to face particular cost and service challenges, including accessing private sector financing.
At a national level, financing of debt markets has become more dependent on bank lending, rather than longer term bonds. Infrastructure Australia has estimated that, since the 2008 global financial crisis, the capacity of the Australian financial market to fund infrastructure has halved due to the withdrawal of international finance providers. Also, constraints in the finance sector have resulted in longer tenor loans in excess of seven years becoming increasingly difficult to access for infrastructure projects. For example, the average duration for infrastructure debt financing has almost halved from around 11 years in 2007 to around six years in 2015.
These developments are being acutely felt in northern Australia.
Infrastructure investment in northern Australia is affected by a low population density and issues of remoteness, extreme heat and high levels rainfall during certain times of year. The uncertainty for infrastructure investment created by these factors can result in commercially viable projects in northern Australia being unable to attract the limited investment funds available.
Infrastructure Australia released the Northern Australia audit in January 2015. This report confirmed that infrastructure market failures were affecting northern Australia in particular. The identified failures included: limited economic scale, resulting in high costs, poor quality and an absence of competition; a 'first mover disadvantage', where the first project bears all the capital costs of infrastructure that will reduce for other projects; coordination challenges, which prevent cooperation in building more extensive infrastructure; and low-socioeconomic circumstances, which result in a lower capacity to pay for infrastructure services.
Through the facility, the government, working with the states and territories, will support the private sector to construct transformative economic infrastructure for northern Australia. This infrastructure will provide a basis for the longer term expansion of the economy and population in northern Australia.
The facility will provide an innovative approach to the funding of infrastructure projects by offering up to $5 billion in financial assistance to encourage and complement private sector investment. This encouragement of the private sector will ensure that economic infrastructure that otherwise would not be built, or would not be built for some time, will be delivered.
Through this bill, the Commonwealth will partner with the private sector and the governments of the Northern Territory, Queensland and Western Australia to provide financial assistance on concessional terms for the construction of major projects.
These major projects may include airports, ports, roads, rail, energy, water, and communications infrastructure. These are the types of economic infrastructure needed to further open the North for business, and to deliver wider public benefits for the rest of Australia.
Extensive consultation has occurred across Commonwealth agencies, relevant state and territory governments, infrastructure owners in northern Australia, financiers and project proponents in developing this bill. Between me and my department, and Minister Canavan, we have met with over 200 stakeholders.
Through the consultation process, 40 projects with an indicative capital value of $21 billion have been identified as potential NAIF projects. Of these 40 projects, around half have been identified in Infrastructure Australia's Northern Australia audit.
To make investment decisions, the bill establishes an independent board that will be comprised of experts from a range of relevant fields, such as banking and infrastructure.
The board will ensure that assistance is targeted in an effective manner and the facility operates in partnership with commercial lenders, not in competition. It will also ensure that the facility only invests in projects that are able to return funds to the Commonwealth.
The expert, transparent and arms-length design of the board established by this bill will cultivate credibility in financial markets, while ensuring that the government invests in projects which are viable, provide public benefits and unlock the potential of the North.
The board will undertake its investment function according to an investment mandate. The bill specifies the matters that will be covered by the investment mandate, including eligibility criteria and loan characteristics. A draft of the mandate will soon be released for public consultation. We have incorporated feedback from a previous consultation process into the new draft, including a requirement that applicants provide an Indigenous engagement strategy. We are seeking feedback on the draft investment mandate until 29 March.
This bill enables the facility to assist projects by providing financial assistance that is tailored to project needs, with any concessions calibrated to the particular circumstances of a project. An example of such assistance may be the provision of 'patient' capital for a new infrastructure asset that is facing a long ramp-up phase that precludes available bank financing.
The facility may also be used to provide additional debt finance on fully commercial terms, where a project is able to attract some, but not sufficient, debt finance.
Providing financial assistance rather than one-off grants will reduce the impact on the budget and impose more commercial terms on recipients.
Through partnering with the private sector, the investment decisions of the board will leverage much more than the $5 billion provided through the facility. To ensure the best return for taxpayer funds, the expert board will be responsible for selecting projects. To be clear, as the responsible minister I will have no role in directing the board to make investments in particular projects.
However, as the NAIF is funded through public money, as the responsible minister I will retain a role to ensure that projects which are contrary to the national interest are not funded. To preserve the credibility of the facility, this role will be subject to strict transparency requirements and the reasons for my decisions will be tabled in parliament.
To conclude, the objectives of the facility reflect the government's priorities for the development of northern Australia and the importance of ensuring public funds are invested responsibly and for the benefit of the wider economy.
The establishment of the facility is a significant step forward for the development of transformative economic infrastructure in northern Australia and for the way infrastructure is financed in this country.
The right infrastructure is vital to facilitating investment, increasing accessibility to markets, especially for remote areas, and helping to attract and retain workers. With careful planning around timing and location, it is a fundamental driver of productivity and growth.
The Australian government is committed to laying down the foundations for strong economic and population growth through the development of northern Australia, while minimising the burden on taxpayers.
The government would like to recognise the efforts of the state and territory governments for their role in progressing the development of the facility. We would like to thank the Hon. Annastacia Palaszczuk MP, Premier of Queensland; the Hon. Colin Barnett MLA, Premier of Western Australia; and the Hon. Adam Giles MLA, Chief Minister of the Northern Territory for their cooperation. We will continue to work with the states and the Territory to ensure that the facility delivers for northern Australia.
The government would also like to recognise the bipartisan approach taken by the opposition in supporting this important initiative. There are significant opportunities offered by northern Australia and supporting this bill will create a key catalyst for key economic infrastructure investment in northern Australia, which will increase the capacity of the North.
Through this bill, the facility will work with the private sector and the governments of the Northern Territory, Queensland and Western Australia to create the right conditions for innovation and investment and help our communities and businesses in northern Australia to prosper, as they are on the edge of one of the greatest booms the world has ever seen in Asia.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The consequential amendments bill amends the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Act 1991 to enable Efic to deliver administration services on behalf of the facility, and the states and territory. Efic will be able to charge fees for these services to recover costs. Examples of the types of services which may be delivered include loan origination, due diligence, credit and portfolio management, and loan administration. Under this model, the board of the facility will retain responsibility for all investment decisions and risk.
This amendment does not mean that Efic will have to be used as a service provider for the NAIF, but amending the EFIC Act to allow Efic to undertake these services will ensure this is an option that is available to the NAIF. I am keen to utilise existing Commonwealth capabilities, achieve cost-effectiveness and provide for flexibility in the delivery of this important policy.
I commend this bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Statute Law Revision Bill (No. 2) 2016 continues the work of maintaining and improving the quality of the Commonwealth statute book. The bill corrects technical errors that have occurred in acts as a result of drafting and clerical mistakes, improves and streamlines references to ministers and departments, and repeals obsolete provisions and acts.
Schedules 1 and 2 correct technical errors, remove redundant text, modernise language and fix incorrect references in principal and amending acts. These corrections and updates improve the usability and accuracy of the law.
Schedule 3 amends the Public Lending Right Act 1985 by inserting generic references to ministers and departments. This will reduce the need for substituted reference orders made under sections 19B and 19BA of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901.
Schedules 4 and 5 repeal spent and obsolete provisions and acts, removing redundant material from the statute book. For example, parts 3 and 4 of the International Labour Organisation (Compliance with Conventions) Act 1992 were spent once the amendments that they made to the Migration Act 1958 and the Navigation Act 1912 had been incorporated into those acts. Item 1 of schedule 4 repeals those parts.
These corrections and updates are important to ensure the ongoing accuracy, currency and usability of Commonwealth legislation.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Statute Update Bill 2016 makes minor and technical changes to the Commonwealth statute book to improve its quality and accuracy.
The amendments in the bill update older Commonwealth provisions to reflect changes in the law and ensure the consistency of those provisions with the legal framework in which they operate.
Schedule 1 updates references to dollar penalties for criminal offences. The amendments remove dollar amounts from penalty provisions and replace them with the appropriate number of penalty units. This ensures that the penalty that appears on the face of a statute is the penalty that actually applies.
Schedules 2, 3 and 4 streamline other aspects of penalty provisions, clarify the evidentiary status of certain certificates and registers, and update references to aircraft registered in accordance with the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988.
These amendments enhance readability, facilitate interpretation and administration, and promote consistency across the Commonwealth statute book.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
This bill amends the Corporations Act 2001 to facilitate an increased level of transparency in the superannuation sector.
These changes fulfil the government's election commitment to enhance the quality of information available to superannuation fund members and employers so that they can make informed decisions in relation to superannuation savings, when comparing the relative performance of funds.
A more informed market will drive greater competition and, in doing so, deliver increased value to consumers.
The 2010 Cooper review found that the Australian superannuation system is characterised by a lack of transparency, comparability and accountability. Transparency is critical to the efficiency and operation of the superannuation system because it improves engagement. For these reasons, the Cooper review recommended the introduction of product dashboards and portfolio holdings disclosure requirements on superannuation funds.
This bill makes refinements to the choice product dashboard and portfolio holdings disclosure measures so that the benefits of increased transparency provided under the current law can be realised.
The current choice product dashboard and portfolio holdings disclosure regimes were introduced by the former Labor government in response to the Cooper review into superannuation system. Although the legislation containing these two measures received royal assent in 2012, due to the complexity of the legislation and the significant compliance burden it placed on industry, supporting regulations were never made.
As a result, the choice product dashboard and portfolio holdings disclosure measures have never commenced, denying superannuation fund members access to quality information to make informed decisions about where their hard-earned money goes in the superannuation system.
The introduction of this bill will rectify this situation.
The refinements in this bill require superannuation funds to develop choice product dashboards for their top 10 largest choice investment options, by value. Funds are also required to disclose investments made both directly and through associated entities, but not through non-associated entities.
These changes are aiming to strike the right balance between enhancing the transparency, comparability and quality of information for consumers, and minimising the compliance costs to superannuation funds.
The government recognises that the substance of the regulations which support this bill are crucial to ensure the policy intent of both choice product dashboards and the disclosure of the portfolio holdings of superannuation funds disclosure is achieved. That is why we will continue to work with industry on the development of revised draft regulations, so that they can be settled prior to the debate on this bill.
Our key objective is to have a superannuation system that delivers outcomes for those we are forcing to contribute, not just for the industry. We want a system that encourages people to participate actively and make informed decisions, and that gives people the confidence to invest. I am confident these reforms will do just that.
Superannuation is becoming increasingly significant for Australian households, with superannuation now the largest financial asset for many Australians after the family home. This is a system that people are forced to contribute their money to, with compulsory contributions currently set at 9.5 per cent of an employee's ordinary earnings. This means we need to make sure we have got the basics right. We cannot just keep on throwing more and more money at an opaque system.
That is why these changes are essential. Transparency through improved disclosure is critical to the efficient operation of Australia's market based superannuation system. It improves understanding, awareness and engagement across the community.
In particular, increased engagement enables members to be better placed to make effective decisions in relation to their superannuation retirement savings to help ensure they have sufficient income in their retirement.
Requiring superannuation funds to disclose the assets into which the contributions of their members have been invested is also consistent with international best practice. Australia is currently the only market, of 25 markets looked at by international market financial analysts Morning Star, with no implemented, regulated form of portfolio holdings disclosure. This bill seeks to ensure that Australia is no longer lagging behind internationally.
The refinements to portfolio holdings disclosure will mean superannuation funds disclosure requirements will be limited to assets held directly and through associated entities including initial investments made into non-associated entities. Limiting portfolio holdings disclosure in this way will significantly reduce the complexity of the current law. It will also reduce associated compliance costs on industry without significantly hindering a member's ability to see where their money is being invested in the system.
Superannuation funds will be required to provide information on their websites that will enable the identification of the relevant assets and the value of those assets.
However, the government carefully listened to the concerns of industry that the disclosure of some asset classes, such as private equity, which due to commercial sensitivities would be unable to be invested in if their particular investment strategies were required to be disclosed to the market. That is why the bill provides an exemption to enable funds not to disclose five per cent of their assets that are commercially sensitive and would be detrimental to member outcomes if disclosed.
In recognition of the diverse and complex nature of the asset classes required to be disclosed under the portfolio holdings disclosure measure, the bill also includes a regulation making power to enable particular issues relating to individual asset classes to be addressed in the regulations.
Turning to the choice product dashboards and their rules, these are designed to provide a simple tool to make it easier for consumers to compare the performance of choice investment options with other choice investment options and with default MySuper products—which already have dashboards. Important metrics will be included on choice product dashboards, such as risk and return, fees and costs, allowing consumers to make informed decisions about which product best suits their needs.
All superannuation funds regulated by the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA)—including retail, industry and corporate funds—will be required to provide choice product dashboards.
As mentioned earlier, the refinements in this bill will limit the requirement for superannuation funds to develop choice product dashboards for their top 10 (by value) superannuation choice investment options. Treasury estimate that this captures approximately 73 per cent of all choice investment options.
Superannuation funds will also continue to be required to provide product dashboards for all of their MySuper products.
This will mean that product dashboards will be provided for all of the major investment options offered across the entire superannuation sector.
When looking at their top 10 investment options, superannuation funds will need to look at all of their investment options including those investment options offered through platform styled products.
Although investment options offered through platforms will be captured under the refinements, platforms themselves will not be captured.
The rationale for not capturing platforms is simple; it would be misleading to consumers to do so. If a product dashboard were to be developed for a platform, the superannuation fund would be required to use aggregated figures for fees, risk and returns across all of the platforms' investment options. Yet these figures can be significantly skewed by the wide variety of products and outcomes across the platform spectrum; they can range from conservative diversified investment options, which have low fees, low risk and lower returns, to venture capital investment options, which have high fees, high risk but provide potentially higher returns.
Given members who invest through platforms generally only invest in a small proportion of the investment options offered, if a member was to use the product dashboard for a platform to make a comparison with other investment options, they could be easily misled into believing that the dashboard reflects their particular investments.
The extent to which members could be misled is particularly evident when you consider that platform styled products can contain in excess of 400 individual options, and yet members tend to choose only between five and 10 individual investments.
Measures to enhance transparency of information to superannuation fund members and employers have been subject to consultation since the Cooper review released its second issues paper on 16 October 2009, over six years ago.
In November 2013, the government released its discussion paper Better regulation and governance, enhanced transparency and improved competition in superannuation. It sought feedback on how best to structure a choice product dashboard to address an existing gap in the disclosure framework for superannuation products. It also sought comments on which model of portfolio holdings disclosure would best achieve an appropriate balance between improved transparency and compliance costs.
In consulting on these issues, the government has been mindful that the policy changes must maximise benefits to members, whilst minimising the compliance burden on the superannuation sector.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank those people who have been involved in the various and extensive consultation processes, and for the valuable contributions that they have made to ensure that we are giving effect to the transparency measures—that is, of increasing transparency, creating a more informed market, and consequently increasing competition to deliver increased value to consumers.
I would also like to acknowledge those superannuation funds from the various sectors that have already moved to increase the availability and quality of information available to consumers.
It is critical that the superannuation system is transparent, competitive and efficient. Australians need to have confidence in this system and be empowered to plan for their retirement.
We know that the performance of the superannuation system has a direct bearing on the retirement incomes of each and every Australian. That is why it is important that members can see where their funds are being invested, and can compare the relative performance of their fund to other funds.
And that is why the government is committed to ensuring the passage of this bill, which I commend to the House.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
This bill gives more employees choice in relation to the superannuation fund where their compulsory employer contributions are placed.
Currently some employees are forced to have their compulsory employer contributions paid to a fund specified in their enterprise agreement or workplace determination. They cannot choose a different fund.
The superannuation law effectively exempts these employers from having to provide choice.
Individuals in this situation may have limited capacity to influence their enterprise bargaining. Indeed, they may have commenced employment after bargaining has concluded, with several years to wait until the agreement is renegotiated.
Not being able to choose a fund can force some employees to maintain multiple superannuation accounts, exposing them to multiple fees and insurance premiums, potentially reducing their retirement savings. For some individuals, lack of choice contributes to disengagement with superannuation.
Take the example of John. He works part time for a large hardware store chain under an enterprise agreement, which requires his compulsory superannuation contributions to be made to fund A. At the same time he supplements his income with casual work for a small construction company that also makes compulsory superannuation payments under an enterprise agreement but to fund B. John has no choice but to maintain two superannuation accounts. This means two funds, two sets of fees and insurance premiums and greater complexity for John.
The financial system inquiry (FSI) recognised these issues and recommended that employees be given choice of fund.
The bill implements the government's response to recommendation 12 of the FSI final report on choice of fund.
Compulsory employer superannuation is one of the three pillars of retirement income in Australia and often makes up a large part of an individual's private savings at retirement.
The government believes people should be able to make key decisions that suit their personal circumstances around savings that they are forced to set aside until retirement.
More broadly, expanding choice of fund will increase competition among superannuation funds for the compulsory employer contribution of members, which can put downward pressure on fees.
Fees can have a big impact on retirement savings and income in retirement. Analysis in the FSI showed that, for someone on average earnings, a 30 basis point reduction in average superannuation fees could provide up to an extra $2,000 per year in retirement income.
When choice of fund was introduced in 2005 there were concerns about the cost to employers of paying employee superannuation to multiple funds. Technology has moved on since then. The effects of SuperStream and the availability of clearing houses have greatly reduced these costs.
The bill ensures more employees under enterprise agreements and workplace determinations made after 1 July 2016 will be able to choose the fund for their compulsory employer superannuation.
It also makes a minor technical amendment to ensure employers who rely on an existing exemption for certain members of a defined benefit scheme are not penalised.
It is estimated that this will extend choice to up to 800,000 people on enterprise agreements who have restricted choice of fund.
Existing employees will be able to request a choice of fund form from their employer that lets them select which fund their compulsory contributions are paid into.
New employees will be given a choice form when they commence employment under an enterprise agreement that is made after 1 July 2016.
Employees who get choice as a result of this bill do not have to exercise it and we certainly do not anticipate that all of them will.
But individuals will be able to consider their personal circumstances, look at the default fund of their employer and compare it with other funds, then make the decision that best suits their needs.
Similarly, we are not saying or assuming that funds currently mandated by enterprise agreements are bad; many of them perform well. Employees may prefer the default fund of the employer; they may prefer some other fund or they may not exercise choice at all. Whatever the case, the government believes it should be the individual's decision, which is why I commend this bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
This bill amends various taxation laws to improve their flexibility and effectiveness while reducing red tape on individuals, businesses and community organisations.
Schedule 1 to this bill establishes a remedial power for the Commissioner of Taxation, to allow for a more timely resolution of certain unforeseen or unintended outcomes in the taxation and superannuation laws.
Schedule 2 improves the flexibility of the income tax averaging rules for farmers, allowing income averaging to reapply 10 years after a farmer has chosen to opt out, rather than permanently excluding them from the benefits of averaging as is currently the case.
Schedule 3 will amend the luxury car tax to provide tax relief to certain public institutions that import or acquire cars for the sole purpose of public display.
Schedule 4 makes a number of minor amendments across the tax and superannuation laws to provide certainty for taxpayers.
Schedule 1 of this bill will establish a remedial power for the Commissioner of Taxation to allow for a more timely resolution of certain unforeseen or unintended outcomes in the laws under the commissioner’s administration.
The government announced on 1 May 2015 that it would provide more certainty and better outcomes for taxpayers and reduce the regulatory burden on them by providing the commissioner with a remedial power.
Taxation laws are very complex. The nature and volume of taxation law can produce unforeseen and unintended outcomes in its application.
These outcomes can result in taxpayers generating tax liabilities where this was not intended, or taxpayers being subject to record keeping or other compliance requirements that were not intended or are no longer necessary. These outcomes can create significant uncertainty and compliance costs.
The commissioner endeavours to interpret the law to give effect to its purpose or object, but instances remain where this is not possible. For example, this can occur when dealing with new scenarios, or scenarios which were not contemplated when the provisions were drafted.
Unintended outcomes may be addressed through changes to the primary law. However, law change is resource intensive and is undertaken to give effect to the full range of government priorities. It can therefore be ill-suited to resolving smaller unintended outcomes.
The challenge of effecting primary law change is illustrated by the 92 announced changes to the tax law that had not been enacted at the time this government was elected. Had the remedial power existed, it would have been expected to have been able to address some of these smaller unintended outcomes. This also would have allowed constrained legislative resources to deal with more significant primary law changes.
The remedial power allows the commissioner to make a disallowable legislative instrument to modify the operation of a taxation law to ensure the law can be administered to achieve its intended purpose or object. This will help to create flexibility, allowing the commissioner to resolve smaller unintended outcomes.
The delegation of this power to the commissioner must be subject to necessary checks and balances.
Importantly, parliament has oversight of all instruments made under this power. Instruments would not take effect until after the expiry of the parliamentary disallowance period.
Safeguards are built into the remedial power itself. The power can only be used where:
Any modification to the law will not apply to a taxpayer if the taxpayer would be adversely affected.
The proposed power is to be used as a power of last resort, when unintended consequences cannot be ameliorated by the commissioner in any other way.
In the past, there have been instances where there has been a misalignment between the stated purpose of a particular provision and the technical language adopted in the legislation. In these instances the commissioner has not been able to address these issues or administer the legislation in a way that gives effect to its intended object or purpose.
This measure provides an avenue for efficient resolution of these issues, as and when they arise and fits well with the existing commitment by the commissioner to administer taxation legislation in accordance with the stated policy intent.
The measure will allow a smooth administration of the taxation and superannuation laws, in particular, when dealing with smaller unintended or unforeseen outcomes. This measure will assist in cutting red tape and provide greater support for taxpayers all across Australia.
Similarly, Schedule 2 amends the law so that farmers can reaccess the benefits of tax averaging 10 income years after they decided to opt out of the system for year-to-year smoothing of primary production income taxation. This change is necessary to ensure the rules do not continue to permanently and unnecessarily exclude eligible farmers from the benefits of income averaging.
Currently, a farmer who chooses to opt out of income averaging can never reaccess the scheme.
Farmers’ incomes are often volatile due to factors outside of their control, such as drought and fluctuating commodity prices. The averaging rules even out a farmer’s income tax liability from year to year, so that they pay fairer amounts of tax in relation to taxpayers on comparable but steadier incomes.
The government heard from stakeholders in consultation that the current averaging rules are inflexible and do not make sufficient allowance for changing business circumstances. A farmer choosing to opt out of income averaging may later realise that this choice was no longer appropriate for their circumstances. For example, they may not have anticipated future income volatility, acted on the basis of poor advice, or assumed they would experience many years of declining income. Currently, these farmers can never reaccess the concession, even where they remain in primary production and face volatilities from market conditions and natural disasters.
While it makes sense to have rules that prevent farmers from opting in and out of income averaging simply to gain tax benefits, a permanent exclusion is longer than necessary to prevent possible abuse of the concession.
Over the past four decades, the value of agricultural output has been almost 2½ times more volatile than the average for all the major sectors of the Australian economy. Australian farmers also experience greater volatility in yield and price than most other farmers in the world. The government recognises the need for Australia’s tax system to account for the agriculture sector’s operating environment.
This schedule will benefit farmers as averaging will only recommence when they are eligible for a tax offset. A farmer may always choose to opt out again if it does not suit their circumstances to remain in income averaging. Their choice will be effective for another 10 income years.
This change was announced in the agricultural competitiveness white paper on 4 July 2015, and is the product of extensive stakeholder feedback and consultation.
Schedule 3 amends the luxury car tax to provide tax relief to certain public institutions that import or acquire cars for the sole purpose of public display.
Currently, if a public museum or art gallery imports a car for display and it is over the $63,184 threshold, the museum or gallery will have to pay luxury car tax.
This bill implements the 2015-16 budget measure allowing public museums and public art galleries that have been endorsed by the Commissioner of Taxation as a deductible gift recipient to acquire cars free of luxury car tax.
Relief from luxury car tax will only be available for cars acquired solely for the purpose of public display. The cars must be exhibited or shown in an environment that is accessible to the general community, for example, display in a museum that is open to the general public.
Finally, schedule 4 makes a number of amendments to tax and superannuation laws to provide certainty for taxpayers. These amendments make sure that the law operates as intended by correcting technical or drafting defects, removing anomalies, and addressing unintended outcomes.
This furthers the government’s commitment to restore simplicity and fairness to the Australian tax system, and to the care and maintenance of the law. By clarifying the law and repealing unnecessary provisions, these amendments also reduce the regulatory burden and make it easier for Australians to access current law.
These amendments include:
This bill is aimed at better targeting and strengthening our tax system to ensure it is fair and sustainable.
Full details of the measure are contained in the explanatory memorandum.
Debate adjourned.
I present an addendum to the explanatory memorandum of the Australian Crime Commission Amendment (National Policing Information) Bill 2015.
I present the report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests inquiry into whether the former member for Dobell, Mr Craig Thomson, in a statement to the House on 21 May 2012 deliberately misled the House.
Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).
by leave—On 24 February 2014, the House referred to the Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests an inquiry into whether the former member for Dobell, Mr Craig Thomson, deliberately misled the House on 21 May 2012, having regard to the findings against Mr Thomson made by the Melbourne Magistrates' Court on 18 February 2014.
This matter has a long history that will be well known to many members of the House. On 21 May 2012, in the last parliament, Mr Thomson, the then member for Dobell, addressed the House at length in response to a report of Fair Work Australia (now the Fair Work Commission) regarding his conduct while he was employed as a senior official of the Health Services Union. The following day, the House resolved to refer to the committee the question of whether Mr Thomson, in making his statement, had deliberately misled the House. The committee's inquiry was suspended on 14 February 2013 in accordance with the sub judice convention after criminal proceedings were commenced against Mr Thomson in Victoria. The inquiry then lapsed on the dissolution of the House at the end of the 43rd Parliament.
Mr Thomson was found guilty by the Melbourne Magistrates' Court on 18 February 2014 of a number of offences relating mainly to dishonest or fraudulent use of credit cards issued to him in connection with his employment with the Health Services Union. At the request to the House of the member for Dobell, Ms McNamara, the matter was granted precedence for consideration by the House. The House then resolved, on the motion of the Leader of the House, to again refer to the committee an inquiry into whether, having regard to the outcome of the criminal matters, Mr Thomson had deliberately misled the House.
The task for the committee in this inquiry was essentially to examine Mr Thomson's statement to the House on 21 May 2012 and the findings of the Victorian criminal courts to see whether the two could be reconciled. The committee's view is that they cannot. When considered in light of the criminal court's findings, it is apparent that Mr Thomson's statement contains factually incorrect material concerning Mr Thomson's personal affairs which Mr Thomson must have known was incorrect. The formal and deliberate manner in which the statement was made gives rise to a presumption that Mr Thomson's intention was to mislead the House, a presumption which there is no evidence to rebut.
Having formed the view that Mr Thomson deliberately misled the House on 21 May 2012, the committee then considered whether, in making the statement, Mr Thomson's actions may have amounted to a contempt of the House. The Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987 provides that conduct does not constitute a contempt unless it amounts, or is intended or likely to amount, to an improper interference with the free exercise by the House of its authority or functions, or with the free performance by a member of the member's duties as a member. The committee's view is that it is fundamental to the proper functioning of the House for statements given to the House by members to be truthful. Making misleading statements to the House can impede its functions, including by diminishing the respect due to the House.
The imposition of punishment for contempt of the House is a matter for the House, but it is the role of the committee to provide guidance to the House as to an appropriate penalty in the circumstances. The committee considers that the contempt committed by Mr Thomson is a very serious one. The committee also notes Mr Thomson's personal circumstances and the pressure exerted by this matter over a lengthy period of time. With this in mind, the committee considers that an appropriate penalty would be for the House to reprimand Mr Thomson for his conduct.
The report I have tabled details the procedural steps taken by the committee in conducting this inquiry. I take this opportunity to note in particular that the committee has at each stage of the process, as it is required to under resolutions of this House, offered Mr Thomson a reasonable opportunity to put his side of the story. Mr Thomson's input was considered very carefully by the committee.
Finally, I advise the House that there appears to have been a breach in process as the committee finalised this matter. This will be considered further by the committee at its next meeting.
I sincerely thank the members of the committee for their work on this inquiry. The members for Chisholm, Scullin, Lyne, Mitchell, Hotham, Barker, Moreton, Hinkler, Pearce, Wannon, Berowra and Bonner have discharged their functions diligently, carefully and with great sensitivity. The committee particularly appreciates the advice from the office of the Clerk, including from Deputy Clerk Claressa Surtees, Stuart Woodley, Laura Gillies and Gillian Drew.
I commend the committee's report to the House.
As required by resolution of the House, I present copies of notifications of alterations of interests received during the period 2 December 2015 to 15 March 2016.
I present the report from the Publications Committee sitting in conference with the Publications Committee of the Senate. Copies of the report have been placed on the table.
Report—by leave—agreed to.
by leave—I present the report of the Australian Parliamentary Delegation to the United Kingdom and Germany from 26 October to 5 November 2015, and seek leave to make a short statement in connection with the report.
Leave granted.
It was my great privilege to lead this delegation, which also comprised the member for Parkes, Mr Coulton MP; Senator Carr; and Senator Fawcett. The delegation was very pleased to contribute to the valuable relationship that Australia has with the UK and Germany and to exchange views on areas of common interest.
In the UK, the delegation met with parliamentarians in Westminster, London; and Holyrood, Edinburgh. The delegation was interested in discussions on the devolution of powers from the Westminster parliament to the Scottish Parliament. Following the outcome of the referendum in September 2014 in Scotland, which was a 45 per cent 'yes' vote for independence, all major parties agreed to devolve further powers to Scotland. These enhanced powers to the Scottish Parliament will come into full effect later this year.
Another significant issue in the UK is 'Brexit', which refers to the possibility of Great Britain leaving the European Union. Prime Minister Cameron has committed to hold a referendum by the end of 2017 on whether the UK should remain in the EU. The delegation heard from those in favour of staying in the EU and also from those in favour of exiting the EU. The delegation notes that the Scottish Parliament supports remaining in the EU.
The defence relationship with the United Kingdom is well established and extends across a breadth of areas, including science and technology, capability development, cyber and space, and service-to-service engagement. During its visit, the delegation had the opportunity to discuss current parliamentary committee inquiries; the UK's strategic defence and security review; possible military interventions against ISIL and Daesh and the situation in Syria; defence procurement and defence capability; and budget and workforce requirements.
The delegation made site visits to BAE Naval Ships and Thales Optronics in Glasgow. At BAE, the delegation was interested to discuss the UK's continuous shipbuilding program, and at Thales Optronics the delegation toured the factory floor; discussed optronics in major equipment, such as the periscopes in the Collins class submarines; and inspected a Thales Hawkei vehicle—one of the vehicles being acquired by the Australian Defence Force under Project Land 121.
In London the delegation met with Mr Akbar Kahn, the new Secretary-General of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. Mr Khan was recommended to the 61st general assembly by the association's international executive committee, which is made up of representatives of the nine regions of the CPA: Africa; Asia; Australia; the British islands and Mediterranean; Canada; Caribbean, Americas and Atlantic; India; Pacific; and South-East Asia.
Mr Khan and representatives of the CPA UK branch encouraged Australia to rejoin the CPA and spoke of the benefits of the work of the CPA, which aims to connect, develop, promote and support parliamentarians and their staff to identify benchmarks of good governance and the implementation of the enduring values of the Commonwealth. The delegation notes the renewal in the leadership of the CPA and the enthusiasm of the UK for Australia to contribute to good governance again. All delegates are supportive of the Australian federal parliament rejoining the CPA.
Renewable energy was a feature of the delegation's program in the UK and Germany, which included site visits to Whitelee wind farm, the UK's largest onshore wind farm, located close to Glasgow, and to the energy self-sufficient village of Feldheim, which is located approximately 70 kilometres from Berlin.
The major issue in Germany at the time was the migration crisis. At the time the delegation visited, in November 2015, Germany was receiving 1,200 people seeking asylum per week. In Cologne, the delegation visited two sites of temporary accommodation for refugees: a former hardware store which is managed by the Red Cross, with about 100 residents, mainly families; and self-contained apartments, managed by Caritas, which had about 80 residents, including 30 families. Our German parliamentary colleagues spoke about the right under the German Constitution to guarantee asylum in Germany to all people who face political persecution. However, there are challenges with processing the large number of asylum seekers entering Germany, and the German parliament was considering a package of measures to reduce incentives and to fast-track the processing of economic refugees.
The bilateral relationship with Germany is strengthened through the Australia-Germany Advisory Group, AGAG, which was established in November 2014 and is co-chaired by the Australian Minister for Finance, Senator the Hon. Mathias Cormann, and the German Minister of State, Dr Maria Bohmer. AGAG's report, Collaboration, innovation and opportunity, outlined opportunities for enhancing the engagement between our two countries. The report was presented to Prime Minister Turnbull and Chancellor Merkel in Berlin on 13 November 2015.
The visit to Germany provided the delegation with an opportunity to build on the linkages established through AGAG. Mr Volkmar Klein, the Chair of the Germany-Australia Parliamentary Friendship Group, was an exceptional host during the delegation's visit. A fortnight ago, the delegation was pleased to welcome Mr Klein, who led a visit to Canberra of the Germany-Australia Parliamentary Friendship Group. The meeting gave delegates the opportunity to debrief with our German counterparts on the effectiveness of the program in Germany and for delegates to further discuss the opportunity that lies ahead to strengthen and deepen the bilateral relationship between Australia and Germany.
Finally, I wish to place on the record my appreciation of the work that went into preparing the visit, including the arrangements made by the Australian parliament's International and Parliamentary Relations Office, the CPA UK branch, officials from the Scottish Parliament, and the administration of the German Bundestag. I also thank Australia's diplomatic missions in the United Kingdom and Germany for their work in developing the programs and the excellent support that was provided during the visit. I thank Susan Cardell, our delegation secretary, for her magnificent professionalism and organisational skills. I also thank the deputy leader, Senator Kim Carr, for his contributions and the valuable work of the government whip, Mark Coulton MP, and Senator David Fawcett on the delegation. I commend this report to the House.
I thank the member for Brisbane and take this opportunity to personally wish her the best for the future. I thank her for all her time in this place and her friendship to me as well.
I present the report of the Australian parliamentary delegation to the 24th annual meeting of the Asia Pacific Parliamentary Forum, held in Vancouver, Canada, from 17 to 21 January 2016. I ask leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with this report.
Leave granted.
This was the 24th annual meeting of the Asia Pacific Parliamentary Forum and it was held in Vancouver, a very cold place for we three Australians, plus our secretarial support, who travelled there in January. I was accompanied by Luke Simpkins, the member for Cowan, and Ms Anna Burke, the member for Chisholm, as well as our secretary, Cecily. I most sincerely thank the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade for the support we received in advance. The department prepared a very detailed response to the 47 draft resolutions that were put to the annual meeting by 11 countries. I am very pleased to say that Australia presented four of those motions.
The object of the meeting was the consideration of the nations in the Asia-Pacific region and the bringing together of draft resolutions to be passed through consensus. In the final hours of the forum, these resolutions were to be received, hopefully from the floor of the forum, and a communique decided by all of those who participated. The draft resolutions came from Australia, Canada, Chile, China, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, the Russian Federation and Thailand. Numbers of those draft resolutions were similar in content and so were amalgamated after appropriate consultation and negotiation between the countries bringing them forward. Two from Australia, in fact, were the only two in their category of issue; one of those was the motion I brought forward, which concerned enhancing acknowledgement of indigenous peoples and recognition of the need to close the gap of disadvantage which first nations or indigenous peoples often experience in our Asia-Pacific region. That received unanimous and consensual support and went through, as did our special motion on enhancing cooperative action on climate change. Ms Burke spoke to that and also worked with the drafting committees on the motion. Interestingly, those two motions from Australia, on indigenous peoples and climate change, were the only two presented to the forum on those topics. But we also presented a motion on the need for an Arms Trade Treaty and building an international parliamentary network on anticorruption. Mr Luke Simpkins addressed the network on anticorruption and did a very good job of presenting Australia's leadership in this area, particularly since its work in the United Nations Security Council on addressing corruption globally but also in our region as it affects our near and further neighbours. The first two motions I mentioned were adopted in their original form, while the other two were amalgamated and rolled into like-minded motions. In all, 27 of the original 47 motions went through from the 11 countries and were adopted by consensus.
It was very hard work with just the three of us there, in that there were numbers of committees operating consecutively and you cannot be in all places at all times. I am very proud of the diligence and the very hard work we put into this parliamentary forum between 17 and 21 January. All of our bases were covered at all times. Certainly, that was commented upon by some of our other near neighbours—New Zealand, for example—whom we supported with their like-minded efforts, as well as Canada.
This parliamentary forum was also unique in that, for the first time, on the very first day, it was preceded by a women's forum, a women's event. This was, surprisingly, new to the Asia-Pacific Parliamentary Forum. You would have thought that there would have been a women's parliamentary event for many years, but this was a first. It was co-chaired by Senator Mobina Jaffer from Canada and Dr Nurhayati Ali Assegaf from Indonesia. They conducted the forum—on the first day, as I said. We addressed the themes of challenges facing women's representation in parliaments, measures that can help to increase women's participation in public life and inclusive financing for women. As well, we looked at women's leadership in disaster situations and how to reduce the risks to women in disaster situations, which unfortunately are very typical of our region in terms of natural disasters and disasters associated with conflict. We examined women's leadership in building adaptive and disaster resilient communities and looked as concrete examples of how we can, through women's roles in parliaments, advance more resources towards building disaster resilience.
The plenary session considered a draft resolution on ensuring women's participation at all levels of political and public life. This draft resolution was then prepared by the co-chairs and made available to the annual meeting. I am pleased to say that it was through my facilitation that we were able to then put a motion before the executive, who are planning for the next Asia-Pacific Parliamentary Forum that is to be held in Fiji. I helped prepare a motion calling for this women's forum to become a standard feature of every Asia-Pacific Parliamentary Forum in the future.
There was also a motion calling for consideration of additional women on the executive. My suggestion was that those women be drawn from the country hosting the forum for that year and the country who had hosted the forum in the previous year. Those, of course, are matters for negotiation and decision by the executive, but they were well received, and there was a strong recognition that women as parliamentarians have a very particular role to play in broadening the resources available to all aspects of community life in different nations, especially in reducing poverty and discrimination against women. I would say that this first women's event held at an Asia-Pacific Parliamentary Forum was highly successful. Ms Burke, the member for Chisholm, and I were very pleased to participate fully in that women's program and agenda.
As part of my activity immediately following that forum, I made use of my time, on Australia's behalf, to further investigate how Australia can be better informed about foetal alcohol spectrum disorder through Canada's work in this area. In Australia, we have been developing a diagnostic tool for our medical practitioners and allied health professionals to use in diagnosing foetal alcohol spectrum disorder, and we have drawn very heavily on the Canadian experience and the materials that they have developed in their country. In fact, there is a strong global recognition that Canada leads the world in responding to foetal alcohol spectrum disorder.
I was able to join members of the Asante Centre in British Columbia—with Dr Asante himself, the medical director emeritus and paediatrician, and with Audrey Salahub—to talk to them about how they are further evolving their diagnostic tool. Australia will tune into those further evolutions and the work that they are doing. I was also able to meet with the Continuing Legal Education Society of British Columbia, represented by Mr Ron Friesen. They are looking at the ability of people with this condition to plead in legal situations in courts, for example. I was also able to present the Australian experience of foetal alcohol spectrum disorder to a number of interns and other training medical professionals gathered together at the BC Children's Hospital and how we are tackling it in our national program, which is now in place and, in fact, midway through. I think this added very much to the benefit for Australia of attending the Asia-Pacific Parliamentary Forum.
We were a small number; there were just three of us. Some of the delegations had more than 20. But I do not think for a minute that we were less than effective with our representation. I want to thank the very hard work of my two colleagues Luke Simpkins, the member for Cowan; and Anna Burke, the member for Chisholm. I want to thank the Australian High Commission based in Ottawa and Victoria Walker, who was with us for the duration, having come across from Ottawa to Vancouver to support us. I am grateful for all of the work undertaken by DFAT officials in Australia in very comprehensive and thorough briefings on what were often very complex matters which required a great deal of nuance and careful consideration, given the numbers of different countries with different interests who were represented at this forum.
I commend this report to the House. I also wish Fiji all the best, given they will be hosting next year's forum. I know that Australia and New Zealand have already promised that we will do what we can do in helping to advise the representative of Fiji, who was at this forum. She asked for our advice on how they would progress, particularly with the women's forum at the beginning of the Asia Pacific Parliamentary Forum which is to be held in Fiji next year.
Agriculture pretty much lives and succeeds or otherwise on the basis of a lot of the R&D and innovation which is done on its behalf and which it does on the nation's behalf. I rise to support the Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Amendment Bill 2016. I think that what is unique to Australia—from my experience in comparable countries around the world—is the way in which rural R&D is performed in Australia. The industries themselves vote on the amount and level at which the collection of levies should be raised. The Commonwealth government matches that funding up to the level of one-half of one per cent of production. Obviously, it works better for some than for others, because of the sizes and scales of particular industries. But it certainly works very well for broadacre farming, and it is more and more being embraced by various different agricultural activities.
This bill is incredibly important if Australia wants to continue to be recognised as a world leader in agriculture. I think the manner in which we present our agricultural production for inspection and sale around the world is a case in point. China has its issues, though we will not go into those today, but it pretty much prefers our produce to anyone else's in the world in certain aspects. That bears out the fact that we are tough on exports and what can be sold within Australia. But we should be tough, because the greatest thing that Australian agriculture has going for it is its reputation for clean, green, expertly produced and expertly presented commodities.
Rural research and development corporations need to be able to connect directly with the people on the ground—primary producers, who, through various levies and charges, directly fund this R&D in conjunction with the Commonwealth. This bill makes it possible for the rural research and development corporations to connect with the producer, who—ostensibly and along with the nation—R&D is there to assist. The people on the ground are the best qualified to inform those bodies of what will make their life easier—whether it is about innovation, where we want to go, or the actual plant or animal.
The producers—and I include myself and the member for Grey among them—are not only the ones paying the levies; we are also the ones who benefit directly from research in the sector. The research supports this—including a Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee inquiry into levies in the agricultural sector, which identified improved consultation with levy payers as important to ensuring the ongoing strength of the nation's R&D system. Currently, levy payers' information is able to be distributed to only a limited number of RDCs—those in the wool and dairy industries. The Australian agriculture sector is far more diverse than just the dairy and wool industries. All primary producers should be on an equal footing, as they are all paying levies and do deserve to have a say in the way in which those are directed. In fact, currently legislation limits primary producers' ability to have an input into how their levies are spent. The bill will remedy this by making it possible to provide this information to the other 13 RDCs. This bill will free the hands of the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources to distribute information on levy payers to the rural RDCs.
As stated earlier, research and inquiries into this have suggested the establishment of registers. The federal government are supportive of this as we understand the huge impact primary producers could have on directing research in their sector. The registers would include the name, address, contact details and ABN of any person who has paid or is liable to pay a levy or charge. This information would also be provided to the Australian Bureau of Statistics and used for the performance of its functions.
The federal government are committed to ensuring we are leading the pack when it comes to agriculture. For this to continue, we must improve the current system. We must ensure policy development and decision making is informed, and this bill is designed to do just that. Engagement with industry is vital, no matter what sector we are talking about. We do not make decisions about education without talking to those in the classroom, and we do not make decisions about health without talking to doctors and nurses. The agriculture sector should be no different.
We must create communication channels to ensure RDCs can align their research investments with industry priorities. That is the issue, because priorities change—just as markets change, as machinery changes and certainly as the weather changes—and this has huge flow-on effects. It will improve returns to the farm gate and ensure a sustainable, more profitable and stronger agriculture sector. The government will continue in its commitment to uphold the highest standard of security and privacy both for individuals and for commercial organisations. This confidentiality will not be compromised. The use of the information, and it will be subject to all relevant privacy considerations.
The bill limits the purposes for which levy payer information can be used to the following: to maintain levy payer registers; to maintain a register of eligible voters for polls conducted by an RDC in order to publish statistical, de-identified information; to fulfil an RDC's functions under its funding agreement with the Commonwealth; or to fulfil the functions of the Australian Bureau of Statistics. This government has a focus on innovation and science, with the release of the National Innovation and Science Agenda. This bill builds on that agenda. There is no part of Australian production where R&D is more relevant and more necessary than agriculture.
Primary producers in my electorate of Calare and just west and north of me in the electorate of Parkes are doing some incredible things, and they need to be able to get their thoughts through to the relevant RDC. I should say at this point in time that, over the period of the decade from 2000, it is a fact that productivity increases did somewhat stall, not just because it was the longest drought of the lifetime of anyone in this parliament but because I do not think that much was going into research. I do not think innovation was coming forward. It is a fact that, over that decade, we stalled and we need to go ahead once again.
Over the last 50 years, up until that decade, almost annually, we had around a two to three per cent increase in productivity in agriculture. In fact, if you look at the charts, the only reason agriculture survived financially was increasing productivity rather than the particular profitability of what they were doing. That is obviously not a good situation—I always said, prior to the election, that profitability has to be the byword of agriculture. There is no point in increasing productivity if you are not making any more money. I do not mind saying that farmers are not any different from anybody else—they need to make money as well as support the nation.
I think this bill is an opportunity for all involved in the agriculture sector. We, as farmers, need to regenerate our minds as well as what we do. I have always believed that, in my father's time, if you worked hard and had common sense, you probably did okay. These days it has moved far beyond that. It is so technical; the science changes so quickly. You only have to look at cotton, certainly up in the electorate of Parkes around Moree, and you will see just how scientific the growing of cotton has become. It is one of the most maligned industries in Australia, I might add. They use far less water than a lot of other industries and they use it very efficiently. It is quite incredible. People should see it, just to see how modern it is.
While I am on this issue of R&D, I want to briefly touch on a couple of things. I am not somebody who went to university, but I often think that, if I did, gene technology is what I would want to do. It is quite amazing. It is a fantastic study. To talk to those scientists at CSIRO and elsewhere about some of the things they can do, and have done, is a revelation in itself. I sometimes wonder whether people realise just how far we can go with this. If you look at the Northern Territory, for example, where not every breed of cattle can survive well, what they have been able to do—and they have not finalised it—is irradiate a bull's reproductive parts to mitigate its own characteristics. They can then supplant it with a bull of far superior quality. In other words, you can have a scrubber running around up in the north with the best Hereford's reproductive capacity—or whatever breed you like.
The bull is tough enough to survive up there, to find the cows and all the rest of it—because fertility is a very big issue up there—but not only would he be doing that; he would not be reproducing himself but the finest bull in Australia, or the world for that matter. The problem, at this point in time, is that they cannot make it last—it dies back and his own reproductive capability re-emerges. But the fact that they can actually do this is just mind-blowing. That is the sort of thing that CSIRO and others have started to do. To me, a farmer and a grazier who loves cattle and sheep, I find this the most incredible thing of all—that they can actually even get as far as they have with that.
The other part about R&D and innovation is that we need more researchers. The mining industry had this problem 20 or 30 years ago. In opposition, I remember we went to them to find out how they pretty much solved it. Money was a great one, but you do not actually have to have a farm boy who is a scientist to do it. You can pinch anyone who is at uni and who is interested in it. There is a capability employment-wise of something like 4,000 people a year, within government departments at state and federal level, within the big corporate entities in agriculture and in pesticides and insecticides, and within veterinary companies—they all need this kind of research. The ability for employment is fantastic, but we need to get to the parents and those people who have perhaps even started at university in various scientific fields. We need to get them in.
R&D and innovation is so important. Let's not forget innovation here, because it does not matter how groundbreaking or great a discovery might be; if you cannot then make it a practical reality, it is not worth much to you. Innovation, to me, is about turning a proven idea into a reality, which is something the family farm does better than anyone. The big guys at corporates have a huge place in Australian agriculture. They can afford to try this stuff. But it is what I call the family corporates, the big family businesses and the smaller family businesses, that perfect it. They make it affordable or not. They are the ones who will decide whether or not they can afford to do it and continue with that.
I commend the bill. Whatever makes those doing the research more aware of what we need, what we must have and where we want to go can only be good, because the world prefers our goods over anyone else's, given the choice.
I rise this morning to speak on the Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Amendment Bill 2016. This bill makes it possible for the rural research and development corporations to identify and connect directly with the primary producers who fund their work. Recent reviews and inquiries, including the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee inquiry into industry structures and systems governing the imposition and disbursement of marketing and research and development levies in the agricultural sector, have identified improved consultation with levy payers as important for the ongoing strength of Australia's rural R&D system. Several of these inquiries recommended levy payer registers as a way for RDCs to consult more effectively with the primary producers who fund them. So this bill will amend the Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Act 1991 to allow for the distribution of levy payer information by the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources to rural RDCs for development of levy payer registers.
Rural research is critical to the profitability and prosperity of this nation. Agriculture and the innovation around it has driven the economy of Australia for the last 200 years. As the mining sector goes through a tougher time, agriculture once again is coming to the fore in its ability to strengthen the economy of this country but also to provide sustenance, comfort, food and fibre to the people not only of this country but around the world.
In the vast areas of northern and western New South Wales in the Parkes electorate some cutting-edge technologies and innovations are now in place. The productivity of the farmers in my electorate continues to grow because of innovation and research. It is important that we have government investment through the RDCs to oversee this research, but we need the connection with farmers as well. It is important that we as a nation have this research and continue to understand the important role that agriculture plays. One of the great frustrations we have seen in recent times has come from a seeming disconnect from what once was considered basic common sense on what drives the economy of a country—primary production, secondary industries and tertiary industries. There seems to be a sector now that thinks we can be a country of just tertiary industries and not only not highly regard our primary production but, in many cases, work against it.
I will give you the classic example at the moment. The global green organisations of the World Wildlife Fund, Greenpeace and the like are running a campaign against the chemical glyphosate, more commonly known as Roundup. They are citing a report that was put out by the World Health Organization stating that Roundup may be carcinogenic to humans following on from a study that was done on mice. The reality is that Roundup has the same level of carcinogens in it as red meat, coffee and hair shampoo. That was mentioned in the report, but the green lobby have not taken the full report in context and have taken that piece out of it. So now we have these calls around the country for shire councils and others to ban glyphosate on the grounds that it causes cancer and is harmful to humans.
The grain-growing economy of Australia is in such a healthy state largely because of the use of chemicals such as glyphosate. Indeed, in the early 1980s when this chemical was first invented and was in its early stages, I was involved with my brothers in early trials with the New South Wales department of agriculture. Once again, there is that constant ability of our country to look at new ways of innovation—in this case, at zero-till farming using glyphosate to spray the weeds instead of cultivating. Very soon it was evident that, in the climate we live in, this was a new and superior way of preparing the ground for growing crops. Following on from work that was done by Sydney university, by Jeff Esdaile at Livingston Farm at Moree and by others at other places, now zero-till farming is pretty well universally accepted. Over the last decade or so, as we have had a drier than average weather cycle, farmers have remained profitable because they have been able to store moisture, not lose it through cultivation and excessive growth of weeds. They have produced crops that their fathers or grandfathers would not have been able to. This constant need to be looking at different and innovative ways of doing things is so important.
The member for Calare mentioned cotton and the gene technology that has gone into a modern cotton plant. Cotton farmers work on this and lot of work is also being done by the Cotton CRC based in Narrabri, which has been a huge boost to the cotton industry and also to the community of Narrabri. Minister Joyce has been very firm in moving CRCs to regional areas, and Dubbo is going to have part of a grain CRC in the next little while. The Cotton CRC based at Narrabri has done amazing things, sponsored amazing innovation and has been a wonderful thing for the cotton industry and the Narrabri community.
Now we have farmers who know, remotely, the exact water level in their soil and the amount of available soil moisture. They have devices that monitor the contents of the leaves of the plants, so they know what the respiration is. They know exactly when to water, so they are growing superior yields with less water. As an aside, it has put some pressure on the telecommunication systems out there because now we have huge amounts of data going through the mobile telephone systems as farmers are using this remote technology more and more and being very precise.
With cotton, there are now more kilograms of fibre produced per megalitre of water and litre of diesel than at any time in our past, and Australia leads the world in this. I am amused at our green lobbyists and protesters who will be protesting about gene technology or GM crops while wearing cotton T-shirts with slogans emblazoned on them. I do not know where they think the cotton comes from to make their T-shirts—maybe it comes from the good cotton fairies. Once again, I speak about the disconnect that we have between what really drives the economy of agriculture in this country and the perceptions of our population.
It is not just in cropping but also in livestock. The member for Calare also mentioned gene technology. A couple of weeks ago I was visiting the Taylor family and their very well-regarded Mumblebone Stud at Wellington. I spoke with George and Chad Taylor about identifying certain genetic traits of merino rams and breeding an animal that produces a very even line of a certain micron wool while also taking into account carcass weight, birth weight, growth rate, fertility and a whole range of other parts of the animal that would normally take generations to breed to. Through this identification of certain genes within the animal, they are doing this much more quickly. The Taylors have also been able to react to the—I have to say, at times misplaced—global campaign to stop the process of mulesing. The Taylors have been able to speed up the process of breeding an animal that is highly productive in the wool that it produces but for which the need for mulesing has been eliminated. With that come lower or almost non-existent levels of flystrike, which is incredibly damaging to production and to the overall welfare of the animal.
The same thing is happening with beef cattle. Because of the work that has been done in the many beef studs throughout my electorate on selective breeding and identifying genes through artificial breeding programs, we are seeing animals that are vastly superior to anything that we have seen before. Basically, if you are going to have an animal that is going to be eating a certain amount of grass, it is best to be producing the most amount of produce of the highest quality for that amount of input. It is all about profitability, and I cannot agree with the member for Calare more strongly: it is profitability that breeds innovation and it is profitability that allows farmers to be conservationists as well. I support this bill. I would like to acknowledge the work that has been done by the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources and also his passion to put agriculture once again at the forefront of the mindset of the Australian people. In my eight-plus years in this place, I cannot remember when agriculture has played a more dominant part in debates in this place and been part of budget papers by the government. I have never seen a higher awareness than we have at the moment, so I acknowledge the minister for that. I strongly support this bill.
I am pleased this morning to rise to speak on the Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Amendment Bill 2016. Just before I commence, I note that this is the last parliamentary sitting day before the budget. With the election due at any time, this could be the last opportunity that I get to speak during this parliament. I would just like to say that to rise in this parliament and speak is one of the greatest opportunities that any Australian citizen can have. In this parliament we should all take that opportunity and understand how valuable it is that we can be here and add our voice to debates on matters of public policy.
Early in this debate, the member for Hunter made several comments about section 46 as it applies to primary industries. I wish to respond to the points that he raised in this debate. First, when we talk about section 46 in our competition laws, the first question we should ask is: why do we even have competition rules? We say we believe in free market competition because history shows that free market capitalism has been the greatest tool of wealth creation known to mankind. It has been the most effective weapon ever to lift millions, if not billions, of people out of poverty. We have also seen that it is the best solution that we have for our environment. One only has to look at the environmental mess that was created in the centrally planned economies of the Eastern Bloc, China and other socialist states that became the world's worst polluters. They were stuck with outdated technologies. They had no sufficient wealth creation to generate the money for the clean-ups. If we had the entire world going down that track, we would be facing an environmental apocalypse. Technological solutions are improving our environment and will continue to improve our environment, and they can only be achieved through the workings of the free market.
When we talk about the free market, it is perhaps paradoxical that, in order for that free market to be achieved, we need some rules or regulations for the free market to operate. If you do not have those rules to govern competition, you go back to feudalism. It is a paradoxical proposition that those who believe in free markets and what they achieve should be the strongest believers in competition regulation. If we look through the history of competition laws, or antitrust laws as they call them in the states, I would suggest that they were designed to do three things. We sometimes say that our competition laws should be there for the benefit of the consumer. I say that is putting the cart before the horse. The benefits to the consumer come at the end.
I go to the three most important things regarding why we need competition laws. The first reason is to provide equality of opportunity to the person who decides they want to run their own show, want to have a go by themselves and do not want to be an employee of a large corporation. They want to try their own luck with their own ideas. That is the most important principle that has underwritten the wealth creation in the world over the last several hundred years. The person who said that best was Theodore Roosevelt over 100 years ago, in 1912. I would like to quote a few lines from a speech that it gave about the importance of providing opportunity. He said:
The important thing is this: that, under such government recognition as we may give to that which is beneficent and wholesome in large business organizations, we shall be most vigilant never to allow them to crystallize into a condition which shall make private initiative difficult.
It is of the utmost importance that in the future we shall keep the broad path of opportunity just as open and easy for our children as it was for our fathers during the period which has been the glory of America’s industrial history—that it shall be not only possible but easy for an ambitious man, whose character has so impressed itself upon his neighbors that they are willing to give him capital and credit, to start in business for himself, and, if his superior efficiency deserves it, to triumph over the biggest organization that may happen to exist in his particular field.
That is why we need effective competition laws: to provide equality of opportunity.
The second reason is to provide protection from predatory practices. Someone can risk their own capital, go into business for themselves, set up that business and know that they can compete without the larger incumbent players in the market using a predatory pricing scheme or geographic pricing to drive them out of the market. The third reason is to prevent overly concentrated markets. We sometimes make the mistake when we look at competition policy of saying that it is okay, you only need two or three competitors in a market for there to be competition. That may well work for the consumer, but it does not work back up the supply chain. This was noted back in 1953. I think this quote sums it up the best. This is from the National Farmers Union in the USA in 1953 during an inquiry into the Robinson-Patman Act, their Anti-Price Discrimination Act. They said:
The Robinson-Patman act has been referred to as the Magna Carta of small business. We consider it the Magna Carta of agriculture also. The farmer must have competition in the market place. If he is to deal with giant monopolies either in buying or selling, he perforce becomes an economic slave.
By coincidence, there is an example of the dangers and the problems of overly concentrated markets in the supply chain in today's papers. In The Sydney Morning Herald today there is an article about Woolworths stretching its payments to its suppliers from 30 days out to 60 days. This is what happens when the market is overly concentrated. When they are forced by such a demand, a supplier must have the ability to say, 'Get stuffed.' It is fundamental to the workings of the free market that in commercial negotiations between two parties either party has the ability to say, 'Get stuffed.' But when the market becomes overly concentrated and they are faced with Woolworths wanting to negotiate to push their payment terms from 30 days out to 60 days, what opportunity are any of these suppliers going to have to say, 'Get stuffed'? None. They just simply have to cop it. Some of the suppliers today talked about Woolworths' payment system, saying:
"Their payment system is broken and deliberately so. Payments come slowly and in dribs and drabs," said one supplier, who supplies products to all Woolworths divisions, including home improvement and BIG W.
"One of my terms is 28 days and I have invoices that are 90 and 120 days old," the supplier said. "They're way outside payment terms."
Another supplier said: "Invoices aren't being paid on time. You get a contract with settlement terms and they never meet the settlement terms. In any one week we'd be chasing 30 invoices at Masters and Woolworths. Sometimes they haven't paid at least 20 per cent of the invoices."
Although pushing out their payment terms might well make Woolworths more efficient, it simply transfers the costs back onto those suppliers, so the entire supply chain becomes less efficient, and the people that are damaged are the consumers.
Given the history of the three reasons why we need competition laws, we should go through Australia's response to them. The first is to provide opportunity. You need laws to prevent anticompetitive price discrimination because, where a firm dominates a large share of the market, it can put pressure on the suppliers to give it preferential terms way beyond any economies of scale. This gives it a competitive advantage and puts its smaller competitors at a competitive disadvantage. That is why the USA have the Robinson-Patman Act, an act that goes back to 1936. That is why they have the Interstate Commerce Act, which goes back to 1887. But from day one we have not had an effective law against anticompetitive price discrimination in this country, and we still do not have one today.
Secondly, there is the issue of predatory conduct, geographic price discrimination and predatory pricing. Again, our laws have failed. You only have to read Justice McHugh in the Boral case back in the 1990s, over 15 years ago. He noted the failure of our laws to prohibit predatory pricing. He said:
Conduct that is predatory in economic terms and anti-competitive may not be captured by s 46 simply because the predator does not have substantial market power when it sets out on its course to deter or injure competitors …
As written, our law only applies to companies with a substantial degree of market power, and in predatory pricing schemes, by definition, when you set out on that scheme you cannot have a substantial degree of market power if you have a small, pesky competitor that you want to wipe out. Justice McHugh said:
Section 46 is ill drawn to deal with claims of predatory pricing under these conditions.
That is the current state of our laws. Further, when it comes to acting when the market is overly concentrated, in the USA they have divestiture powers that allow for the break-up of companies that become too large and dominate a market too much. It has been argued here in Australia that we should not have the same laws as the home of free-market capitalism because it is unfair to the shareholders if a divestiture is ordered. But economic history tells us the exact opposite. If we look at when the US courts have used those divestiture powers, the winners have been the shareholders, because it has been found that the sum of the parts is worth more than the whole. That is exactly what happened in the USA when Standard Oil was famously broken up into over 30 separate small companies. If you were a shareholder in Standard Oil, for every one share that you had, you were given one share in each of those 36 other companies. Within one year of that break-up audit, the value of those individual shares in each of the new companies was worth more than double that of the original shares, so that is not something that shareholders should be worried about.
That is the state that our competition laws have been in for almost a century, so it has been pleasing that the Harper review identified that our competition laws are not working and are broken and that changes need to be made. We would hope that the Labor Party would discuss and look at supporting some of these changes, but unfortunately we know the Labor Party oppose them, because they like centralised control. They like the idea of a few large companies dominating each sector because it is simply easier for them to unionise those employees. We have seen that with their disgraceful decisions and actions on the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal. What they have done is put independent operators at a competitive disadvantage to drive them out of business, to drive them into unions, under the guise of safety. This is a disgrace. (Time expired)
I rise in parliament today to speak on the Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Amendment Bill 2016, a bill which I have a strong affinity for. It covers areas such as the Grains Research and Development Corporation, which I was intimately involved in establishing many, many years ago now. It should be noted that farmers generate a $12 return for every dollar that is invested in R&D over 10 years.
I would also like to speak briefly to thank those people who have helped me on my 17½ year journey as the federal member for Groom. That journey will end when this parliament concludes and I leave this place to pursue the next chapter in my life. I came here with a burning passion to represent not only my electorate but all of regional Australia and to improve opportunities for all Australians. Being a minister, cabinet minister and shadow cabinet minister for the vast majority of my time here has given me an enormous opportunity to do just that.
There has never been a good time to leave parliament and my decision has been an agonising one for me personally. Time waits for no man, though, particularly someone who had laryngeal cancer at 47 and is now 60. If I want to most effectively use the vast experience I have gained from my 15 years on the front bench for the coalition in the areas of innovation, industry and resources and do something more for Australia, particularly regional Australia, now is the time to grasp the next opportunity.
I would like to thank the people of Toowoomba and the Darling Downs, who for nearly two decades have supported me to be their representative in this parliament. I want to thank the Queensland Liberal Party and the LNP for choosing me to be their candidate for the last six elections. I also owe a debt to John Moore, who served in this parliament for 26 years, including as a cabinet minister. I am very grateful for his endless encouragement and advice, which continues to this day. He has stood by me during my whole time in parliament.
As a cabinet minister under the Howard and Abbott governments, I was privileged to be supported and advised by the best group of professional public servants in Canberra if not all of Australia. With Mark Paterson, Secretary of the Department of Industry, Tourism and Resources between 2001 and 2007, and his department, we changed the direction of industry support in Australia while putting in place policies which allowed the resources industry to position itself for the biggest resources and energy boom this country has ever seen.
Again between 2013 and 2015, I joined forces with Glenys Beauchamp, secretary of industry and then industry and science departments. Together we forged a trusting and extremely effective working relationship between my ministerial office and her department during one of the more challenging periods of industry, innovation and science policy. Bringing industry and science together to work towards an internationally competitive industry sector and putting the 'I' for 'industry' back into CSIRO will succeed in bringing the collaboration between industry and science that Australia needs so much. As well, we were confronted with the challenges from the resources sector as the boom burst and commodity prices plummeted. The depth of knowledge and experience in both my ministerial office team and the department was priceless during this confronting and challenging time.
On that note, I would particularly like to thank John Ryan, who was deputy secretary of the department during my time there. John's intellect, experience and knowledge of the resources and energy sector at an international level saw him make an enormous contribution to public policy in Australia. I was indeed very fortunate to have his guidance and advice during the entire eight years I was a cabinet minister in this portfolio.
My greatest asset during my time in this place, though, has been my staff. I was never afraid to hire advisers who were smarter than me or who had a greater interest in ensuring good public policy rather than politics for politics' sake. Together they formed a dedicated and accomplished group, never afraid to tell their minister when he was wrong, providing me with near flawless advice.
In the pressure cooker environment of politics, I was proud of the cohesiveness of my ministerial teams, an example of which was that between 2001 and 2004, in that first term of my ministry, not one staff member left my ministerial team, and that was with the added pressure of having me away on sick leave with laryngeal cancer for most of 2003. I think that must almost be a record for a ministerial team. More recently 'Team M', as they chose to call themselves, formed themselves into a fantastic group of people using every bit of their talent and intelligence to get results, which did not go unnoticed by the rest of the offices on the blue carpet. They were an extraordinary group of people who worked together to ensure that the outcomes that we produced in that portfolio were the best ones we could possibly get.
In my electorate office I was fortunate to have a group of women and men who made me look good in Groom, even when I was not there. This was in fact for more time than I care to think of and often more than 200 days a year. While it is always difficult to single out one person, my special thanks go to Colleen Robertson. Colleen Robertson has kept me organised and where I should be when I should be there not only for my time in politics but in fact almost continuously since 1991. Yes, that is a quarter of a century.
In the end though, no-one survives 32 years in public life and all the scrutiny and pressure that that brings without a strong family around them. It was there that I hit the jackpot. My father, Jim, kept telling me I would be a good politician and constantly encouraged and supported me to do a job I did not ever aspire to do, while my mother, Isobel, continually reminded me to stick to the facts and to speak in words that everybody understood. My sister, Louise, sets the standards in our family and ensured that I kept mine high, while my brother Rob's positive attitude to his unlucky life showed me how to never complain about the cards that life deals you. My brother Neil, born with cerebral palsy, proved to me that fierce determination will get you where you want to go. I will always be grateful for their support no matter what came along and the enormous strength that gave me when I most needed it.
Finally to my daughters, Kate and Laura, and to my wife, Karen: we have walked this road together every step of the way. Kate was born the week before I was elected to the Queensland Graingrowers Association State Council, along with another fellow called Warren Truss, who you might know. And so I entered public life. For all of Kate's 31½ years and Laura's 28 years, they have watched me walk in and out of their lives on a weekly basis while their mother, Karen, performed miracles and was the bedrock, cornerstone and glue that kept us all together while we dealt with everything that was thrown at us.
My life in politics has been an enjoyable and fulfilling time, but it has not been without its sacrifices and ups and downs. It has given me and my family experiences and opportunities we would never have had as a farming family in the Boondooma district. For that, we will always be grateful. While, as they say, I was a volunteer and Karen, Kate and Laura were conscripts, we end our political life content with what we have done. I have never wanted to die wondering what could be done to make Australia a better place and I have to say that I have given it all I have got.
As to my legacy, that is for others to judge. Although, that said, I would be remiss not to mention the Toowoomba Second Range Crossing. Being a cabinet minister with a close relationship with both Prime Ministers Howard and Abbott, I was able to continually demand that this project be built. Without my authority and persistence and position, the Toowoomba Second Range Crossing simply would not have become a reality.
Can I conclude by expressing my concern about where politics in Australia is heading, particularly in the last five years. This is a very different place now to the one I came into in 1998. In 17½ years in this place, I have never been warned once, let alone ejected by the Speaker from this chamber. I was hoping a few members would be here to reflect on that. That is not to say that I have not done my share of injections, but I have always seen it as important to behave with discipline and respect for others. In my maiden speech in 1998, I said I came to this place with a history of bipartisanship and I intended to continue that approach. I leave having achieved that as best I could with particular success in the resources policy arena and, in particular, in my partnership with my co-ministers, Martin Ferguson and Gary Gray. It is fitting that the shadow minister for resources, the member for Brand, is at the table at the moment. Being bipartisan is not easy in modern politics. It often attracts criticism from your own side, but it did bring good policy outcomes regardless of which side was in government at the time and, more importantly, it gave the resources industry and its stakeholders greater confidence in the government of the day.
Science is another area of policy which I am familiar with, which is crying out for a similar bipartisan approach and one which would reap rich rewards for Australia if that were the case. Bipartisanship is not the norm in 2015. The fierceness of personal politics and the lack of respect for other people's views, combined with a win-at-all-costs, winner-take-all political attitude, may provide a spectacle for the media but is destroying public confidence in this institution. Is it any wonder that when politicians regularly denigrate their political opponents—and the media are only too happy to join in—we now find ourselves being referred to in the general populous as 'clowns' and this place as a 'circus'. Political commentator Chris Kenny nailed it when he said in The Australian newspaper last week:
… the combination of shallow journalism and shallow politics is ruining our governance.
The word 'politics' is from the Greek language and is supposed to be the practice and theory of influencing other people. I doubt the ancient Greeks aspired to do that by obliterating the reputation of their opponents in order to convince others of the value of their own argument. Remember, it is the Greeks who are seen by many as the founders of civilised society—worth thinking about.
Finally, I wish you, Prime Minister, and the Turnbull government every success to go on and win the election this year and get on with delivering the good job of good government in Australia. We all depend on it. Thank you.
on indulgence—The member for Groom has, in so many ways, eloquently captured the broad elements of his career in this place. A career that served the interests of our nation, the people of Queensland, the primary producers and those workers in the resources sector so well. We can learn so much from his example.
When Ian Macfarlane became the resources minister our country had an LNG export industry which was a curiosity, and we exported less than 100 million tonnes of iron ore a year. This year we will export in excess of 700 million tonnes of iron ore and we will become the world's largest exporter of LNG. LNG is being exported from our east coast, our west coast and our northern coast—all from assets that received, at some point or another, an approval granted, provided, advised, supported and encouraged by the member for Groom.
But in that massive, new, innovative industry the member for Groom, as minister, pursued alternatives. The member for Groom, innovative, thoughtful, courageous and ever pursuing the best options for our country, worked as hard as he could to try and deliver a gas-to-liquids export industry out of Gorgon. We do not now have that liquids export industry, but what we do have is the world's largest carbon geosequestration and the world's most technologically advanced LNG production facility, which, as we speak here today, is generating in excess of 8,000 jobs in the construction of that project and spending in excess of $1 million an hour for eight years to build the world's largest single-point resources project.
Our country has greatly benefited from the contribution of the member for Groom. That benefit will continue to serve our nation for 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 years to come—and we all thank you for that.
on indulgence—The member for Groom spoke about the Toowoomba Second Range Crossing, and there is no doubt that it would not be underway had it had not been for his advocacy and determination. But the range I want to talk about, in respect of the member for Groom, is not the Second Range Crossing; it is the long range.
The member for Groom has always been a long-range thinker and a big thinker—a thinker and a dreamer as big as the country from which he sprang. As the member for Brand described, he laid the foundations, working, as he said, with his counterparts in the Labor Party, often with the bipartisanship that is, as he said, all too rare. But he did that with the long range in mind, to set Australia up not just for next year, not just for the next election, not just for the next decade but for the next half century.
The member for Groom has, as much as anybody in this place, built Australia's prosperity and future. He saw the long range and he went for it. He is a great Australian, a great friend, a great parliamentarian. He will be sorely missed when he does not return to this chamber after the election. But his patriotism, his commitment to Australia, his passion for the long range, the big view and the big vision—his passion for the big country which he loves so much—I am sure will see him making an enormous contribution to our nation and its people for many, many years to come. We salute you, Ian, and we thank you for your outstanding service to Australia.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
Debate adjourned.
by leave—Let me begin by also noting my own acknowledgement of and congratulations to the member for Groom on a simply outstanding career. Whether it is the Toowoomba Second Range Crossing, the long-term future of the renewable energy target, or the stable pathway for the Australian resources sector, he has been a giant—and I think there can be no higher compliment.
I turn now to our threatened species. Australia is a unique and remarkable place. We have a rich environment with so much to protect. More than 80 per cent of our mammals and over 90 per cent of our plants are found nowhere else on earth. We name our sporting teams after our wildlife. We put our plants and animals on our money, our stamps and our national coat of arms. Our wildlife helps define us as a nation.
But since European settlement, in just over 200 years, over 130 of Australia's known animals and plants have become extinct. We have endured one of the highest rates of extinction in the modern world. They are lost to us and lost to the world forever. Our mammals have fared particularly badly, and we must be upfront and honest about this history and the challenge. No other country has lost more mammals to extinction than Australia in modern times. We name our international rugby team the Wallabies, and our biggest and oldest airline, Qantas, has a kangaroo on its tail symbolising the 'spirit of Australia'. However, Australia has lost eight kangaroo-like mammals to extinction already, and another 15 are at risk.
A new national approach to threatened species
It is time that we acknowledge that Australia's animals and plants are ours to protect. It is our watch, our time, our moment and our responsibility. We, therefore, all have a role to play in the fight against extinction, and the Australian government has chosen, on its watch, to be a leader. Two years ago, in 2014, we initiated a new national approach to protecting our unique animals and plants at risk of extinction. More of the same would have resulted in more extinctions. So as Minister for the Environment I chose, with the government, to draw a line in the sand. In July 2014, I appointed Australia's first ever Threatened Species Commissioner, Gregory Andrews, who is in the chamber today with his extraordinary team, to lead the fight to save our wildlife from extinction and focus national attention on the plight of our native plants and animals. Along with his team, he has been an extraordinary advocate, force of nature and champion of practical, real-world action to protect our threatened species.
In July 2015, at Australia's first ever Threatened Species Summit in Melbourne, we brought together the best scientists and conservation managers in Australia, as well as the New Zealand conservation minister and the United States ambassador, to begin a conversation on ending extinctions and recovering our species.
We launched Australia's first ever Threatened Species Strategy to drive that action at a national level. Practical, real-world action only counts if it is more than words and results in the change of numbers to our critical species.
Based on the key principles of science, action and partnership, the Threatened Species Strategy sets an ambitious five-year plan for prioritised effort and working in partnership to fight these extinctions.
Ambitious targets to arrest and reverse declines
The strategy's action plan sets out hard and measurable targets to recover our threatened animals and plants and to ensure accountability. It is Australia's blueprint for winning the battle against extinction. The targets are ambitious. But they are achievable. And more importantly, they are necessary if we are to avoid further extinctions and save Australia's wildlife. Therefore, we have set out five fundamental target areas.
Within the Department of the Environment, the Threatened Species Commissioner is leading implementation of the Threatened Species Strategy which has 60 targets in total spread across the five years to 2020. He is reporting to me twice per year using best-practice project management but calling me almost daily. And I am pleased to say that the science and community focused approach of the strategy is already yielding dividends. Of the 26 targets that are due for completion in this first year, 25 are already on track or overachieving. Only in relation to feral cats do we have more to do to make sure that we meet our target. That is because we have set the most challenging and ambitious of targets in relation to eradicating at least two million feral cats by 2020, something which, again, scientist after scientist has indicated is indispensable to protect our native wildlife. So I have asked the Threatened Species Commissioner to further intensify efforts, and we will have new announcements shortly on practical further feral cat eradication tasks.
Delivering real and measurable results
Let me say this: the Threatened Species Strategy is much more than commitments and traffic-light reporting. When we established the position of the commissioner, I said that the task would be to deliver physical work on the ground which removes the threats and encourages the species. In that context, it is working with programs such as the National Landcare Program, the Green Army, the 20 Million Trees Program and the National Environmental Science Program to ensure that our goals are met.
The Australian government, all up, in particular through the work of the Green Army and the Threatened Species Commissioner, has mobilised over $190 million to support recovery of Australia's animals and plants. More than 500 projects have been approved across Australia. The commissioner reports to me that over 300 species are benefiting directly; and, in addition, 267 species are benefiting from Green Army projects and 72 from the 20 Million Trees Program. These are the practical things that we are doing. Let me give a couple of brief examples.
Less than 200 kilometres south of where we stand today, the endangered mountain pygmy possums, koonooms, which are also known as smoky mice, and bandicoots in Kosciuszko National Park are recovering thanks to a $140,000 Threatened Species Strategy project that has leveraged the efforts of the New South Wales government. It is funding training and deployment of two detector dogs and a full-time feral cat trapper. As we speak, they are making that habitat safe again for the animals that belong there. Over the past few months, dozens of feral cats and foxes have been humanely, effectively and justifiably removed for the benefit of the native animals.
In Kosciuszko again, as a further example, we have also intervened to avoid extinction in the wild of the magnificent southern corroboree frog. After advice from the commissioner that only four male frogs were identifiable in the wild, we approved a $150,000 Threatened Species Strategy project to establish large disease-free enclosures in Kosciuszko, and they are also being bred, protected and maintained within the conservation project inside Taronga Zoo, which I visited only a couple of weeks ago. The scientists advise that over 200 frogs are now calling in the wild and the project aims to triple these numbers again. That is success in real terms.
In the Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara, or APY, lands of South Australia, the government is working with local Indigenous rangers and Monarto Zoo—which, again, I visited with Tony Pasin very recently—to make the region safe again for the warru, the black-footed wallaby. Feral cats and foxes have been removed. Two of the most recent feral cats weighed over 6½ kilograms and had remains of the warru, which itself can weigh up to five kilograms, in their stomachs. The rangers are proud, the lands are safer and the warru is now recovering.
There are many other examples, right around Australia—in your own home state, Mr Deputy Speaker Goodenough—of threatened species activity through the application of the Eradicat bait to remove feral cats, to support Gilbert's potoroo. But, right around the country, this $190 million investment is producing outcomes. This week, I received advice from Atticus Fleming, the CEO of the Australian Wildlife Conservancy, that work has commenced to establish what will perhaps be the largest ever feral-cat-free area. The Newhaven Wildlife Sanctuary in the Northern Territory is benefiting from $750,000 of Threatened Species Strategy investment. Most importantly, it will create a safe haven. I want to acknowledge Atticus Fleming's work, along with Professor John Woinarski and others. They are the founders and drivers of the work which we have put into being. Threatened species have been ignored for too long.
In Victoria, the Italian maremma sheepdogs are being trained as bodyguards for endangered eastern barred bandicoots. Our children understand the work that is being done from the movie Oddball, and they can see that these magnificent maremmas are protecting penguins near Warrnambool. They will be protecting eastern barred bandicoots. Together, this is a fabulous example of practical, modern, real-world action. The Leadbeater's possum is receiving over $700,000 and $1.8 million in practical on-ground action beyond what is going into research. These are major, major projects.
In particular, it is supported by the $30 million Threatened Species Recovery Hub under the National Environmental Science Program. This is the first such hub in Australian history, and I believe it is one of the first such hubs anywhere in the world and is certainly leading the world in threatened species recovery. It is bringing together Australia's greatest threatened species scientists and our practitioners such as the Australian Wildlife Conservancy.
Where to next?
So where to from here? We have set a benchmark and a set of goals in relation to threatened species conservation. In the coming weeks, the commissioner will be advising me of the 30 plants for recovery by 2020 and the identification of the five feral-free islands targets, which I hope to have announced before the end of April. These islands will transform into safe havens. They will be arks of biological safety for Australia's native wildlife. Indeed, the commissioner and one of my own staff have just returned from Kangaroo Island, where the islanders are working on a proposal to be feral cat free. Through programs such as the Green Army, 20 Million Trees and the National Environmental Science Program, we will create these safe havens and we will continue to mobilise enormous sums of money.
I have noted Atticus Fleming and the Australian Wildlife Conservancy. I note the work of the departmental advisers under the commissioner. I also want to take this moment to note that one of my own staff, Sarah Meredith, has played an absolutely fundamental role, along with Tina McGuffie. Sarah Meredith has managed the National Landcare Program and the Green Army. She will be leaving at close of business tomorrow to take up a role leading a major NGO. I will save that announcement for her for another time, but nobody could find a better, stronger adviser. She has been in service for 14 years, since she left school, which is more than what one receives for many major crimes, and she has been extraordinary. I hope one day she comes back to this place in her own right as a member of parliament. She is one of those people with unique capabilities. The Green Army would not have been the success it is without her; nor would the threatened species program have been the success it is without her work and Tina McGuffie's work.
Let me conclude. Australia can have development that is sustainable, as the member for Groom and the member for Brand have jointly shown. At the same time, we can and must protect our remarkable animals and plants. We can avoid extinctions, protect our unique wildlife for the future, for ourselves and for our children. When we lose Australia's animals and plants to extinction, we lose a part of what it is to be our full self and our full, historic nation. It is a point of enormous grief to Indigenous Australians, as they have pointed out, but they are at the forefront. It is a point of pride that our first Threatened Species Commissioner has strong, deep, personal Indigenous heritage; and it is a point of optimism that our Indigenous land managers are at the forefront of protecting the warru, the mala and so many other animals, going forward. In that way, our plants, our animals and our people define us as nation. The Threatened Species Strategy will help protect that heritage, both cultural and natural, by acting in a different, more adaptive and decisive way.
Ultimately, this great task is a shared passion. It is a deep, personal passion for myself, but it is a shared commitment of tens of thousands of Australians—indeed, hundreds of thousands, millions of Australians—to protect our wildlife. It will be a great task. But we now have the tools; we have the people; we have the funding, with $190 million; and we have the direction to protect our great and our iconic species. In the end, confronted by this task, I believe that we will rise to the challenge. I am reminded of Tennyson's words, at the end of Ulysses:
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
And so it shall be. Thank you.
by leave—Indonesia's Minister of Trade, Thomas Lembong, is in Australia this week to discuss concrete ways to expand and strengthen our economic relationship. During our discussions yesterday, we formally agreed to relaunch negotiations on the Indonesia-Australia Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement, or a broad-based FTA. Relaunch of these negotiations underscores the combined mutual interest of both of our nations.
This trade agreement is an opportunity that is consistent with the Prime Minister's vision to drive jobs and to drive growth. It is part of the government's ongoing commitment to ensure the transition from a resources and energy economy to an economy focused more on services and innovative business.
The opportunity I see, and the enthusiasm I have for this agreement, is shared by my Indonesian counterpart, Minister Tom Lembong. Yesterday, he said, and I quote: 'I certainly share your excitement and optimism about the process we're now recommencing. I would like to add that this is a direct result of the excellent chemistry between President Jokowi and Prime Minister Turnbull. I think we're all benefiting from having two very business minded leaders leading our two countries, and, I would add, that I'm struck by the vibrancy and the freshness that I think both leaders and so far both sides in this negotiation have brought to the table.'
I believe an FTA with Indonesia can mark a radical shift in our trade and investment ties. This shift will result from a realisation of the opportunities Indonesia represents for Australian business. If we compare our business links with New Zealand to those with Indonesia, it throws a stark light on these opportunities. Indonesia is geographically closer to Australia than New Zealand. It is a thriving democracy with a multicultural society. Indonesia's population of 255 million is over fifty times larger than New Zealand's population. Indonesia is the world's 16th largest economy, while New Zealand is ranked 55th.
What strikes me about the differences between these economies is that our trade and investment relationship is the inverse of what the statistics would suggest. In 2014, Australia's total investment in New Zealand was $99.9 billion, while New Zealand's total investment in Australia was $38.5 billion. In comparison, Australian total investment in Indonesia was $8.1 billion and Indonesian investment in Australia was just $1.5 billion. Trans-Tasman goods and services trade in 2014-15 was valued at around $23.7 billion. Two-way trade in services was around $7.5 billion. Our two-way trade with Indonesia, on the other hand, was just $14.8 billion, and two-way trade in services was half our services trade with New Zealand at $3.8 billion. Four hundred and sixty Australian businesses have operations in New Zealand but only 250 Australian businesses have operations in Indonesia.
These disparities are particularly striking in light of the strong complementarities that exist between our economies. Our major exports to Indonesia are agricultural products—wheat, live animals and sugar. We are also a major provider of education services for Indonesian students; and Australia's strengths in agriculture and services directly cater to Indonesia's demand for quality food and specialised services. Indonesia's exports to us are petroleum, light manufactured products and tourism services. Australia's strengths are in niche manufacturing, not simple manufactures that Indonesia does well.
Opportunities to expand our economic relationship with Indonesia exist now. Indonesian consumers are looking for the premium, clean and green food and beverages that Australian farmers are renowned for. Indonesians want quality education for their children. As the third largest global provider of education services, Australia's reputation for providing these services is proven. Australian healthcare providers can help Indonesia develop world-class healthcare services. Similarly, Australian financial services companies, professionals and ICT service providers have the expertise to help grow Indonesia's own services sectors.
Australians love visiting Bali but we also have a lot to offer in building Indonesia's hospitality and tourism services. The Indonesian government, like the Australian government, is pursuing an ambitious infrastructure investment agenda. Australia's infrastructure sector is well-placed to help Indonesia meet its infrastructure objectives, and Australia's expertise in resources and energy is playing a leading role in expanding Indonesia's resources and energy sectors.
Minister Lembong shares my view on the strong complementarities that exist between our economies. Like the Australian government, he understands how building on economic complementarities can create new jobs. I quote, again, his remarks from yesterday:
The first thing that springs to mind in terms of this agreement is how good for jobs in both countries is what I regard as the frankly stunning complementarity between the two economies. Australia, in my view, is to be congratulated on the extremely high standards and the sophistication that you've achieved.
Indonesia needs expertise and training and teaching, and Australians have excelled in the education space, the polytechnic space, in systems and quality control and discipline. And conversely of course Indonesia offers a very large market and a very large economy, but to progress it, to develop it, we need exactly all the things that Australia has to offer, and of course Australia will make a pretty penny, as you might say, providing those services to us I think.
Just as important as realising opportunities today is positioning ourselves to meet the needs of Indonesia's burgeoning middle class in the near future. In 2014, McKinsey estimated Indonesia's middle class was 45 million strong but would grow to 135 million by 2020—a little under five years away. These opportunities will not be delivered to us on a platter, though. Our competitors are increasingly aware of the opportunities and active in appealing to Indonesian consumers. The coalition is helping Australian business realise the massive opportunities that sit on our northern doorstep. For my part, I will be working with my counterpart, Minister Lembong, to achieve an ambitious agreement as soon as possible. It is an objective I know that Minister Lembong shares. He said yesterday:
I'm hopeful that we can go beyond last generation trade talks and really be very forward-looking to 21st Century issues like the digital economy, the services sector, which as you and Prime Minister Turnbull have pointed out, results in the highest quality jobs for both Australians and Indonesians.
Both countries share the ambition that this agreement be more than a traditional FTA. It will be, by both name and desire, a broadening and deepening of the economic relationship. It will focus on areas such as services trade, e-commerce, investment and capacity building. These opportunities will be integral and in addition to our discussions on traditional FTA issues such as tariffs on agricultural and merchandise trade.
Agriculture is a key Australian strength and will be an important part of these negotiations. We will work through these traditional issues, but the agreement will not be exclusively about them.
One of the additional measures that we have launched is reactivation of the Indonesia-Australia Business Partnership Group. In 2012, the group drafted an excellent report including 53 recommendations on areas where Australia and Indonesia could strengthen their economic relationship. We have asked the group to revisit and update their recommendations to feed into the negotiations, which have recommenced. The business partnership group will be a key driver of the ambition that both countries share for the high level of business engagement that we want for these negotiations.
Minister Lembong and I have also agreed to work towards some early outcomes. In view of the non-traditional nature of this agreement, early work will look at outcomes in the design and culinary areas, as well as possible outcomes in agriculture and skills exchange. We have agreed to try and conclude the negotiations in 12 to 18 months. It is an ambitious timetable for an ambitious agreement.
There is a very strong sense of goodwill and a high degree of focus and priority given to these negotiations on both sides. We are close neighbours, and we are good friends. We have a real opportunity here to reach a broadbased agreement that meaningfully strengthens and deepens the economic relationship that we have with Indonesia.
I present a copy of my ministerial statement.
On indulgence, in relation to the threatened species strategy statement, I want to add one other thing and that is to acknowledge the extraordinary work of Erin Pears in my office, who, in addition to the other two advisers, has been a driving force over the last two years in relation to threatened species. She is a force of protection and a force of nature for Australia's great iconic species.
I thank the minister for the opportunity to make a response. Labor very much welcomes the minister's announcement of a formal agreement to relaunch negotiations on the Indonesia-Australia Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement. As the minister said, we are close neighbours and we are good friends. We are very pleased to see an agreement to advance this stalled negotiation.
Negotiations on the Indonesia-Australia Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement commenced in Jakarta in September 2012, following an announcement by then President of the Republic of Indonesia, Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, and then Prime Minister of Australia, Julia Gillard. The announcement of agreement to commence negotiations was made after their bilateral meeting in Jakarta in November 2010. So this is something that has been on the agenda of both countries for some time. It was one of a number of firsts in the relationship between Australia and Indonesia during the time of the last Labor government.
Between December 2007 and June 2013, there were almost 130 two-way high-level visits between Australia and Indonesia's leaders and ministers. I know that two-way travel has continued under the new government, because both sides of politics, of course, recognise that a change in government here and a change of president in Indonesia have meant that we need to continue to establish and re-establish our relationships. Prime Minister Rudd made a state visit to Indonesia in 2008, and that was the year of the inaugural counter-terrorism consultations between Australia and Indonesia in Jakarta. In March 2010, we had a very successful visit from President Yudhoyono to Canberra, and he became the first Indonesian leader to address the federal parliament—an address that was very well received by all parties here.
In November 2011, we saw the first annual Australia-Indonesia Leaders' Meeting held in Bali, and, in March 2012, the inaugural annual Australia-Indonesia 2+2 Foreign and Defence Ministerial Meeting was held in Canberra. That is a meeting that continues to be very useful for our two nations. Australia and Indonesia also co-chaired the South-East Asia Working Group of the Global Counter-Terrorism Forum, with the first working group meeting in Semarang in March 2012. In September 2012, the inaugural annual defence ministers' meeting between our two nations was held in Jakarta, and the defence cooperation arrangement between Australia and Indonesia was signed. In November 2012, the inaugural Australia, Indonesia and Timor-Leste trilateral leaders' summit was held in Bali. I mention some of these firsts in recent years because, along with the announcement today of the reinvigorated trade negotiations, it shows that it is important that, year upon year, we continue to build on the closeness of the relationship between our two nations.
Labor has always understood the importance of our relationship with Indonesia. In 1994, Paul Keating said:
No country is more important to Australia than Indonesia. If we fail to get this relationship right, and nurture and develop it, the whole web of our foreign relations is incomplete.
From the very first days of Labor's support for the independence of Indonesia, we have continued to focus on the importance of the strength of this relationship to our national prosperity and to our national security. The Chifley Labor government played a vital regional role in resisting the Dutch attempt at colonial restoration in Indonesia, and in supporting Indonesia's transition to independence. When I visit Indonesia I think that there is still a memory of the role that the Australian union movement and others played in supporting Indonesian independence—so much so, that the Indonesian foreign minister in the 1950s and 60s, Dr Subandrio, would later describe Australia as the 'midwife' of the Indonesian republic.
Labor will continue to work to strengthen this relationship. As shadow foreign minister, I have made a number of visits. I have also met, of course, with the previous foreign minister, with the current foreign minister, when she was in Australia at the end of last year, and with the Coordinating Minister for Economic Affairs, in recent months. This morning, I had the great pleasure, along with the Minister for Trade and Investment, of meeting with Mr Thomas Lembong, the Minister of Trade. The new Indonesian Minister of Trade comes with a very strong background in international business. He has worked in a number of different countries in some very prominent positions. He comes to the position as a moderniser, with great spirit and force, to implement the agenda of the President, saying that the Indonesians are very interested, for example, in attracting foreign direct investment and increasing the depth and the breadth of the economic relationship with Australia.
We welcome a number of other pieces of news that are important to the relationship between Indonesia and Australia and to the relationships we have across the region. Our economic relationship will be strengthened by the trading relations that the minister is pursuing, and they are a very important part of our relationship with Indonesia, but, of course, the diplomatic and security parts of our relationship are also very important. Australia welcomes the news that Indonesia and Timor-Leste have agreed to settle two unresolved points on their shared border. All countries want to be able to secure their borders, and to delineate those borders securely is the first step in being able to do that. That is why, earlier this year, I said that a Shorten Labor government would redouble our efforts to resolve the sea border dispute that we have with Timor-Leste.
I also want to take this opportunity to note that the Bali process meetings are coming up again. The next meeting of the Bali Process on People Smuggling, Trafficking in Persons and Related Transnational Crime will be next week, on 23 March. I know that Australia will be represented at a ministerial level at that meeting. I think it is very important to say very clearly and very firmly that Australia believes that there should be a regional approach to the movement of people and to resettling refugees in our region, and that we are very strong supporters of a regional approach in this matter.
I note that the Indonesian government has called upon Australia to take more refugees and, in that respect, Labor has committed to doubling our current intake of refugees to 27,000, should we be elected. I think that being more generous in the number of people we take is a good foundation for finding a way forward on a genuinely regional approach to issues around people smuggling, trafficking in persons and related transnational crime and the issue of refugees and asylum seeker resettlement more generally.
I will just finish by saying that our diplomatic relationship is important, our security and intelligence sharing is important and our economic relationship with Indonesia is important. The minister has quite rightly identified the fact that the Indonesian economy is strong and growing and that, most particularly, the number of people in the Indonesian middle class will continue to grow. That is, quite rightly, as the minister said, a great opportunity for Australian businesses, if we get the settings right. Indonesia is Australia's 12th largest trading partner, and we hope to continue to expand, deepen and broaden that trading relationship into the future.
The Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Amendment Bill 2016, which I commend to the House, makes it possible for research and development corporations to connect with the primary producers whom they serve and who pay the levies.
Australia is home to some of the most productive rural industries in the world. In my electorate of Lyne, we have many examples of that. We have very productive producers of dairy, beef, tomatoes, strawberries, avocados, macadamias, honey, fish, oysters and grapes, to name just a few, and a very productive and expanding horticulture industry. But there is always room for improvement. Innovation is fundamental for the continued success of any industry, particularly our rural industries. This is why Australia has 15 rural research and development corporations, or RDCs, that invest in R&D to ensure continued improvement in Australia's agriculture, fisheries, forestry and food sectors. These RDCs are mainly funded by government and, most importantly, by industry levies. For the government to collect those is one thing, but, if it is just money that goes into a black hole where there is no connection between the primary producers and the rural research and development corporations, a lot of things can go missing.
The coalition government believes that it will be greatly beneficial if the levy payers and the RDCs can collaborate more than they do now. That is why this bill will ensure continued innovation and the ongoing improvement and profitability of our rural industries. One way to achieve this is via the establishment of levy payer registers. That will allow the RDCs to see who their levy payers really are, as well as giving levy payers much more say in how their levied funds are spent. If this legislation is passed, RDCs will be given the ability to consult more effectively with the primary producers who fund them. As it stands now, the Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Act 1991 only allows the dairy RDC and one other to collect that payer information.
The other important thing is that the levy payer information that we collect and give to the RDCs will also be available to the Australia Bureau of Statistics. Payer information disclosed to the ABS and the RDCs can only be used for the purposes of R&D, biosecurity or residue surveys, which are all defined in the amendments to the act. This is a common-sense bill. It passes no liability to the Treasury or to our current budgetary position. In effect, it makes amendments to sections 27 and 29 of the 1991 act, introduces 27A and 29A and triggers consequential amendments to the Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Act 1997 and the Dairy Produce Act 1986. Also, there are consequential amendments to the National Residue Survey Administration Act 1992.
All of us who live in rural and regional Australia really appreciate how vital to the nature of our local and regional economies these rural industries are. A lot of the limelight in research and development goes to our oldest and most prestigious research organisation, the CSIRO. But I come into the House to put on the record that a lot of research and development goes on in non-CSIRO institutions, like these RDCs. There are many other research bodies across the nation that do research.
The production and the economic benefit to this country of the agriculture, horticulture and marine food production industries are not insignificant. In my time up on the north coast, in the Nelson Bay region there have been aquaculture developments. A lot of the things done in aquaculture industrial production of fish and oysters depend on accumulated knowledge. This accumulated knowledge comes not just from the handing down of information from one generation to the next. Where we get ahead in Australia is that we have great biological research facilities and agricultural research facilities that give us better yields and better quality of product. It all translates into an economic benefit for whatever the industry and local region are.
In the local food production of the immediate area of my own home, we have two brilliant wine producers—grape growers—that deliver a great product into their winemaking operations. They export around the country and around the world. Just down the road we have one of the biggest employers in the electorate, Nippon beef exports. Also, we have Hukobee beef 10 kilometres away in Wauchope. These industries rely on great product that comes from very skilful primary producers. But, then again, they rely on all of the genetics, all of the animal husbandry and all of the research and development into pasture development and pest control. There is such an assembled bank of knowledge in Australia that many people take for granted. You only have to travel to other countries to see how well developed our research and development capability is in rural and biological sciences.
This bill will facilitate better interplay between the levy payers—the people who actually fund these research and development corporations—and on-the-ground feedback. The ability to speak further with people in a practical sense, as well as funding academic research, is very important. This bill, in effect, is a pretty straightforward issue, and I commend it wholeheartedly to the House. It is so important that we continue to have high levels of efficient, high-quality primary production in our country to keep our local economy, our regional economies and our national economy strong. I commend this bill to the House.
On 2 March I marked 20 years as a member of this place. Twenty years seems a good time to rule the line under a career. In the Roman Army, if you survived 20 years you got a plot of land, a bag of salt and Roman citizenship. But, in terms of what you go through, the experience of being a member of parliament is a reward in itself. While we all enter this place with an ethos of service, at the same time it is personally a very rich experience in terms of the quality of the interactions, the people you meet, the tests and challenges you face and taking part in the great national events in our country's history. When I see my friend and mentor Ian Sinclair down at Aussie's cafe, I realise that, once you have been a part of the federal parliament, you never really leave it; you always remain a part of it.
When I gave my first speech, in May 1996, it was in the immediate aftermath of the Port Arthur massacre. The response from John Howard was gutsy and was one of the great achievements of the Howard government. Twenty years on, a great democracy like the United States is unable to grapple with gun control. But we did it in Australia, and it has made our society safer.
The two great interests in my working life have been medicine and politics. Balancing them was hard as a university student. During my hospital years, I trained in medicine until the call of politics was stronger. After 20 years in parliament, it is time to return to my original calling. In fact, being a member of parliament has allowed me to reconcile these two competing interests, with a strong focus on health policy being a theme throughout my seven terms. While I plan to return to medical practice, my hope is that I can also continue to contribute to public policy in health.
It was more than 20 years ago, working as a hospital doctor in Adelaide's major hospitals, that the idea of running for federal parliament took hold. Coming from a business family, I identified as a Liberal and, as a Liberal, I was motivated by our four election defeats in a row. I felt that Australia needed to do more for us to achieve our potential as a nation. Much of my political outlook was really formed in the seventies and eighties. As a country, we were very conscious that we had gone from being a rich country at the time of Federation to one which was lagging on many OECD measures. This was a very strong influence on my thinking, and I pay tribute to those reformers in the Hawke and Keating governments who commenced a lot of the necessary economic reforms, which were continued by the Howard government. Taxation reform, industrial relations reform, privatisation, competition reform and budget repair were important and necessary reforms. As a new member, I naturally gravitated towards the Society of Modest Members, as their vision of small government, lower taxation and an efficient economy fit well with my view of the world.
Now that I am leaving parliament, I feel I am able to talk about one of the roles that I did for four years—party room briefing. I had the job of providing the off-the-record party room briefing—the 'official' off-the-record briefing—to more than 50 journalists of the press gallery, every sitting week. It was a challenging role. One experience I particularly remember was at the start of the 2007 parliamentary year. I had given the briefing, and John Howard had provided a description of all of the circumstances that had seen a change of government since 1949. I paraphrased it and summarised it and said, 'Well, it only occurs if they've stopped listening to you or if you're hopeless.' Michelle Grattan got very interested in this and said, 'Well, which of the two is it?' I distinctly remember that. I had given the briefing, I thought it had gone okay and then, subsequently, I got a call from Tony O'Leary. I raced back to the Prime Minister's office. I was absolutely crestfallen. I was apologising, saying, 'I'm so sorry.' I will never forget their response. Their response was not to carpet me, not to abuse me, not to yell at me. John Howard said, 'No, no, no; don't worry about that; just fix it.' I just think that that group around John—Arthur Sinodinos, Tony Nutt and Tony O'Leary—was really the best operation that I have seen in my 20 years.
And they are back!
And they are back, as the Leader of the House has said. But it was just a very good experience to see how they dealt with it. Instead of yelling at me, it was, 'No; just fix it. Don't worry about that.'
Turning to committee work, I have had the honour of chairing two of the big joint committees of the parliament, serving as Chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties from 2003 to 2007 and Chair of the Joint Committee on Public Accounts and Audit from 2013 to 2015. The Treaties Committee was enormously varied work. One of the highlights was the ratification of the US free trade agreement, which was our largest free trade agreement at the time. We examined the modelling and we considered quarantine and intellectual property issues, the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and tariffs for beef, sugar, even peanuts. It was a high-profile inquiry. I am proud of the work that the committee did. In three months, we produced a 300-page report outlining all the issues. You might remember that, in 2004, it became something of an issue with the approach that Mr Latham's opposition took at that time.
I was also pleased to chair the Joint Committee on Public Accounts and Audit. I want to speak a little bit about the way I have approached chairing these committees. When I started chairing the committee, the deputy chair was the member for Charlton, who I know is not a favourite on this side. When he turned up for the first day he was ready to fight, and a lot of our up-and-comers were ready to fight as well. Instead, as chair I thought the better approach was, 'Sure, let's have our partisan fights, but for the credibility of the committee we need to actually work together.' I knew that he had worked for Greg Combet and I was very keen to harness his expertise in the defence industry area. That has come through with some major changes to major defence projects.
More recently, since October, I have been chairing the Procedure Committee. Although it has been only a short time, we have already produced an inquiry for nursing mothers in parliament. We have done an inquiry into the consideration-in-detail debate, which sounds very dry, but it does allow for more of an estimates-style questioning after the budget. We are also conducting an inquiry into electronic voting.
I was part of the shadow ministry for six years in opposition. I am proud of the way that I constructively approached my various roles. I served as a shadow minister under the leaderships of Brendan Nelson and Malcolm Turnbull and as a shadow parliamentary secretary under Tony Abbott—firstly, in employment services, vocational education and sport and then in various areas of the health portfolio. I thank Christopher Pyne for handing responsibility for international education to me at an important time for this industry, when Indian students were experiencing violence in Melbourne. It is a great success story that in the last 30 years our universities have built education services to be our third-largest export.
Later, covering health, I had responsibility for primary health care, e-health and preventative health. All of these portfolios were highly technical portfolios with lots of detail to get across. I worked closely with Victoria Matterson, David Colmer and Ryan Post in my portfolio roles and I thank them for their detailed work. They all went on to work as ministerial advisers.
Often as a shadow minister you are focusing on small victories. I remember one with the Productivity Places Program. This was one of the signature Rudd government programs. We had the job of just trying to pick it apart. What we found was that they had online training courses for hairdressing—entirely online, no practical! At one time there were 94,000 places and only 6,000 of them got jobs. Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard would say, 'This is all about addressing shortages in mining and construction,' which sounded great as a sound bite, but the only problem was that there were no courses for mining or construction, which was a slight problem!
I really appreciated the opportunity to work with Malcolm Turnbull on his 2009 budget reply. Malcolm gathered a group of us together and told us what his priorities were. Using what we had learnt, we came up with a proposal to keep apprentices in training during the GFC. This proposal was well received and was later adopted by the government in almost exactly the same form.
In reflecting on some of my time then, there are some things that are now cause for embarrassment. We jumped all over a $1 million retreat at Geelong Grammar, which was a happiness seminar being run by Martin Seligman. Brett Mason did the work in Senate estimates, Victoria Matterson drew out the detail from AusTender and we got some great stories up in the paper. But, now that I am leaving parliament, my son's school has, I think, Martin Seligman in residence. He is one of the gurus of positive psychology. I should emphasise that we do very much admire the work of Martin Seligman. We just thought that perhaps $1 million for public servants was a little bit much. Anyway, you can sort of still take a laugh at yourself.
My job from 2010 to 2013 was to really get stuck into the GP superclinics. I was a prominent critic of the GP superclinics. When I was a student I worked for Dr Peter Heysen in the Morphettville Medical Centre, which had everything a GP superclinic provided but was opened in the 1980s with private sector funding. Every major suburb and town already has a large family medical centre that has been provided by the private sector. The GP superclinic program was something that sounded good, but it is not really the government's role to provide what the private sector is already providing. I also had carriage of the opposition response for the tobacco plain-packaging laws. In coalition parties—and I see the member for Mitchell in the chamber—which have a broad interest, it is very difficult to balance the preventative health side versus the legitimate business side.
Having worked for six years in the shadow ministry and for four years on health policy, I had hoped to be working in a health role in the Abbott government. It was not to be. But I continue to be interested in chronic disease management, the Primary Health Networks, preventable hospital admissions, and quality and safety. In this term of parliament, I have worked with the Stroke Foundation, the Heart Foundation, Diabetes Australia and the Kidney Foundation on getting integrated health checks put into Medicare, making them part of primary care. Also, working with the member for Swan, I have pushed for an inquiry into chronic disease management and prevention, which the health committee has been undertaking.
Locally, I am proud of the roles I have played in delivering a cancer centre at Flinders Medical Centre and the State Aquatic Centre at Marion and in breaking the roadblock on the South Road upgrade at Darlington. I see the member for Mayo and I thank him for his work on that too.
I thank the residents of Adelaide's southern suburbs for their support in seven federal elections and all their feedback, both good and constructive! The seven election campaigns were incredible experiences. When you are in the middle of it, there is so much happening that a day seems like a week. Until you are back in the middle of one you forget the intensity of the experience. I am happy to leave that to all of you.
My first campaign office was on Goodwood Road, just opposite Big W, at Cumberland Park. It was opened by John Howard, in January 1996. I actually met my wife, Kate, there when I convinced her to work on my campaign and much later persuaded her to go out with me. My first campaign manager was Charles Hurl, 81 years old and a former Lancaster bomber pilot. He would arrive early in the morning, leave late at night and answer the phones all day. His work ethic was remarkable. He had retired early from a successful career in property, and the Liberal Party was very lucky to have full-time volunteers like Charles.
When I was preselected, Boothby was a seven per cent seat and it is now a seven per cent seat, so I am happy to be leaving it as I found it. I feel very proud of our results in 2007 and 2010, when we held on in the face of a very strong swing to Labor. I have had elections where I had to gather my family together and ask them to prepare for all eventualities—particularly in 2007 and 2010. To their credit they had already worked that out, and it was unnecessary.
It makes it even more pleasing to be leaving on my own terms. I remember 2010, when the result in Boothby was much closer than any of us would have liked. It was particularly heart-warming that friends of mine, like Patrick Secker and South Australian MP John Dawkins, as well as Senator Simon Birmingham, who is here today, as soon as they heard I was in strife hopped in their cars and drove to my electorate to help with the scrutineering. I also remember the calls from colleagues like Alby Schultz and Bruce Billson at that time when things were really on the line. I think the old adage 'a friend in need is a friend indeed' was never truer!
I was preselected in November 1994, when the Boothby Electoral College met at Enterprise House on Greenhill Road and I was lucky enough to emerge as the winner from a field of eight candidates.
Mr Pyne interjecting—
Yes, the member for Sturt was not quite as excited as I was that night! I would like to thank the Liberal Party for the opportunity you gave me to serve our local community. Without the Liberal Party I would never have been a federal MP. To serve in federal parliament is, as I have said, a very rich experience. I have so many fond memories of Christmas parties at Mitcham Reserve or at our home, election night parties at my office or at the Marion RSL, and having the media follow me around during campaigns. In fact, in my first campaign, in 1996, the day after the election, I was waiting for the call from the Adelaide Advertiser. When no call came, I rang up and they said, 'No, you're a safe seat; there's just no interest in this.' I was able to change that in subsequent elections. There was subsequently a lot more interest. In 2001, when the Democrats said they were going to win the seat, the ABC got very excited and had the van down outside my office, all ready, and they left pretty soon after that. But certainly for most of those elections there was a lot of interest. I would like to thank all who served on my FEC. Geoff Arnold was my first FEC president, and Marion Themeliotis was my last. All my presidents and executives have kept the wheels of the political machine whirring.
During that 1994 preselection I met with Neville Newton in Bellevue Heights. He was a great local figure. He was our auctioneer at quiz nights and a great source of political advice. His advice on the best strategy to tackle Kevin Rudd, Nicole Cornes and the 2007 election was exactly the same as our advice from Crosby-Textor—and it was much cheaper, I might add. His daughter was having twins and was staying with him to be close to Flinders Medical Centre. Those twins are about to turn 21, and another grandchild of Neville's, Jack Newton, is one of our committed Young Liberals. That illustration of the passage of 21 years really confirms my decision that this is the right time to step down. The Liberal Party has preselected Nicolle Flint, who—as a lawyer, adviser, Flinders graduate, Menzies Research Centre author and columnist—has the necessary skills to make a great federal MP.
In terms of some experiences that really stick out over 20 years, as the Australian parliamentary representative at the United Nations I had a range of experiences during that three-month posting. Some of the highlights were attending meetings with Alexander Downer, meeting Kofi Annan, and observing ministerial-level Security Council meetings with Jack Straw and Condoleezza Rice. One of the most memorable was to follow John Howard for the day and sit in on his meetings—with the Danish Prime Minister, the editorial board of TheWall StreetJournal, the investment banks and Ariel Sharon. To see John Howard at that level was to receive a master class in politics.
I have also experienced the opportunity to visit the Australian Defence Force on deployment, from the Peace Monitoring Group in Bougainville in 1999—hanging on the outside of Vietnam War era Iroquois helicopters—to the HMAS Ballarat and the Orion crews in 2006 during the Iraq conflict and to Afghanistan and coalition headquarters in 2014, with the member for Rankin. I remain enormously proud of those young Australians who serve our country so far from home.
I have been lucky to have some great friendships during my time in politics. I have had so many great friends, but my two greatest friends and confidants have been Andrew Thomson and the late Don Randall. They have both been lifelong friends since we met 20 years ago. I still miss Don so much, and every week I think of things I would like to share with him.
I would also like to thank all my staff over the last 20 years. Their job was to make me look much better than I was, and I think mostly they succeeded. Two staff members were with me for most of my time. Ann De Cure has been there since day one and Nita Freer-Cooling for 14 years. We have known each other so long that they are more like family to me. More recently it has been a joy to work with gen Y staffers. The next generation work hard but like to have fun and work as part of a team. I feel I have learnt more from them than they have learnt from me. Other long-term staff include Suzanne Kazprzak, Steve Ronson, Simon Milnes, John Deller, Sean Elder, Victoria Matterson, Sue Meaney, David Little, David Colmer, Sanjay Kumar, Lauren Kelly, Zoe Darling, Ryan Post, Matt Hee, Marion Themeliotis, Nate Keily, Rebecca Puddy and Matt Shilling.
Mr Buchholz interjecting—
It's been 20 years, Scotty! Lastly I would like to thank my family for all their support. Spending half your year living out of a suitcase can be hard on families, and I have been lucky to have the unswerving support of Kate, Henry and Georgina. In fact, at the last election Henry and Georgina were my secret weapon, handing out how-to-vote cards at the ages of 11 and nine in Flagstaff Hill and Aberfoyle Park with me. That is the life of a child of an MP. I like to think they were volunteers. My wife, Kate, has witnessed the highs and lows of politics with me, and we have fought all seven election campaigns together. She has been my confidante and my sounding board and has shared it all. She has had her own career and has raised a family. I could not have done it without her.
Looking to the future: Paul Kelly has written of how he believes the Australian political system is fractured and economic reform has become too hard. He says, in Triumph and Demise:
Australia's political system is failing to deliver the results needed for the nation, its growth in living standards and its self-esteem. The process of debate, competition and elections leading to national progress has broken down.
Unless the trend is reversed, Australia will undergo a steady economic and social deterioration until a circuit-breaker or nasty economic crunch arrives.
I agree with the Kelly thesis. The important economic reforms of the eighties and nineties were often bipartisan and were in the national interest.
For Australia to continue to reach its potential it is important that we continue to promote efficiency in our economy. Australian economic history shows that we cannot grow too fast without running into an inflationary crunch or a current account crisis. John Howard used to speak of the metaphor of the ever-receding finishing line, and I think it is a good one. In terms of economic reform, the work is never done. You have to continue to look forward and ask, how can we make our economy more efficient?
The Productivity Commission has produced a range of excellent reports on labour market regulation, taxation and competition reform. These reports should not be allowed to gather dust. The Australian economy has now been growing continuously for a quarter of a century. Only one other country has managed this in modern history. But this rests on our natural resources and the reforms of the past. For Australia to reach its potential we need to continue the job. I thank the House.
I thank the member for Boothby for his years of service and the great wisdom that he has brought to this chamber, which is mostly full of lawyers but of course is rendered far more civilised by the addition of a medical practitioner. I note that he was sitting in the row there in the chamber next to the members for Lyne and Bowman, who, like him, are doctors. The Liberal Party hopes that he has a very outstanding successor in Nicolle Flint, whom he has described. She is a lawyer, and a very good one too, I might add. We will miss Dr Southcott. His understanding of economic matters, which is so evident in this speech, indicates the breadth of his intellect and his interests that go well beyond his profession. The parliament's loss will be the people of Adelaide's gain, because he is returning to his medical profession. I know that he will be serving the people of his electorate and of the South Australian community in that regard for many years to come. We thank him for his friendship and his service to the parliament and the nation. We wish him and the conscripts—the family—all the very best. We salute them and thank them for the support they have given Andrew over so many years.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
It also gives me great pleasure to join with the Prime Minister in congratulating the member for Boothby on an excellent speech. The member for Boothby started with a reference to ancient Rome. There was a great ancient Roman called Cincinnatus, who really models what the member for Boothby said. He was a citizen soldier who had served as consul for a long time, retired and gave up his position of power voluntarily, saying, 'I'm not a soldier; I am a farmer.'
The member for Boothby, thousands of years later, reflects that great spirit by giving up power voluntarily, relinquishing his role in this place and saying to his electorate, to this parliament and to the Australian population that he is not a politician; he is a doctor. That is a fine profession, and it is a fine contribution that he has made here over his two decades. I want to pay tribute to him and all the work that he has done for his electorate and, indeed, to the great friendship that he has brought to this place and to the contribution that he has made as a great economic liberal and a great social conservative.
In summing up the Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Amendment Bill 2016, I would just say that this bill makes changes to the ability of the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources to distribute levy payer information. I want to thank the entire parliament for their contribution and for the many great points that were made on both sides. The bill is an important step in strengthening the ability of rural research and development corporations to connect directly with those who fund their work. The amendment allows the department to provide levy payer information to the RDCs for the purpose of developing levy pay registers. The information that will be provided is the name, address, contact details and ABN of any person who has paid or is liable to pay a levy or charge. The information may also include details of the amount of levy or charge that the person has paid or is liable to pay, or the leviable commodity.
Levy payer registers will allow RDCs to identify and consult directly with the levy payers who fund the research and development R&D system and ensure accuracy in the allocation of the voting entitlements. As it stands, the Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Act 1991 only permits the distribution of levy payer information to the wool and dairy RDCs. This bill remedies this by allowing the government to provide levy payer information for the purposes of a levy payer register to 13 other RDCs. Recognising that each agricultural industry is different in its structures, the distribution of levy payer information to an RDC for a levy payer register will only occur where an RDC, in consultation with industry, requests its distribution and the request is approved by the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources.
The bill sets out the purpose for which the levy payer information can be used. This includes matters relating to the development and maintenance of levy payer registers, the ability to make public any statistical, de-identified information and for any functions required of the recipient under Commonwealth laws or under a funding agreement between the RDC and the Commonwealth. RDCs will also be able to levy—
(Quorum formed) I want to thank the member for Fowler for his strong interest in primary industry levies and the charges that apply in this amendment bill. He has a great agricultural background and a big rural seat! I know he has brought in people to listen to this. The farmers of Fowler will be very interested in this presentation!
The bill sets out the purposes for which levy payer information can be used. This includes matters relating to the development and maintenance of the levy payer registers, the ability to make public any statistical de-identified information—as I was saying—and for any functions required of the recipient under Commonwealth laws or under a funding agreement between the RDC and the Commonwealth. This bill provides for levy payer information to be distributed to the Australian Bureau of Statistics. This is consistent with the government's public data policy statement, which commits to secure sharing of data between the Australian government entities to improve efficiencies and to inform policy development and decision making for Australia's agricultural industries.
The bill also allows the Secretary of the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources to provide for any other information relating to the production and processing of the commodity to be given to an eligible recipient. The bill does not permit secondary disclosure of information included in the levy payer register, except where expressly permitted by the secretary in writing.
The government will continue to work with industry and RDCs to ensure that Australia's R&D system remains transparent and consultative and delivers tangible benefits to Australia's agricultural industries into the future.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
In accordance with the Parliamentary Service Act, I wish to make a statement on behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit concerning the appointment of the Parliamentary Budget Officer. As the committee responsible for parliamentary oversight of the Parliamentary Budget Office, the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit is required by legislation to consider the appointment of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, as proposed by the Presiding Officers, and to approve or reject this proposal. The committee is then required to report to both houses on its decision.
In accordance with the Parliamentary Service Act 1999, I am pleased to inform the parliament that the committee has approved the proposal that Mr Phil Bowen be reappointed as Parliamentary Budget Officer for a further term of 12 months. This term will commence on 23 July 2016.
The role of the PBO is to inform the parliament by providing independent and non-partisan analysis of the budget cycle, fiscal policy and the financial implications of proposals. The committee's 2014 report on the PBO commended Mr Bowen, the inaugural Parliamentary Budget Officer, for his leadership in establishing the PBO as a respected source of expert analysis in this regard. The committee believes that Mr Bowen's reappointment will ensure continuity of leadership for the Parliamentary Budget Office during the upcoming federal election period.
I thank the member for Groom for his contribution. I also take the opportunity to place on record my sincere thanks for his sage advice and wisdom during my time in parliament. I thank him also for his contribution to the parliament and to the Australian people. I want to let him know that I hold him in the highest regard and respect the work he has done.
Just before the member for Groom leaves, I will just add my remarks to yours, Mr Deputy Speaker. I want to thank him for his incredibly good nature during his time in the parliament. I cannot comment on why he is going now. Ian, I just really wanted to say: all the very best for the future. I think you have made, in your own terms, a contribution that many of us here would be very proud of.
I am speaking on the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Interest Charge) Bill 2016. This bill seeks to apply a new interest charge to former recipients of social security, family assistance, paid parental leave and student assistance who have outstanding debts and who have failed to enter into an acceptable repayment plan.
Just a little bit of history about the application of interest charges on debts in recent decades: under the current arrangements, an interest charge may be applied of up to 20 per cent, but up to 2005 a three per cent interest charge was applied. Since 2005 no interest has been applied to these debts. According to the government, the initial rate of 20 per cent was considered too high and risked plunging people into financial hardship. The three per cent rate was considered too low and did not provide much of an incentive for people to repay their debts. In short, the administrative costs of recovering the debt outweighed the recovery of debt, and the interest charge scheme has not applied since 2005.
If this legislation is passed then an interest charge will be applied to a debt if, by the 28th day after receiving the relevant notice, the debt has not been paid in full or the person has not entered into a repayment arrangement. The new rate of the proposed interest charge, approximately nine per cent, will be based on the 90-day bank accepted bill rate of approximately two per cent plus an additional seven per cent. This charge will be applied across the different payment types. There will be exemptions for debtors who are currently in receipt of relevant payments, including social security payments and family payments, by instalment. This change is expected to commence on 1 July 2016.
The bill is expected to provide savings to the fiscal balance of $24.4 million over four years, with an underlying cash balance saving of $416½ million. As with its companion bill on enhanced welfare payment integrity, this bill has been referred to a Senate committee that will report on 20 June 2016. Labor will not be opposing the bill in the House. We will reserve coming to a final position until we see the findings of the Senate committee inquiry. Just like with the companion bill, we take the view that these changes need to be examined carefully. We know how complex some aspects of the social security system are. We know that with any change there are risks of unintended consequences. We need to guard against such outcomes. We need to carefully consider how these changes may affect some of the most disadvantaged people across the country. So Labor believe the Senate should be given the time to properly scrutinise these bills. We will reserve coming to a final position until we have seen the recommendations of the Senate inquiry.
I rise today to speak on the Social Service Legislation Amendment (Interest Charge) Bill 2016. The measures contained in this bill seek to introduce a new annual interest charge for people with outstanding welfare debts who have not complied with requests to establish an acceptable repayment plan. In this instance, this charge will be applied to former recipients of social security payments, family assistance payments, including for child care, and student assistance payments.
Furthermore, the bill introduces a grace period of 28 days after a notice is given. The grace period will give people the opportunity to avoid paying the interest charge altogether, either if they repay their debt in full within 28 days of being notified or by establishing a repayment plan. Following the 28 days, if no debt repayment plan has been arranged, the interest charge will be applied to the full balance of the debt. This is an important safety measure and will allow us to give people the opportunity to have more time to assess their financial situation and make repayments.
The coalition have made this change because we believe in a sustainable welfare system. We believe in a strong and prosperous economy. We believe in fairness and we believe that the best form of welfare is a job. This new policy incentivises people to pay down their outstanding debts quickly so that we can reinvest that money into those people who desperately need welfare support from the government.
The principle of mutual obligation is at the heart of our welfare system in Australia. In the context of welfare assistance in Australia, this principle of mutual obligation is based on the concept that welfare assistance provided to the unemployed of working age should involve some return responsibilities for the recipient. To date in Australia this has meant unemployed job seekers on Newstart and youth allowance should be actively seeking work, constantly striving to improve their competitiveness in the labour market and giving something back to the community that supports them. This policy supports that general approach to welfare in this country.
Debt only arises where a person receives a payment to which they are not entitled. The main reasons for overpayment, which this bill targets, are the following. Firstly is welfare recipients who have not lodged a tax return. Indeed, until their tax return is lodged, the entire family tax benefit payment is raised as debt. This cohort represents 20 per cent of debts and 39 per cent of the value of total debt. Secondly is former recipients who received an advance payment and, before it could be recovered through withholdings, ceased to be a payment recipient. This cohort represents 15 per cent of debts and 1.5 per cent of the value of the total debt.
Thirdly is undeclared earnings and wrongly declared earnings—former recipients who have, either accidentally or deliberately, failed to declare earnings or accurately declare earnings. This cohort represents 16 per cent of debts and 20 per cent of the total debt value. Fourthly is reconciliation. Family tax benefit and childcare assistance payments through the year are based on a recipient's income estimate, which is then reconciled at the end of a financial year. Debts are raised when a recipient has been overpaid due to underestimating their income. This is not a fraudulent activity in the main and is often the result of the fact that some families have inconsistent income, fringe benefits and other sources of tax offsets, including negative gearing, that can only be finally determined at the end of financial year. This cohort represents 13 per cent of debts and 10 per cent of the debt value.
Understandably, this measure will put pressure on and incentivise debtors to take responsibility for paying their debts in a timely manner where they have the financial capacity to do so. Currently, former recipients have no incentive to enter into a repayment arrangement as they are no longer dependent on the social security system and may actively avoid repayment. This coalition government is committed to a stronger, fairer and more sustainable welfare system. This measure is a step in the right direction. It is time that those people who have rorted the system pay back their fair share so that the welfare payments can go into the pockets of those people who need them most.
At the end of June 2015, there were over one million debts, with a total value of just over $3 billion. We cannot afford to support people who freeload off our government, and it is disturbing that individuals have, in some cases, deliberately cheated taxpayers out of hundreds of thousands of dollars and have done virtually nothing to recover the debt or to pay down the debt. But even worse than that is that there are people out there who do need welfare who are missing out as a result of this fraudulent activity. We all know there is no such thing as free money. When people avoid repaying debts the government incurs unnecessary fees, such as the administrative costs associated with the debt recovery process. Ultimately, at the heart of this, there is also the need to recover the state of our public finances. Currently the Australian government debt to GDP sits at 35 per cent, and we need to pay that down so that future generations of Australians are not left with a debt to pay down that would no doubt affect their standard of living and their economic freedom into the future.
There are many things that we could reinvest the money from these debts into, once we have recovered them. I am going to talk a bit about my electorate. Job creation in Canning is the first thing. With my electorate's population growing exponentially—between 2004 and 2014 approximately 40,000 people moved into the seat of Canning—we need to meet this rapid growth by providing jobs to sustain the community. Unemployment is one of the biggest challenges for the Peel region, with overall unemployment in Mandurah, which sits at the heart of Canning, at 8.6 per cent in December last year. Youth unemployment sits just a little over 20 per cent. The federal government has already initiated a number of successful Green Army programs across Canning, including the Harvey River restoration team, the Len Howard Conservation Park, Peel Inlet reserves, and the Birriga Brook and Darling Downs Equestrian Estate. This is a great start to what will become a fruitful, prosperous and self-sufficient Canning, but there is more that can be done.
The Peel Development Commission has identified a number of opportunities where federal government money, if invested, could actually create a lot of jobs for the local community. Regarding the Nambeelup business park, the innovation vision that this government has been arguing for the last six months or so will be at its heart. I have a lot of agriculture, beef, fruit growing and other agricultural businesses in my electorate. Nambeelup park is a location where we can bring them all together, in the heart of Canning, and make the most of the opportunities afforded by the South Korean, Japanese and Chinese free trade agreements.
There is also the Murray equestrian centre, which would basically position Peel, in Canning, as the leader in equine industry in the Indian Ocean rim. In future bushfires, it would also provide a housing facility for the cattle that need to be evacuated in those circumstances. In January we saw the fires in Waroona and the Harvey region, and a lot of livestock needed to be evacuated. The Murray equestrian centre, if we invest in it, would be a good location to evacuate livestock to.
With infrastructure, the continued population growth will increase our demand for facilities. We need more roads, and I think of the Tonkin Highway extension south, which will open up opportunities into Canning. There is also rail. There is a lot of scope for further rail into Canning, which would open up economic and social mobility for a lot of the young people in Canning—I am thinking specifically of a rail line between Mandurah and Pinjarra. It would be great if we could see that sometime in the next decade or so.
Ultimately, this policy is not about hurting people; it is about recovering debt and reinvesting that elsewhere—into either the welfare system or the economy itself. The proposed interest rate charge of about nine per cent will replace the current rate of 20 per cent per year. This is a generous reduction, which the government hopes will ease the burden of repayments for debtors and people currently experiencing financial hardship. It is a compassionate way to make savings, and it does allow for flexibility in personal circumstances. This charge, along with the two other measures contained in the social services bill, provides a comprehensive government strategy that strengthens our ability to rightfully recover debts from former social welfare and family payment recipients. The first measure will abolish the current six-year statute of limitations on the recovery of social welfare debt that would otherwise be non-recoverable. The second measure is the departure prohibition order, which will prevent people from leaving the country in an attempt to avoid making repayments to their welfare debt. This is a progressive initiative from the coalition government, which will bring us one step closer to repairing our budget so that we can continue to build a strong and prosperous Australia in a post-mining economic environment. This will not be possible if we do not keep debtors accountable and reliable in making their repayments in a timely manner.
This bill represents a significant step forward for the constituents of Canning. There are currently 111,000 welfare payments made in Canning, most of which go to age pensioners. To give you a breakdown of how the government is supporting people through our welfare system, I currently have close to 20,000 age pensioners receiving the pension; 3,700 receiving carer allowance; over 5,000 receiving the disability support pension; 22,400 receiving family tax benefits; just over 6,000 receiving Newstart allowance; and we have approximately 31,000 people with a pensioner concession card. This is all good welfare support, and this measure, intended to be implemented from July this year, will greatly benefit the pensioners, parents and students of Canning by ensuring financial assistance is only going to those who are doing the right thing and those who are in the most need of it.
I recognise that there are many people in Canning who rely on government support and welfare payments to support themselves and their families. I want to assure these people that I and my colleagues are working to ensure that their livelihoods will not be compromised because of a fragile welfare system. This bill ensures that we recover money and we reinvest it back into the welfare system. However, I note that there are a number of people who are exempt from this change and are not liable to pay an interest charge. They are people already receiving reductions from their payments in order to pay off their debts, and those with special individual circumstances deemed valid by the minister.
This bill gives me great confidence that the government is taking proactive steps towards a fair and, most importantly, sustainable welfare system for Australia. In a potentially economically austere environment, this is a very sensible, practical and prudent policy, and I commend the Minister for Social Services for initiating it. The measures contained in this bill are just one part of the Turnbull government's commitment to a strong and prosperous economy driven by jobs growth and innovation. With that, I commend the bill to the House.
I do enjoy hearing contributions like that. The prospect fills my heart with joy that, if we have reform to this system, a coalition government would plough the savings back into social security. If only that were believable. I have constituents—20,000 or so—who, as a result of your family tax payment changes, will be getting less family tax benefit. There are people who were targeted by this government in terms of Newstart by withholding payments to them. A whole stack of people, as a result of the government's attacks on the payment system, are going to be worse off. Family tax benefit A and B still sit there. There is the notion advanced by the member for Canning that, in some way, the changes will be used to help people. I will wait to see whether that holds true in the test of time. Like the member for Canning, I share the view that, if you are not receiving a benefit that you are entitled to, you should have recovery initiated against you—absolutely. Let's not for a moment think that those opposite, if they tighten up the system, are going to plough that back into Centrelink payments. That is hardly possible, based on their track record.
The other point I will make—and I will expand on this further in my contribution to this debate—is that sometimes people are given a debt notice by Centrelink as result of an IT system that needs to be replaced and processes that operate in Centrelink that put an enormous amount of stress on people if they follow up a claim that they owe money to the government, when in fact it turns out to be in error. I will go through that and demonstrate in most vivid terms the impact on one particular constituent who was forced to go through an unbearable process. Regardless of your politics, you would say it is a completely unacceptable process to clear up problems with Centrelink payments as a result of processes and systems that the government has not addressed in the time that it has been in office. Mind you, I have been critical of my side of politics when we were in government, but I will get to that.
We have said that we do not intend to oppose the bill itself, but we will be reserving our position on it based on the outcomes of a Senate committee inquiry that is set to report back in June. A system like this, with the complexity that exists, will require a degree of investigation to determine whether the bill's intended effect can be expected to take effect. We understand, based on what the government has publicly declared, that the bill itself seeks to apply a new interest charge to former recipients of social security, family assistance, paid parental leave and student assistance who have outstanding debts and have failed to enter into an acceptable repayment plan. By way of background of the application of interest charges on debts in recent decades, under the current arrangements an interest charge may be applied of up to 20 per cent. Until 2005, a three per cent interest charge was applied, but since then no interest has been applied to the debts. According to the government, the initial rate of 20 per cent was considered too high and risked plunging people into financial hardship. The three per cent rate was considered too low by not providing enough incentive to repay, which is understandable. In short, the administrative costs were outweighing recovery. Clearly something had to give. We understand that is the motivation for this bill.
If the bill is passed, an interest charge will be applied to a debt if, by the 28th day after receiving a relevant notice, the debt has not been paid in full or the person has not entered into a repayment arrangement. The new rate of the proposed interest charge—approximately nine per cent—is going to be based on the 90-day bank accepted bill rate, which is about two per cent plus an additional seven per cent. This charge will be applied across the different payment types and there will be exemptions for debtors who are currently in receipt of relevant payments, including social security payments and family payments by instalment. This is expected to commence on 1 July this year. It should provide savings to the fiscal balance of roughly over $24 million over four years, with underlying cash balance savings of about $416 million. We will see, as I said before, whether that is redirected back into the portfolio, but I somehow think it will not be. As with the companion bill on enhanced welfare payment integrity, this has been referred for inquiry within the Senate and we will be reporting in a couple of months. We will examine those changes carefully.
In my opening remarks, I indicated to the member for Canning and the House that sometimes people are believed to be in debt as a result of system determinations that may or may not be accurate. There will be a degree of challenge to that process. This bill does not necessarily mean those processes will change, but we should be mindful of it. We believe that the Human Services portfolio has lurched from one disaster to another. We now have the third Minister for Human Services in six months. The new minister still has not released the details of a $484 million IT contract that was signed with IBM last week. The government cannot seriously expect us to accept that a one-page media release is enough to explain where half a billion dollars is being spent on the system. It is a five-year deal worth nearly half a billion dollars. The previous contract was $128 million. It would be interesting to hear the minister explain the reason for this massive jump. Will it reduce call waiting times for Centrelink? Will it speed up youth allowance processing times? Will it help prevent Australians being defrauded of Medicare rebates? These are all valid questions I would put to the House. But, in particular, if you are calling Centrelink to challenge something that you believe is in error with your payment and that may trigger a debt of the type this bill is seeking to address, what types of waiting times do you think are acceptable?
I have had constituents in my office expressing their concern at the length of time it has taken them to access help from Centrelink. I have said previously that the waiting times in Centrelink offices, the times that people are made to wait just to get an inquiry managed, is unacceptable. I do not believe I am Robinson Crusoe on this; I believe on either side of this chamber there are people who get complaints from constituents about accessing a face-to-face form of assistance to manage their concerns. One of my constituents from Hassall Grove recently came to my office. She told me she does not have access to the internet, so whenever she has an issue with her pension she has to make a call to Centrelink. She said she is often left waiting on the phone for hours—I am using that word advisedly—to speak to someone.
In one particular case, a constituent was trying to call Centrelink's carers line on behalf of her 93-year-old grandmother. I was told she had to call twice and finally got through on the third attempt and waited for—wait for this!—over three hours on the phone. She actually took a screen shot of her phone. I have it here. She waited for three hours, four minutes and four seconds for someone to get on the line to help her manage this request on behalf of her 93-year-old grandmother. It was just a simple request. What is concerning is the fact that this lady was calling for an elderly relative who, without this person's help, would have difficulty contacting Centrelink herself.
I understand that Centrelink, both under our former government and under the current government of the minister at the table, has gone through the process of trying to enable people with smartphones to access services. This is a good thing, but not everyone is going to be able to do that. There is a generational gap where people will not be able to access that and they will rely on others to help, and that is simply unacceptable. It is unacceptable that I have a constituent waiting for three hours for the management of a simple request. Other constituents have echoed similar stories of having trouble getting through to the call centres and, once they are successful, having a long wait ahead of them. For many people who use prepaid mobile services because they cannot afford a contract for a mobile phone, that waiting time means they cannot stay on hold and run down the amount of credit they have on their phones. Again, this is unacceptable.
If long waiting periods are being used as a technique to get people off the line, that is not acceptable, because the use of phones was supposed to get people out of Centrelink offices, get them on the phones and better manage those services. Clearly, something is not working. It is simply unacceptable that people would be forced to endure that type of waiting time. I will be interested in whether the new IT system will help manage and triage those types of complaints. But, on the face of it, given the contract has gone from just over $128 million to nearly half a billion dollars, there is something that is seriously amiss with the current system if it requires that kind of support, an increased amount, to fix that now.
We are told that there is a new organisation, which we have not previously criticised, the Digital Transformation Office, which the Prime Minister says will speed up the way in which services like this are managed. The DTO, the Digital Transformation Office, is based on the UK model, one of whose aims is that it will enable citizens to get a better service. This is what the Prime Minister told a group of people back in October when talking about how this would make the government more efficient and how, through an open data agenda, they looked to make services efficient. I note in a Financial Review interview the head of the DTO, Paul Shetler, said that what this is aiming to do is provide for simpler, clearer, faster and more humane services by the government and that they had effectively established a digital service standard. I would be interested to see whether their digital service standard will be able to weed out people who are sitting on a phone for three hours waiting for assistance from Centrelink. This is what the DTO is supposed to be doing.
Those people who think that the Digital Transformation Office may be applying a new approach to improving the way in which services are delivered, mainly on a digital platform, may think, 'Okay, they might reach some success.' Back in October they apparently gave themselves 20 weeks to demonstrate significant changes in some places to improve government services. I have a constituent who waited for three hours for service from Centrelink. I have long lines of constituents in my electorate waiting for help through Centrelink. What is one of the jobs of the DTO? Is it to aid in that? No. They are actually looking to help the ACT government restructure the way in which, for instance, they manage public patients through the appointment booking system in the territory's seven community health services.
I have no problem with their working with other levels of government to improve service. But you have pressing needs at a federal level to address the types of things I have put on the table here today which I think are unacceptable and which I think those opposite would think are unacceptable too, because their constituents cop it. Why aren't we prioritising the work of the DTO to ensure that you make meaningful inroads into the quality of service being experienced by people in electorates like mine? Why isn't this being done? Yet, by all accounts, we have more money being poured into an IT system to fix that. You clearly have got a failure to provide service through the mobile phone system, and yet the DTO is working on the problems of other levels of government. How is that agile or nimble?
How is the DTO helping the citizens the Prime Minister says he wants to help? What is the DTO doing?
So I would certainly be calling on the government to (1) give us details about this new contract for the IT system there, (2) tell us whether or not the DTO has actually been appointed to aid in the implementation of this new system and oversee it, and (3) tell us what the DTO is doing to help people in Centrelink offices who are being forced to wait for long periods of time on their feet for some sort of human contact and, if they use a phone, are being told they have to wait up to three hours to get assistance. Let's see some of that applied because, frankly, if you are ringing up to deal with a debt, which is at the heart of this bill, and you are waiting for that period of time, that is unacceptable and should not be tolerated by anyone in this chamber. (Time expired)
It is a great pleasure to rise this afternoon to speak on the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Interest Charge) Bill 2016. When considering the specific details of this bill, you really have to start at the point of considering the broader background, the financial context that we inherited from the Labor government in 2013, which requires us to make some of these hard and tough decisions. With that, I was pleased to see it announced by the Australian Bureau of Statistics today that our unemployment rate has tumbled down to 5.8 per cent. That is very welcome news. It is a sign that the policies of this coalition government are working.
Put that in the context of what we inherited. In the full calendar year to the end of 2014, when Labor policies dominated the employment scene, the total employment growth was only 7,200 people. It was actually worse than that, because what that number of 7,200 extra jobs in the economy did not show is there was a big decrease in full-time jobs and a shift to part-time jobs. So, when we inherited the unemployment situation, employment growth had simply ground to a screaming halt under the policies of the Labor government. It was actually going backwards.
It is pleasing to see how well we have turned that around in such a short period of time. In the 12 months since January of last year, there were 300,000 new jobs created in this economy. Do the comparison: in Labor's last year of government there were a mere 7,200; in the last calendar year there were 300,000, as opposed to a mere 7,000.
Why did that happen? Because the coalition government has introduced policies that have given the job creators of this country the confidence to have a go—the small business entrepreneurs who will go out and risk their capital to test a new idea in the marketplace. That is why we are seeing job creation and that is why, time after time, we see failure from the Labor Party, because they mistakenly believe it is government that creates jobs. That is why we see that Labor has such an appalling record on job creation. Every time they think that the government creates a job, they tax the private sector and make it harder for them to invest and create jobs.
Also on those figures, not only did the unemployment rate tumble down to 5.8 per cent but we saw a big shift over the last month from part-time jobs to full-time jobs. We saw the number of part-time jobs fall by 15,600, but full-time jobs increased by 15,900. So although the actual job growth for those 12 months was nothing spectacular by itself—and the numbers bounce around—what was spectacular was the transfer of people from part-time employment to full-time employment. On the ABS numbers, there are over 15,000 extra people previously in part-time employment who are now in full-time employment, under the policies of this coalition government that have allowed our entrepreneurs to get out there and create new jobs.
We have seen how the Labor Party had employment growth grinding to a halt. That was despite their record deficit spending. Because they thought they could borrow and spend their way out—those old, failed Keynesian policies that so many in the Labor Party think continue to work—they ran up debt after debt after debt. Because of what we as the coalition government inherited, every single year we have to find $13 billion just to pay the interest on the debt that they created. That is over $1 billion a month. It is something like $35 million every single day in this country that we cannot put to good use—that we cannot use for social welfare, that we cannot use to improve our health system, that we cannot use for carers and kids with disabilities, that we cannot pump into our education system. It is $13 billion a year that we are hamstrung, just paying the interest on Labor's debt. That is the lead that we carry in our saddlebags because of the six years of waste and reckless spending and the incompetence of the previous Labor government.
Compare that to what they inherited. They inherited a budget in surplus, money in the bank. They were actually receiving interest. Imagine it as a handicap race. We as the coalition have lead in our saddlebags because we have to pay that debt, but when the Labor Party were in government they had interest coming in from the money that the Howard government had saved and put away to help with their expenses. Yet, despite that, you have seen how we have turned the unemployment growth around in this country. You have seen how new jobs are being created. We have seen the GDP numbers in this country at three per cent GDP growth, which is higher than any of the G7 nations in the world.
With the policies of this coalition government—despite the lead in our saddlebag and despite the obstruction of the Senate across the hall—we are getting on with the job of seeing jobs created and growth in this economy. However, there is still a lot more work to do. We are still borrowing far too much money. We are still borrowing, in this nation, close to $100 million every single day. And what does that mean? It means that future generations of Australians will have to pay higher taxes and will have less government services because they will be burdened with that added interest payment on the money that we are still borrowing. Therefore, we have to do everything we can to wind back excessive government spending.
As Paul Keating said, 'We need to look at every line of expenditure,' because we cannot, in this nation, continue to borrow money from our children and our grandchildren. There are a lot of kids up there in the gallery today watching on. They will be the generation who, when they start work, will have to face higher taxes because of the money the governments are borrowing today and because we are spending more than we are raising. That is an unfair burden on them. That is why measures like this have to be undertaken.
To give you some idea of the context of the problem: at the end of June 2015, there were over one million social security debts totalling a value of $3 billion. These debts have increased by 10 per cent since June 2014. Of that total debt base, approximately $870 million is held by around 270 former recipients who do not make sufficient or regular payments. It is only fair that if someone has received an overpayment from the Commonwealth then there is some interest charge component to it. If there is no interest charge then what is the incentive for someone to enter into any repayment arrangement? If they are no longer dependent on the social security system then they can just let that debt sit there without an interest charge. It is actually decreasing in real terms as inflation goes up. We need to make sure that the interest charge is fair and that it does not put those people at an unfair disadvantage from what is, in effect, an interest-free loan.
Debtors will receive a letter seeking payment of the debt in full with no interest charge applied. Where the debtor cannot pay the debt in full, the letter will encourage the debtor to make contact with Centrelink within 28 days to negotiate an acceptable repayment arrangement in accordance with acceptable repayment guidelines. When a customer is unable to meet the minimum requirements then a financial assessment is undertaken. If no arrangement is made within 28 days then the interest charge will be applied to the full balance of the debt, accruing on a daily basis until an acceptable debt repayment arrangement has been entered into.
This measure, along with two other measures contained within the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Enhanced Welfare Payment Integrity) Bill 2016, provides a suite of measures that will strengthen the government's ability to recover debts from former social welfare and family payment recipients. We need to make sure that the interest charge that is being applied is fair. We need to make sure that the current seven per cent above the standard bank rate is kept. At times, in percentage terms, it could be deemed slightly excessive. That is something we need keep on eye on to ensure that it does not become an interest-free loan and it does not become a benefit to someone, but that it is an adequate incentive for someone to repay.
This is going to be a hard measure for some people. At times, this government has to do some tough things. It really gets under my skin when I hear members of the Labor Party continually whining and whinging about government cuts. Unless they are going to come up with some alternative way of bringing our budget back to surplus, or back to balance, then we have the long, hard road of winding back and paying back that money that we have borrowed.
One thing that we always need to remember is that the borrowings that we are undertaking are raised through the sale of government bonds. More than half of those government bonds are sold to foreigners. I am sure a lot of us have concerns in this nation about foreign companies buying up Australian land, especially agricultural land. And we are rightfully concerned. But what our real concern should be is the money that we are borrowing from overseas to finance government spending. Where that $100 million is borrowed every day, more than 50 per cent of it is borrowed from overseas. So, we are actually mortgaging parts of this country to borrow that money. Of that $13 billion in interest payments—let us put it at $1 billion a month in interest payments—about $600 million flows out of this country because the money that we have borrowed has been borrowed from overseas. This cannot continue. That is why measures like this, although tough, are important. We owe it to the future generations—
The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. Are there any statements from honourable members?
I present two petitions that have been approved by the House.
The petitions read as follows—
To the Honourable The Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives
This petition of the concerned residents, tourists and campers of Kevington, Victoria, 3723, draws to the attention of The House the urgent need for mobile phone coverage for the Kevington township and surrounding area.
Kevington valley is a remote area of Victoria which has been assessed by fire authorities as having an extreme bush fire risk. In emergency situations the only reliable communication is UHF Radio, which is funded by the local community. However in heavy smoke conditions reception is adversely affected. The landline phone is unreliable at the best of times and the overhead telephone line is likely to be down during emergencies, as occurred in the 2006 fires.
Kevington is on a major tourist route from Gippsland to North East Victoria (one road in and out). The road is partially sealed and subject to emergencies caused by falling trees, rock slides, floods and fire. Whilst there is a small permanent resident population at Kevington, there are thousands of visitors during peak holiday times and weekends who do not have any form of communication. Thus mobile phone communication for residents and visitors is critical.
The Mansfield Shire has partnered with the Kevington community in seeking funding under the Black Spot Program and we are actively supported by CFA, Police, SES and DELWP.
We respectfully petition The House to include our application for funding under The Black Spot Program to establish a new base station for Kevington.
from 1 citizen
To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives
This Petition of the concerned residents, tourists and visitors of Kevington, 3723, Victoria draws to the attention of The House the urgent need for a Mobile Telecommunication Tower.
We therefore ask The House to implement the roll out of a Mobile Communication Tower for Kevington.
from 192 citizens
Petitions received.
These petitions have been signed by the residents of, and tourists and visitors to, Kevington. They contain 193 signatures. These petitions draw the House's attention to the urgent need for mobile phone coverage for the Kevington township and surrounding areas and call for the site to be included in the next round of funding under the Mobile Black Spot Program.
Kevington valley is a remote area of Victoria, which has been assessed by fire authorities as having an extreme bushfire risk. In emergency circumstances the only reliable communication is UHF radio, which is funded by local residents. However, in heavy smoke conditions reception is adversely affected. Mobile phones are vital to safety and communication during emergencies. Kevington was listed as a black spot during round 1 of the program. It was unsuccessful, so it remains on the list for round 2.
Community organisations and Mansfield Shire Council have been strong community advocates on this issue to government. Kevington was Indi's number 1 priority for round 2. In bringing this to the attention of the House, I would like to thank Michael Eichhorn, the principal petitioner, for a job well done. Congratulations, Michael. I call on the government to include funding for Kevington in round 2 of the Mobile Black Spot Program.
As the patron of the Redwater Creek Steam and Heritage Society I had the great pleasure on the weekend of attending SteamFest 2016 in the beautiful town of Sheffield in the municipality of Kentish. I just want to highlight what a wonderful event this is. Where else in the world would you see traction engines reversing in a crowd of people, with young kids mingling between machinery that, in some cases, is 150 years old? Where else in the world would you see a team of bullocks making its way through a crowd of people?
Mr Deputy Speaker, you would have been very proud to know that a former member in this place, Mr Tim Fischer, had the privilege of opening SteamFest 2016. Whilst I understand that he was always known as 'Two-minute Tim'—and he did go on for a little bit longer than two minutes—nobody could have been in any doubt as to the passion that he has for steam. I congratulate President Chris Martin, Marc, Lizard and the other members of the committee for an extraordinary event that is a highlight every year. I encourage anybody who has not attended SteamFest previously to block out the long weekend in March next year.
Today is National Close the Gap Day, and it is my privilege to be able to address the House on this very important matter. It is important that we accept our responsibilities as a national parliament to close the gap in life expectancy and in educational, employment and, indeed, justice outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians. Today is very important for us all to recommit our efforts to addressing those issues which will help us close the gap. But to do that we have to treat communities as a whole. We have to understand that fixing the housing problem in communities will have an impact on health, education and employment outcomes. All of these are very important things.
I know that our leader, Mr Shorten, has committed the Labor Party to justice targets. That is a very important thing as well. But I would say to the government that the best thing you can do at the moment, in my view, is to recommit yourself to the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Plan, which I know you have adopted in a bipartisan way, and to fund in this forthcoming budget the implementation strategy for that plan. The plan provides a comprehensive approach to helping us address the enormous health gap between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians and the rest of us. I ask the government to make sure that the budget, whenever it is—we do not know when it is; it could have been yesterday!—ensures that this issue is properly funded.
Last Thursday I had the privilege of launching the Morning Bay bush regeneration project in my electorate of Mackellar. Funded by the federal government under its $1 billion National Landcare Program, this project in my electorate is a continuation of eight years of progressive work on bush regeneration on Pittwater's lower western shore. The project involves the removal of noxious weeds, particularly asparagus fern, which acts as a mat and prevents the sunshine coming through. It affects, particularly, the spotted gums which grow on that part of the western shore.
Participants in the program will have the unique opportunity of staying overnight at the Pittwater youth hostel, which overlooks the beautiful bay. Experience has shown that those who stay overnight become better involved in bushcare and in understanding the land management questions that are at hand. This program will bring a diversity of people who are participants to be a part of the bushcare program. It is very important to expose more and more people to the need for bushcare and regeneration, so that we can save the pristine surrounds of our beautiful Pittwater. I would like to congratulate Mr Michael Doherty, manager of Pittwater youth hostel, Pittwater Council and the Greater Sydney Local Land Services on making these projects become a reality. We received $38,000 for the projects.
Community legal centres play a vital role in Australia, providing access to justice for the most vulnerable members of our society. Community legal centres provide crucial legal assistance to victims of domestic violence, individuals who might be struggling with debt, employees who have been bullied in the workplace, people who have been conned into signing dodgy contracts and parents of children who are in need of legal protection. Yet for all the vital work that community lawyers do in our communities, for over two years the Abbott-Turnbull government has shown community legal centres and the hundreds of thousands of Australians who rely on them little but contempt.
Soon after coming to office as Attorney-General, Senator Brandis sought to gag community lawyers, lest they dare speak out against this government's policies. Faced with massive unmet legal need and a Productivity Commission report calling for massively increased funding, this government has repeatedly cut the funding to community legal centres, making a bad problem even worse. Figures released yesterday 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 again cut funding to community legal centres, this time by some 30 per cent. This is a disgrace. The government must reverse these cuts immediately, before any more damage is done. (Time expired)
I o speak today about the Stronger Communities Program which is in the process of being finalised in my electorate of Brisbane. The program has funded capital works for not-for-profit organisations. It has been an absolutely wonderful program, connecting the community to government, and I very much hope to see it continue into the future.
Among the very successful candidates have been the Crosby Park Meals on Wheels, who received $6,000 for a kitchen floor replacement; the Polonia Polish Club, who received $18,000 in disability access for their community centre; and Wilston Grange Australian Football Club, who received $20,000 for field and ground equipment. Further, C&K Clayfield Pre-prep will have $9,500 for a wonderful shade sail replacement. The Northern Suburbs Bridge Club will receive $6,000 for much-needed toilets and other amenities. The Community Place will receive $18,000 to convert their garden shed into a truly wonderful community space.
This is why I got into politics—to make a difference at the local level. It is great to see taxpayer dollars going to programs that will benefit the whole community. There are many more successful applicants that will be announced, and I look forward to working with them on these wonderful projects into the future.
My local Chinese community is organising a fundraising event to assist the hospital in Fairfield and the HammondCare administered Braeside Hospital in Prairiewood. I will be joining parliamentarians, local government representatives and community leaders in raising funds for these two fantastic hospitals in my electorate next Saturday, 19 March 2016.
Fairfield Hospital has been operating from its Prairiewood location since 1988, providing a range of health services, general practice and medical education and training, in addition to primary health care. Braeside Hospital offers comprehensive in-patient services, including rehabilitation, palliative care and mental health services for older Australians.
This charity event will be to the benefit of not only our local community and hospital staff but, most importantly, the patients who have come to be highly reliant on the high-quality professional services offered by these two institutions.
I would like to specifically acknowledge the efforts of David and Alice Lu for their initiative in hosting this event and their organising committee: James Chan, Hung Ly, Pho Quang Hang, Mrs Chou Ma, Victor Wong, David Trang and Benny Wong. I commend David and Alice Lu and all the Chinese community leaders for their charitable efforts in supporting our local community in Western Sydney.
I rise to talk about my visit to the Durack Primary School a couple of weeks ago, in which I was able to meet the new house captains and vice-captains for the school. I would like to place on record their names, and congratulate them and wish them all the very best for a wonderful year. These guys are doing amazing work, and it was really great to see the leadership that they demonstrate in the school. For Argyle house, the captains are Amelia Colling and Charli Brady, and the vice-captains are Joshua Wallis and Connor Blyton. For Ivanhoe house, the captains are Ethan Reinheimer and Jayde Giles, and Aaron McFarlane and Alicia Godinho are the vice-captains. For Lissadell house, the captains are Lily Harden and Amity Partridge, and the vice-captains are Bailey Gunn and Cody Russell.
In the short time I have left to speak, I would also like to put on the record my congratulations to Morgan Gurry from Darwin Middle School. She is the winner of the Simpson Prize for the Northern Territory. In April, she will be visiting Gallipoli. I wish her all the very best. It will be the trip of a lifetime, and one of the teachers from Katherine will be visiting Gallipoli with her. Unfortunately, we also had a— (Time expired)
by leave—I present a petition from the Illawarra branch of the Reclaim the Night campaign on strategies to prevent violence against women.
It was a great pleasure for me today to host, with my colleague the member for Throsby, a local community group, the Illawarra branch of the Reclaim the Night campaign. This is a tremendous group of locals, including front-line workers in domestic and family violence, local Indigenous workers, community members and a school student. They had come to present to me and the member for Throsby the petition that they have been collecting since October last year on action they want to see to prevent family and domestic violence. They told very powerful stories of not only their own direct experience but also what they had heard from individuals as they gathered this petition together while standing at their stall in the mall at the Wollongong markets and across various communities.
I would also like to put on the record our thanks to the Parliamentarians against Family Violence Friendship Group and its co-convenors, Tim Watts and Ken Wyatt, for meeting with the group. They heard directly from the group the information that they wanted to convey to this parliament about the great importance of us taking action on this scourge that, unfortunately, is present in all of our communities across the country.
So I commend the Illawarra Reclaim the Night group and all the work that they have done. I know that they will continue to collect petitions, and I was more than pleased to be asked to present this petition in the parliament today. (Time expired)
This document will now be referred to the Standing Committee on Petitions for consideration.
I rise to bring to the attention of the House a novel, unique and incredibly useful community initiative that has sprung out of the efforts and initiative of one or two well-known local community workers. David Frederick and Diane Gilbert, and other people who have worked in the PCYC and the drug and rehabilitation service of the local health district, have over the last two years initiated a novel swim program for very many disadvantaged young children who cannot swim. In the 2015-16 period, 430 children have been involved in this program, which has taught them how to swim up to the level of the AUSTSWIM Teacher of Swimming and Water Safety certificate, such that they could even become swim coaches. The program taught 230 children and 100 adults the year before.
This all is due to the initiative of David Frederick. There have been referrals to the program for people with chronic illness, diabetes, obesity and ADHD, and for people after spending time in drug and alcohol rehabilitation, on probation or in juvenile justice detention. There are 24 different community groups that refer to this program. This should be celebrated. It is quite a novel idea, it has the runs on the board and it is delivering health advantages and helping to close the gap.
When I speak to people in my electorate of Lalor and in the west of Melbourne, the most important issue is jobs. People are incredibly concerned about prospects for their children and for themselves when it comes to employment into the future.
Yesterday, I met with LeadWest, a critical organisation that works in the west of Melbourne with an advocacy role in bringing to the attention of governments, state and federal, issues around employment. Staff raised with me the $90 million Next Generation Manufacturing Investment Program being delivered by the federal government and the state government. The first-round grants have been announced and it is with sadness that I report that, with $27 million being given out in those grants, none of that money is going to land in the west of Melbourne at this stage. I hope that, in round 2, we can set up some way for our businesses in the west to be supported in these grants. Where we are faced with the potential loss of 14,000 jobs through the loss of car and components manufacturing, we are looking desperately for some of these funds to generate new manufacturing industry in the west of Melbourne. This is incredibly important.
Today, I advocate on behalf of the people of Canning for funding from this government in our struggle against drug and alcohol abuse in our community—specifically, in the fight against ice. In late December of last year, the Canning Ice Action Group, a group of local government, law enforcement, medical and community leaders, met to discuss our local strategy for action. We are united in our support for the proposed Peel Youth Medical Service, or PYMS, health hub in Mandurah. The health hub will be a joint venture between PYMS and Palmerston Association Inc. It will provide a holistic service to young Australians in the 12-to-24 age bracket who are at risk from drug and alcohol abuse and related mental and physical illnesses. Both PYMS and Palmerston are daily engaged in this fight. Palmerston distributes 30,000 needles per month through its needle safety exchange program. PYMS provides 400 consultations per month and is at service capacity.
It is the leadership of Eleanor Britton, Dr Rupert Backhouse and Terry Slomp that helps people to recover control of their lives and future. We have met with the Western Australia Primary Health Alliance several times this year. We seek federal funding for this project and we will continue to lobby until the PYMS vision of a health hub is realised in Mandurah.
Today, I have launched the 'Taxpayer's guide to Liberal waste' booklet, which outlines some of the most egregious examples of waste from this government, a government addicted to waste and spin. The government was happy for the Minister for Foreign Affairs to spend $400,000 on koala and other marsupial related events. Just imagine—$400,000 on hugging koalas. There has also been one-quarter of a billion dollars wasted on advertising. There has been $170 million wasted on unused office space. The Treasurer, when he was the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, spent $330,000 to construct a media room, where he spent $800 on a doorknob. The Prime Minister spent $700,000 to rebrand the nbn co—and what did the rebrand involved? Removing the 'co'. That is $350,000 for each letter. I could go on and on about the waste from this government. Senator Brandis spent $6,000 on a water taxi in Venice, $16,000 on a bookshelf and $1,200 on a slap-up dinner for four in London, including $400 on vintage wines—incredible.
The government will go to the election with an appalling record on misusing taxpayers' money. They will stand condemned for the contempt they have for taxpayers.
I rise to confirm that plans by the regional broadcasters to fix television reception in Apollo Bay have now been finalised. After so much frustration in Apollo Bay, Skenes Creek and Marengo, we are very close to seeing this situation fixed. Late last year, our government confirmed that the broadcasters Prime, WIN and Southern Cross would install a new microwave link as part of a solution to deliver better TV reception, along with the Australian Communications and Media Authority's proposal to change transmission frequencies to minimise interference from King Island.
I have been very concerned that we have not received final details of this agreement, but I am very pleased to announce today that the regional broadcasters, along with SBS, have confirmed they will be investing a total of $385,000 to implement this upgrade. I say thank you, and I also thank the Minister for Communications, Senator Fifield, for his support. The upgrade will include new microwave links between Mount Sabine and Tanybryn and between Tanybryn and Apollo Bay; new transmitters for WIN, Prime, Southern Cross and SBS; and increased transmitter output power at Apollo Bay. The equipment has been ordered today, will take some 16 weeks to arrive from overseas and will be installed by the end of August. So certainly there will be some delay, but I am so relieved that this situation has been fixed. I will continue to stand up for regional communities, and this is a great example.
Balaklava in my electorate has a population just a bit under 2,000. It is about 92 kilometres or so from Adelaide. Traditionally wheat and wool territory, since about the 1850s it has been a grain production area. It has farmers, hardworking people and plain-speaking people.
Mr Danby interjecting—
The member for Melbourne Ports tells me that a relative of his came from there. It is a traditionally conservative part of the world. The Plains Producer, a great local country paper, a great voice for rural journalism, opposes the government's advertising cuts for rural papers. Oddly enough, the government could spend all of this money on advertising, just not in rural South Australia or rural Australia! This week, the paper had a headline about the Prime Minister's visit, as you can see.
Order!
It is entitled 'Tiring of Turnbull'.
Order, Member for Wakefield! That is disorderly.
You can see that the 'bull' part is in red.
The member for Wakefield will desist from using a prop.
That is because farmers—like steelworkers, auto workers and shipbuilders—know bulldust when they see it. The Prime Minister's visit to South Australia, coming on the back of today's 7.7 per cent unemployment rate, adds insult to injury. There has not been one significant announcement about and not one commitment to South Australia. (Time expired)
Fourteen-year-old Breese Flocchini is a good bull rider—so good that he is going to represent Australia at the National High School Rodeo Association's bull-riding finals in the United States. This year, the finals are being held in Tennessee. Breese will be going there with his mother, Sarah, and his father, Dean. To qualify, he won the under-16 section of the Kyogle Bull Ride Spectacular and won a competition in Tamworth. He practises with his cousins Beau and Dillon. Breese is the first Aboriginal young person to qualify and compete in the international arena in bull riding, and I wish him all the best.
Representing my community in this place is something I love and take seriously. I am excited about the prospect of continuing in this role if the people in my community are kind enough to put their faith and trust in me again. We have done much. There has been record spending—the Pacific Highway and local roads, the Casino saleyards, Kyogle bridges, Harwood sugar mill, Lismore art gallery and much more. All these have a focus on job creation so kids have job prospects in our community. We have seen off CSG in our region.
But for me as a member of the Turnbull-Joyce government there is more to do. I give this personal pledge to the people of Page: I will continue to stand up for our community, even if it means disagreeing with my own party, as I have done before; I will continue to work to deliver local jobs for local people.
It is hard to overstate the influence of the Irish, and the influence they have had upon modern Australia. The fact is that the land of saints and scholars, with its bittersweet history, has given the world the likes of Wilde, Swift, Shaw, Joyce, Beckett, Edna O'Brien and William Butler Yeats. To Australia, the Irish were indispensable in forging an egalitarian spirit, the fair go, support for the underdog, our healthy scepticism of authority, our self-deprecating humour and our sense of the absurd. We are indebted to the ancestors of Lalor, Curtin, Chifley and Keating for our political leadership; to those of Lowitja O'Donohue, and Mick and Pat Dodson for our Indigenous leaders; and to those of Sidney Nolan, Tom Keneally, Nicole Kidman and many, many more in the arts.
In this year, the centenary of the 1916 Easter Rising and the republic that followed, on behalf of federal Labor and, I am sure, the entire parliament, I wish all Australians of Irish descent, or not, and indeed all our Irish friends in Ireland and across the world, a very happy St Patrick's Day.
The Australian Volunteer Coast Guard is a fantastic organisation which we are lucky to have in my electorate of Petrie. It looks after boaties and other people in Moreton Bay when they are out on the water. I had the pleasure today of congratulating Redcliffe's Volunteer Coast Guard on their successful application for a Stronger Communities grant. The grant is an amount of $5,455 for the refurbishment of a training room. They were originally going to apply for a FLIR camera but ended up getting funding for that through another grant. A FLIR camera enables them to have great night vision when they are out on the water at night.
I caught up with some of the coastguard members a few weeks back to help them put some reflective tape on a post out in Moreton Bay that was a real danger to boaties in my electorate of Petrie, particularly for those based in Redcliffe. The coastguard have exceptional volunteers who help man the boats and they have exceptional equipment. This grant will only help with that. They are all volunteers, every single one of them. They help out Queensland police and ambulance services, and they help boaties who get into trouble out in Moreton Bay.
Running a boat is very expensive. I have written to the Queensland state minister to ask for more funding for the coastguard to help pay for the equipment they need, rather than just petrol money, which they receive at the moment. Again, this is a fantastic organisation and I congratulate them. (Time expired)
Growing up, for a teenager, is never easy. Kids can be very cruel to their peers. But, for young Australians who are gay, it is even tougher, with bullying and worse a daily reality. Every child in Australia has the right to be safe at school.
Safe Schools is an antibullying program. It is a voluntary program. Schools choose to opt in. Five hundred and thirty-three schools have freely chosen to opt in. Thirty-two schools have signed up since the Prime Minister announced his review—more than one a day. When it comes to the welfare of our children, if I have to choose between the teachers, principals and school counsellors of Australia, and the rabid ideologues of the Liberal-National party, I will choose Australian teachers and schools every time.
Mr Turnbull has a very simple choice here—to stand with the great majority of Australians or with a small, right-wing fringe. Today we will see how scared he is of his Liberal Party. We know that he is scared; it is just a matter of how scared. Mr Turnbull is learning a very old lesson right now: when you give in to a bully, they come back wanting more. When you give into the bullies of the extreme Right, they come back wanting more. It is time for Mr Turnbull to stand up for vulnerable young teenagers. Mr Turnbull, stop following your party; start leading it.
Today, I present to the House the second instalment of the boomerang petition, with some 2,635 signatures supporting the recognition of Indigenous people in the Constitution.
Cairns Indigenous leader Norman Miller has collected more than 5,100 signatures in total—a huge effort from a single person committed to a particular cause. Norman has travelled around Australia getting signatures at Australia Day events, NAIDOC parades and football matches—even standing on street corners to communicate his message and gather support from both Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. I would like to acknowledge his wife, Barbara, who has been with him through the entire journey.
Norman says:
It is time to put this issue to rest once and for all with a yes vote in a referendum to change the constitution to recognize Indigenous people and remove racism. We can do no less and we cannot delay this issue or consign it to the scrapheap of history or rubbish tip of time.
I absolutely agree, and I urge Indigenous Australians to come together and form a consensus on the wording for a referendum. This process cannot be rushed, but we must have engagement and ownership by Indigenous Australia. I am very proud to present this petition today on Norman Miller's behalf.
The petition read as follows—
To The Honourable The Speaker And Members Of The House Of Representatives
"BOOMERANG PETITION"
This petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House:
The concern raised by the Expert Panel reporting on the Constitutional Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples in January 2012 was the need to remedy the historical exclusion of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples from Australia's Constitution and the need to remove discrimination.
We therefore ask the House to:
Educate the Australian nation about the need for constitutional change and hold a referendum within two years to:
from 2,635 citizens
Petition received.
The Minister for Health will be absent today as she is representing the government at the Pharmacy Guild of Australia conference in Queensland. The Minister for Immigration and Border Protection will answer questions on her behalf.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister confirm that he spoke to the Queensland Premier on Friday morning about the appointment of the member for Groom as Queensland Resources Investment Commissioner? Did the Prime Minister attempt to interfere in the independent process, including, but not limited to, requesting that the appointment be delayed until after the federal election?
Mr Dutton interjecting—
The Minister for Immigration and Border Protection will cease interjecting.
I thank the honourable member for his question. I am surprised that this is the most important issue that he raises today. Let me say that I speak to premiers, as every Prime Minister does, regularly, and we speak confidentially on many matters. I can say that the Premier of Queensland and I—while we have some political differences, of course—both share enormous admiration for the member for Groom, and we hold him in the highest regard.
The member for Groom will not be recontesting the election, so he will not be returning to the chamber after the election. He is a great Australian. He was a great minister. The member for Brand and I agreed on this in the chamber earlier today. Approaching this matter with somewhat more dignity and worthiness than his leader does, the member for Brand recognised the vision that the member for Groom had. Of course, one of his great achievements is the Second Range Crossing, but we agreed that in many respects his greatest achievement was his long-range vision, building up the natural resources of Australia, building up our gas endowment to set Australia's prosperity up not just for decades but for half a century.
Opposition members interjecting—
The member for Isaacs will cease interjecting. The member for Jagajaga will cease interjecting as well. The member for Jagajaga did interject twice through the answer. I keep very copious notes here.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister update the House on how this government is encouraging Australian business to make the most of the exciting opportunities in the global economy? In particular, what is the government doing to support a stronger and more competitive small business sector?
I thank the honourable member for his question. Indeed, in Tasmania we are seeing a really strong response to the enormous opportunities presented by the big free-trade agreements negotiated by the member for Goldstein in his time as Minister for Trade and Investment. There is more good news on trade, which I will come to in a moment. But what we know is that if we are to continue our successful transition with strong levels of growth from the mining construction boom to the opportunities of the 21st century, we need to have an economy that is more competitive, more productive and more innovative. So every lever of policy that we can pull is being directed at that goal: a $1.1 billion innovation and science agenda; a defence white paper with a massive investment in innovation, industry and jobs in Australia; and free-trade agreements, as I noted, with the growing economies—particularly the largest economy in East Asia, China.
Just today, the trade minister and Indonesia's Minister of Trade, Tom Lembong, who has been in the House today, have formally agreed to recommence negotiations between Indonesia and Australia on a comprehensive economic partnership agreement. That is great news. We have overcome the shocking damage done to the trading relationship by the live cattle export ban, which was visited on us by the Labor Party—that terrible mistake shattering the relationship and the goodwill that has been built up by all of our ministers, the former trade minister and now our current trade minister. This is a great day. Indonesia is an economy of 250 million people. It has a large and growing middle class, and we have a lot to gain from deeper and broader economic ties. The closer we can develop those ties, the stronger the results will be in terms of investment, jobs and business opportunities here in Australia.
I want to record here in the House my very deep appreciation for the leadership of President Joko Widodo, or Jokowi as he is known in Indonesia, for his extremely constructive and active support of the Australian relationship. President Jokowi is a great leader at every level—a great economic leader, very committed to the Australian relationship—and as he always says on the security front, as a great example, he reminds us again and again that Indonesia is proof positive that Islam is compatible with democracy and a society of tolerance, mutual respect and moderation. This is a great day for Indonesia-Australian relations.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Isn't it the case that, as the Prime Minister caves in to his conservative backbench on issue, after issue, after issue, the only options that the Prime Minister has left are more extreme cuts—
Mr Nikolic interjecting—
The member for Bass will cease interjecting and is warned. The Leader of the Opposition will begin in his question again.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Isn't it the case that, as the Prime Minister caves in to his conservative backbench on issue, after issue, after issue, the only options that the Prime Minister has left are more extreme cuts in the budget, just like the Medicare cuts in the Abbott government's 2014 budget? Will the Prime Minister today, without hesitation, rule out caving in to his backbench again by privatising Medicare?
Mr Pyne interjecting—
The Leader of the House will restrain himself; he is delaying the Prime Minister.
That is quite a long list of issues in that one question. Earlier today, the member for Jagajaga launched two years work—a policy document for tackling inequality, which focused on employment. Jobs and employment are at the heart of all of our concerns. I would have hoped that the Leader of the Opposition paid sufficient attention to that presentation that he would have been asking us about jobs and employment, but instead we have the first question about the member for Groom—
Ms Plibersek interjecting—
The member for Sydney will cease interjecting.
and then the second question with an ugly attack about the Safe Schools Coalition matter. Let me make this observation: every Australian child has the right to feel safe at school and to be in a respectful, supportive learning environment. We take the issue of bullying very seriously, whether it occurs—
Ms Butler interjecting—
The member for Griffith will cease interjecting.
Mr Hutchinson interjecting—
Mr Pyne interjecting—
The member for Lyons will cease interjecting. The Leader of the House will cease interjecting.
Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order on direct relevance. I asked about their plans to privatise Medicare.
Mr Joyce interjecting—
Mr Pyne interjecting—
Deputy Prime Minister and Leader of the House, I would actually like to respond to the point of order, if I could. The question had a long preamble. The Leader of the Opposition did ask a specific question at the end, but the Prime Minister is entitled to respond to the entirety of the question that is asked.
Ms Kate Ellis interjecting—
The member for Adelaide will not interject while I am addressing the House. The member for Adelaide is warned! The Prime Minister has the call.
The critical issue in dealing with bullying in schools and with ensuring that young people are not bullied in schools or online is to focus on that clearly and to speak about it with respectful language. The way the Leader of the Opposition has sought to extract partisan advantage from this is thoroughly unworthy. The way that he has sought to describe any critic of the Safe Schools program as being an extremist or an ideologue or worse is utterly unworthy and he should recognise that inflaming this debate is unworthy. I repeat what I said the last time we discussed this—
Ms Kate Ellis interjecting—
The member for Adelaide has already been warned.
and I address this to every member of this House: all members expressing views on this program should choose their words carefully and remember the impact their statements can have on young people and their families.
As far as Medicare is concerned—one of the other matters he raised—the government, of course, is not privatising Medicare. What a pathetic scare! The government spends over $20 billion a year on Medicare. We are totally focused on the success of Medicare. We want to ensure that it delivers its support and services to Australians more efficiently and with the technologies they use every day, so we are looking at digital platforms, as any responsible government should.
I seek leave to table a document from the West Australian entitled 'Federal government's plan to outsource health services: private Medicare'.
Leave not granted.
My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer please update the House on how the government is supporting the transition from the mining boom, to the investment boom, to a more diversified economy? Is the Treasurer aware of any threats to this transition, and what impact would higher taxes have on hardworking Australians who are working, saving and investing in our new economy?
I thank the member for Solomon for her question. One of the key issues that the government is focusing on is ensuring the consolidation of our fiscal position and ensuring that the budget remains on that strong path to reduce our expenditure as a share of the economy from 25.9 per cent down to 25.3 per cent, which was outlined in the mid-year statement of December last year. I am pleased to say today that Fitch have given their report, and the AAA rating of the government has been confirmed—but they raise an important point. They say that the outlook is stable, but, when they talk about future developments that could result in some change, they say that the thing that we should be focused on is ensuring that there is not a sustained widening of the fiscal deficit without remedial policy actions. Those on this side of the House have policy actions to ensure that we remain—
Mr Dreyfus interjecting—
I have asked the member for Isaacs to cease interjecting.
on that credible and solid path to ensure that we are reducing expenditure as a share of the economy. The strength of the government's fiscal position is one of great confidence to the economy, because we know that consumer sentiment has risen 11 per cent in the last six months and that consumer confidence in the economic outlook for the next 12 months is up over 20 per cent. We know from the employment figures today that the unemployment rate has fallen to 5.8 per cent in the last month. There are 114,000 additional jobs and a growth rate of employment of 2.1 per cent. Most importantly, in the last six months the youth unemployment rate has fallen from 12.8 per cent to 12.2 per cent.
But to ensure that we keep this fiscal consolidation on track the thing we should not do is the thing that those opposite would do if they got control of the treasury bench. Those opposite want to add another $60 billion of expenditure to the government's figures. That includes $13.4 billion in savings that they refuse to support in this parliament, some $11.4 billion worth of new expenditure that they have announced since the last budget and almost $35 billion of expenditure on measures that they are suggesting to the Australian people they would reverse if they came into government. That is some $60 billion, which is equivalent to almost one per cent of GDP, that those opposite want to put on outlays.
Do you know how they are going to pay for that $60 billion? They have come up with just over $1 billion in savings! But they also have some taxes. Those opposite think announcing a tax increase is a substitute for a policy, but it is just a tax increase. Some $7 billion in additional taxes is what those opposite are proposing. Of course, that includes a 50 per cent increase in capital gains tax on investment—the last thing a transitioning economy needs. (Time expired)
My question is to the Prime Minister. Isn't it the case that, as the Prime Minister gives in to his backbench on policy after policy, the only option that the Prime Minister has left is more extreme cuts, like the Medicare cuts in the Abbott government's 2014 budget? Will the Prime Minister today rule out cutting dental care for millions of Australian children?
The commitment of the government and of our health minister—
She wants to cut it.
The member for Sydney is warned!
who, as we know, is at the Pharmacy Guild today—to the health of all Australians is recognised across the country. Every year we spend more and more on health. Every year we work hard to ensure that we can get a better outcome for our health dollar, whether it be—
Ms Plibersek interjecting—
The Prime Minister will resume his seat. The member for Sydney continues to interject. I warned her not more than 30 seconds ago. If she continues to interject, she will be ejected from the chamber under 94(a). I want to make it clear. You do not have a right to ask a question and then continually interject through the answer. The Prime Minister has the call.
As honourable members are aware, tackling dental health issues early is absolutely vital. It alleviates more significant problems and expenses later in life. As honourable members are also aware, the Child Dental Benefits Schedule is nowhere near meeting its target, with only around 30 per cent of eligible children accessing the scheme—yet another example of Labor overpromising and underdelivering.
We are working on dental reform. As part of that, it is only natural that the government consider the effectiveness of current programs. Every program's effectiveness has to be examined regularly. We have a responsibility to ensure that every dollar we invest in dental services delivers the best health outcomes possible. We want to ensure that funding is targeted to where it is needed most.
Honourable members should recall that the previous Labor government locked in funding for the dental NPA at the relevant levels of $69 million in 2012-13, $155 million in 2013-14 and $119 million in 2014-15. As we announced in the 2015 budget, the government extended the NPA for 12 months at the highest level of that NPA. In 2015-16 the government committed to $155 million. So we have extended the dental NPA for a year while we consider options to reform public dental care. We are committed to good dental health and good dental care, but we have to ensure that we are getting the most effective outcomes for the taxpayer dollar.
Honourable members should not, in their efforts to raise health issues here, abandon fiscal responsibility. They should recognise that our objective is to ensure that we have strong health outcomes funded in the most effective way so we can get the best outcomes for the taxpayer dollar.
Except for kids.
Mr Pyne interjecting—
The Leader of the House will cease interjecting. The member for Sydney will leave under 94(a). She completely ignored me. The only reason I did not do this midway through the answer is that I did not want to interrupt. The member for Sydney will leave immediately. There are many members who I ask to cease interjecting and they listen and they cease interjecting. All members are equal in this House. I will not have any member ignore rulings that I make.
The member for Sydney then left the chamber.
My question is to the Treasurer. Treasurer, the people of Wodonga are very disappointed that you are not able to talk to them tomorrow. They have asked me to ask you on their behalf about what the government is going to do about reducing the impact of red tape, particularly as it impacts on cross-border businesses. Can you give a commitment to pay attention to making a Commonwealth action to reduce cross-border anomalies for the people and specifically the businesses of Wodonga?
I thank the member for the question. I was very much looking forward to being in Wodonga tomorrow but, as the member would know, members will need to be here in the parliament. If the offer is there, I would be happy to get to Wodonga and be able to join my good friend Sophie Mirabella, who is running again in the seat of Indi to provide an opportunity for those who are in Indi to see a good government member returned to the government ranks and to ensure that those voices are heard. I really want to commend former member for Indi Sophie Mirabella on the great work she is doing in her campaign—listening to the people out there in Indi. She has put together a very extensive range of events to go and listen to those constituents.
But the issue that the member has raised relates to regulation reduction. I hope the member would acknowledge that one of the things that has happened on this side of the House over the last 2½ years has been the significant reduction in red-tape burden on business, particularly small business, in this country—to the tune of billions and billions and billions. But the thing is, what we know about red-tape reduction and reducing regulation is you know that every piece of regulation has to be fit for purpose and it has to do its job. That is why this government has had a completely open door for recommendations to come forward as to how that regulation burden can be reduced.
Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order of relevance. The question went to cross-border anomalies.
The Treasurer has the call. The Treasurer is—
I was addressing the issue of regulation. Some $4.5 billion in compliance and other regulatory costs have been removed by this government. Some 10,000 pages of regulation have been cleared away to ensure that businesses across the country can get on with their jobs. Regarding an issue of cross-border regulation, and particularly where those issues might deal with state and territory jurisdictions, they are things that are properly addressed through the COAG process, which the Prime Minister has been a strong leader on in terms of getting those sorts of economic reform agendas on the COAG agenda. We are very open to the proposals when it comes to reducing regulation in this country. We have $4½ billion worth of regulatory savings that back our record up on that and more than 10,000 pages of regulations that have been removed to support that position.
I am sorry that, at this stage, I will not be able to be in Wodonga tomorrow. I would love to be there with Sophie Mirabella, who would make an outstanding return to the House as the member for Indi.
My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources. Will the Deputy Prime Minister update the House on how the government's reform of competition law will help small business in my electorate of Flynn and drive innovation and jobs growth in Queensland more broadly?
Particularly in New England.
The member for Hunter will cease interjecting.
I thank the honourable member for his question. It is very pertinent that it comes from the honourable member for Flynn, because he has a background that has involved small business. He was part of a petroleum transport business; he has been in the dairy business; and he has been in the mixed crops, beans, peas, peanuts and grains business. He has been in a range of small businesses, and that is because he obviously understands the benefits that come from being in small business: that opportunity to progress through the social and economic stratifications—to start at the bottom in life and make your way to the top.
To exist, survive and thrive in that environment we must have fairness. Fairness is what this side of the House is about—making sure that the over two million small businesses that employ over 4½ million people survive and thrive, because that is where the ingenuity comes from. That is where the dynamism comes from. That is where the hope and the aspiration comes from. That is what drives so many people on this side of the chamber into politics.
I do acknowledge the member for Hunter, who was a small businessperson, with about 10 years as an auto-electrician. But, for the life of me, after that it gets a bit thin on the ground as to who on that side have actually been involved in small business—so their understanding of this aspiration is very limited, and that is why the Labor Party will not be supporting our changes for small business. That is why they do not share the dream of people going through the social stratification by the sweat of their brow to make it from the bottom to the top.
Mr Bowen interjecting—
The member for McMahon mocks it. He is supposed to be the shadow Treasurer, but he mocks the idea that someone can start from the bottom and make it to the top. He does not believe in people getting ahead. He believes it all should be done by the corporate manual of big business and big unions. They are the party of big business and big unions.
But I am very happy that we will always be looking after fairness. I can see the Leader of the Opposition has a bit of vim about him at the moment. He has a bit of spark about him. This morning I was watching the member for Jagajaga's speech on poverty, and the Leader of the Opposition had a bit of a snooze—a little sleepy boo—through the speech. He is very alive now. He is very awake now, but he was a bit sleepy during the speech on poverty. We actually believe in fairness, so we are going to make sure that we stand up for small business. We are not going to be sleeping through it. We will not be sleeping through the member for Jagajaga's speech. We will be making sure we get fairness for people in small business and also that fairness for people dealing with poverty is dealt with properly.
What does Paul Grimes think?
I have asked the member for Hunter to cease interjecting.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Is it not the case that as the Prime Minister caves in to his conservative backbench on issue after issue, the only option that the Prime Minister has left is more extreme cuts, just like the Medicare cuts in the Abbott government's 2014 budget? Will the Prime Minister finally stand up to his conservative backbench and reverse his cuts to breast screening, MRIs and blood tests for cancer patients?
It is great to be back sparring with my old friend. It is great to be back here with you. Economics has not always been Labor's strong suit. I do not want to surprise people here, but Labor has never been good at numbers. Let me go through the numbers of the increased expenditure in health under this government, each and every year into the future. It does grow every year, and, in fact, total government spending on health is projected to increase from $65.7 billion in 2014-15 to $68.7 billion this financial year and $75.2 billion in 2018-19. Would we want to increase expenditure in health beyond that? Yes, we would. But we inherited an enormous debt from Labor, and they make it very hard to spend money on roads, health and education because when they were in office they spent every dollar and much, much more.
We are increasing health expenditure each year and we will put more money into many areas across the Health portfolio because we want a healthier nation. We accept that we are an ageing nation. Each year we put more money into the Health portfolio. Labor can get up and pretend something is different if they want to in every question during question time, but the numbers show that they do not understand the basic facts when it comes to this government's investment in health. It grows each and every year.
I seek leave to table the MYEFO budget cut of $650 million to pathology and diagnostic imaging—punishing cancer patients.
Leave not granted.
My question is to the Minister for Small Business and Assistant Treasurer. Will the minister advise the House how the government is supporting the small businesses of Australia? How has the government's policy to improve competition and address the problem of misuse of market power been received by the community?
I would like to very much thank the member for Corangamite for her question. She is indeed an incredibly powerful advocate for the more than 11,700 small businesses in her community and the many thousands of people that they employ. She has been a powerful advocate as well in this place for the strengthening of protections against anticompetitive conduct. That is what we announced in this place yesterday: the strengthening of the misuse of market power provisions. It has been received with almost universal acclaim. Let me quote. The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry said in their heading to their press release yesterday, 'Fixing section 46 a triumph for sound policy'. The press release said:
... fixing section 46 will promote merit-based competition.
The consumer group Choice said:
The changes to the law will fix section 46 of the Act to put consumer welfare at its heart ...
They went on to say:
When there is effective competition in any market, this is good for consumers. In the best circumstances, it means more options and lower prices ...
There Australian Industry Group said:
The federal government's decision to adopt an ethics test is rightly focused on protecting the competitive process rather than on protecting individual competitors. This focus is critical if we are to lift our emphasis on innovation and to encourage investment by business of all sizes.
One might wonder why it is that those opposite do not support free enterprise, do not support small business, do not support innovation and do not support the strengthening of competition laws.
Peter Strong, a ferocious campaigner for small business and CEO of the Council of Small Business Australia, said on radio this morning that he had a bit of an idea as to why they might have this view. He blamed the Shop Distributive and Allied Employees Association, the SDA, with which, he said, those opposite have a very cosy relationship, and also with big supermarkets. He said: 'They write the policy on competition for the Labor Party, and it has been like this for a while. I think in Latham's first book one of the comments he made was that he was trying to change competition policy and the comment was made that he can't do it because the SDA won't like it.' He went on to say: 'They are very powerful. One in 10 union members in Australia are in that union and they've got a lot of money that goes to the Labor Party. So we've been fighting them decades and yesterday we had a win.' Mr Strong is right. Yesterday, small business had a win. Yesterday, Australia had a win. Yesterday, competition policy was strengthened, and it was the result of this side of the House.
My question is to the Treasurer. Despite the Treasurer's talk, isn't it the case that the tax to GDP ratio is now higher than at any time under the former Labor government? Isn't this just another example of the government being all talk and no action?
I thank the member for his question on tax. I thank him for the question on tax because it gives me the opportunity to talk about tax policies that those opposite have described. If I go to the statement by the member for McMahon, he said that their policies on negative gearing and capital gains tax are 'sensible, moderate and well-thought-out policy'. It made me think: when was the last time that the shadow Treasurer, the member for McMahon, described policies in those terms? If you go back to a famous policy of his called Fuelwatch, he described it as a 'sensible thought-out plan'. He said:
We put our plans out there. We put our plans for FuelWatch which, all the objective evidence indicates, puts downward pressure on fuel prices by about 2 cents a litre at a cost of $20 million.
He said:
FuelWatch is a very good plan. We've put out our plan ...
And:
FuelWatch brings down petrol prices ...
This is the bit I like. He said this about Fuelwatch:
You've got to have a bit of credibility about this, you've got to weigh up the value of these plans.
But he did not stop there. He did not stop at Fuelwatch. He went through any number of other plans. Do we remember GroceryWatch?
Dr Chalmers interjecting—
The Treasurer will resume his seat for a second. The member for Rankin is warned! I just draw the Treasurer's attention to some earlier rulings I have made with respect to relevance. It is within order for ministers to draw analogies, but, as I have said, it is in the interests of direct relevance in the House that they remain on the policy topic. And whilst it is fine to draw an analogy—I am listening very closely—the analogy cannot be the whole answer.
There is their tax plan. When they were in government, remember the carbon tax? We could go through their tax reform plan. Do you remember this one? The Henry review. Let's go through it. There were 138 recommendations. I will go through them: (1) no, they did not do that; (2) they did not do that—I could keep going. But then I came to one that they actually decided to do. It was the only one. What was it? It was recommendation 45. It was the mining tax.
Honourable members interjecting—
It was going to raise billion and billions of dollars. It was going to build—
The Treasurer will resume his seat. Members on both sides will cease interjecting. The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order.
Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order under standing order 91(c) and 91(e). You gave a very specific direction to the Treasurer.
Mr Pyne interjecting—
If the Leader of the House wishes to address the point of order, I will always allow him to do so, but he needs to come to the dispatch box. If the Manager of Opposition Business had listened to my previous ruling, I was referring to the non-tax elements of the Treasurer's answer. The Treasurer is on the topic of tax, and I am still listening very closely.
The opposition do not like to talk about the taxes they had in government. Of course, the mining tax was going to build all sorts of things and fund all sorts of promises. But, as the member for Lilley knows, it did not raise much money at all, did it? It was one of the amazing taxes that could not even raise any revenue. Here he comes—Zoolander!
The member for McMahon will resume his seat. The Treasurer will resume his seat. Everyone can resume their seats just for a second. I will recognise the member for McMahon on a point of order, but I am warning him that he will not come to the dispatch box and give directions.
And strike a pose.
Mr Pyne interjecting—
The Treasurer and the Leader of the House will cease interjecting.
Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order on direct relevance. The question was about tax to GDP ratio under his tenure. If he does not know the answer, he should say so and sit down.
The member for McMahon will resume his seat. That was not a point of order.
It is not just things like the mining tax which did not generate revenue, which was their tax plans. There was also the bank deposit tax, which the member opposite was the architect of. That was another careful, well thought out plan! And there was their plan to tax people's cars, which they put before the election and we had to abolish when we came to government.
It is very hard to follow such a good answer as that.
The member for Swan will come to his question.
My question is to the Minister for Trade and Investment. Will the minister advise the House what the government is doing to strengthen our trade and investment relationship with our important neighbour Indonesia?
I thank the member for Swan, who I know has a long-term interest in Australia's trade and investment relationship with Indonesia. As the Prime Minister outlined earlier in question time, I was very pleased to join with Indonesia's trade minister, Tom Lembong, yesterday to highlight that we will formally recommence discussions around a comprehensive economic partnership agreement between Indonesia and Australia. Historically, this relationship has been a little bit underdone. Indonesia is the 16th largest economy, yet it is only Australia's 12th largest trading partner, with trade worth around $14.8 billion, two-way trade in services worth around $3.8 billion and an investment stock of only around about $10 billion. There is so much more that we can do with respect to the relationship in trade and investment with Indonesia.
Those on this side of the chamber remember the dark days of the previous Labor government because of the kinds of knee-jerk policy reactions that the Labor Party took which, at the time, unfortunately, damaged that trade and investment relationship. So you can understand that, when I had the opportunity to sit down with the trade minister from Indonesia, I wanted to make sure that we were both on the same page with respect to putting that relationship back on track and maximising the opportunities that exist. The coalition is supremely focused on what we can do to ensure that, as the economy transitions away from the resources and energy boom, we build momentum on the great work that was done by my predecessor, Andrew Robb, with respect to the free trade agreements with the three North Asian powerhouse economies. We are doing that, and I believe that this announcement will be another key stepping stone.
But the question is: what was the precursor to getting this relationship back on track? I think that the trade minister, Tom Lembong, summed it up best when he said: 'I certainly share your excitement and optimism about the process we are now recommencing. I would like to add that this is a direct result of the excellent chemistry between President Jokowi and Prime Minister Turnbull. I think we are all benefiting from having two very business minded leaders leading our two countries, and I would add that I am struck by the vibrancy and the freshness that I think both leaders and, so far, both sides in this negotiation have brought to the table.'
What this makes clear is that, as we continue to transition, the coalition will remain steadfastly focused on driving jobs, driving growth and driving opportunities for Australian goods and services exporters because we know that is where the future lies. Unlike the knee-jerk policy response we have seen from previous Labor governments, the coalition will be a safe pair of hands to continue building on the great momentum that we have had in the trade and investment portfolio, and I am so pleased that this relationship under this Prime Minister is back on track.
My question is to the Treasurer. Despite the talk, is it not the case that the only actions the Abbott-Turnbull government has taken on income tax have been to freeze the tax-free threshold and increase the top tax rate? Doesn't this mean that the only action on income taxes taken by this Liberal government since the last election has been to increase the amount of income tax paid by Australians?
Ms Henderson interjecting—
The member for Corangamite will cease interjecting.
I thank the member for his question because it gives me the opportunity to run through what this government has been doing when it comes to tax. With regard to combating multinational tax avoidance, it was this government that brought that legislation into this House, and it was that opposition who voted against it. They are the ones who voted against cracking down on multinational tax avoidance, and they are the ones who have gone out there all hairy chested and hairy chinned to say how they oppose our position on strengthening competition laws—and I wonder who they are doing that in favour of.
In addition to that, there were measures in last year's budget, of course, to increase the instant asset write-off for small business, which was an important change. That is what we have done for small business. In addition to that, we have acted in this parliament to put in place tax incentives for angel investors—there was $106 million brought into this House just this week. In addition to that, as part of other measures, farm management deposits will double the deposit limit to $800,000 a year. These are the sorts of changes that we have been putting in place. Of course, in addition to these measures we have reversed the carbon tax of those opposite. We have reversed the mining tax.
Ms Owens interjecting—
The member for Parramatta will cease interjecting. The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order.
Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order on direct relevance. The question referred to one form of taxation only, income tax, and challenged the Treasurer that it has gone up under this government. On direct relevance, under the rulings you have previously given, he can say a number of things about income tax, but that does not give him licence to go to every other form of tax other than the one he was asked about.
Honourable members interjecting—
The Treasurer will resume his seat. Members will cease interjecting. I have heard the Manager of Opposition Business and I would like to respond to him without a wall of interjections, from both sides I have to say. The Treasurer, who I am listening to very closely, is halfway through the answer. I have made the point that ministers can draw analogies and I have made the point about the policy topic, but I do say to the Treasurer very clearly that, unlike some other questions that were being asked—and this is not a criticism of the questions—that question did not contain a preamble or any other material. So I am listening to the Treasurer closely and I would invite him to be relevant to the question. The Treasurer.
Thank you, Mr Speaker. Particularly to the point, I can say that there was income tax relief for Australian Defence Force personnel deployed overseas.
Mr Bowen interjecting—
The member for McMahon says, 'Well done!' Apparently this is not a matter that the member for McMahon thinks is of any consequence in that we would actually work to give tax relief for Australian Defence Force personnel working overseas. Apparently this is not an issue that those opposite think to be of any consequence. Employee share schemes are reversing the pernicious measures that were put in place by the member for McMahon. When it comes to personal income tax measures, we on this side know the challenges and burdens which are faced by people who are paying higher and higher rates of income tax. We understand that, and we understand that the best way to deal with that is to grow the economy so that you can grow revenues to support changes. That is the way you do it, and that is what the government are seeking to do. We will focus our changes on things that will drive investment. As we have considered many tax measures over the course of the last six months there has been a golden rule—it has to drive growth and it has to drive jobs. These are the benchmarks that we set against the tax measures of this government. The measure that those opposite put on tax changes is: how much money can they get? How much more money can they get to ramp up expenditure, as they always do? (Time expired)
My question is to the Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science representing the Minister for Employment. Will the minister outline to the House the government's commitment to ensure that employer and employee organisations always act in the best interest of their members? What hurdles exist to improving productivity in the building and construction industry?
I thank the member for Robertson for her question. She, like the government, is very committed to cleaning up the union movement in Australia and she is also committed to improving productivity in the building and construction industry. She is also committed to supporting honest union leaders who do the right thing by workers and to getting rid of the bad union leaders who give them all a bad name. The government has introduced the Registered Organisations Commission bill and the Australian Building and Construction Commission bill because they support honest union leaders, they will improve productivity in building and construction and they will root out dishonest, corrupt union leaders.
The only people opposing this legislation are the Labor Party. The Leader of the Opposition and the Labor Party are blocking these bills in the Senate. Make no mistake, this will be an issue at the next election because it is vitally important that these bills pass. The Leader of the Opposition was on the ABC's 7.30 on Tuesday night. He was there defending the CFMEU. I was absolutely shocked. He strongly, enthusiastically supported the CFMEU. This is despite the fact that Dyson Heydon said in the royal commission that the disregard for the law was a longstanding malignancy or disease in the CFMEU.
Ms Kate Ellis interjecting—
The member for Adelaide, you have already been warned.
Justice Jessup of the Federal Court described the CFMEU as the:
… worse recidivist in the history of the common law.
This is the worst union in the country, yet the Leader of the Opposition was endorsing and supporting them on Tuesday night on 7.30. Three times Leigh Sales asked him to reject donations from the CFMEU because of the cloud hanging over them since the royal commission. Three times Leigh Sales asked him about donations from the CFMEU and he did not answer the question at any point. There has been $7 million of donations given to the Labor Party since 2007-08 by the CFMEU. We know, of course, why Labor Party will not act on the Registered Organisations Commission and on the Australian Building and Construction Commission, because the CFMEU are deeply involved and ingrained in the core of their organisation. If Labor win the next election, the CFMEU win. If Labor win the next election, the CFMEU are back at the cabinet table. Just like we have seen in Victoria with the Daniel Andrews government and just like we have seen in the ACT with the Barr government, if Labor win the next election, the CFMEU win.
Mr Husic interjecting—
Mr Conroy interjecting—
Mr Champion interjecting—
The member for Chifley will cease interjecting. The member for Charlton will also cease interjecting, as will the member for Wakefield.
My question is to the Treasurer. Despite all the talk since you became Treasurer, private sector wages growth is the lowest it has been since records began, while living standards have fallen for a record seventh consecutive quarter. Isn't this yet another case of the Liberal government being all talk and no action?
I know those opposite do not share the view of those on this side of the House that the Australian economy is transitioning well and that it is growing at a rate of three per cent real a year. It is actually Australians who are out there every day working, saving and investing to ensure that transition takes place successfully. Today we have had the announcement of the figures which show that unemployment has fallen. Have you heard those opposite say: 'That's welcome. We'd love to see unemployment falling'? Today we had the announcement that youth unemployment has fallen. Youth unemployment, under this government, is lower than it was at the last election.
And on this side of the House we have seen consumer confidence raised by 11 per cent in the last six months. We have seen confidence in the forward look of the next 12 months in our economy rise by more than 20 per cent. We have seen service exports rise by over eight per cent. Despite the global volatility, despite the uncertainty that is out there, there is a resilience and a strength in the Australian economy that those opposite would seek to deride.
Obviously, it is true that in these difficult headwinds—that are faced right around the world and also here in Australia—we have seen a very modest level of income growth. That is true. Those opposite might not have noticed it but the terms of trade have fallen 30 per cent off their peaks and they have returned to the long-run average. Those opposite might not have noticed that we are in a transition from the mining investment boom through to a more diversified economy, but the truth about it is that it is working. It is working and it is Australians who are out there making those sacrifices every day that is making it work. It is the small businesses and the medium-sized businesses that are out there making it work every day. We want to lower the burden of taxation on them, wherever we can, to help the earners in this country do better. That is the focus of this government because that is what you need to do to drive jobs and growth in this economy. Last year, around 300,000 extra jobs. And I am asked about full-time employment, and what has happened there. I think it about 15,000 extra jobs when it comes to full-time employment. We have more full-time jobs in these latest figures. We have unemployment coming down. We have consumer confidence going up. We have a real rate of growth in this country, which is the envy of the developed world.
Mr Brendan O'Connor interjecting—
The member for Gorton is warned.
The member for McMahon, coming up here in his audition for Voguemagazine, wants to actually talk down the economy. Well, the Australian people will not be intimidated out of their prosperity by an opposition who has no plan for jobs and growth. They will not be intimidated out of their prosperity because they know that on this side of the House we have the plan for jobs and growth, and it is about ensuring that we drive investment in this transitioning economy. (Time expired)
My question is to the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection. Will the minister advise the House of the work being done to make our community safer by strengthening visa cancellation provisions for noncitizens and is there an alternative approach?
I thank the honourable member for her question. She is very keen to make sure that her local community is a safer place for families to grow up in and for people to retire to and to enjoy their retirement without being harassed by criminals. We have presided over an arrangement where noncitizens in this country have had their visas cancelled at an increasing rate if they have been involved in crime. We do not apologise or step back from that for one moment. In fact, I have been very consistent in saying that this government is determined to not only secure our borders but to also make sure that we can make our communities a safer place.
We have cancelled now over 1,000 visas of noncitizens who have been involved in all sorts of crime, including: sexual assaults, armed robbery, assaults against people in their homes and burglaries. There are a whole of range of crimes, as you would expect. In addition to that, we have cancelled the visas now of 84 organised crime figures, people who are involved in bikie gangs.
I am asked about alternative policies. I informed the House earlier in the week, that whilst we have presided over children coming out of detention, whilst we have stopped boats at sea, whilst we have emptied detention centres, whilst we have stared down the people smugglers—I will just get a glass of water for my throat. I was interjecting a little too much earlier on; I am paying for my earlier sins. I am sorry, Mr Speaker.
Mr Bowen interjecting—
I am going to come to you next, sunshine, don't worry. Do you know where we are headed? We are talking about your time when you were the immigration minister and you were a complete failure—as you were when you were Treasurer and as you are now as shadow Treasurer trying to implement this crazy policy of negative gearing and of driving down house prices and of driving up rents.
Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. The minister ought to address his remarks through the chair.
Mr Pasin interjecting—
The member for Barker will cease interjecting, as will others around him. The member for Griffith will not make frivolous points of order.
That is a killer blow, Mr Speaker. Not only did the member for McMahon preside over the worst period in immigration history in this country—where people drowned at sea and thousands of kids went into detention—let us go to what he did next: he also opposed our moves to tighten the visa character test, which we have now presided over and which saw people kicked out of this country. When he was the minister, he opposed moves by the Liberal Party. He opposed those moves. We sought to strengthen it. He opposed it. We have kicked out bikies. He supported bikies. We kicked out—
Mr Speaker, on a point of order: the standing orders are not complex. He should address—
The member for Gellibrand will resume his seat and is warned.
Mr Speaker—
The member for Hindmarsh will resume his seat. The member for Gellibrand, if he wishes to raise a point of order, will state the point of order. A repetition of that will see him ejected from the House.
Mr Ewen Jones interjecting—
The member for Herbert is warned. The minister has nine seconds.
This government has secured our borders. We have kicked out criminals at a record rate, and we were opposed at every move by those opposite. (Time expired)
My question is to the Treasurer. I refer to the Treasurer's previous positions on tax and their current status: increase the GST—shelved; never increase tobacco excise—gone; deal with the excesses in negative gearing—dead; never increase super tax—buried; cut personal income taxes—cremated. Isn't it the case that the only policies that this government really believes in are the extreme cuts, including those in the 2014 budget?
I thank the member for his question. He raised many particular issues. One of those he raised was on superannuation. I note that in July 2013—this is when the member was in government—he said this:
The Rudd Labor Government—
That is what it was at the time—
will make no major changes to superannuation tax policy for five-year periods, promoting confidence and stability in the superannuation system.
I remind the member that it is not five years since he made that statement. But if he wants to make points about changes of position, or things of this nature—when he was on these benches, he said that he would not change superannuation for five years. That is what he said.
Now there are legitimate issues that the government is looking at. Six months ago the Prime Minister had us look at these matters, and that is what we have been doing. But I tell you the difference between what this side of the House does when we look at things like superannuation and what those on that side of the House do.
Mr Dreyfus interjecting—
The member for Isaacs is warned.
On this side of the House we are interested in making superannuation have more choice, be more flexible, be more fit for purpose for the working patterns of the 21st century, be fairer, be more targeted—and that is what we are working on. What we would like to see is a superannuation system where all workers can decide where their money goes and where it is saved. What we would like to see is a superannuation system where there are independent directors that sit on boards and oversight the money of those workers. But those opposite do not believe in this. When they look at superannuation they do not want to make it better; they just want to tax it more. That is all they want to do. The only thing they want to do when it comes to superannuation is tax it more.
You may ask yourself: why do they want to tax superannuation more? Because they just want to spend more. They just want to spend more and more and more. They have learnt nothing in their time in opposition that would give anybody any reason to think that they have earned the right to even put forward a proposition that would have them return to these benches. They have learnt nothing about their high levels of spending. In fact, they would propose $60 billion of additional expenditure over and above what is currently in the budget and forward estimates—and to pay for that they propose just $1 billion in savings and $7 billion in extra taxes.
How many more taxes will those opposite have to put on to keep pace with their addiction to spending? Taxing and spending is not a plan for jobs and growth. It is a threat to the transitioning economy that is going to underpin growth in jobs in this economy. That is why they cannot be trusted to manage the successful transition of the Australian economy.
Before I call the member for Herbert, if members could just pause for a second, I want to address some remarks to the member for Griffith. During the minister for immigration's answer it was very loud in the chamber, and I was attempting to listen to some interjections. I have consulted with the Clerk and I want to say to the member for Griffith—and I do not want her to be shocked—that I think she had a valid point of order, and ministers will direct their remarks through the chair.
My question is to the Minister for Social Services. Will the minister update the House on how the government will secure the future of the National Disability Insurance Scheme? How will an NDIS benefit the people of Queensland, including in my electorate of Herbert and my city of Townsville?
I thank the member for Herbert for his question. As he is aware, yesterday the Prime Minister and the Queensland Premier signed the agreement which will be the transitional bilateral for Queensland. Ninety-one thousand participants in Queensland now have complete certainty about the rollout of the NDIS in Queensland. What that means is that NDIS bilaterals have been signed with South Australia, Tasmania, New South Wales, Victoria and the ACT. This means that 85 per cent of the 460,000 Australians with a disability who are expected to be eligible have complete certainty as we move forward to the full rollout of the NDIS in 2019.
At full-scheme rollout, the bill for the NDIS will be $22 billion a year. Yesterday in this place the government introduced the National Disability Insurance Scheme Savings Fund Special Account Bill, which will create a special account to make up for the fact that, most unfortunately, the member for Lilley did not leave enough secure and identifiable money for the scheme. Now, you may know the answer, Mr Speaker—
I say to the minister: I am not here to answer questions.
to this multiple-choice question. Which of the following is true: (a) the member for Lilley delivered four surpluses in one night; (b) the member for Lilley raised $11 billion from the mining tax in two years; (c) the member for Lilley provided a secure, identifiable source of funds to fully provide for the $11.3 billion NDIS; (d) the member for Lilley was named world's best Treasurer? In an excruciating twist of irony, the only one of those four that it is true is the final one.
The member for Lilley claims that a missing $5 billion actually exists. The Commonwealth government will be committed to $11.3 billion worth of funding to the NDIS. Of that, $1.1 billion comes from existing Commonwealth funding, $3.3 billion from the Medicare levy and $1.9 billion from existing specialist disability services. That leaves a gap of $5 billion. We have created an account into which we will place identified—
Mr Swan interjecting—
The member for Lilley will cease interjecting and using unparliamentary terms.
savings to the tune of $5 billion over the next period of three years, to 2019. If members opposite do not believe that this is required, will they seriously vote against a bill that creates a special account for where savings can be identified and secured to pay for the NDIS? That will be the test of their mettle on this. Will they support a bill that funds the NDIS?
Mr Bowen interjecting—
Mr Nikolic interjecting—
The member for McMahon will resume his seat. The member for Bass will resume his seat.
Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Given your admonition earlier about taking my points of order from the dispatch box rather than my seat—
It is the only place you can take them, I say to the Leader of the House!
I have approached the dispatch box. I would ask that you ask the member for Lilley to withdraw the unparliamentary statements he was making during the minister's answer. He knows they are unparliamentary. I ask that he withdraw them.
The Leader of the House will resume his seat. This is not a criticism of the Leader of the House, but I was about to do that at the conclusion of the answer rather than interrupt the answer. I say to the member for Lilley that he knows the words he was using are unparliamentary. I ask him to withdraw.
I will not withdraw. It is a lie.
I say to the member for Lilley, it is—
Mr Hunt interjecting—
The Minister for the Environment will not interject. I have asked the member for Lilley to withdraw. All members who have used those words have been asked to withdraw.
I will not withdraw. It is a lie.
I name the member for Lilley!
I move:
That the member for Lilley be suspended from the service of the House.
The question is that the motion moved by the Leader of the House be agreed to.
The honourable member for Lilley is suspended from the service of the House for 24 hours under standing order 94(b).
The member for Lilley then left the chamber.
I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
Mr Speaker, under standing order 105(b), relating to where replies have not been received 60 days after a question has first appeared on the Notice Paper, I ask you to write to the Treasurer regarding questions in writing Nos 1660 and 1661 and to the Minister for Health regarding question in writing No. 1747 seeking reasons for the delay in answering.
I thank the member for Indi. I will write to the ministers in the usual way.
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 move:
That leave of absence to be given to every member of the House of Representatives from the determination of this sitting of the House to the date of its next sitting.
Question agreed to.
by leave—I move:
That standing order 31 (automatic adjournment of the House) and standing order 33 (limit on business after normal time of adjournment) be suspended for this sitting.
Question agreed to.
Regarding the management of the House, it will not surprise colleagues to hear that the Senate is not being as helpful as the House of Representatives would like it to be and the likelihood is that it will sit well into the night and into the early hours of the morning—although sometimes the senators do not find their speeches as exciting at 1 am as they thought they were going to when they wrote them at 9 am, so we will see if they start to change their minds about that. I am in constant communication with the managers of government business in the Senate, and their view—
Mr Albanese interjecting—
They like me very much, actually—not as much as you like me, it is true!
The Leader of the House does not have to respond to interjections, no matter how provocative they are.
The likelihood is that they will sit into the early hours of the morning. My instinct is that we should continue to sit here in the House of Representatives and review the situation in the early evening, and I have discussed this with the Manager of Opposition Business. We will probably then suspend the sittings until the ringing of the bells, which means we could either come back tonight, if the Senate does deal with the matter expeditiously, which is unlikely, or come back first thing tomorrow morning and deal with it briefly in the House of Representatives. There are different views on both sides about that matter. Most people would like to get out of the House and be on the early morning planes tomorrow, but that might just not be possible. I intend to keep the Manager of Opposition Business informed of the movements today, but most likely is that we will suspend in the early evening and then come back when the bells ring first thing tomorrow morning.
I thank the Leader of the House for the update.
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's cuts to 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—
In Mr Turnbull's very first economic statement, he went after cancer patients and patients with chronic disease. Now, in his very first budget, as confirmed here at question time, he is after kids' teeth. There is quite literally no group of Australians, no matter how weak, no matter how poor, no matter how sick, that this Prime Minister will not attack when it comes to health funding. Why? Because the Prime Minister who promised so much is so weak that he cannot even consider serious tax reform, and he is forced by the extremists in his party and the Nationals to once again attack the weak, attack the sick and attack the poor by now attacking kids dental care.
Just when you thought that, after $60 billion in health cuts in their first two years—including a $57 billion cut from hospitals, which has been confirmed by Treasury; the GP tax; and prescription price hikes—they could not possibly get any worse, Mr Turnbull showed that, when it came to health cuts, Tony Abbott was a wimp. He went where even the former Prime Minister refused to go. In his very first economic statement, he attacked cancer patients and others with chronic conditions with his $650 million of cuts to bulk-billing incentives for pathology and diagnostic imaging. Now driven by the extremists in the Liberal and National parties, he is going to use his very first budget, as confirmed in question time today, to attack the Child Dental Benefits Schedule.
Labor's $2.7 billion dental program has provided one million Australian children with affordable dental care over the past two years. Many of these are children whose parents have never previously been able to afford dental care for their kids. Labor initiated the scheme, following alarming reports from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare that 42 per cent of five-year-olds and 61 per cent of nine-year-olds had experienced decay in their baby teeth and 58 per cent of 14-year-olds had experienced permanent tooth decay. More than half of all Australian teenagers have permanent tooth decay. Why? Because in many cases their families could not afford to go to see a dentist. This was a shameful outcome in a country as wealthy as Australia, with a health system that in all other respects is the envy of the world.
So, in our 2013 budget, we announced a scheme to provide eligible children with up to $1,000 in dental treatment every two years to ensure that their teeth get checked and they do not suffer these terrible dental problems later in life. It has been an outstanding success. That is not my description; that is the verdict of this government's own health department. In its report released earlier this month—which, for some strange reason, the government has never sought to publicise and never put out a press release about!—it said:
In particular, the Panel noted the success of the CDBS—
the Child Dental Benefits Schedule—
in targeting the oral health of young Australians at an age where preventative measures can be most effective. It supported the right of every child to access dental treatment from both the private and the public sectors. The Panel agreed that it would make clear recommendations to Government to ensure the ongoing success and effectiveness of the CDBS.
However, the report did have some criticisms to make—not of Labor's scheme but of this wretched government that has sought to undermine the scheme by in fact hiding it from parents.
Think of all the times in the last few weeks you have seen a TV ad for the Prime Minister's catchphrase. Think of how many times you have seen that on a bus shelter and think of all those millions of dollars wasted on promoting a meaningless phrase by a Prime Minister who has proven to be anything but agile and innovative, let alone exciting. How many times do you think the Child Dental Benefits Schedule has been promoted on television or bus shelters anywhere in this country? Not once. How many times do you think the kids dental scheme has featured anywhere in this government's advertising program? Frankly, not once.
In fact, in the entire time it has been in existence under this government, it has been promoted in a single mail-out to family tax benefit recipients. No wonder that, when the government's review made 10 recommendations to improve the scheme, five of them—that is right; half of the recommendations—were telling the government to do more to promote it. Here again, I quote from the panel's report:
The Panel agreed that the CDBS has been poorly promoted, and noted that the current eligibility notification did not provide readily recognisable advice of an entitlement.
The plot here is so transparent it would have been knocked back by a reality TV program. They refuse to publicise the scheme; then they claim that it has not met the target because no-one knows about it; and then, when their own department says it is a success, helps a million kids and should be promoted more, they bury the report.
I am here today to tell every single member on the government benches that, if you thought the backlash in terms of the GP tax was a bit too hot for you to handle, what do you think is going to happen now with every single dentist in the country rallying behind this scheme and telling their patients? What do you think is going to happen? I have to feel a bit sorry for the backbench because they probably only found out about this happening in the same way the dentists did: they saw stories in the newspapers saying that this scheme was for the axe.
You would think that the backbench, after the GP tax, after the hammering they are getting on pathology and diagnostic imagery, after the cuts to hospitals, after seeing all of this month after month and after seeing that they are going to privatise Medicare payments in Western Australia—the paper up there has that front and centre—would be going to the health minister and saying, 'What are you doing? Having been hammered so much on health, having undermined Medicare and made it such an election negative, why on earth would you go after the Child Dental Benefits Schedule in the months leading up to an election campaign? Are you absolutely crazy?'
If you were a backbencher on the government side you would be shaking your head about why on earth they would go after this scheme. If you come for this program, which is providing, for the first time, affordable dental care for hundreds of thousands of kids, Labor will again stand in your way and we will have millions of parents standing there with us.
This is far from an isolated attack on dental care by this government. In its very first budget, the government ripped $390 million out of dental programs. There are more than 400,000 Australians today on public dental waiting lists, waiting to get their teeth fixed. In the 12 months prior to the Liberal government's first budget, those waiting lists started to fall significantly as a result of Labor's investment in public dental. That means thousands of people getting their teeth fixed and thousands of people no longer in pain—able to eat, talk properly and have good oral health—until this government came along and slashed that funding. What a joke!
We had the Prime Minister here saying, 'We want to support public dental better by cutting the successful child dental benefit scheme,' after slashing the public dental scheme and increasing waiting times on public dental. Really, you have got to be kidding! Then those opposite ripped some $225 million from Labor's programs to build dental clinics in regional Australia and in nursing homes. The Liberals and Nationals, who claim to represent regional communities, ripped money out of Labor programs to improve dental care in regional Australia. Because too many health cuts are never enough for the government, they backed that up again in the 2015 budget by ripping another $125.6 million from the Child Dental Benefit Schedule itself.
Now, once again, the government has the teeth of Australia's kids in its sights, confirming yet again that the Liberals only ever see health as a source for budget cuts. This confirms that after just six months on the job the member for Wentworth has been even more of a disaster for the health of Australians than the member for Warringah. He took Tony Abbott's $57 billion of cuts to hospitals and entrenched them in the budget. He took Tony Abbott's GP tax and added another $2.1 billion of his own in cuts to primary care. He has gutted crucial health workforce training programs by $595 million and ripped another $146 million out of prevention. Now we hear that he wants to come after the Child Dental Benefits Schedule program. We will stand in his way. Only Labor cares about the health of Australians. Only Labor cares about Medicare. Only Labor will defend, strengthen and protect it.
Congratulations to the shadow health minister for the beautifully read speech and congratulations to the person who wrote it. But, in reality, if she actually visited a dental surgery she would know that in this country we are getting little more than a lube and an oil check for those dental checks. That is one of the great challenges with Labor's model. The reality is that Labor's great idea of free dental has banned the use of bridges and other advanced dental techniques that are needed to fix the very teeth that the opposition health spokesperson is talking about. What is the point of having a Labor-designed dental scheme that bans the use of bridges and other important developments, such as crowns, for a child's teeth? How do you look an Aboriginal child in the eye and say, 'We're quite happy to scrape your teeth and to give you a fancy mouthwash and a floss, but if you need a bridge or a crown, sorry, that is not provided by the Commonwealth'? That is patently ridiculous. We need a dental scheme that will look for those with the most serious oral conditions and look after them.
I have already told you this week about Tasmania, where, if you have the effrontery to have a job, you are banned from dental health care. I can see Tasmanian members in this chamber now, and I have visited those cities where a young woman with an entry-level minimum-wage job with a mouth full of oral cavities is told, 'You are not eligible for state Labor support.' That is appalling. I can confirm for those listening in the gallery that our $155 million campaign, the national partnership agreement for dental care, is locked in place for 178,000 Australians. On top of that, there are the $200 million transfers to all states and territories, signed off last November.
We know that there is only one party in here that has an absolute inability to work with private dentists, and it is not this side. We know that there is one side of politics in here that ripped away the Medicare Chronic Disease Dental Scheme from those who needed it the most, and it was not this side. Let us be absolutely clear—
Opposition members interjecting—
I hear the accusations of overcharging. I do not think that there is any part of the health system that does not have a bit of overcharging, and if it occurs we will act and we will prevent it. But let us get one thing clear: 'Do we treat the poor or do we treat the sick?' is the ridiculous question that Labor asks itself. If you have some money in your pocket, you are not eligible for dental care, and that is a complete disgrace. If you are sick, you deserve care; I do not care what you are earning. And if you are sick, you deserve dental care; I do not care what you are earning. But the Labor Party rule that out completely. They think that a floss, a shine and a pick at kids' teeth represents dental care. You have no idea how the dental scheme works. You would not even know the visiting hours in hospital. There is not a single person over there with a shred of health economics knowledge. When you have that, come back and engage in this debate in a serious manner. Right now, all you care about is cost; we care about effectiveness. You care about cost; we care about value. You care about cost; and we care about the utility of health care.
Sometimes the system has to change. Sometimes you have to find a better way of doing it. Sometimes this great chamber has to move away from the ridiculous and puerile idea that if you are cutting or ripping then it cannot become a better system. Of course it can, but there is one caveat: if you remove money from the system, you put it back in a more efficient way. What did Labor say? I remember very well that the shadow spokesperson for health, who was in the chamber a few minutes ago, said on Sunday, 27 September 2015:
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.
Let us just fast forward to 6 January of this year:
Some of those savings did go back into the health Budget, not all of them.
That is right. This side is just as guilty as any political party of trying to find sensible savings to maintain one of the greatest health systems in the world. Sometimes you have to admit that $1 spent in one part of the health system could be slightly better spent somewhere else. But Labor do not get that, do they? Their notion is that the minute you touch something, goodness me, there might be a low-income Australian who cannot walk straight in, see their GP and be bulk-billed, where 80 per cent of them are, or go and get some diagnostic radiology and pathology, where 87 per cent of those services are bulk-billed. Let's hold on for a second: most people earning double the minimum wage are getting free health care, free diagnostic radiology and free pathology. This party has the effrontery to come in here and occupy time in this valuable chamber complaining about a one per cent change in bulk-billing and taking back some savings out of what is fundamentally two corporate providers of private pathology.
Listen to these flimsy heroes over there. They have barely one single serious connection with the private health sector, but listen to them jumping up and supporting major pathology corporates when it suits their political state of mind. They had no problem when they were in government ripping half a billion dollars out of pathology and boasting about it. They boasted about it! The minute that we try to do something that will drive better efficiencies in pathology, suddenly the Australian Labor Party are the great heroes of the corporates. It is wonderful to see the transition—they are pretty quick on their feet.
In reality, this mob over here, in six years of government, where the rubber really hits the road, never came up with anything that fundamentally improved the health system. What did they do? Eleven increased or new authorities. What were the fastest-growing things in health under their government? Water bubblers, executive toys, executive chairs and pot plants, because those guys could not wait to furnish the new bureaucracies here in Canberra that were going to transform the health system. But, if you were working out in Gundagai or down in Mungindi, you barely saw a change. You never saw a change in quality numbers, you never saw a change in specialist numbers and you never saw an improvement in access to care.
But they came up with plenty of Medicare Locals. That was pretty impressive, wasn't it? There were layers and layers of bureaucracy, health authorities talking about how to make a better health system and lots of fancy graphs and pie diagrams—you are very good at that too. You kept the government printer busy, that is for sure. But in reality, if you were on the front line, sitting down there in the Mater hospital, trying to see young kids who have a squint and hoping to get them on an unbelievably long state waiting list, Labor offered you nothing at all. If you had serious cavities in your teeth and you happened to have a job, Labor offered you nothing, because you were not poor enough. This extraordinary situation where Labor were rationing health care according to income was appalling.
Last of all, Labor nickelled and dimed private health cover, when before every election they said they would not—and, of course, 40 to 50 per cent of Australians saw their premiums going through the roof and wondered why. We get one chance in this world to get the health system right. This is one of the few nations utterly paralysed in the health debate, because this is the last political frontier where Labor are not collapsing in on themselves. This is the last topic of politics where Labor can talk to Australians and be given at least some credit that they might be able to run the system, but people who really know health know they cannot.
People who really know the system know that Labor are so wedded to not touching the fee-for-service bulk-billing system that they do not talk about any other topic. We cannot even get them to talk about hospital management. We cannot even get them to talk about diagnostic imaging and radiation oncology, where, under the public system, it is almost half as efficient as the private system. I know Labor are prepared to go down there and open the plaques and stand there for photos, but, at the same time, they are funding completely ineffective state hospital systems that are seeing patients at half the rate, and people are waiting twice as long to get treatment.
There is a serious side to all of this. It is not just about the billy banter from Young Labor and Young Liberal going on for generations. Ultimately, it is about a senior Australian who is diagnosed with cancer. At that moment, you really the test the system. How long will it take under a Labor process to get your first CT? What is the time to treatment for a poor Australian? The party on the other side, the Australian Labor Party, have never worked to reduce those times whatsoever. They have never made a strong private alternative for Australians, because they do not want to know that there is a private alternative.
Too many people have died too early because they were not able to get time to cancer treatment down. We need to get them seen quickly, with more specialists and with the best treatments. You do not do that by simply allowing costs to escalate. You do it by constantly looking around the health system, doing a flyover and asking what we can do better. I do not pretend to have all of the answers, but this country would be a fair bit better off if this place here could have a constructive debate, instead of these appalling motions going on and on about defending Medicare when it is utterly clear that, when Labor are in government, they do not.
Forget all the bluster and rubbish from the member for Bowman. I am going to give you the voice of the Australian people when it comes to their beliefs on Medicare and what this government has done. This is an email that I received in January this year from a constituent, Terry of Matraville. He writes: 'I had to go to Medicare for a simple expenses claim. When I entered, I expected a separate desk for each organisation. I asked someone where Medicare was, and she said, "Line up." The queue had about 20 people in it, so I decided to go home and try on the phone—without success, as the system was overloaded and would not take any more calls. I went home as I have bad knees and I cannot stand for any length of time.'
This email perfectly highlights this government's approach to Medicare. Terry had to go home and could not access Medicare services at the local Centrelink office, because two years earlier the Abbott government closed our local Medicare office in Eastgardens. They closed the office and merged the service with Centrelink. They said, 'Don't worry, there will be separate services when you come to Centrelink.' There are no separate services; people have to queue for one service. That is the result. Making life harder for people is what this government does.
They are doing this because, let's be frank, the Liberals and Nationals do not believe in Medicare. They never have and they never will. They see it as an intervention in a market. They see it as contrary to their conservative philosophy. They do not support Medicare. They want to water down Medicare and reduce its coverage. In the case of doing that, the Australian people are suffering.
Let's look at what they have attempted to do with Medicare since they came to government. In 2014, in their first budget, they tried to introduce a Medicare co-payment so that people would have to pay to visit their local GP. Never mind the fact that the actual effect of the Medicare co-payment is to increase overall health expenditure, because you are actually discouraging people from going to visit the doctor when they are sick—particularly people on low and middle incomes, and pensioners, who cannot afford the co-payment, so they do not go to the doctor and they get sicker and sicker. By the time that they have to go to hospital, it becomes acute care, which is much more expensive.
That is the approach that the Liberals took to Medicare in their first budget, but they could not get the co-payment through the parliament. What did they do in the wake of that? They continued the GP rebate freeze. They continued to freeze the rebate that goes to GPs when it comes to Medicare. In effect, they were introducing a co-payment through a sneaky, backdoor method, forcing GPs to charge a co-payment and to water down the universality of Medicare.
Now we have learned that the government plan to allow private health insurers into GP practices. Again, they are trying to end the universality of Medicare. They are continuing with this campaign to dilute Medicare. Just before Christmas we had the government introducing $650 million worth of cuts to bulk-billed pathology and diagnostic services. So patients, including cancer patients, will now pay up-front for MRIs, CAT scans and X-rays. Remember what I said at the beginning: they are making life harder for Australians and watering down and undermining Medicare. That is this government's approach to universal health coverage.
Their latest attack is quite despicable because they have determined that they are going to attack children by cutting the children's dental health scheme. The purpose of this scheme is quite simple. It is to provide dental health care for kids who have decay and holes in their teeth, whose teeth need fixing and whose parents cannot afford a trip to the dentist. The government scheme subsidises those children. It is a means-tested payment. So it is targeted to those families that cannot afford dental health care. A million children in this country have accessed the scheme, and what is this government's approach? They are going to cut it. What did the minister say when she was questioned about this? She said, 'There may be a better way to target funding.' That is code. That is Liberalspeak for, 'We do not believe in universal health care. We do not believe in Medicare. It is an intervention in the market and it is against our conservative values.'
The government have also cut $57 billion from the hospital budget. We are seeing the effects of that in my community, with cuts to the Prince of Wales Hospital. The government do not believe in Medicare. They have cut and watered down Medicare, and Australians will suffer.
I am really relishing this opportunity to talk about the hypocrisy of those on the other side when it comes to Medicare. They think they own Medicare because Gough Whitlam turned up with it. But who has increased spending and made it a more efficient system over the last few years? Let's start with the opposition's story about privatising Medicare that is designed to scare people. They think privatisation is some bogeyman that is coming. I might just quote the author of the Medibank and Medicare introductions in 1968. When he was talking about the privatisation of the nuts-and-bolts delivery of Medicare services like the back-of-house computer systems and tap-and-go technologies, John Deeble said:
It won't necessarily alter Medicare because it's the structure of Medicare—what money you get for what service—that matters, not who does the running of it.
That is what is happening here.
Business innovation happens all the time. Even Brian Owler, neurosurgeon and head of the AMA, made comments in the press last year that there needed to be some modernisation of the Medicare system. You can use tap and go in a coffee shop, but if you are trying to get your money from the Medicare system it is much less efficient. What is happening is that the marionettes here are responding to their puppetmasters in the Commonwealth Public Service Union who think their jobs might be threatened if there is a more efficient way of delivering the nuts and bolts of Medicare.
Let's look at the opposition's story about cuts to funding. I have looked at the papers for the forward figures for 2017-18 and there is a 21.5 per cent increase in Commonwealth funding for public hospitals. That is almost a one-fifth increase. That is $3.3 billion extra. To me, a cut means less next year then you had this year. But that is an increase. Going forward, payments to the states will be indexed to CPI. That is on the record. That is not a cut; that is an increase. The opposition are trying to drum up a scare campaign. That is all they can do. They will not take responsibility for the budgetary situation they left the country in. When we try to fix it, they try these emotional, scare based tactics. That is what they do. They run an emotional argument. They do not run a logical argument. We are all used to it, but some people in the press swallow it hook, line and sinker and do not question it.
Let's look at the dental system that the previous speaker spoke about. They mentioned the word 'children', as though that will pull on heartstrings. I can tell you what happened with the childhood dental scheme. It was criticised. The Chronic Disease Dental Scheme that the Labor Party dumped was actually delivering dental care. They replaced it with the childhood dental scheme. What happened? You had buses driving around the country and turning up outside schools, such as in my electorate, and getting all number of kids in, as the previous speaker said, for a wash, lube and oil change. Basically they got their teeth cleaned and had a couple of X-rays taken. The scheme used up all the money available and then said, 'Go down the road to the dentist.' So the kids turned up down there and there was no money left. It was the biggest scam. It was marketed as a breakthrough for kids, but there was not much actual dental care delivered. They just got a check, a clean with a high-speed brush and a lot of X-rays. All the money was used up. If they had cavities or needed other work, there was no money left to treat that. There was no way that complex stuff for people with really bad teeth was going to get done. The reality is that it was a failed scheme.
Not only that but we have increased funding to public dental schemes through the state agreements—$155 million was enough to treat 178,000 patients through the hospital dental scheme. In 2015-16 it was $200 million. We are delivering common-sense changes to the whole Medicare system. None of this emotional, scare driven campaign makes sense.
I cannot go without saying something about the scare campaign that we are cutting bulk-billing. Pathology and X-ray services got an incentive to increase bulk-billing rates, but that is the only bit that has changed. That is an efficiency. Bulk-billing continues— (Time expired)
The Turnbull government is obsessed with destroying Australia's universal health system. We see that through its $60 billion cuts to hospitals, the four-year freeze on Medicare rebates for GPs, the $650 million cuts to Medicare rebates for pathology and diagnostic imaging, cutting health workforce programs by $595 million, e-health and health prevention programs also cut by $146 million, the $1.3 billion hike on essential medicines, and now we also see the attacks on the child dental benefits scheme. After already cutting $125 million from the scheme—this is a $2.7 billion program implemented by the last Labor government—the Turnbull government now plans to abolish the scheme altogether. It is clear from the Prime Minister's response in question time today that that is what they have in mind.
This is a decision that will remove access of 3.4 million eligible children to a scheme that gives them $1,000 in dental care over two years. It is a program that, to date, has supported one million Australian children with dental services. The President of the Australian Dental Association, Dr Rick Olive, says about the cuts: 'This is bad policy, which the ADA is flabbergasted to hear about.' He went on to say that ending the child dental benefits scheme 'will significantly disadvantage children from low-income families, who we know have greater oral health needs'. South Australia has the highest child dental scheme uptake of all the states—38.4 per cent of eligible children used the scheme. In actual figures—in raw figures—87,000 South Australian children accessed this scheme. South Australia and Tasmania have the highest numbers of eligible children, reflecting the high disadvantage in parts of those states. Put simply: cutting the child dental benefit scheme would be another cruel cut which would hit the poorest and most disadvantaged the hardest.
Let us look at some of the other cuts, and I refer to the hospital cuts as well. The AMA's Public Hospital Report Card 2016 says about the cuts to public hospitals that 'waiting times have not improved and no progress has been made towards access and treatment targets'. We go on to the Diagnostic Imaging Association, who say about the cuts to their services: 'We are concerned that many Australians who don't know they have a treatable condition will now put off or choose not to seek a diagnosis because the up-front and out-of-pocket costs are likely to be prohibitive—an average $134 to $214 up-front and $14 to $94 out of pocket. These are conservative estimates.'
Those quotes peak for themselves. It is not just Labor who is concerned about these cuts; it is the professionals who work in the industry—such as the CEO of Primary Health Care Limited, when he talks about bulk-billing incentive cuts for pathology providers: 'Pathology providers no longer have any capacity to absorb further funding cuts without charging fees or reducing access to services. Australians don't want a co-payment by stealth.' They have had their payments frozen for 20 years, and yet this government is trying to bring in co-payments by stealth.
This government wants to destroy Australia's universal Medicare services and take us to a US-style health system where those who can afford treatment get it and those who cannot miss out. In recent times I have received numerous emails from people in my electorate who are concerned about the proposal to do away with Australia's Medicare system. People have woken up to the fact that that is what this government wants to do, and it is doing it by stealth, one step at a time. The reality is the government wants to do that for two reasons: (1) because it has never supported the universal health system that we have, and (2) because it wants to balance its budget mess on the back of the poorest people in this country. It has shown that it wants to do that by cutting family payments, by cutting education funding, by pushing university degrees to up to $100,000, by cutting legal aid, by cutting funds to pensioners and by cutting front-line services to the community. All of these cuts, every single one of them, hit the most disadvantaged in our community the hardest, and that is why Labor will oppose these cuts right through to the election and ensure that we do our best to protect the services that the Australian people need.
A responsible government recognises the need to keep Medicare sustainable—it has to be sustainable—and that is why we are taking sensible, fair and responsible measures. They have to be responsible. The period of the previous Labor government saw an absolute explosion in health costs. Since 2007, Commonwealth expenditure has grown by 46 per cent. Again, we have seen billions and billions in debt and deficit from the previous Labor government as a result. The pressure on the budget from Medicare, the PBS and public hospitals has been absolutely unrelenting, driven in part by the ageing population, chronic disease and higher costs. It has also been driven by increasing expectation. As medicine becomes more advanced it also becomes both more complex and more expensive. We can perform procedures today that a few short years ago would have seemed a bit like science fiction. We have a raft of new drugs that treat disease better and faster, but each one costs a small fortune to develop and get onto the market.
A large fortune.
A large fortune to get them onto the market, as the member for Herbert says. Chronic disease conditions that we once just lived with we now treat with surgical correction. For example, the growth in knee and hip replacement surgery has been exponential. Of course we should develop new techniques and new medicines, because this improves the quantity and quality of life for all Australians, and, in many cases, our work benefits the entire world. However, all of this improvement comes at a cost, and that cost never goes down, because once we start fixing one disease or condition another one takes prominence. It is a never ending issue, but one that must be managed.
Between Medicare, aged care and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, the Commonwealth processes over $42 billion worth of payment transactions every year. Ten years ago the MBS was costing $8 billion; today it is $20 billion and in 10 years time it will be around $34 billion. In 2013-14, 275 million Medicare services were provided free to the patient. This will cost the taxpayer more than $12.8 billion. In 2013-14, more than four out of five GP services were provided free to the patient, in spite of what those opposite say. That is more than 80 per cent. In 2014-15, Australians accessed more than one million MBS services every single day. This is the first time that this level has been reached in the history of Medicare.
In spite of Labor's scaremongering and hyperventilation, Australia enjoys a high and growing bulk-billing rate. That is how it is. It is Labor's failed management of expenditure growth that has left us where we are today. The coalition is spending more money on health, but it is doing so in a responsible manner by managing and addressing the ever-growing costs. Developing a plan to manage spiralling health costs is a long-term job that requires tough decisions. Labor's plan was simply to spend and ask our children and our grandchildren to foot the bill. They were putting health budget growth on the national credit card. That is exactly what Labor were doing. It is unfair because it asks our children and our grandchildren to pay for the health outcomes of today's generation. That is exactly what those opposite were doing.
When the former Treasurer, the member for Lilley, was asked about the debt limit, he responded by saying—as you do—that that will be someone else's problem, just like he would have passed on the current generation's health bill to the next generation. Despite the hysterical allegations—
Opposition members interjecting—
We can hear the caterwauling across the chamber—it would appear that the shadow spokesperson acknowledges the problems, as she did in an interview this year, when she said:
… the opposition would be kidding itself if it didn't recognise there were challenges in the budget and that savings needed to be found …
Those were the comments by the shadow spokesperson, Catherine King, on 22 February 2015. She said:
There is no area that is going to be exempt—
(Time expired)
The government went to the last election promising no cuts to health, but that turned out to be just another broken promise. That is exactly what they have done and it is exactly what they keep on doing. There have been so many cuts to health. In fact, in their first two years they have announced $60 billion in health cuts already, including $57 billion in cuts to hospitals, a four-year freeze on Medicare rebates for GPs and the very harsh $650 million in cuts to Medicare rebates for pathology and diagnostic imaging. They are doing all this with just one objective: to destroy Medicare and our universal health system. They did it under the previous Prime Minister, Mr Abbott, and they are doing it now with Prime Minister Turnbull. Nothing has changed with the new Prime Minister. The harsh cuts are still there. But something has changed a bit: they are, in fact, getting worse. His cuts are adding to the previous cuts. He accepted all the cuts by the previous Prime Minister and now, on top of that, there are more cuts. In fact, in his very first economic statement, Prime Minister Turnbull took all of the previous Prime Minister's cuts and added another $2 billion in cuts, making health care even less affordable to millions of Australians.
It is very important to note that many choices by this government really hurt regional areas. I often say that National Party choices hurt. The Nationals have already made the choice to unfairly cut the age pension, family payments, regional jobs and health services. In health, some of those choices have been incredibly cruel. Some of the cuts have been very harsh, particularly the cuts to bulk-billing in pathology and diagnostic testing. The Turnbull government announced last year that it would scrap bulk-billing for these important procedures. The $650 million in cuts over four years to vital bulk-billing services means that people just cannot access bulk-billing for these specific services. That means that patients will have to pay for procedures like Pap smears, blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds, and that makes health care less affordable for those who need it the most: the sick, the struggling families and the elderly. The changes unfairly target the very frequent users of pathology services—those who are the most sick.
Patients being treated for cancer and other serious conditions could be forced to fork out thousands of dollars up-front to pay for MRIs, X-rays, CAT scans and mammograms as a result of the government's harsh cuts. We know that Australia has the world's highest diagnosed rate of melanoma. A typical patient diagnosed with melanoma who was previously bulk-billed would face up-front costs of around $1,500 and would still be left with out-of-pocket costs of up to $400 after receiving their Medicare rebates. A patient with suspected breast cancer faces up-front costs of about $550 for mammograms and ultrasounds and would be left $300 out of pocket, even after receiving all the Medicare rebates.
As we have stated many times on this side of the House, Labor will fight these very harsh attacks on bulk-billing. We will continue to fight all of these unfair and cruel measures. We will defend Medicare and we will always defend the people who rely on it. The cuts to pathology and diagnostic imaging are some of the harshest and they are hitting regional areas very hard. We will always remember that National Party choices hurt, and these cuts are really hurting.
Now it appears that the Liberals and Nationals are moving their health attacks to the area of kids dental care. How harsh is that? We are very concerned at reports that the Child Dental Benefits Schedule will be the next victim of the government's cuts. Indeed, the Prime Minister confirmed it today in question time. Labor's $2.7 billion dental program has provided a million children with affordable dental care over the past two years. The parents of many of those children have never been able to afford to take them to a dentist before. The scheme provides eligible children with up to $1,000 in dental treatment every two years. This is a great scheme, and it came under attack from day one by those opposite. In last year's budget, the government ripped $125 million from the scheme. We know what is going to happen now: they are going to cut it altogether.
Another real concern with the government is how they want to go further and allow private insurers into Medicare. That will really be bad. It will mark the end of Medicare and universal health care and will create a two-tier Americanised health system, in terms of accessing GP services. The fact is that the Liberals and the Nationals always look for ways to make health care less affordable for the people who need it the most. In contrast, we will always fight for Australians to be able to access decent, affordable health care. We will fight to defend Medicare. In regional and rural areas, locals know that National Party choices hurt. One of their harshest choices has been to cut all of those health services in the country. They continue to make cuts to hospitals and diagnostic and pathology tests, and now we are seeing cuts to children's dental care as well. There are often more health needs in the country, and the National Party is making the cuts that will impact families in the bush most harshly.
Quite frankly, this is groundhog day. For 30 years, whenever the Labor Party has been desperate, the catch cry has been: 'Cuts to Medicare! Cuts to health!' The reality is quite different to the constant scare campaign that we have heard from Labor for 30 years. Effectively, for 30 years the Labor Party has said that we are cutting health and we are cutting Medicare. No wonder the Australian people just do not believe it anymore. Ten years ago the MBS, which forms a very crucial part of our health system and of health funding, was costing $8 billion. Today it is costing $20 billion, and in 10 years time that will have grown to $34 billion. So for 30 years, effectively, Labor has said we are cutting health expenditure, yet it keeps rising and rising year on year.
Today is all about an absolutely naked grab to get a headline in an area that Labor view as being a political strength for them: the health space. But we will never ever apologise for casting our eye over the health system. The $20 billion in MBS is not our entire health expenditure, but we will not apologise for casting our eye over every single line item of expenditure to try to make it as efficient as possible and as fit for purpose as possible. Surely we can agree in this House that any money we can save and reinvest into other more important parts of the health system is a good thing. The reality of productivity and efficiency with an ageing population is that we will need to squeeze out more services for every single dollar. How could anybody argue that it would not be wholly responsible for this government to cast its eye over every form of expenditure to see where efficiencies can be found? Importantly, those efficiencies will be reinvested back into the health system. That is something we are committed to.
The member for Bowman highlighted earlier that the shadow minister for health has spoken about Labor's time in government, and about how not all savings that were made in health were reinvested into health. We have a proud record on this side in this parliament of making sure that every single dollar is reinvested in some way, shape or form. One great legacy of this government that I think will be remembered for many years to come will be the Medical Research Future Fund. Every single dollar that will be invested into the Medical Research Future Fund will come out of savings in health, and that research will be the thing that drives the health outcomes of the future. Yet the Labor Party was very lukewarm on the Medical Research Future Fund. They were dragged there kicking and screaming and ultimately supported it. But it needs money, and you must find it somewhere. Importantly, on this side of the House we will support the Medical Research Future Fund and make sure it has the capital that it requires to find the cures of the future.
This is quite an extraordinary MPI today because it is ill defined. I am not even sure that the hearts of members opposite are really in it, when we look at the particular issues that they are raising. We have bulk-billing for pathology at about 87 per cent. The $500 million being referred to by the Labor Party raised it from about 86 per cent. So we have seen a one per cent rise in the bulk-billing of these pathology services, and every single dollar subsidised by the government there goes to two large corporate providers. The Labor Party have no principles on these issues. They are just trying to get their headline out there: 'Cuts to Medicare! Cuts to health!' I know that is what you do in an emergency. In every single emergency you go to the playbook—'Cuts to health! Cuts to education!'—no matter how tenuous that is. But I do not think the Australian people believe you, because the statistic I started with has shown that expenditure in health increases year on year. We will always make sure that we get the best bang for our buck, because we do not have the luxury, like the Labor Party, of coming into office with surpluses, with big amounts of money in the bank. We, unfortunately, inherit disaster from the Labor Party. It is incumbent upon us to fix it, and we will.
The one thing that the member for Deakin and I certainly do agree on is that this debate has something of the semblance of groundhog day, because, day after day, members on this side of the House have to stand to defend universal health care in Australia. Every time there is a Tory government we get this relentless attack on universal health care. They did not like it from the start. They did not ever want it to be part of this agreement. They fought it during the seventies and through the eighties, nineties and 2000s, and we are here in 2016 having those same old arguments.
I can understand the member for Deakin being stuck in this sort of groundhog day feeling, because it was his friend the former Prime Minister of Australia who stood before the cameras on the eve of election night promising the nation, promising us all, that there would be no cuts to health. He said there would be no cuts to health, no cuts to education, no cuts to pensions and no cuts to SBS and ABC! All these promises were subsequently broken, of course, and we on this side of the House know that all of those promises were, as we suspected at the time, a lie.
From the moment of the first budget of this government, it was abundantly clear to all that this government could only ever see health as a source of savings in a budget. There is no sense that you would ever invest in a preventive health scheme that might have some long-term health benefits for the nation. So it is little wonder that this week we get the grim news that the government is going to go after the Child Dental Benefits Schedule. This is a program that has been found to be quite successful. This is has been found independently of Labor; it is not just us on this side of the House saying that this is a successful scheme. More than one million kids have had access to a dentist and have taken part in a preventive oral health scheme that we know has long-term benefits down the track for all aspects of health.
It is not just—as some members opposite have glibly described—some kind of scrub and clean. It is hard to imagine that they would dismiss a dental scheme for Australian children so lightly, but that is exactly what has happened. This was not a scheme that was just plucked out of the air. The Australian Dental Association, for example, played a really critical role in the development and implementation of the Child Dental Benefits Scheme. They, like anybody who had been involved in that scheme, understood that this was a valuable investment in the oral health of future generations.
Preventative health is such a fundamentally important part of the Australian health scheme. That is why not only a tax on the Child Dental Benefits Schedule has been shocking; the announcement that this government would also rip out $650 million from diagnostic imaging and pathology tests that people are using is shocking. Detecting disease early is a really critical part of leading a healthy life. In particular, it has been a big issue for a lot of women in my electorate. They have spent decades encouraging women to front up to get regular mammograms, to have regular Pap smear tests and to ensure that they have the very best of health care. The financial barriers being put up now will ensure that those decades and decades of good work on that front are about to be undone.
Making preventative health an unaffordable part of Australia's health care is just nuts. It is just crazy, silly, short-sighted and, indeed, wasteful. It is a really wasteful spend. When you make cuts to preventative health then you are, in fact, wasting valuable dollars.
In 2010 when I was a candidate, Queensland X-Ray wanted to put a PET/CT into a private setting away from the hospital grounds. The reason was that PET/CT is high-end imagery and is radioactive, but it is essentially outpatient work. In Townsville the hospital is at Douglas and parking is difficult—although people in big cities do not understand this—so they were going to put it at one of the Mater facilities in Bayswater Road right in the heart of town. So, whilst your loved one was having a PET/CT scan, you could do the shopping at Castletown or in Woolworths at Hermit Park and you could get on with your life.
The state government and the Labor Party objected to it and said that if we were going to get one—which we did not need—it should go in at the hospital. The problem around this was that Queensland X-Ray was prepared to put it in with a federal government input of only $2 million. To put it in at the hospital would have cost $9 million. So, when it comes down to health, when it comes down to the system of health, what happened was that Queensland X-Ray went ahead with it, then Queensland Health put in another one at the hospital. Firstly, Queensland Health were saying that we did not need one, so we got one through private enterprise, then Queensland Health, using the taxpayer dollar, put another one in our hospital. This is the problem with health. This is the problem with overspending in this area. When it comes to health, no matter what the system is, no matter where you go in this system, after a time can you look at the system and ask: can it be improved, can it run faster, can it run differently, can it run more efficiently? As the member for Bowman has already said, if we can find efficiencies in one area of health, we put it back into others.
When it comes to computerisation and technology, the speed with which we can do things is absolutely amazing. Since the microchip was invented there are only two areas where you will find that more people are employed as a result of the microchip. One is in computer shops and the other is in the public service. The public service has actually increased in size from the 1970s to now, even with the multitude of digitalisation and ICT that goes into these things. It is not because they are perceived as lazy or anything like that. There are reasons for the increased employment in both areas.
People's lives change and work is increased with every Labor government. Dealing with any government department today requires patience as public servants battle to handle the myriad of requests which complicate lives. Every member here understands what is going on when they deal with complaints about the public service, or complaints about Medicare or Centrelink or any government department. You have to have the patience of Job to stay on the phone. But that is not the fault of the public servants. That is the fault of inadequacies in the system that lets qualified and hardworking public servants stay in menial jobs when we should be simplifying methods where we can and shifting those highly trained public servants into areas where they can assist the clients, our constituents, the people in our cities. If we are to streamline more of the easy stuff and save money with innovation and digitalisation, we can provide better services all over.
We have a budget in deficit. We have an opposition fixated on saying no to everything that we bring into this House to save money. We have the member for Ballarat coming in here and decrying the issue of dental care. This is the same Labor Party that cut the Chronic Disease Dental Scheme. This is the same Labor Party that said, 'If you've got a mouthful of fillings and you've qualified for this you have until December 31 to get this through, otherwise you will have to wait 12 months before you can get anything under the new system.' This is the same Labor Party that moved those people. Essentially what they do is give you a wash, a scrape, a floss and a polish and then they send you off.
This MPI is a joke and it should be seen as that. We will get on with the business of government.
There being no further speakers, the time for the discussion has concluded.
I move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament:
AIR 5431 Phases 2 and 3 Air Traffic Management and Control System Facilities and Australian Defence Force Air Traffic Control Complex Infrastructure Project.
As the former Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance advised the House when referring this project to the Public Works Committee, the Department of Defence is proposing to construct new or upgrade existing air traffic control towers, airfield systems complex buildings and sensor equipment to buildings at 13 Defence bases and five off-base Defence sites across Australia.
Defence and Airservices Australia are proposing to replace their existing air traffic control systems with the new civil-military air traffic management system being delivered under the OneSKY project to provide a common platform for provision of air traffic control in both civilian- and military-controlled airspace. Australia's OneSKY initiative will bring civilian and military air traffic control together under one air traffic management system for the first time, improving aviation efficiency and safety.
Defence air traffic control services are for the purpose of preventing collisions between aircraft, between aircraft and obstructions, between aircraft and vehicles in the ground manoeuvring area, and expediting and maintaining an orderly flow of air traffic within military-controlled airspace.
The committee has conducted an inquiry and is of the view that the project signifies value for money for the Commonwealth and constitutes a project that is fit for purpose and expedient to carry out. In its report, the committee has made a number of recommendations in relation to environmental and contamination matters and has requested that Defence work closely with the Hunter Water Corporation and the New South Wales Environment Protection Authority. Defence acknowledges the recommendations of the committee and will implement them to the extent that it does not compromise Defence operations and security.
On behalf of the government, I would like to thank the committee for once again undertaking a timely and vigorous inquiry. Subject to parliamentary approval of the project, construction is expected to commence in early 2016 at RAAF Base Amberley. Works at the other sites will progressively commence from late 2016. All works are anticipated to be completed by the end of 2021. I commend the motion to the House.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report:
AIR 5428 Phase 1—Pilot Training System Facilities Project.
The Department of Defence is proposing to construct new and refurbished facilities and infrastructure to support the new pilot training system at five RAAF bases across Australia. AIR 5428 Phase 1 is a high priority major capital equipment project that will acquire a new capability for pilot training for all Air Force, Navy and Army pilots. It will replace the current training continuum, which is conducted in Tamworth in New South Wales, RAAF Base Pearce in Western Australia and RAAF Base East Sale in Victoria. The proposed works include new and refurbished working and training facilities, including: simulator facilities, flight line shelters, maintenance and storage hangars, aprons and taxiways, live-in accommodation, base infrastructure and amenities in support of the new pilot training system at RAAF Bases East Sale, Pearce, Gingin, Edinburgh and Williamtown.
The estimated cost to deliver the project is $329.8 million, excluding GST. This includes: construction costs; escalation allowances; professional service fees; design, construction and defence contingencies; and information technology equipment. This investment will bring economic benefits for the local industries in the impacted regions over the next two to three years.
Subject to parliamentary approval of the project, construction is planned to begin in the second half of 2016, with construction completion planned at RAAF Bases East Sale, Pearce and Gingin by mid-2018, and at RAAF Bases Edinburgh and Williamtown in 2019. I commend the motion to the House.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report:
Fit-out of new leased premises for the Australian Federal Police at 45 Commercial Road, Newstead, Qld.
The Australian Federal Police proposes to undertake a fit-out of its new leased premises at 45 Commercial Road, Newstead, Queensland. The AFP requires suitable office accommodation to ensure that the AFP is adequately positioned and appropriately resourced to deal with a complex and shifting law enforcement environment. This fit-out is consistent with the objective of the AFP's property plan to provide quality and cost-sustainable buildings and accommodation as a fundamental enabler to the AFP's capabilities and enhancing the AFP's readiness and capacity to carry out organisational responsibilities for law enforcement, investigations and national security.
The new fit-out will provide the AFP with considerable advantages in terms of design and operating efficiencies. The proposed works include new workstations, offices and meeting areas, laboratories, workshops, a new security system, conference and training facilities, a new communications room and dedicated first aid and interview rooms and amenity areas.
The estimated cost of the fit-out is $25 million, excluding GST, and includes all costs associated with the fit-out such as builders' costs, consultant fees, furniture, fittings and equipment and workstations. This budget includes provisions for contingencies, cost escalation and associated professional fees. Subject to parliamentary approval, the project fit-out is expected to commence in July 2016 and be completed by February 2017. I commend the motion to the House.
Question agreed to.
On behalf of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, I present the committee's report No. 3 of 2016, incorporating a dissenting report, relating to a referral made in February 2016.
Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).
by leave—On behalf of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, I present the committee's third report for 2016.
This report addresses the fit-out of the Australian Embassy in Doha, Qatar. The project was referred to the committee in February 2016. The estimated cost of the project is $7.04 million.
This project was originally submitted to the committee as a medium work—that is, a project valued between $2 million and $15 million.
Medium works are not usually subject to a full inquiry by the committee; however, when the committee considered this project as a medium work it found the square metre cost of the fit-out appeared excessive relative to other fit-outs.
The initial information provided to the committee was considered insufficient to allow the committee to be satisfied that the cost of the fit-out was justified.
The committee subsequently sought referral of the project from the Assistant Minister for Finance, the Hon. Dr Peter Hendy MP.
The context of the project is worthy of mention. In May 2015, the Minister for Foreign Affairs announced that the Australian government had committed $98.3 million to open five new overseas missions.
This is the single largest expansion of Australia's diplomatic network in forty years and would include new posts in Papua New Guinea, Indonesia, Mongolia and Thailand.
Doha, Qatar is the fifth location.
An estimated 5,000 Australians currently reside in Qatar, and Australian visitor numbers are increasing by nine per cent per year. Over 80 Australian companies already have a presence in Qatar. Australia is currently the only G20 member country which does not have a diplomatic presence in Doha.
The committee received a briefing on the project and held public and in-camera hearings on 3 March 2016. At the public hearing, DFAT staff advised that opening a post in Qatar would facilitate Australia's growing political and commercial links with an increasingly important economic and political player in the pivotal Middle East region.
The committee heard that Qatar has a highly centralised government system and strong links between business and government, which lends greater importance to the role of government in facilitating business links than is usual in Australia.
The presence and activity of an Australian embassy will raise the status, profile and appeal of Australian companies working or seeking to establish businesses in Qatar.
Qatar's sovereign wealth fund is a valued source of foreign direct investment in Australia, and Qatar has invested significantly in Australia's wheat, barley and other grain-producing farms, and sheep properties, to support its food security strategy. Two-way trade between Australia and Qatar was worth $1.75 billion in 2014-15 and is growing strongly.
This important point was reinforced by the Secretary of DFAT during Senate estimates in February 2016, when he said:
I think it is fair to say that not only is the trade and investment agenda with Qatar an evolving one but the political and strategic engagement that we have is also at a much higher level now that it would have been … I do not see that diminishing. In fact, if anything, I can see it increasing.
In addition to the very obvious future trade and commercial imperative, Australia's engagement on security in the Middle East, including Qatar, will be critical in meeting the challenge of foreign terrorist fighters.
DFAT advised the committee that Australia is increasingly having to work closely with Qatar on foreign fighters transiting through Doha.
The committee heard from senior DFAT officials that their work has been:
… particularly focused on … the increased prospect that we will need to work closely with Qatar to handle foreign terrorist fighters. One of the things about the geography of Australia and the region in the Middle East where foreign terrorist fighters have to go is that most of them transit the Gulf on the way there. We are increasingly having to work closely with … Qatar on people transiting through Doha to get to the Middle East, and also on their way back … but more broadly there is an awful lot of work that we can do on the counterterrorism front with our Qatari counterparts.
The critical nature of this issue was further reinforced by DFAT who advised that Australia is working with Qatar towards a bilateral counter-terrorism memorandum of understanding to increase cooperation on this critical national security issue.
Regarding the scope of works, DFAT intends to lease 875 square metres on level 21 of the Tornado Tower building, initially for 10 years. DFAT will take over the tenancy as a complete floor. The works under consideration will be completed in two stages; firstly demolition of the existing fit-out, and following local authority approvals, a fit-out to meet DFAT's requirements.
In terms of the location, the committee was assured by DFAT that the Tornado Tower was by far the best option from a security perspective for embassy staff.
It is a sad reality of the times we live in that security is a major consideration when Australia makes decisions about opening official posts abroad. This does not mean security of information, as it may have in times past.
Members will recall that our own Australian Ambassador to Turkey had a fortunate escape just this week: he was only metres from a car bomb that exploded in Ankara's diplomatic district, and killed 34 people. Diplomatic installations are prime targets for terror attacks. We owe it to those serving our nation in diplomatic roles, and their staff, to ensure the highest level of safety and security.
As I mentioned, initially the committee was concerned that the cost per square metre appeared higher than the committee would have ordinarily expected.
DFAT explained that there is not a single per-square-metre fits-all cost when considering office space, noting buildings differ in their floor plate size and configuration. In the workspace there are a number of variables at play, including the type of work performed, the materials in use at people's desks and how much storage is required. These factors, together with the need for public access to the embassy and security considerations, influence how much space will be required, the overall tenancy size and the fit-out costs.
At the in-camera hearing, DFAT went into greater detail about the various components that make up the total per-square-metre fit-out costs, including the cost of additional security.
In the context of further detailed information provided on the per-square-metre costs, the committee is satisfied that the square metre cost is acceptable.
The committee notes that the inclusion of a multipurpose facility at the embassy which can be used for representational functions will result in cost savings during the selection of an ambassador's residence. The committee has requested that DFAT keep it informed on progress and arrangements for the ambassador's residence and that DFAT advise the committee of the cost savings achieved due to the subsequent reduction in the requirement for representational space at the residence.
The committee is satisfied that the project has merit in terms of need, scope and costs.
After careful scrutiny the committee is of the view that this project signifies value for money for the Commonwealth and constitutes a project which is fit for purpose, having regard to the established need.
I commend this report to the House.
I rise to continue my contribution from earlier today on the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Interest Charge) Bill 2016.
In conclusion, I thank the member for Dunkley for the wonderful work that he has done in this chamber over a long period of time. His leadership in the small business area has been a standard for the rest of us. His dedication to the small business community has made us all proud. I am proud to call him my friend, and I will miss him.
I rise to speak on the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Interest Charge) Bill 2016. I support the bill. Actually, there is more!
I would like to make some valedictory remarks. Mr Deputy Speaker Broadbent, you might well recall we were not sitting far from here—we were sitting over there—and it is amazing how, over the course of 20 years, I have managed to move four metres. But I hope that is not the mark of what I have been able to achieve over those 20 years. It was a tough decision to not recontest the next election. I love the community I represent. I grew up there; it runs through my veins; I know its rhythms, and I know the people. It is a spectacular place. It is the Riviera of Melbourne! For anyone who doubts that, just come down and get a piece of it. I will talk more about the local scene shortly and reflect on some of the things that have happened in the course of seven elections in a marginal seat.
It is slightly an understatement to say that marginal seat elections are character building. Mr Deputy Speaker Broadbent, you, sir, know that. We are at the pointy end of the political process. I will reflect on the fact that we are the soft underbelly of politics. When people want to bring about change or press a case, it is always the marginal seat members that they go after. I will pay tribute to the marginal seat members. There should be, as a matter of course, a marginal seat members' hall of fame in this building, and those who are in safe seats should pay appropriate homage at least weekly!
Before getting into that, I want to reflect on the national scene. I came into this place not knowing how long I would have the great honour and privilege to be here. I knew that in a marginal seat the big risk was, having worked so hard to be elected, being a 'oncer'. You never wanted to be a oncer. Oncers are viewed in the political record as an aberration. So, once you are there, you work your tail off. You work hard and you try to make every moment worthwhile. You try to do useful things for the air you suck in because you know that the rare privilege of being a part of this chamber may be all too brief and there are all too few in our nation's history who have had this great honour and opportunity.
Not to waste the opportunity, I thought I would set about trying to do things. You might have picked up recently—in fact, yesterday—that some of that work has borne fruit. It has taken an awful lot of skin off me—it is not immediately apparent by my svelteness!—to make the case for competition law reform in this country. I cannot begin to tell you what a great thrill it was to see the Turnbull government embrace some of the key reforms that I have worked so hard for.
Whatever happens, you want to make a difference, and that has been a legacy that I will hold on to, but it is not the only thing that we have been able to achieve. We made our election commitment to a root-and-branch competition review in 2010. We were ridiculed for even daring to open the box of competition laws. I think the Labor line was that the laws were 'perfectly adequate'—that was the term used, if I recall. We knew that was not the case, but we knew it would be a battle. I start with this observation because that shows you why you need the three P's that have guided my public life: passion, positivity and an awful lot of persistence. You have to stay the course because nothing comes easy in this place. To know that this section 46 reform is on its way is fantastic. Collective bargaining and boycott reforms; reform of the cartel provisions; renovating the infrastructure access regime—these are all parts of a change in the competitive ecosystem that will be great for consumers, great for efficient businesses big and small, and great for our prospects as a nation.
Who can remember the small business budget package? Didn't that go well? We established $5½ billion of support for those enterprising men and women—a real game changer, not only for our economy but as a statement from this parliament to those people who mortgage their houses and, some tell me, their firstborn children to get finance to have an opportunity to create livelihoods for themselves and others. What a statement that was in our parliament that their enterprise matters and is valued and respected.
The grocery code reforms—there seems to be a pattern here. It seems to be me versus some of the biggest businesses in the country. There we got a result as well with the grocery code of conduct. There were the franchising reforms, the unfair contract terms protections, the Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman, the employee share scheme reforms that we got through and the crowdsourced equity funding framework. All of this meant, as I said in my National Press Club speech, that small business is the new black. Everyone wants to wear it and be a part of it and get engaged. Whatever happens in my time, I hope in this parliament we never pass a day without respecting and celebrating those enterprising men and women—or, as I say, doing all we can to energise enterprise.
Those reforms came about through a role in cabinet, a great honour and privilege that I cannot begin to tell you how much I enjoyed. But, in earlier days, you might recall, before the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd governments, there was the Howard government. What a great government that was. What a transformational government. What a time. It was almost a renaissance of opportunity and belief in ourselves as a nation and a people. There were more small business owners than union members. There were people prepared to say, 'You know, I'm going to have a go,' and make a go of it.
It was a great time and I was really honoured to be not a cabinet minister but a minister and a parliamentary secretary in that administration, working hard every day for our veterans. I will let you in on a bit of a secret. When the Prime Minister rang me and said, 'Look, Bruce, we'd like you to be a minister'—until recently I always said, 'Yes, Prime Minister,' but we will reflect on that later—I said, 'I'd like to do veterans affairs.' It is an incredibly challenging area. The community loves our veterans, the veterans understand that and we owe a particular debt and gratitude for their service. I wanted to serve in veterans affairs because I grew up in an era when a lot of my mates were the sons and daughters of Vietnam War veterans. I recalled my grandfather never coming back the same person from serving in Lae in Papua New Guinea, with the impact that had on his family, and on our family—it cascaded through. I thought, 'What I'd like to do is what I hope a government would do for my family,' and that is to be there when things are going well and to act when things are not—to secure the gold card and the white card and honour and fulfil our commitment to the reformation in veterans' health care I oversaw. We reformed the Veterans and Veterans Families Counselling Service, to bring the family more into the frame, knowing that serving our nation in our military is a team and family effort. All are impacted. The need to move every few years, with the particular stressors of that, is something we have to respect. To learn that seven months after I was born something called the Battle of Long Tan happened and to think we had not quite done the right thing to be able to lead the 40-year commemoration of that—
Fifty years.
As my friend and colleague Broughy says, this year we are approaching 50 years since then. There were still Vietnam veterans in the soils in Vietnam whom we had not found. We were alongside the diggers who fought in Operation Hump—they could tell me the day they were there working with, I think, the 457th airborne. I cannot quite recall, but it was an American contingent. One of our great, courageous Vietnam soldiers died that day and it was so hot that we could not recover his remains. As a nation that wanted to do the right things, we could not give the family somewhere to grieve and to talk to their dad or relative. We did not know where they were. We said, 'We're going to open that box.' I was not even born when some of those men lost their lives, but I knew what I would want if it was my family member, and that was do everything I could to find their remains. And do you know what? We did. We found them all and we brought them home. Operation Aussies Home and the leadership there—what a great piece of work, but it took some courage at a government level to say, 'We're not quite sure what's going on here, but let's have a red-hot go at it.' We had Australian tourists looking very much like they had military haircuts doing things in Vietnam, just asking questions and quietly going about their business. What a moment is was to be there at Richmond Air Force base when the remains came back. What a moment it was to be on the tarmac in Vietnam, with the military leadership of Vietnam, knowing that we were combatants way back then but were collaborators today. To see the dignity and respect for our fallen—what a moment. You can do that stuff as a minister. That is why being a minister is a great opportunity and a great honour.
HMAS Sydneywhere was it? No-one knew. We knew we had to find it. Six hundred and forty five men lost their lives on that ship and no-one knew where it was. I thought, 'That's not good enough. Let's find it.' We put in train those changes and brought about the very discovery that brought peace and comfort to the families whose loved ones had given their all for our country, and all of it with the great support of Prime Minister Howard.
Western Front commemorations are pretty big now. They were very informal, but, as minister, I changed that. We focused on the Australian experience on the Western Front, got an interpretive centre going and got Defence recruitment and retention right. Through-life care is a concept we know for our air frames and our tanks and our ships. We need through-life care for our people.
I got some firsthand insights about that while working alongside Defence long before I was a minister, but I also learned that the correlation and collaboration between Defence and industry was key through the white paper, which was some of my work, that profiled the Defence family as being a key part of the team. I have great admiration for the defence forces, both the people who are serving and those before them.
I was the face of overseas tragedy for a while, which was not quite what I had anticipated. After driving home one Boxing Day my phone started going off. I was Alexander Downer's parliamentary secretary; I looked after consular operations. Something big had happened in the Indian Ocean—something really big. I did not know the extent of the tragedy that was unfolding, what it looked like, but I knew that we could help, and to carry so much of the response of our nation to that tragedy for our region was an extraordinary honour and privilege for me. I had about 32 media interviews a day. Alexander said, 'You can do all of them unless it's a BBC domestic, because some of my mates might be listening'! They were long, hard and demanding days but they were nothing like the days that our military personnel and Foreign Affairs people faced.
We pinched the Prime Minister's jet to fly to Banda Aceh, which was the scene of a civil war at that time. Just to land and have no-one shoot at us was an achievement to begin with. We picked up Pak Untoro, an incredible, trusted Indonesian administrator, knowing that we had to do all we could to guard against corruption. We saw our Defence personnel going into the Ulee Lheu port, which did not exist because the tectonic plates had disappeared; we saw them go into the hospital up there and lift newborns' bodies off the wall—and you wonder why I think we have to look after those people.
We did our very best as a nation to help look after those who needed our help. We went further towards achieving one of the greatest things in our lifetime, which is the alleviation of poverty in our region. Hundreds of millions of people are being lifted out of poverty in our time, on our watch and with our help. I even engaged Tony Jones, and paid him—sorry about that! Some of my colleagues thought that was a bad idea. As we worked through the aid white paper process and had public consultations, I double-teamed with Tony. Those consultations were tough, but explaining to some of my colleagues why I had picked Tony was tougher. We focused on economic opportunity in our region; that was our point. When Millennium Development Goals were being discussed, that was crucial. But the simple message I took to the floor of the UN in New York was that there is no antidote to poverty as durable and sustainable as economic growth. Our region was the story that gave that message meaning and life and persuasion. To have that run through the halls of the aid community was an interesting conversation.
There have been many highlights. Working in the Trade portfolio, they were trying to get the Pacific Agreement on Closer Economic Relations working, trying to revitalise the agreement with New Zealand—we are supposed to be one economy but, gee, it needed some work to streamline that; getting discussions going about trade opportunities in the gulf, knowing so many Australian companies were doing terrific work there; and working alongside our AusAID people.
Among the highlights as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Immigration, Indigenous and Multicultural Affairs was being able to work alongside great ministers, and making sure migration agents and others were not ripping off hopeful and often desperate people. It was countless requests for ministerial interventions coming my way before going to Minister Vanstone on a trolley. It was seeing the humanitarian frame, inspired by this man as well, the man seated behind me in the chamber, a great humanitarian ridiculed unfairly. Philip Ruddock, I salute you; you are a very honourable person. It was knowing that there is a story of refugees and hardship that no-one hears about and that we as a bighearted nation stand up for them. They might not be on the front of the newspaper, but there are refugees who cannot leave a camp because they will lose their lives. Contrast that with the idea of paying a people smuggler when you feel like it, of moving freely whenever you choose and coming in and out of countries with no problem. Contrast that with the hardship of the people we do not hear about. I dedicated my work to them.
Another highlight is working with the Indigenous affairs community and learned much from Mal Brough, 'Broughy', who is also in the chamber. He is my cultural adviser. He called me 'goona'. I will not say what it means in his language. He was 'neejet' to me, and I will not say what that means either. It was understanding the role sport can play in the Indigenous community, seeing the appetite and hunger for economic opportunities, understanding that the greatest form of self-determination for Indigenous people, as they described it to me, was the chance for their own livelihoods and to make their own decisions. This was some of that work.
In multicultural affairs it was an interesting time. We saw in other countries that people's values and principles, which had helped build that country and make it great and a magnet for people from around the world, were being challenged or set aside in these very countries, which had relied on those foundations to make them so appealing. I remember proposing the concept of 'in our hands'. I put forward the simple thesis that if we are to maintain the great appeal of our country we should not be shy about what has made it great. We need to acknowledge the values and principles, the social norms, the respect, the freedoms, the pluralism—the fact that we have won life's lottery because we are Australians. It has not just happened by chance. There have been foundations and principles that have helped build that. I argued we should have a little thing going around the country, a sort of glorified sewing experience where we would have four frames. In one frame would be: 'We will put our heart into this country.' Another one would say: 'We share democratic beliefs here.' The third one would be 'the rights and liberties I respect'—we know that is the citizenship pledge. The last frame of that four-cornered square would be about respecting our laws: 'We will uphold and obey them.' The point was that you could bring your thread from wherever you had come. Whatever its colour, its creed, its cultural orientation or its ambitions for the future, you could bring that thread and you could either let it dangle outside the frame—and good luck to you—or you could add it to the fabric that we all provide, and you would be strengthened and nourished and supported by it, just as we would be. I thought we needed to do that and I still believe that to be the case.
Speaking of the honour of working with great ministers, there were also great prime ministers. Being in the cabinet of the Abbott government was an extraordinary honour and thrill, and I loved every minute of it. I apologise to my colleagues who thought I went too hard on the things I believed in, but, down my way, you go hard or you go home. The encouragement of Prime Minister Howard—he was designated as my mentor; I just liked talking to him—the wisdom, the insights and the personal feng shui—beautiful.
He never did understand you!
No.
Yes, he did.
I remember the Prince and Princess of Denmark coming to our area, and Prime Minister Howard, with a smile on his face, said: 'This is Bruce Billson. He looks after tragedy when it happens overseas for our country.' I thought I can match you with that, and I went up to Prince Frederik and I said, 'Gee, we've got a lot in common.' He goes, 'Why is that?' And I said, 'Gee, we've both married well, haven't we?' It was not quite an awkward diplomatic moment, but Prime Minister Howard enjoyed it.
I have enjoyed a terrific working relationship with Prime Minister Turnbull. I sat beside Malcolm in the cabinet room. We used to joke that one of our predecessors sat in the same seat and they were invited to leave, and I facetiously said, 'I think I'm in the ejector seat.' It showed a little too much perspicacity, didn't it! Never mind.
Brendan Nelson: what a tough gig! I mean, who remembers the challenge when you lose an election? It is gut-wrenching. You put every ounce of your being into that, and, if the result doesn't turn out your way, it is one thing to lose the election but it is another thing to know that the whole opportunity to bring about change is gone. There are two things that happen in politics—you are either explaining or complaining—and it depends on what side of the place you are on. But no matter what the worst day in public life looks like in government it beats the hell out of the best day in opposition, because you can do things. To lose that opportunity was absolutely gut-wrenching.
But I have enjoyed the support of our leaders—Brendan, when he had me as shadow cabinet minister for communications and IT in the digital economy. Malcolm invited me to spend more time on something I deeply believe in, and that is that our cities can make a better contribution to our growth and our economic prospects. It led me into a parliamentary inquiry about that. And that is why this place is important. As the chair of a committee, you can start ideas moving. I instigated the sustainable cities 2020 inquiry, and now it is still referred to, about what we can do to get our cities run well. Colleagues from all sides of this parliament were full and generous in their contribution, and that is when the parliament is at its best. The NDIS committee that I chair now does crucial work, but again you see good will in every bit of that work—a genuine desire to do good. That is why I respect all members in this chamber and the Senate, whatever brand they carry. This is not a business for the faint-hearted, and to throw yourself into it, like all of us do, is quite special.
The parliament is an interesting place. I was only ever thrown out once in 20 years, because I thought, 'Can I explain my behaviour to my kids?' That was my benchmark. I was unfairly warned by Speaker Neil Andrew. I made the mistake of pointing out that he had got me confused with one of my colleagues, who was behaving like a peanut. He did not like me pointing that out, and he bounced me. I apologise to my electorate for being absent for an hour when I could have been in here making a contribution.
Con Sciacca is an interesting character. He and I double teamed; it was almost like a Starsky and Hutch moment, with better fitting clothes. We split a bill in the parliament. I think—and the clerks might correct me—that it is the only time in this parliament's history that we have been able to successfully split a bill and see it pass through this chamber. There was a half-convincing nod from the table there. It was on the human cloning and embryo stem cell research bill—a matter of great conscience. But how do you find a single conscience about two fundamentally different issues? I was dead against human cloning, but I wanted to see the possibilities from embryonic stem cell research. So what do I do? Do I vote against the whole bill, even though I like half of it? Or do I vote for the whole thing, when I find part of it abhorrent? We hatched a plan, and I said to Con, 'Leave it with me. I will sort this out.' This is before the term 'fixer' became popular. That was the effort. I said, 'I think I can split these bills like a succulent avocado, deal with each half discretely and then we can put it back together again and send it over to the other place.'
What about the nut?
The nut stayed because we needed a core to hang it together, and there were not some of those Avon things that keep them—not Avon. You know, those longer life things that keep your avocado green?
An honourable member: Tupperware.
Tupperware—thank you, sir. It worked. It was the only time it has happened in this place, and I am thrilled that I was able to pull this off.
This is an arena, though, for political debate and differing policy ideas. It is a clearing house of people's thoughts about the future. It is a forum of accountability, but it is a hard place. That is why I admire everyone who enters into this place and all those who aspire to be here. The world is run by people who turn up. If you turn up, you can have an influence. If you turn up, someone can hear your thoughts. You might be able to shape things. Coming here is turning up big time—the work to get here is arduous and demanding, but it is incredibly rewarding.
But it does not happen on its own. The clerks, the Comcar team, the parliamentary officials, the service providers, the hundreds of political staff around here, the attendants and the security people—they are all great. They are people, and people make politics and the parliamentary democracy work. I say, 'Thank you,' for 20 years of great courtesy and constructive engagement over that journey.
I am surrounded by many friends. These are the visible faces of politics, colleagues and combatants, but all deserving respect, right across the chamber, because they are here, and that is something we should never forget. We have a shared purpose, the Libs and the Nats—that is our coalition. We think parties bring people together with shared ideas and values and views about what is good for the country. I accept others have different ideas about what is good for the country, but they all want good for our nation. I admire that courage.
I particularly want to acknowledge the class of '96. What a great bunch of humans they were. Joel wants me to mention him. He stopped me in the corridor before and he said, 'Hey, Billy, whatever you do, make sure you mention me.' It is done. Phil Barresi, Larry Anthony, Broughy, Teresa Gambaro, Russell, in his multiple comings, and Joe Hockey—they are great people and they are mates for life. More mates have come along: Sussan Ley, Craig Laundy—there are just too many. I am in trouble if I mention too many, but there is you, Mr Speaker. We did have a plot that your sons would marry my daughters—and I think you pointed out that I needed to be in a safer seat, though.
Scott Ryan, my twin brother—accused of being my twin—is 10 years younger than me, and that says a lot about his exercise regime. Mitch Fifield, Fiona Scott, Zed, Andrew Hastie—a good recent mate—Craig Kelly and Craig Laundy are just some, but everyone here is just lovely. My electoral neighbours are Peter Reith and Greg Hunt; we have to work together. It was great working together with Peter and Greg, but I will let you in on a bit of a story. To the north of me is pure tiger territory for the Libs. It is Bolshevik central from wall to wall, but I have enjoyed working with the late Greg Wilton. He came in with us, and we felt his pain.
Ann Corcoran and Anthony Byrne—I was going to mention Mark Dreyfus, but he is never there. Down in my part of the world, in the Riviera, we love tourists—even if they are the local member. It is a bit unkind. I enjoy working with Mark, but he is busy. Andrew Southcott—in 2010 we were both having yet another near death experience, electorally. I thought I was about 1,500 votes in front and someone put a 500 pile in the wrong one! You have to find a personal feng shui when you go from 1,500 up to just 500 up and you slip into the 'he's gone' column. It was not that way, but I shared that experience.
The media loves it, and I want to thank the media. I apologise for being completely unhelpful about off-the-record comments. It has annoyed many of them and it has probably hampered my opportunity to get column centimetres or nice things said about me by James Jeffrey. But the media are crucial; they are a voice and a medium through which what goes on in here goes out into the broader public. They are great to work with. Some are great athletes, many are good friends, and I will miss many of them.
But all politics is local. Tip O'Neill said that, and I think that is right, and that is why I got involved. I love the local scene and getting out and about, hearing people's concerns and understanding what their ambitions were and how we might be able to help. And we did help: Scoresby Freeway. I was honoured to be called Mr Scoresby by John Howard. I hope it was a term of endearment, but I do not think so. To be able to have any matter before the party room and then make it about Scoresby, I found that quite agile—if I could use a popular term! But he thought 'How could Billson make a bill about thin capitalisation at all relevant to a crucial piece of infrastructure?' I could do that, and even an administrative change and the tidying up of the law—there was never a missed opportunity! And we got there, and what a transformation that has made to our region. There was Peninsula Link and arguing for that crucial piece of infrastructure and being told by Premier Brumby that I knew nothing about the area and that no-one would ever use it. Now I am criticised that it is only four lanes and not six! Then saving the Monash University Peninsular campus and bringing occupational therapy, speech pathology and physiotherapy. It is still there now as a beacon to our local people that higher education is an opportunity that is there for them when they can make it their own. Yet our post-secondary education rates are still no better than Gippsland. Work to be done.
Then: Cube 37, the youth hub in Mornington; the renovations for the McClelland Sculpture Park & Gallery; the Mornington Peninsula Regional Gallery; and the new schools' policy and seeing great educational institutions like Flinders Christian Community College set up in my electorate and Bayside Christian College giving great education and guidance for young people. Arguing for years that we needed an Australian technical college, getting that commitment and then finding we lost the election. Then having to convince Labor that their idea of sprinkling tech fairy dust for a new oven or a new lift was never going to work, and then bringing it together in a consolidated, dedicated building. That is what Labor did, and I commend them for adjusting their strategy. I can claim that as the nearest and neatest correct outcome I was working for.
Also commemorating of our fallen at Frankston with a new memorial and the Mornington Memorial Park. I thought I would be the subject of an Auditor-General inquiry about that. Please do not tell anybody—lean in a bit because it is a secret—but I think I got about eight grants for that one site, commemorating all of the conflicts that our people have served in. Getting Ramsar listing for the Seaford Wetlands and coastal regeneration and being able to help co-author the Natural Heritage Trust policy before the 1996 election to say that there is a risk that our best environmental asset, our coastline, will be damaged by its pure popularity, and putting policy and programs in place to fix that. Then there is the Langwarrin Flora and Fauna Reserve and letting people know that that is where our veterans came back to after fighting in the First World War because we needed to make sure that they had not brought back viruses. The basketball court at Mornington Secondary College; the stadium expansion at Frankston; the ring road at Seaford village, to stop people risking wiping themselves out just to visit that great coastal area—that ring road and the alfresco it has made possible; and the Mornington Rose Gardens. There are plenty more that I could go on with. It has been a busy time, and there has been much to do.
There is the mature-age employment advantage and telling people—and I did not realise this at the time—that once you reach 45 it is not over. I thought I had a few years to work on that, but I turned 50 on Australia Day and I certainly hope it is not over. There is job journey and talking to young people, and the help of Mark Skaife who said: 'I am a mechanic, but look what else I have done with my life. But this vocational qualification was a great platform.' To bring The Fauves and others down to talk to our young people about the stepping stones of a career, the job journey, where it starts and how you cannot stop. You have to learn for life. You have to keep expanding and renewing and remaking yourself. Getting Telstra off its tail—you know what that is like, Mr Speaker—in the outer metropolitan area and finally getting metro calls for our area and dedicated countrywide activities. It was all important, but nothing was more important than what it said to our young people.
I went to school at Monterey. You know when they have those accounts of the schools people went to and there is all that scoffing about how they went to exclusive schools? Well, I have never seen a column in that analysis that said, 'Public schools designated as disadvantaged'. That's where I want to school. I went there and I learnt so much, and I kept going back
I was school council president for one simple reason: to say to the young people of Australia, and my electorate particularly, 'Your postcode doesn't determine your potential. You can learn as well as anybody. You can achieve great things. You can fulfil your ambitions. Have ambitions and aspirations and draw in those who can help you on that journey.' That happened to me the other day at a fate at Monterey. A grandparent came up to me and said, 'Hey, Bruce, I hear you're going. We're sad about that. But you've taught our granddaughter that she can do anything, even if it's at a school that never ranks as superspunky or super well-off.'
It has been a long journey from the streets of Seaford, The Pines and Frankston to this place. I said that in my maiden speech. I made the point that I want to let others from my community know it is a road they too can travel. I hope I have done that. In my maiden speech I talked about how crucial small and microbusinesses are to our community. It is not by chance that I aimed to be, was and loved being evangelical for enterprising men and women, because that is our economy and that is where those livelihood opportunities come from.
But it did not happen just because that was something I wanted to do. The crew who have helped me along the way are remarkable. My dear mate, Greg Sugars—never has one person suffered so much in the political world! He is my campaign manager, confidant and inspiration and he is the guy who rings my wife when we are feeling like I have not been home for a long time. I want to thank: Bill Beaglelhole, electorate chairman and campaign manager; Robert and Linda Hicks; Harry and Margaret Dean; John Howard—there is a local version!; the late Geoff Hollings; Bob Garnett; Peter Rawlings; and Colin and Dawn Fisher. There are countless people. I had better stop there because I know that, if I go through a much longer list, I will forget people. I apologise for that, but I only found out that this was my opportunity a few hours ago and you can see that my preparation is incomplete.
There have been friends exploited. I want to thank John Catto-Smith, Stephen Sherack, David Ritter, Chris Warwick and the many mates who got involved in politics just because I was. I thank my family, who were devoted and continue to be. I thank my brother, who was here when I made my maiden speech and probably to this day still cannot work out why I am involved in politics. He is a company doctor—a very gifted chief financial officer. The business he helped run was owned by some Americans and they got very excited about this rumour that the CFO had a brother in 'congress'. He did not quite know what to make of that, so he told them I was his cousin! I thank my parents, who have wondered what brought me here. I think it was just prior to the 1998 election that they went to a public meeting and it was not pretty. It frightened them. It was politics in the raw in a marginal seat. It is probably inappropriate of me to thank the CFMEU for their great interest in my electorate over many years! It was not nice. My parents never came to another political event, but they wished me well every day. I thank my sweetheart, Kate. She so wanted to be here today but, only knowing a couple of hours ago that I would be doing this valedictory, there was nothing we could do to get her here. This letter is from her. She has been a superstar.
I thank my son, Alex. He was born into politics and knows nothing else. I am a bit worried; he seems to love it! He gives me commentary. He has been on the phone texting me while I am here. I am so proud of him. I hope he finds a pathway of great satisfaction in his life. I thank my oldest daughter Zoe. She is wired with intravenous chamomile tea—so chilled. Something spectacular will happen and she will come up to me and say, 'Good one, Dad.' On occasions when I am being smacked around in the media with headlines that you hope your kids will never see, she will say, 'It's okay, Dad.' I love the fact that she was always there for me. My microhumans are now not micro: Maddie is eight and Bella is six. Maddie loved Harry Jenkins. She will walk around the house saying, 'Order!' What kind of abuse of a child is that! She knew the standing orders before she knew some poems that kids are supposed to know. She is so proud that daddy goes to work every day trying to help other people. She loves that. She was a bit sad when I was no longer a minister. I thank her for her support and saying, It'll be okay. You've got more to give, Dad.' I am still the member for Dunkley, I told her. She said, 'Well, that's great, because we want you to do that forever.'
Bella, my six-year-old, has been here before. She is far too wise for her age. She just goes: 'So have you still got a job? Who's going to bring the dollars in, Daddy?' She got quite upset because she thought I was unemployed. Perhaps that is a premonition; I hope not. But I said to her, 'Would you actually like Daddy to be able to take you to school some days?' All was good after that, and that shows you the kind of life we lead.
I have had great staff. Some are here in the audience today. But, at the short notice, many who would love to be here cannot be here. Sandra Darby, Edmond Carew, Noelene Warwick, Mark Oswald, Justin Johnson, Jeremy Johnson—we went through a twins phase for a while—Susan Westlake, Melody Rewokowski, Raeleigh Speedie, Reece Turner, Kristy Spena, Mary Aldred, Hayley Najim, Tim Smith, Mary-Jo Reumer, Pam Roberts, Tom Hudson, Nathan Hersey, Melissa Ritter, Mason Sugars, Katie Wilkie, Chantal D'Argaville have all been absolute powers of strength, engagement and empathy in my electorate office. No-one rings your electorate office because they are happy. We are often the last, last line when people are frustrated. I said to them: 'Just come to work everyday, KYSOS—knock your socks off service. Let's see if we can achieve that.'
On my ministerial and executive career, I want to thank Vincent Sheehy—at his wedding, his mother comforted me and said, 'Thank you for being Vincent's longest relationship.' Thankfully, his wife has surpassed that. But: Vincent Sheehy, Cameron Hill, Sally Branson, Phil Connole, Kane Silom, Karen Browne, Judith Donnelly, Michael Xanthis, Shane Fairlie, James Sampson, Mary Aldred, Michael Keating, Kristie Lavery, Candice Lester, Daniel McCracken-Hewson, Ineke Redmond, Andy McClure, Cameron Hooke, Brice Pacey, Stefanee Lovett, Nanette Rogers, Philip Citowicki, Susan Warren, Emily Barnuevo, Anna Zeltzer, Josh Toohey, John Polack and Sarah Bland have been great in a very heavy, burdened, responsibility-laden office.
Hector Thompson, a brilliant man from Treasury, came over when I was a Treasury cabinet minister two days in and I was not quite sure what was going on. The DLOs, knitting the departments and the political wing together: Dan Heldon, who has never seen a smorgasbord he has not loved, Mary-Anne Mellor, Julie Bolton, David Steer, John Matheson, Rebecca Brooke, Nathan Barker, Wayne Fogarty and Bernice Vanguardia. They have been great.
The aides-de-camp that I got to work with: Lucy Casey and Wendy Jeffery. They put in so much, but there is one person who put in an awful lot—that is, my father-in-law. Arthur Ranken is totemic in his love of the Liberal Party. When I stood for preselection, there was a field of 15. He was one of them. My now father-in-law tried to knock me off back then! I got even. I married his daughter. He did live vicariously through me in his political life, but if ever you came to the Riviera of Melbourne, my electorate, in an election campaign, there is nowhere you could look where there was not my face. The director of visual merchandising—he was spectacular.
We still have work ahead of us. We need to prepare our young people for this delicious world of opportunity that is out there. But let us be frank: despite spending more on education, we are seeing our comparative academic performance falling behind other countries. We need to do something about that. But we also need to face up to the fact that not all people are wired to be academically gifted. But we have to understand they have other gifts, other great talents, other ways of thinking and of carving out a meaningful life for themselves and being able to make some of those delicious opportunities their own. But when a time is so dynamic and ambiguous as it is now, it can be hard for some people to flourish in that environment. We need to provide the pathways and the support and a purpose for those young people. I think this is a real challenge for us, because brilliant, agile, intellectually adept people will thrive in this environment. What if you are not wired that way? Surely, we can help renew and renourish their hopes, ambitions and capacity for the future. We have to do this.
Colleagues, we risk being the first generation to fail the great promise of this country, and that is that the next generation will have it better than us. We risk not being able to renew that promise. National income growth of 2.3 per cent a year for decades is not something that will land in our lap. We really need to work hard at that. We need to make our economy hum and support all of our people, whatever their age, whatever their calling, to be their best selves and to create the wealth and opportunity to renourish that great promise of our country.
I talked about that when I made my maiden speech. I said that the challenges facing Dunkley are only as big as the opportunities before us. That is still the case today, but it is our job to make those opportunities real and in reach for everybody, not just those that happen to have a cognitive capacity or an outlook on life that makes them ready and ripe to excel in this dynamic, ambiguous time that we live in.
I try to make every day worthwhile for the air I have sucked in. I think I have done that. I look to Chris Crewther, a gifted young individual—a little bit older than me when I started—to carry that forward. He is a great talent, and I hope we will work to see him succeed.
In closing, I just want to say I have loved these days. To my family, I will be home soon.
I rise to speak to the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Interest Charge) Bill 2016. I welcome this piece of legislation, and I thank the minister for the incredible work that he has done in this bill and the cost savings that it will provide.
As this is one of my last opportunities to speak in this House, I would like to take the time to reflect on my 18 years in federal parliament. It has been an honour and a privilege to serve as the member for Brisbane over the past six years and also as the member for Petrie from 1996 to 2007. Over the last 18 years, I have had the privilege of serving under three Liberal prime ministers: John Howard, Tony Abbott and Malcolm Turnbull. Each of them has provided me with support and encouragement, and I thank them all.
It is very special to me that I am only one of a handful of people who has had the immense privilege of representing two electorates in this place. After being defeated at the 2007 federal election with so many of my dear friends, I returned to the world of small business for a short time before making the bold decision to run for the LNP in the seat of Brisbane, where my family had lived all their lives.
We had had a fish and chip shop at Petrie Terrace that grew—and I am so incredibly proud of my family—to be the largest wholesaler, exporter and retailer, and one of the most famous seafood restaurants, in our state. I was particularly proud when my family became the official supplier of seafood at the Commonwealth Games. My family had achieved many firsts. We had the first IGA supermarket at New Farm. The recent reforms of section 46 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 have made me, indeed, a very happy person over the last few days. I thank the minister who is sitting beside me for the incredible work that she has done. My family worked hard and they contributed to the community of Brisbane. I grew up in Brisbane, and I went to school in Brisbane. I love Brisbane! I am an honorary ambassador for Brisbane. It was one of my proudest moments when the Lord Mayor made me honorary ambassador.
We wrested the seat from Labor after 30 years. The people of Brisbane have sent only two Liberals to represent them in Canberra in 115 years—me and Peter Johnson. I am proud to be the first woman to have ever represented this beautiful electorate in this place and the first woman of Italian origin to enter the federal parliament. From the bottom of my heart, I thank the people of Brisbane for their support over the last six years. It has been an absolute honour and a privilege to represent such a growing, diverse and vibrant place and, I think, the most innovative city in Australia in this federal parliament. I can honestly say that, growing up and not speaking English at home, I would never have imagined that I would have made it to the federal parliament of this great country.
My parents taught me the values of hard work and integrity. They said it was only through hard work that success would come along. I know I was not a perfect child. I became a fugitive when I was three; I ran away from the Petrie Terrace kindergarten regularly, and the local police would bring me back to the fish shop. We can laugh about it now, but I do not think my parents found it very funny at the time. I worked from the age of nine in my parents' corner store, where I would spruik the specials—I will always remember the No. 9 Steggles frozen chickens for the rest of my life. So I blame my parents for my career in politics because they gave me a microphone at such a very young age.
I thank my family immensely for the opportunities that they gave me through my education. I thank the Sisters of Mercy; they instilled in me a great sense of social justice. My parents sent me to Holy Spirit School and, later, the leading Catholic girls school in Brisbane—All Hallows' School. The sense of social justice that the Sisters of Mercy instilled in me was a foundation for what would in the future become my political career.
My entry into politics was not a conventional one by any means. I was speaking at Lynette Palmen AM's Women's Network Australia. I had entered in a state-wide public speaking competition the year before and I did not do very well. In fact, I did not get a place. I was very dejected. Lynette encouraged me to enter again. So, the following year, not only did I win the Queensland award in the public speaking competition but I also took out the People's Choice Award. But little did I know that sitting in that audience on that particular day was the then Chairman of the Women's Council of the Liberal Party, the late Cassie Solomon. She was sitting in that audience and she tried everything she could to recruit me. I was a businesswoman. She asked me to join the party, and later I was asked by the Liberal Party to run in the federal seat of Petrie. Terry Barlow was then the Regional Chairman of the Petrie Federal Divisional Council and he urged me to run for the seat. I was a bit naive. I did not really understand all this political culture stuff. I want to thank Loris Barlow, his wife, and Bill Richardson, Max Mathers and Shirley Lehman, who had such faith in me then.
I can honestly say that the hardest bit was telling my father that I was going into politics . My father had a restaurant that was apolitical and he had been apolitical. Members of the trade union movement, the Labor Party, the National Party and the Liberal Party would go into my family's restaurant. So the hardest thing was telling him. I had been previously approached by the Liberal Party to run in a state seat and I had declined that offer; however, I was being given an opportunity to run for a federal seat, and federal politics was too alluring. It was not an easy feat. I had a very worthy opponent in Labor's Special Minister of State at the time, Gary Johns . I was a sole parent with two children and at the time I was working three part - time jobs.
I bravely walked into my father's restaurant office t o tell him that I would be running for preselection two nights later. My father , in his typically protective manner , told me that politics was a dirty business and that no daughter of his was going into politics and that he would not be supporting me. It did not quite go the way I thought it would. So I told him that, w ith or without his support , I was determined to run and win the seat for the Liberal Party and to see the end of the Keating Labor g overnment and the election of John Howard as Prime Minister. John Howard was then , as he is today , a political inspiration to me. He is one of the finest people I have ever met, if not the finest . I thank him for his counsel and I sin cerely thank him for his friendship for more than two decades.
F ollowing my successful preselection, I then began an 18 - month - long campaign . A fter a few months of my father not talking to me, I knew I had won him over when he started to give me advice on what to put in my speeches. I went on to win the seat of Petrie for the Liberal Party in 1996 . A historic group of women came into that party at that time. I was really proud. I am sitting here with some of those women. Sharman Stone came in at that time. I am looking around; there are not many of us left. Entschie came in—there are a lot of 96ers in Brisbane.
Mr Entsch interjecting —
But you are not a woman, Entschie. I am just doing the woman thing now.
My family were so incredibly proud of me , and my father's friends said that my father had grown six inches taller the night of the election with his pride for me. I distinctly remember my first day on the job. I had no idea what to do. I walked into this empty office that had a few paperclips left in a drawer. There was no documentation—there was nothing. Talk about a baptism of fire: on the first day, the Commonwealth Bank had shut down and I had 250 angry constituents at a meeting at Scarborough to attend . Then that night I had to open up a caf e in Redcliffe. I went to get out to my car—I could not believe it; I thought it was like something out of a movie—and there were two guys having a punch- up beside my car . I was frozen with fear. I did not know whether to get out, as I would be part of the altercation. Anyway, the police soon arrived and chased them down the street, and order was restored.
I was starting to have doubts about this whole politic al thing and wondered what I h ad got myself into. So I was absolutely delighted to see the current m ember for Petrie , Luke Howarth , win the seat for the LNP at the 2013 election. I learnt very quickly and I had some wonderful staff and supporters and friends along the way . I en joyed representing th is beautiful seat . It is tough. I have the utmost regard for people on both sides of the House who hold marginal seats. It takes a certain type of person to hold a marginal seat and to look after their constituents. I doorknocked the business community and made sure that I had regular listening posts. I was so proud to be re-elected in that very difficult election in 1998 and, again, in 2001 and 2004.
Following my re-election in 2004, I received one of the best phone calls that you could ever get. It is when the Prime Minister rings you and asks you to serve in the Liberal ministry. I got that call from John Howard. I was the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Defence and later the Parliamentary Secretary for Foreign Affairs and the Assistant Minister for Immigration and Citizenship. I have been absolutely honoured and delighted to have worked with some of Australia's finest Defence men and women. The work that they do in protecting Australia's national interests abroad and close to home is so important, and I salute them. I will always be one of their loyal advocates.
I had the pleasure of working with the then Minister for Defence, the Hon. Robert Hill, at a historic time for Defence, and I am delighted to be leaving with the current Minister for Defence, Marise Payne, handing down a significant white paper. It was not an easy portfolio. I used to say that Senator Robert Hill had all the sexy things—the Tiger helicopters and all that stuff—and I had the rest. The rest was IT, legal, Defence housing, reserves, infrastructure. I used to be woken up at 5 am in the morning by the ABC whenever it was decided that a piece of Defence land or a Defence base had to be sold. It absolutely drove me insane, so I put in place an effective Defence property register.
I am very proud that I was able to use my business skills. All the work that I had done in the food and restaurant business came in very handy. I was able to work on providing food and provisions for our Defence men and women and making sure that they had the right type of food in the mess. I am very proud of all of my defence work, particularly in ensuring that reserve policy looked after Defence men and women, particularly in the health area. I fought very, very hard to ensure that health benefits were extended to them. I also worked hard to ensure that the cadets had everything that they needed, including bringing in a new cadet system—CadetNet.
When I served in the Howard ministry I was able to use all of those skills and make some very prudent decisions on behalf of the Commonwealth that allowed Peter Costello to use some of that money in other portfolio areas. I also learnt pretty quickly that everyone is very protective of Defence land, particularly if they had been walking their dog there for the last 20 years. Even if it was a disused military base, no-one wanted to part with it.
I was proud of the work that I did in many other areas, particularly in international development, settlement services and foreign aid. I enjoyed, as I said, working on the business side of Defence, particularly Defence Industries. We have an incredible opportunity right now to work with some of the most innovative and dynamic people in this area to enhance our domestic and export industry. I want to thank the many NGOs that I have met in this place. Some of them do the most incredible work in the Indo-Pacific area. I also had the incredible privilege of working with two foreign ministers—the Hon. Alexander Downer and the Hon. Julie Bishop. I was really pleased to play a significant role in the work that we did as a government in empowering women and alleviating poverty—and not just the incredible work that was done on this side of the House but the work that many members on the opposite side have done with us to make sure that we alleviate poverty.
I particularly enjoyed working to deliver the Smart Traveller program. It was such a complicated program to get onto and very user unfriendly. So we did a lot of research and found out why people travelled to exotic destinations. One of the things that used to dishearten me was when people would do crazy things like decide to do the Kokoda Track when they were very unfit and had never done such things before. There were many times that I had to arrange for people to be evacuated, usually to Townsville Hospital. So, please, do not go and climb mountains if you have not practised before going overseas. The Smart Traveller program continues to evolve, and it is a terrific program. I always make sure that my children and their friends—and my friends—register when they go overseas. I think I have become almost evangelical about it.
I have helped citizens with consular problems and issues when they have been overseas. Most people go on a holiday and it goes really well, but sometimes they are caught in a war zone, natural disasters happen or, God forbid, they do not come back from holiday and personal tragedy prevails. I have had the enormous privilege of working with families in times of terrible hardship. I particularly remember the Lebanese conflict, when the port, the airport, every form of transport node, had been bombed. I remember the wonderful work that DFAT did to ensure we got our residents and many thousands of Lebanese-Australians and other travellers who were stuck in Lebanon at the time. That was probably some of the most rewarding work that I did. I think my husband said to me that he could not make any sense out of me for about 30 or 40 days while it was on, because I was always on the phone, doing countless media interviews and updating people on what they needed to do. I thank the DFAT staff. They do some incredible work. The situation got rather heated in that particular disaster.
I was also really proud to work with settlement service providers in the multicultural sector. As the daughter of immigrants, I know only too well how hard it is to come to this country and not have the necessary language skills. I have enjoyed working with refugee settlement services, but we have to do more to make sure that refugees work in the business sector. We need to have more defined pathways to employment and we need to get the business sector involved. I have had the opportunity of having many refugees work for my family, and it has been a rewarding and enriching experience for me. They want what we all want—they want a stable future for their children; they want the very best for their families. I very much welcomed our government's decision to increase the intake by 12,000 refugees in the Syrian crisis. Australia has a very important role to play in making sure these people are settled and contribute to the future of our country.
Now for some reflection on a not-so-nice period. In 2007 I lost my seat—or, as I say, I was involuntarily retired—at the Kevin 07 election. I must say it was a very good marketing campaign. As someone who has had a very strong marketing background, the swing in Queensland was way too much. There was a swing of 10 per cent, affecting me and many members—some of whom are sitting in this chamber right now. I had a swing of nine per cent. It was too much to withstand. They call them bloodshed moments in politics. They happen sometimes. It was a sad time for me, but I left knowing that I had done everything that I could to serve my electorate. So I returned and worked in a family business with my two sisters and I went back to QUT, where I had taught before, to the school of marketing and international business, and worked with some local charities.
I thought my life was going along pretty well until I kept getting phone calls from former Prime Minister Abbott and Prime Minister Turnbull, encouraging me to return. I said: 'No, no. Eleven years is enough. I have done my public service.' But my husband, Robert, and I, as we always do, did a pros and a cons list—and I can safely say that Robert's cons list was much lengthier than my pro list. With the support of my husband and my family and lots of LNP members, I decided to run for the federal seat of Brisbane. It would have been much easier to run for the federal seat of Petrie. But, no, I love a challenge. I felt that I had a connection to Brisbane, as my family had been there for over 60 years. It was a tough campaign and a seat that Labor had taken for granted for a little while. It was very much their heartland, and I knew that was going to be really difficult—a bit like climbing Mount Everest. But the seat had changed and people were hungry for a change, and my team and I campaigned hard. We ignored the detractors who said that we did not have a chance. Under the leadership of Tony Abbott, our campaign was well received. It was a torturous time after the election. There were 14 days of scrutineering—I think I must have dealt with every barrister that was in the Liberal Party—and 14 sleepless nights. We won Brisbane by 1,831 votes, and it meant so much to the many volunteers and the dedicated LNP branch members, who had worked tirelessly.
I want to pay tribute to my predecessor, the Hon. Arch Bevis, who had been a popular local member for a very, very long time. I thank the previous Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, for appointing me to the shadow ministry as the shadow parliamentary secretary for international development assistance and the shadow parliamentary secretary for citizenship and settlement—two parly sec roles that kept me very, very busy, and I enjoyed every moment. In these roles I championed the need for the private sector to play a very valuable role in helping us deliver aid effectiveness. I pushed for more involvement with the private sector and I was absolutely delighted to see our foreign minister, Julie Bishop, create an innovation exchange for foreign aid. I welcome the great work that has been done by the department to work with stakeholders to deliver more effective aid.
I enjoyed the incredible work that I did with the many medical research institutes—particularly to make sure that medical research was a pillar of our foreign aid program, because many of the medical practices that occur in developing countries are antiquated, and we need to make sure that we have very vital data. It is great to see that Bloomberg have teamed up with the federal government to make sure that we get some of that very important data—particularly on births and deaths and the prevalence of diseases—because only then can we roll out effective medical treatments in our region. I was absolutely delighted to see that $30 million was allocated by the foreign minister to set up a special medical research section in foreign aid.
It is really difficult being in opposition, and I feel for my colleagues on the opposite side of the House. When you prepare for estimates it is a very interesting time. Mr Google comes in very handy. I enjoyed providing many questions for my Senate colleagues, particularly in the foreign aid sector—particularly trying to work out the many millions that were spent on foreign aid, and I know that we went very hard on you in terms of the cost of that security council seat, and I played a small part in that I am proud to say.
I am really proud to represent Brisbane in this place. It is a vibrant, diverse, exciting and entrepreneurial city, and it is growing every day. As I look out of my office window on most days, there are seven cranes on the horizon. I found myself the only Liberal in this place to hold a state capital CBD seat. I have represented 30,000 businesses and the many community groups who work so hard. The electorate of Brisbane is dynamic and eclectic, and I have loved every single moment of being their member. Brisbane is an economic powerhouse.
I want to just record some of the achievements that I am so proud to have delivered. There was $125,000 to OzHarvest for a new van to deliver a quarter of a million more meals for Queenslanders affected by homelessness, and also to help to reduce landfill from wasted food. OzHarvest pick up foods from cafes and restaurants and they deliver them to services that provide food for the homeless and socially disadvantaged. Only last week I was really proud to participate in the CEO cook-off for OzHarvest with the Macquarie investments team and chef Ben Williamson from Gerard's restaurant. We cooked an entree, a main course and dessert, and we fed 350 homeless people. And the Brisbane and Sydney events raised $1.4 million, which is just an incredible effort. I want to thank Ronni Kahn. She is an amazing woman and I am so pleased I met her several years ago.
There was $5 million for the Brisbane Broncos for their new training and community development project. I want to thank them for all the work they do in Indigenous development. Without some of that great work, and the Deadly Choices campaign, there would be many disadvantaged communities, and I thank them most sincerely.
There was also $750,00 for the Brisbane Inner North Sporting Community for facility upgrades, $55 million for ferry terminal upgrades after the devastating effects of the floods, and $16 million for local road upgrades and hotspots, and the many, many millions that I fought to deliver to diverse groups to help the many disadvantaged people in our electorate. We have delivered so much, and I know the Turnbull government will continue investing in Brisbane.
I have had the immense privilege of chairing the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade. I remember that, when I first became a member in this place, I was told I must not put my name down on this committee and it was very balloted and highly contested and I would never get a spot on it. So to find myself, some years later, a chair was truly a privilege. It is the largest committee in the parliament. I want to thank my co-chair, Nick Champion. I cannot say—it is like he has a split personality. In the chamber, he turns into this completely different person. As my co-chair on the joint standing committee, he is the most amenable, cooperative and supportive deputy chair that you could ever have. It is like having this Jekyll-and-Hyde character in many ways. I thank him and I think the many other wonderful members of the committee. I see David Feeney from the other side is here, and so is Melissa Parke. Thank you for all the great work that you have done with our side of politics on this incredible committee. Sometimes the nastiness of politics is left aside when we do this incredibly wonderful work. I want to thank Sharman, who is sitting in front of me, and Dr Jensen, who is also here. There are a lot of members on that committee and I want to thank them so much.
We have engaged with the Defence Force, members of the diplomatic community, the many NGOs and those who work in foreign aid and the academic sector. It is an important committee because it is a conduit to the very many visiting dignitaries and also international delegations. The committee has done a huge volume of work. I am not going to name all its reports. I want to thank all of the past chairs—and I see Philip Ruddock is here as well—for their work on human rights, foreign affairs, aid and trade. I thank Bruce Scott for his wonderful work in the Middle East. I also thank Maria Vamvakinou. So much wonderful work has been done over a long time on defence, foreign affairs, trade and human rights. I am particularly proud of the work that we did in helping to secure the release of Peter Greste. As a committee we worked formidably together. Sadly we were not successful in stopping the executions of Mr Chan and Mr Sukumaran, but we as a committee did everything possible. That was a very sad day for all of us.
I am proud of my other work as the Co-convenor of Parliamentary Friends of Dementia, along with Shayne Neumann, the member for Blair, and I welcome our government's $200 million allocation for research in this area. I see Tony Zappia is here. He also has a very keen interest in this. There are 353,800 Australians with dementia and this figure is expected to increase to almost 900,000 by 2050.
There is another silent problem holding back productivity in this country, and I want to talk briefly about it. It is the difficulty people have in the work place with literacy and numeracy. Recently a report from the Australian Industry Group's Innes Willox found that 44 per cent of people in Australian workplaces have literacy and numeracy problems. Much more work needs to be done here, and I have spoken to my colleagues about this on a few occasions. I think we need to do much more with the business community. This is holding back the productivity of this nation. We really need to work hard on it.
One of the saddest things I saw as an employer was when I gave an instruction on one of our very busy Christmas trading days to a young man. I went to serve customers and two hours later I went into the kitchen and he was still reading the one-page document. It broke my heart. I do not want anyone who works in any workplace in Australia to be hampered because of lack of literacy and numeracy. The opposition will hopefully work with us as well to ensure we have some programs in the future to address this issue.
I am particularly proud of the work I have done on PTSD with our Defence men and women in raising awareness of this issue in the parliament. I believe more needs to be done. I believe we need to tailor specific work programs to help our fine ADF members to transition back into community life, as some of them find it hard to go straight from military life into work life, and then help them to transition back into civilian life. I thank the many researchers and groups, including Mates4Mates in my electorate, who are doing a fantastic job with our service men and women. I also think the many service organisations that work in this space.
I would like to see more women in this parliament. It is absolutely vital that our party organisation preselects more fine women to represent their communities in the federal parliament. It has been a pleasure to work with the Menzies research institute and in particular Senator Linda Reynolds and Minister Michaelia Cash in this space.
It has been a privilege to be co-convener of the Parliamentary Friends of Women and Work along with Senator Moore and Senator Waters. It is absolutely imperative that the issue of pay equity and the number of women on boards be addressed. I was delighted last week to hear Minister Cash lay out our government's target to push for 50 per cent of women on government boards. I cannot understand why, in this day and age, two law graduates, one male and one female, starting at the same firm from the same university can start with different salaries. This is why there is a gender pay gap and women never catch up. It affects their superannuation and their quality of life in later years. I hope that in the future there will be more women elected to this place and that, one day, we will not have to talk about quotas and targets and this parliament will be truly representative of all Australia's population.
I had some wonderful mentors in Senator John Herron, the late Senator Warwick Perrer and the late David Jull. When I first came into this place, they gave me a solid foundation. I thank them for taking the time to provide that guidance to a rookie MP. I thank my parliamentary colleagues. I will be sad to leave. I will miss good members from both sides of the House. I thank the class of '96. It was a very special class. Phil Barresi is finally married—we are all very happy about that—and I caught up with him at his wedding recently. I thank Mal Brough, Bruce Billson, Phil Barresi, Gary Nairn, Ricky Johnson, Bob Baldwin, Sharman Stone, Warren Entsch—how could I forget you, Entschy!—and the many members of the class of '96 who are in this House.
A government member: Andrew Southcott.
And Andrew Southcott—thank you so much, Andrew. There are only a few left. Russell Broadbent is another. He came back to the House a second time. I want to thank my many dear friends in this place, including Kelly O'Dwyer and Sussan Ley. Also, the first person I saw was you, Joel. Joel Fitzgibbon was the first person I saw when I arrived in Canberra. I have never been the same since! You are now a neighbour across the chamber. You and Anthony Albanese were very kind to me and I thank you for that.
An honourable member: Oh, rubbish!
He was—he was very nice to me.
There is not a day when I do not think of the late Don Randall. I miss him terribly. I want to acknowledge him. I thank you, Warren Entsch. I thank my good friends Andrew Southcott, Bruce Billson, Sharman Stone, Louise Markus, Nola Marino, Mal Brough, Ian Macfarlane, Bronwyn Bishop, Julie Bishop, Jane Prentice and Michaelia Cash. There are many others. I cannot name them all. You are all very special to me. I thank you for your support and your friendship. I thank Scotty Buchholz, too, for his work as the whip. I mentioned Nola. It is a tough gig and I thank you for the support that both of you have given to members in this House.
I want to thank the member for Griffith, Terri Butler, and say what a pleasure it was to work with her and my dear friend the member for Leichhardt, Warren Entsch, on the cross-party Marriage Legislation Amendment Bill 2015. Marriage equality is long overdue in this country and I do regret that we have been unable to get that important piece of legislation through the parliament. Despite a plebiscite not being my preferred course of action, I support the decision of my party and I look forward to campaigning for a 'yes' vote at the national plebiscite after the next election. I also thank the members for Melbourne, Indi, Dennison and Werriwa for their work on the bill.
I thank the many LNP branch members across Brisbane for the wonderful opportunity they have provided me to represent the electorate of Brisbane. To my campaign directors, Mark Wood and Chris Kelly, thank you for all you did to make sure that I got elected. I also thank Robert Lambert. In particular, I must mention Geoff Esdale, Hellen Zappala, Denise Shellback, Louise Baker, Mary Caroline van Paasen, Raewyn Bailey and our local state members and councillors who have worked alongside me in this time. I want to thank the LNP organisation and I wish the new state director, Lincoln Folo, and president, Gary Spence, all the best. I will do whatever I can to ensure that Brisbane remains blue, whoever my successor is.
To the clerks of this wonderful parliament, particularly the Clerk of the House, David Elder, Robyn—who is sitting at the desk—and the many clerks, thank you for your kindness. To the transport department—Greg and his team—and the fantastic staff in the Serjeant-at-Arms Office, thank you for all your assistance over the years. To the wonderful security staff, the cleaners, the parliamentary attendants, the ever-smiling Tim and the wonderful staff in the dining room, thank you for making it such a joy to be in this beautiful building.
I want to take the time to put on the record my thanks to my wonderful staff—some of whom are sitting in the dispatch box today—past and present. My outstanding office manager Luke Barnes's dedication, commitment and loyalty to me, the LNP and to Brisbane is so inspiring. Luke really is one of the best political minds I have ever worked with. Thank you for all that you have done for me—over the past year in particular; it has been a very difficult one, to say the least. Your support, encouragement, strength, friendship and guidance has meant a great deal to me and I cannot thank you enough. To my wonderful media adviser, Guy Creighton, you are so talented—isn't that what you say? I thank you for all your hard work and commitment to me and the Brisbane campaign. I know you will continue to make a difference in whatever you do in the future. To my two other staff who are in Brisbane working tirelessly, as they always do: I want to thank Madeline Paramor, who has been with me for over four years and, secondly, I want to thank Austin Wenke. Thank you both for all you do and for the wonderful assistance you provide every day to the people of Brisbane. I also want to thank Margo Gates, Helen Weldon, Fiona Murphy, Miriam Lane, Coral Stuart and the many staff who served with me in the Petrie and Brisbane offices.
Now, to my family. To my loving husband, Robert Duffy, thank you for your love and support during my time in politics. You are the best driver, security detail, cook and housekeeper I could ever ask for. I note that you drew the line at being my personal valet at election time. I want to thank you, Rob, for everything that you have done for me. To my beautiful children, Rachelle and Ben, thank you for sharing me in public life for the last 18 years. I know that there have been times that have not been easy for you. I look forward to the next chapter and I am so incredibly proud of the successful people you have both become. To the wider Gambaro family: to each and every one of you I say thank you for your love and support, in particular, my late father, Dominic, my mother, Rosetta, my long-suffering and enthusiastic brother and sisters, John, Elisa and Ida, my brothers-in-law and the Duffy clan. They have always been there to hand out how-to-vote cards on election day and put up with my absences. I thank you so much. My sisters, when I said I was making the decision to leave politics, said, 'As long as you bring your brain back with you.' I know now what they were talking about. Quite often, many of us who go home are so consumed with the 24-hour cycle that is politics.
To the Prime Minister, the Hon. Malcolm Turnbull, the Deputy Leader, the Hon. Julie Bishop, and Barnaby Joyce, I wish you and the parliamentary team all the very best in the upcoming election. Thank you for all the support and encouragement you have provided to me as a member. I strongly believe that, under your leadership, Malcolm, Australia is heading in the right direction and we have an exciting future ahead. I look forward to campaigning with you and my successor to retain Brisbane for the Turnbull government.
Finally, I want to thank the people of Brisbane. It has been an absolute honour and a privilege to be your representative in the federal parliament.
Debate adjourned.
I give my warmest regards to the members for Dunkley and Brisbane and thank them for their great contributions to public life. I seek leave to move a motion to approve a proposed work that was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works.
Is leave granted?
Mr Deputy Speaker, if the government is determined to go ahead with this motion today, we will grant leave and we will not block it. But it is the view of the opposition that not enough information has yet been provided to the parliament to make the case for this decision, and we do caution the government—in terms of the large amount of public money that is involved—that we are currently being asked to act on insufficient information.
Leave granted.
I thank the Manager of Opposition Business for granting leave. I move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: Fit-out of the new Australian Embassy, Doha, Qatar.
As I advised the House when referring this project to the Public Works Committee, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade proposes to undertake a fit-out of leased premises to establish a new Australian embassy in Doha, Qatar.
On 12 May 2015, the government announced that it would open a new embassy in Doha. Doha is a key growth area in the Middle East, and the establishment of an embassy there would facilitate Australia's commercial links with Qatar. The proposed works will provide efficient, modern and functional accommodation that meets the needs of diplomatic representation in the country.
The committee has conducted an inquiry and is of the view that the project signifies value for money for the Commonwealth and constitutes a project that is fit for purpose and expedient to carry out. In its report, the committee has made a number of recommendations in relation to receiving progress reports at key milestones and DFAT establishing clear criteria for its spatial requirements for the different types of diplomatic work for its overseas embassies. DFAT acknowledges and will implement the recommendations of the committee.
On behalf of the government, I would like to thank the Public Works Committee for once again undertaking a timely and vigorous inquiry. I note there is a dissenting report, but the government agrees with the majority of the committee. Subject to parliamentary approval of the project and fit-out, it is expected to commence in mid-2016 and, with best endeavours, be completed by late 2016.
I commend the motion to the House.
It is the case that, on the information provided to the Public Works Committee, the Labor members believe that the parliament is not ready to make this decision. Labor members listened to and took heed of all the evidence and, based on the evidence provided, determined to prepare a dissenting report. There may well be other evidence that has not been shared with the Public Works Committee, but committee members can only make recommendations based on the evidence the committee has. Labor urge the government to act with caution and with reference to the significant amount of taxpayers' money involved.
Question agreed to.
With the indulgence of the House, I will make my valedictory speech. I would like to thank all of the staff who have ever worked for me, ever kept me on time, ever kept me up to the mark and ever kept me being as good as I could ever be in this role. I thank the attendants, the clerks, the cleaners, the Comcar drivers and everyone else who works in this place to make this terrific institution as good as it can be.
I also thank a former senator, a fellow called Bob Collins, who gave me my first job in politics, in the early 1980s, in Darwin. That is where I met Warren Snowdon and began a lifelong combat with him which resulted in Warren winning on most occasions and one of the most enduring friendships of my life.
I thank Hansard. I thank the shadow ministers with whom I serve. I thank my party for both its support and its tolerance. I thank my voters for their incredible tolerance, and my supporters, both physical and emotional. In particular, I thank the financial supporters of my campaigns.
I thank those ministerial staff who have worked with me. I have always thought that you should select ministerial staff who complement your own views and do not reinforce them—staff who will challenge you and whose instinctive reactions are not your own. I have been blessed with those staff choices.
I thank the industries with whom I have worked—tourism, resources, small business, energy and the portfolio of northern Australia. They were all fantastic and wonderful opportunities given to me by Prime Ministers Rudd and Gillard.
I want to thank the public servants with whom I have worked. Our Australian Public Service is a unique institution. There are 160,000—at least, there used to be; it is probably now 140,000—Australians working in the interests of our nation. They are working every hour of every day somewhere in the world to support our country and our people. I thank them for the work that they do, and I thank them for the work that they did to make me look as good as I could be.
I thank my personal staff—in particular, Helen Hansen. To be a staffer of a parliamentarian is a tough gig. Staffers must always be there, and Helen always has been—not simply in Rockingham but here in Canberra and wherever we needed her to be. Energy, loyalty, dedication and devotion are important in our staff, and I count myself as being very lucky that my electorate staff have been so stable and thoughtful, thanks to the work that Helen has put in to make my local operation work.
I thank Kim Beazley. Kim bequeathed me a seat that was held by Labor, and I feel privileged to be handing that seat on to Madeleine King, who will hold that seat in the next parliament and make a wonderful contribution. Madeleine will be joined by Tim Hammond. With Madeleine and Tim, we will renovate the face of Labor in Canberra. From Western Australia, a new generation is coming through to make their mark. I am so pleased to be a part of that generational change.
I have always thought that diversity in advice was important. As a parliamentarian, a party member and a party leader, I have always thought that being a mentor is important. I have always thought that being outcomes focused is important and that you come here to do your work as well as you possibly can. I apologise to those electors who thought that my job was to come here and do their work. I came here to do mine, and I am proud of that. I came here to work hard and to be as fair as I could be. I came here to be, wherever possible, as polite as I could be to those people with whom I worked.
I thank my mum, who, in July, will celebrate 50 years of being in Australia. My father died in 2009, but mum continues to live in Whyalla, and my twin sister continues to share that town with mum. My brother, David, is in Brisbane. I thank all of them for their support, care and consideration through my life and through my time in parliament. I was lucky to grow up in a family which was overwhelmingly political.
Peter Walsh made a terrific contribution to this place in the other chamber. Peter was frugal and fair and, in a double-dissolution election in July 1987, amidst declining outlays, increased the Labor primary vote and the Labor preferred vote. That achievement in a double-dissolution election in July 1987—on Gough Whitlam's birthday—is perhaps one of the finest achievements of that Labor government. I became a big fan of double-dissolution elections in July!
What can you say, when you are about to finish up in this place, to your wife, who has put up with everything? I can only say thank you. To my children—Riley, Darcy and Toby—who fell asleep when I made my first speech: you are my heroes.
I thank, in particular, every single member of the parliamentary Labor Party. I thank Bill Shorten, who will be the Prime Minister of this country and who will be a good Prime Minister. Our country is particularly blessed in that we have as leader of the Liberal Party a decent man and we have as leader of the Labor Party—the future Prime Minister—a person in whom we can believe and in whom I believe. I will also say this: friendships get stressed in politics, but real affection never gets broken. I thank you all, and that is that.
I join with my colleagues in saying that I strongly support the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Interest Charge) Bill 2016. In supporting that, it does remind me that over the last 15 or so years it has been an incredible thing to be, initially, the member for Parkes and now, over the last nine years, the member for Calare. Western New South Wales is an incredible place, and I think I have probably been the member for most of it over the various redistributions that have happened. When I think about it, I have no doubt that I am the only person at the state or federal level who has been the member for both Broken Hill and Lithgow, which is right on the mountains. They are over 1,000 kilometres apart, which is a long way in New South Wales. It is not very far in Western Australia, but it is a long way in New South Wales.
When I think about the differences over those years, what happens in that part of the world is quite phenomenal. The most remote town in New South Wales is Tibooburra. It is a place that maybe runs one sheep to every 20 or 25 acres. At the other end, in the central west you have got areas running over five sheep to an acre. That is such an incredible variation in climate, in temperature and certainly in rainfall. Processing in the far west at Milparinka was a roo works. Processing in the east in Blayney and in Bathurst is Nestle and Mars. That is the incredible variation that you see in what is obviously the oldest and, to me, the most precious part of this country.
My first three years as the member for Parkes were an absolute ball. That is when you get to know your people. It is when you get to know your LGAs, your local governments. It is when you get to know the heart and soul of it. After that, you do not quite have the same amount of time. I guess I am pretty much an expert at small towns. I grew up at Mount Hope, which, when I was young, had a pub, a store, post office and about four houses. Now it has just got a pub. The houses and the post office and the store seem to have gone.
What I did learn in the far west of New South Wales is that they are the toughest, the most resilient, the most adaptable people and they make their own fun. When you do not have much you have just got to make do with what you have got. In most of those small towns and those places, if you want to see people you go to the pub, and I am pretty good at that. My staff and I used to leave Dubbo and go away for a week, and we would come back a bit the worse for wear—headaches and all. But by God we knew our place, we knew our country and we knew our people.
The western region of New South Wales is a very special place. It is a tough place, and I will talk a little about the problems it has had in the last decade in a moment.
When we come here, we owe our first duty to our country. We all do. I do not care what your political persuasion is; you have to put your country first. After that, you have to put your people and your electorate—what they do is what really matters. It is the country that Lawson and Banjo talked about, wrote about and sang about. When I think about it, I have Broken Hill in the far west, which, I guess, is the most famous mining town in Australia. It was a very Labor place in those days, but they were so honest and so up-front. It was just fantastic. If you did something for them, if you were able to, they would thank you. They would thank you publicly. They would not vote for you, but they would thank you in public, on the air or on TV. They are just wonderful people.
Lithgow, at the other extreme, is kind of similar, but different. They were both mining towns: one was copper, zinc, lead and all those strange minerals, and the other, Lithgow, is a coalmine. Lithgow had the first iron ore smelter in Australia. It had the early coalmines, and they brought the coal to Lithgow. Not only that, Lithgow had Australia's first serious munitions factory. It is still there, with the most talented, special tradespeople you will ever see in your life. One town was isolated mentally and physically, and the other—maybe Lithgow is a little mentally isolated, but aren't we all? We all like where we are.
As I said, they are the toughest, most resilient, adaptable people, but what I really have not said is that they are also the most hospitable, wonderful people that you will ever come across. They were so good to me. I will die thinking that western New South Wales is the best place, whether it is the driest at Tibooburra or the wettest at Oberon. Talk about different—Tibooburra is probably the hottest place in New South Wales, and Oberon is almost a country town lichen, right up against the mountains. They are people who are into forestry—some of the best forestry in the country is at Oberon. Aside from the Snowy scheme, probably the highest dam in Australia is at Oberon. Let me tell you, it is also one of the coldest places in Australia. When it blows, you know it.
But they are doers. In all the part of Australia I am talking about, they are not paper shufflers. They are not looking to avoid this or that. They grow things. They mine things. They export things. We do things. That is why it is so special. It does not matter where you are; they are not whingeing about the fact that there are a few pigs nearby or the fact that all that smoke is going up; that is what life is and that is what we do. Whether it is Lithgow and Oberon in the east or Tibooburra and Broken Hill in the west, they are just the most tough, wonderful people you will ever come across.
Originally my electorate was Dubbo, Forbes, Parkes and everything west, so I never, ever dreamt that I would also, two redistributions later, be the member for where I was born—Bathurst. Bathurst is a very historical place. It is much older than Melbourne and much older than Brisbane. It is the third oldest city in Australia, after Sydney and Hobart. I guess Parramatta might have some claims, but we will not worry about that. It is where mining started. It is where gold was found. That is where Hargraves got paid for finding gold. They actually found it quite a long time before that, but they did want competition so they did not tell anyone. It is where agriculture got serious in Australia—and irrigation and the whole lot. That is where it started. Since European settlement, that is where Australia really got going, and in those days, without ag, you had nothing.
As I said, at that stage, when I became the member for Calare instead of Parkes, suddenly I had three cities instead of one—Lithgow, Bathurst and Orange—and I suddenly realised too that I had the best country in Australia. Some of you might argue about that, but I would not argue too hard. You have to remember that we were growing things before you guys even found your country. As I said, in the east of the electorate there is gold, and wine! I did my best to check it all out—you cannot skite about your country if you have not tried what it does, and I have tried most of them. In the last 25 years, Orange has gone from being unheard of to having some of the best wineries in the country, and now they are adding Mudgee to it, so it will be pretty hard to toss Calare in the future. As I said before, it is just amazing—the fat lambs, the mining—it is just a wonderful part of Australia and it has been an amazing privilege to look after it. And to be looked after by it, I might add.
The thing which strikes me most about my time in this place is the almost decade-long drought that we had. Whereas drought is no stranger to Tibooburra or even Condobolin and all the Western Division and even much further in, it is not often places like Orange and Molong cop a drought, but they copped that one. The 1982-83 drought is the worst drought I ever struck in my life, but it did not go on for the best part of a decade. There were no allocations on the Lachlan for seven years, and irrigation had never been affected like that before—not in my lifetime. I have to tell you I was proudest of our government, of our party and of our leaders in the way we dealt with that drought.
It started off, in an official sense, when John Anderson and I met John Howard in Cobar on the plane. We drove him out just south of Cobar to Frosty Singleton's place. Frosty has since passed on. He was not that wrapped with us, because he was a real rifle man and he was not keen about the 2006 deals on firearms, but he rose above that because he knew there were was a much bigger issue involved. He took us out to his place, and he actually took us to the wrong dam. He wanted to show us how the water was bad and the stock were bad, but he took us to the wrong one. I think I was driving, which worried the Federal Police a bit because they did not like the way I did it—they are nervous lot. Anyway, we went to this dam and Ando and I were in front. We walked up and damn me if there was very little water in this dam and a heap of mud. A few hundred sheep took off, but there was a lamb stuck in it. Without thinking, we both walked down. I lent over and grabbed this thing. Ando held onto me, and Howard came down, and that became quite a famous photo. Everyone thought we set it up—you do not know much about farmers and stock if you think you deliberately drop a lamb in the mud. But that was kind of when Howard accepted that this drought was here to stay and that it was a really bad one. The two of them made sure that, as the drought got worse, so the government got more generous. It was answering the call when we needed to. I think he came out to my electorate four times in the course of that drought.
The last time the two Johns came out was at Forbes, and that was when the irrigation was in it up to its neck and everything was very crook. I remember this day particularly well. A friend of mine I went to school with—from further out west; it does not matter where—and his wife had lost a son and they had lost a neighbour. I said to John, 'There are two people I really want you to talk to.' He said, 'What about?' I said, 'Look, they have lost a son and a neighbour and they want to talk to you about depression.' Drought does not cause depression but it certainly exacerbates it. I should say at this point in time that, if it is possible for any good to come out of bad, what came out of that decade of drought was that farmers and country people accepted that depression was an issue that had to be dealt with, and they started talking about it. That was the only good thing out of a very bad few years. Nowadays people will put their hand up a lot of the time and talk about it, whereas once that did not happen in the bush. No-one accepted that depression even happened.
That day John said, 'Where are they?' I introduced him to them and—I can still see him—he put an arm around each of them, walked away and talked to them for about a quarter of an hour about it. It was a pretty good thing for a PM to do. The issue was huge, but he accepted that at that point in time talking to those people was the biggest thing he was going to do that day. Out of that we got special funding for people with real issues—and not just farmers either—to help them deal with those issues. I have never forgotten that day and thinking that it is an ill wind that blows nobody any good. I thank John Howard for that and I thank both John Howard and John Anderson for their support through what was the worst period in the bush that I ever saw.
I do want to mention a few people. Firstly I thank Sue Sillovich and the Nats out at Broken Hill. When those guys started with the National Party branch at Broken Hill it was not the popular thing to do. It was serious country in those days, but those guys toughed it out to the point where we had both a state and a federal member. I do not care what people's political persuasion is, the further west you go the more fantastic people can sometimes be. Places like Condo and Dubbo were just fantastic. Pauline McAllister and all the Nats in Dubbo, who now look after Mark Coulton—and they will do that very well—are just wonderful people. I also have to thank Mark Olsen at Parkes and Yvonne Glasson from Forbes.
I was in agripolitics for a long time before I got into politics. Agripolitics taught me about western New South Wales, but politics taught me to be intimate with it. You learn about everything. You learn that it is no good saying someone is useless or asking, 'Why do they do it?' Saying that does not solve a problem. What you do learn in politics, which you do not really learn outside of it, is that problems are not insurmountable but they are there, and talking about them without trying to do anything about them is a total waste of time—whether it is getting a settlement with Aboriginal people or whatever it might be. Something that has been talked a lot about lately is domestic violence. Talking about those things does not prove much; we just have to do them.
I have met some incredible people. I inherited a woman called Evelyn Barber, who ran my Dubbo office. Mark inherited her from me and, as far as I know, she is still looking after him and probably will see him out. Both now and during my time as a minister some of the people who have been really fantastic are Ron Kelly, Joy Thomas and Anne Filmer. There are a lot of other people, and I am not going to try to name them all because there are too many. All those who are connected with this parliament look after us far better than we look after them. I thank Caroline MacSmith, Melissa Inwood and all the staff I have had over time. With the changes in electoral boundaries and one thing and another, I think I have had five different homes—and I suppose I still have a couple. It is a very strange life that we live and when you are on the front bench it is an absolutely crazy life, but it is for a purpose. Let's face it: this chamber is not about running Australia; it is about giving democracy a name and people having something to look at and being able to say, 'That's our member,' or, 'That's our minister.' The work goes on outside irrespective of what we do and say. All I can tell you about all of that is that you are defined by the people you represent and woe betide you the minute you forget that.
You find that there are so many incredible people, with the experiences they give you and the funny things you see. I remember being in the Tibooburra pub one night—just the once. I forget what year it was, but it was the night we won the third State of Origin game.
Honourable members interjecting—
There are some awfully rude people around here! We actually won, but, in fact, we were quite frightened because we were so close to the Queensland border that there were far more of them in the pub than there were of us. It is called the 'two-storeys hotel' and it has a lean on it. It is totally illegal, but it has a lean on it—and we had a lean on us by the time we got out of there.
You do see some incredible things. There is a place called Glen Davis, north of Lithgow. You would not believe it. Back during the war, they started mining shale oil for fuel and they put this pipeline through the most inhospitable country you will ever see anywhere you go. They gave it away not that long after the war, but there are things that exist in our country that we never know till we actually come across them.
I have four daughters and three stepdaughters and a swag of grandchildren—I am not going to start naming all of them because I will forget one and then I really will be in trouble! When I was preselected for the seat of Parkes, the preselection was held in Dubbo. I was later accused of intimidation because all seven of the girls were there, their husbands were there and their kids were there. A lot of them had little kids then; they are big kids now. I was accused of intimidation for it, but I do thank them. Obviously they were good at intimidation, because I won the preselection. When you are in this place, it means that you are a very bad grandfather. I think the one thing none of us ever really admit to ourselves in the way that we should is that, when you are in public life, particularly in this place, whether you like it or not you put your family second. If they actually accept that, it is a pretty big thing for them to do. I must thank my ex-wife, Gai, who was really good. When I entered parliament, she supported me totally and I do still thank her for that very much.
There is so much you learn. There are so many friends you make. There are so many people you may never become friends with, but, by God, they teach you a lot. I thank the constituents of Parkes and Calare for teaching me so much and for giving me some incredible memories. I would be very upset if one of them ever said, 'He wouldn't see me because I was not a Nat,' or, 'He wouldn't take any notice of what I needed.' That would really upset me because I do not think I ever thought in my life, when somebody came into my office, 'What's your political persuasion?' I do not really care when somebody needs me.
I cannot see where Lisa is, but she was good enough during the cricket this year to marry me. She does not realise what she has taken on! I guess she should.
I guess what is so wonderful about it is that I got a lot of experience—political experience, that is—when I got her, because she had looked after two senators, one of whom is up there, for something like 13 years before she actually decided it was time to take me in hand. It has been wonderful—and it will be wonderful when I get out of here with her!
To get a little more serious, I will just quickly—and no, I am not going to keep you here much longer—say a few things. I have always considered that we owe our first responsibility to the country as a whole and, when it comes to security and those sorts of things, of course that is extremely true. When you talk about country and regional Australia, do not ever forget that we live and exist, most of us, because we trade things, whether it is iron ore, coal, agricultural products, forest products—whatever it is. That is what defines us: the fact that we are traders. Look on the bright side of that: it is bringing foreign money in, and that is what we need to do. And the more we can sell our things overseas, the less we can be dictated to by the Coles and Woolworths of the world. We may need them, but they need us, too. So, as far as I am concerned, trade is not just the heart and soul of what we do; it gives us independence.
I would like to say a couple of other things. I hope that those of you who are here for the next five, 10 or 20 years do not ever forget that, while China, Japan and the US are great, close to home we have Indonesia, Malaysia and the Philippines, with an enormous number of people. We forget Indonesia at our peril. There is a lot of them. They are very close. And, as far as Australia is concerned, we need to be one heck of a lot closer to them.
Some people are quick to say that we are too close to America. I think events of the last decade have made them realise: you need to remember who your friends are. I think it will be to our peril if we ever forget how close we are to America and how much we have in common with them. We may choose our leaders a little differently, but that is what it is.
I just want to finish by saying this. I think that we are not here to tell people how to live their lives. We are here to help them live the life they want to live. We are not here to make people recipients of programs and of social services. We are here to help people help themselves.
First of all, I want to pay my regards to all of those members who have spoken before me and regaled the parliament and the public with their incredible journeys in this place, how they came here and what they have achieved, and obviously I wish them all well into the future. As Cobby just said, western New South Wales is rugged. Whenever you want a break, come to the Sunshine Coast, mate!
Folks, my journey started 21 years ago. And I have got to be honest with you: when I came to this place my greatest fear was that I would be an embarrassment. I figured everyone in this joint would be a Rhodes scholar and a brilliant orator, and I just wanted to make sure that I did not let the people of Longman down. That is a statement of fact.
When I stood for preselection there were nine candidates. You might notice that I have a couple of notes here because, as usual, I am really well prepared! The first speech I ever gave, I was very fortunate. For everyone, the most important speeches you give are your preselection speech—and you worry about every word—and your first speech in this place. I turned up there. There were nine candidates, as I said, in the memorial hall at Caboolture. It was pouring with rain. There was no speaker and no-one could hear anything, so that was a damned good thing, and I came on about eighth. I read my first page and I flicked to page 2—and it was about page 8. I became very calm and I just kept flicking and kept talking—and then I realised that I did not even have the other pages. The brilliance of that for me was that everyone thought I was this great orator who did not need notes, and it paid to my favour.
Many of us in this place will remember John Howard walking up to a lectern—if you had the pleasure of sitting near enough to him—and pulling this bit of paper out of his pocket. I have seen him pull it out. I hope I am not going to be in trouble here for holding up props, but he would hold up something with as much on it as on this piece of paper here and he would put it down and then he would speak for 40 minutes, and it would be the most coherent speech you have ever heard.
I am not going to be long tonight. I am sure you are all grateful for that, because you get to get out of here when I am finished. My staff are sitting back in the electorate office tonight and they have just messaged me to say, 'When the hell are you going to speak?' They do not normally listen to me. So, given that they are there, I first of all want to acknowledge Helen, who has been with me in both Longman and Fisher. She is just a powerhouse. This is a woman who gives so much. She has had many challenges in her personal life but she never brings them to work and she is always there as a loyal servant of to the people that I was proud enough to represent and to represent me. She is there with Annette, who also was with me previously. Again, she is just a wonderful woman. Family is everything to her. In more recent times, Leah and Sophie have been there.
Like so many people in life's journey, all of these people have had their own struggles. I think sometimes we forget that and we get so absorbed in what we do that sometimes it takes something to make us step back and reflect upon the people who are closest to us. So, to all of you sitting up there watching tonight: yes, thank you; I appreciate it, and I know you are hanging on every word.
I also have to tell you that it is really strange here tonight. If any of the public are listening—and there is no-one left in the gallery because I am speaking—they must really be confused. Everyone sat here respectfully for the last few hours listening—or at least pretending to listen—and commenting positively about the opposition. They must be saying, 'What is going wrong here?' And they would like to see a bit more of it. We all know that this place is one of combativeness, but let's all do our best to do a little more for each other in this joint and be a little less combative, because it does not do any of us justice. Here endeth the lesson.
As I said, there were nine candidates in my first preselection, and I was the interloper from the Sunshine Coast into Caboolture. I did not know anything about numbers—since then I have been accused of knowing a bit about numbers over the years—and I just thought, 'Be yourself and run.' I later found out that a fellow called Bob Tucker, who was the party president, had a little bit to say. He knew about numbers and he helped me. But along with that is a person I know who has helped Wyatt Roy: Beth Harris and her husband Peter. They showed faith in me at that time, and I thank them for putting me on this journey. It has been an incredible journey. It has been over 21 years, with a hiatus of six years in between. I think I am the only person who is sitting in this place right now who has not had a day in opposition. I knew when to leave and I knew when to come back.
An honourable member: A fair weather sailor!
A fair weather sailor! Walk in these shoes, old son. I know you are only kidding. I want to thank Bob Tucker. Another person who was in the House again this week and is known to many of you is Everald Compton. Everald Compton was asked by John Howard to help 12 members to get elected, because he was the world's first international fundraiser, and when I was first preselected there were 30 members of the electorate—Liberal Party members in those days—and there was no money in the bank. So when I was told this fellow called Everald Compton who raises hundreds of millions of dollars around the world was coming I thought, 'You beauty.'
I will never forget the meeting. He was sitting there and he said, 'Well, son,' and I said, 'Well, what do you do?' And he said, 'It's like this: you ask for it.' I said, 'Go on,' and he said, 'No, that's it,' and I was gobsmacked. But he was right. Have yourself a proposition—a proposition of 'Do you want to change the country?' in this case, because Keating was the Prime Minister. It was not 'What policy do you want?' It was 'Do you want to make a difference? Do you want to change the country?' 'Yes.' 'Well, it's going to cost you money. Are you willing to put it up.' And to my great surprise people did. I thank them for it and for showing faith in all of us.
I will quickly mention two other families who have been on this journey with me almost from the start. One is the McMahon family—Terry and Bev—just the most wonderful people, out of Brisbane. They are farmers now up in Wide Bay. They are the salt of the earth. To you and your families, I say: the love, respect and support you have given Sue and me over two decades will never be forgotten. There is also their very good mate Louis Bickle, known to many in this place. I went to his 70th birthday party and became paralytic. He owned the club, so I did not get kicked out! He is a wonderful man and a quintessential Australian, who now, at age 73, is looking for the world's new opportunities. In fact, he probably thinks there is no better time to be an Australian.
Who else? When I came up into Fisher, there were a bunch of old Liberals there. I do not mean old as in age; I mean old as in they were former Liberals. They used to come down occasionally and support me in Longman. They are the Gowers, the Stephens and the Smiths. I just want to put on the record my thanks to them for showing support for me in what was a very challenging time and sticking loyally to us.
I want to thank the party membership and the wider friendship group that everyone else has also reflected upon. I thank them for being on the journey with us through the highs and the lows, and this place has both. I did not get a chance to give a valedictory speech in 2007, and I knew I was gone. For those of you who are facing election in marginal seats—and a lot of people have reflected today on marginal seats—it is character building. In 1998, with Sue, I remember precisely where I was sitting on election night. We were in tears and saying, 'We could not have done any more,' and it is not enough. You are lost for words because you think that giving everything—and your kids give up an enormous amount, as you all know; you are not there for anything. Then the last booth came in—it was Maleny—and I went ahead by 0.1 of a per cent. I went, 'I'm in,' because I knew we would win the postal votes and the pre-polls. But it is those moments when you think that it was maybe something you did as a team—it is nothing that you do as an individual—that just pulled those few more people together and those votes that got you across the line. It allowed me to go on a journey which has enriched my life, and I hope, in some small way, we have helped to enrich a few others.
There are couple of other people to thank. Phil Barassi got married, as someone said, the other day. Teresa and I were there, and, thank God, he did get married! Good luck to his wife! No, no, they are a lovely couple. Phil said to me one day, 'You're a miserable bastard.' He was probably not the only one to say that, because I do not go out drinking and partying here, and I will tell you why—I have no disrespect for anyone else who does—but my wife was home with three young kids. I used to think 'If I go home and say, "What a great night I had last night out on the turps at Manuka," she is at home with that responsibility.' So I took the decision that it was really important that I was on that journey with her.
Phil said to me, 'You love touch footy, mate,' and we started playing touch. Not long after, Andy Turnbull turned up, and now you have the parliamentary sports group. Chris is sitting over there. We used to play touch footy together and with so many others. You build up friendships and learn things about people on a sporting field that you will never learn around in a bar or when they give speeches in this joint. That is on both sides. Thanks to everyone who has come down over the years—in particular, Joe Hockey and I. As long as Hockey was on the other side, I only had one rule: it was my ball, they were my cones, they were my rules and I refereed. You are not forgotten over there in the US, mate. We know well the contribution you have made.
I have a few things to say on policy, very briefly. The veterans have always been very important to me. Rick, Louis, Pattle and Ako at the Mooloolaba Surf Club are still doing a great job with our new vets, and I thank them for what they are doing. It is the 50th anniversary of the Battle of Long Tan, and Harry and the boys will go back there. They have recently had a hearing where people have told some really hard home truths about that battle and some of the awards that were given. I will say no more about that. Suffice to say it has been a privilege to know these men and to count them as friends. I think all of us in this place who are touched by the military feel the same way.
When I travelled with John Howard to spend Anzac Day in Iraq was one of those memories of my life. I do not want to detain you, but I think you will appreciate this story. We were flying out of Baghdad in a C130, I had General Cosgrove on my left, and I was the only one with headphones in the back. O'Leary was sitting there—he did not like flying—and the PM was up the front. I want to tell you what I could hear. The pilot said, 'Welcome, Prime Minister,' and he said, 'Oh, yeah, good to be with you!' I do not know how Hansard is going to handle my impersonation or how John is going to handle that either, just quietly! I always used to like imitating you, John, but with the most dearest respect.
We had been flying for a short period of time—Cosgrove was looking out the porthole and I could not see—when the pilot went, 'Powerlines coming up front left. Train front right', and I was thinking, 'Aren't we in the air?' So I went to Cosgrove, who said, 'We are on the ground', and I went, 'How good is this?' Then the pilot went, 'Missile front left!'—there was a bit of a change in his voice. It is bizarre what you think. I put my feet up and went 'Well, bugger me. This is how it ends', because there is nothing you can do. It was not because I am a hero, trust me. Then I heard the SAS guys at each corner say, 'No missile front left. No missile back right', and I went, 'Ah, enough excitement for one day.' We ended up flying up high, and I went to the front and said to John, 'Well, how was that?' and he went, 'Manoeuvrable, isn't it? Manoeuvrable, isn't it! The man of steel. Seriously!
While I am on John Howard: thank you for the opportunities you gave me as a minister and the trust you placed in me. The respect that I have for you is immense—as is everyone else's here. But I was also privileged to serve with Peter Costello and Peter Reith as their junior ministers, and that was an incredible experience as well.
Indigenous affairs was a big part of my life, and it will be a big part of my life to the day I die. I came back to this place because my wife had unfinished business with Indigenous affairs. I have never told this story publicly, but she has been moved beyond belief and wanted to do more for children who had been hurt. Little over a week ago it was reported that a 10-year-old girl had committed suicide. If that girl had been white and been living in Sydney, Brisbane or Melbourne, it would have been worldwide news. It hardly made the news here. It did not make our parliament. That is a reflection on all of us. I do not know what the answers are, but I do know that collectively we need to do more than care; we need to actually address it. These are tragedies in our backyard, and we collectively are responsible. That affected my wife greatly, and she wanted me to come back to continue what we tried to do earlier on. That was not to be. I never expected it to be. But I just commend her for her passion for her fellow Australians.
On that, I had the most memorable meeting with Professor Marcia Langton, Noel Pearson and Galarrwuy Yunupingu up at a Galarrwuy's joint on Ski Beach. We talked about things that mattered to people's lives but also the symbolism. We went back and spoke to John Howard and he announced that within 18 months a re-elected coalition government would address the issue of Indigenous recognition in the Constitution. Of course, we were not re-elected. But here we are eight years later and we are still talking about it. It will not fix the lives of children who have been hurt, but what it will do is fix a wrong that has been part of our Constitution from the start. We are far more enlightened today, so I just implore you all to do what you can to make sure that we fix that wrong and that we move forward as a nation of one people.
To my class of '96: Bob Baldwin; Bruce Billson; Teresa Gambaro; Andrew Southcott; Sharman Stone, who will be the only one after this term from the class of '96 to have completed 20 years—and who will continue on; Don Randall, our great friend, who he is still part of us here today—a great loss; and Joe Hockey. We were all here together at the start. As you know, two of them are, for different reasons, no longer with us. But to all of you: thank you. It was a great class, and it was a great privilege to be part of that journey.
To the people who helped and supported me to return here, particularly Glenn Ferguson, Tony Riddle and Tony Davies: I pay my greatest respect to all of you for what you do in the community on the Sunshine Coast and how you have supported me on the journey.
Finally to my wife, who went home on a plane this afternoon: I do not think she would have wanted to have been here. She wanted me back here to do a job. She was never about the pomp and ceremony. She was never comfortable here. She is at home, and I will soon be joining her. When I do we will be with our grandchildren. We are looking forward to the next phase of our life.
Thank you all for what you do for Australia. Make sure that you continue to make Australia a great nation. That is our first and last duty, and I hope that you embrace it with all your heart.
I thank all members for their contributions—and remarkably colourful contributions they were in the circumstances—on a bill that deals with a general interest charge on recipient debt in the social welfare system. Nevertheless, it is incumbent on me to briefly summarise at the finality of the second reading debate.
The bill introduces the legislative amendments required to apply an interest charge to former recipients of social welfare payments who have outstanding debts and who have failed to enter into or have not complied with an acceptable payment arrangement. The interest charge will apply to social security, family assistance, child care, paid parental leave and student assistance debts. The rate of the proposed interest charge of approximately nine per cent will be based on the 90-day bank-accepted bill rate of approximately two per cent plus an additional seven per cent as is routinely applied by the Australian Taxation Office. Under the Taxation Administration Act 1953 the bill will strengthen the integrity of Australia's welfare system.
At the end of June 2015, there were over one million debts with a value of $3.04 billion. Those debts have increased by almost 10 per cent in value since June 2014. The average value of the social welfare debt held by individuals is about $2,357. The average length of debt is over three years, making the repayment figure, based on the average Australian wage, about $60 per fortnight over 18 months if time-to-pay arrangements are entered into. The government does not consider this to be unreasonable. However, individuals are able to negotiate a lower repayment rate should their financial circumstances require it.
A debt to the Commonwealth occurs when a welfare recipient receives an overpayment of payments, to which they are not entitled. The government is taking steps to ensure that people pay back those welfare debts if they have received payments they are not entitled to. The number of debts, the size of debts and the duration of outstanding debts is a cause of some concern. One per cent of Australia's population have received money they are not entitled to and owe a debt to the other 99 per cent of Australians, a debt that in too many instances they are making no effort to repay.
There are $870 million worth of debts held by about 270,000 people who are in the welfare system who have received overpayments and then have left the welfare system. There have to be concerted efforts made to recoup that debt wherever reasonably possible. Importantly, current recipients of social welfare payments who also have a social security or family assistance debt have their welfare payments reduced until their debts are paid. The critical issue pertinent to this bill is that there is no similar arrangement in place to recover debts, naturally enough, once a person no longer requires social welfare or family assistance payments. In fact, not only is there no incentive for former recipients who are no longer dependent on the welfare system to repay their debts, some, unfortunately, actively avoid repayment.
The introduction of the interest charge will ensure that people who once received social welfare payments do not receive an unfair advantage by having received what is, in effect, an interest-free loan from the government. Debtors who are no longer eligible to receive financial support through social welfare payments are arguably more likely to have the financial capacity to make repayments than those in receipt of income support or family assistance. The interest charge will provide an incentive for responsible self-management of debts and encourage debtors to repay their debts in a timely manner where they have the financial capacity to do so. To ensure that all debtors are treated consistently and fairly, the interest charge will also apply to those receiving only childcare assistance and/or paid parental leave payments, and no other social welfare payment, with outstanding debts. These debtors are not subject to deductions from their payments and should be required to enter into an acceptable repayment arrangement to repay their debts, as with other debtors.
Debtors will receive a letter seeking repayment of the debt in full to avoid the application of the interest charge. Where the debtor cannot repay the debt in full, the letter will encourage the debtor to contact the Department of Human Services within 28 days to negotiate an acceptable repayment arrangement
If no arrangement is made within 28 days, the interest charged will then be applied to the full balance of the debt accruing on a daily basis until an acceptable debt repayment arrangement has been entered into. In cases of severe financial hardship, a thorough review of a debtor's capacity to repay will be considered. The debt might be waived or temporarily written off until the debtor's financial circumstances improve. Alternatively, a reduced rate of recovery might be applied. No interest charge would be applied for that period of time.
It is important to reiterate that only former recipients of social security and family assistance who have a debt to the Commonwealth—that is, they have received a payment to which they are not entitled—and who do not enter into or who are not honouring an acceptable repayment arrangement will have this interest charge applied. There is nothing fair about former recipients failing to repay or failing enter into a repayment plan for a debt to the Commonwealth resulting from them being in receipt of a payment to which they were not entitled. This bill simply levels the playing field to ensure that former welfare recipients with a debt to the Commonwealth are subject to the same requirement to repay the debt as expected of current welfare and family payment recipients and, indeed, any other Australian with a lawful civil debt.
The bill is expected to achieve savings in the fiscal balance of $24.4 million over four years from 1 July 2016, with underlying cash savings of $416.5 million. This bill provides long-needed incentives for people to repay their debt to the Commonwealth taxpayer so that we can ensure the sustainability of the welfare system and continue to provide assistance to those who need it the most. On that basis, I commend the bill to the House.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
I rise on indulgence for two reasons. Obviously, a beam of sunshine has shone into this chamber tonight with contributions from incredible characters on both sides of the chamber but there is also a more serious matter. I do want to say how inspiring it has been, in the career that we choose, to hear from Andrew Southcott, my doctor colleague; Teresa Gambaro, the warrior woman from Brisbane; Bruce Billson, whose extraordinary and often evangelical contribution is one of the great speeches we have heard in this chamber; Gary Gray, a man of principle over politics, with respect on both sides of this chamber; John Cobb, the quintessential Australian, who looked after parts of this country many of us will never get to see or visit; and, finally, Mal Brough, who changed the way we looked at Indigenous affairs and made an extraordinary commitment to many young and vulnerable children who may have a different life path and trajectory thanks to his devoted intervention.
The bar in politics can too often be low and all of you have contributed to raising it. There is nothing special about us as politicians but our service is quite unique. That was exemplified today, and I think both sides of the chamber would recognise it. I want to finish by saying that every one of us would be united in being gravely concerned about the fate of my very, very good friend and northern neighbour, Ross Vasta, who at the moment has very significant health concerns. We are unified in being behind him, his wife and his children in this difficult time.
I thank the member for Bowman. The chair will be resumed at the ringing of the bells.
Sitting suspended from 19 : 13 to 15:06
Friday, 18 March 2016
I move:
That the amendments be agreed to.
This is a great day for democracy. For too long the Senate voting system has been disturbed by backroom deals, by preference whisperers and by the manipulation of microparties, such that we have seen the will of the people frustrated. There is nothing more important than that the men and women who sit in this chamber and in the Senate reflect, as far as possible, the wish of the Australian people. That has not been the case with the Senate. We have known this for many years. The practice of group voting tickets, of backroom deals, of elaborate creation of microparties has resulted in people being elected to the Senate with a tiny fraction of the primary vote. It has undermined the democratic reputation and credibility of the Senate, which is half of this great parliament.
The changes that are contained in this bill and reflected in these amendments represent what was not so long ago the bipartisan position—the position of every party in this parliament. It was the unanimous recommendation of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. Labor, Liberal, the Greens, all agreed that it should be Australian voters who decide where their preferences go. It should be Australian voters that choose who should be elected to the Senate, not backroom deals. There was no stronger advocate for this than the member for Brand, Gary Gray.
Then, only weeks ago, for base political reasons, the Labor Party did a complete backflip. They abandoned their position. They left the member for Brand, Gary Gray, as a solitary beacon of integrity in a sea of Labor opportunism.
These amendments are for democracy. I want to thank the senators who supported them. I want to thank the senators who stuck to their principles.
Mr Danby interjecting—
The member for Melbourne Ports is warned!
I want to thank those senators in the Greens party and the Independent, Senator Xenophon, and all of my colleagues in the coalition who stayed up for hours and hours ensuring that this was going to be carried, led by the Special Minister of State, Senator Mathias Cormann, whose leadership on this issue showed, as usual, his uncanny combination of intellect, determination and energy. Senator Cormann has served the nation and his state well. We should never forget that section 7 of the Constitution says that senators will be directly elected by the people of each state. This ensures that they will indeed be directly elected by the people of each state, because the people voting will determine precisely where their preferences go.
This is a great day for democracy. I thank the senators for their perseverance in supporting these changes and I thank my colleagues here in the House of Representatives who stayed back and stayed up late so that we could deal with these amendments as they are returned to the House. I commend the amendments to the House.
Honourable members interjecting—
The question is that the amendments be agreed to. Just before I call the Manager of Opposition Business, I remind members on both sides that standing order 94(a) does not just apply during question time. The Manager of Opposition Business.
Just imagine if this was your big policy achievement as Prime Minister—not tax reform, not action on climate change, not any of the things he ever said he believed in. But the one time you get to come in here and say, 'Here's what I can say I've achieved,' it is rorting the Senate vote. That is the achievement. The finance minister does not come in here when they take credit on budget night for doubling the deficit, but the finance minister will come in here after an all-night session and hear the praise of the Prime Minister for the big policy reform of the Turnbull government. They can all go home to their electorates after today knowing, with pride, they have rorted the Senate ballot. They can go back knowing, with pride, that three million votes now get put in the bin, that the three million Australians who choose to vote for the minor parties now will not have their votes counted to any candidate at all who gets represented in the parliament. That is the achievement. That is what they get to take credit for.
Let us also remember why it is that the House has to sit today at all. Why is it that the House has to sit today at all? It is because the Treasurer moved an intelligent amendment when this bill was first introduced—the House suddenly goes silent at the thought of it—because he referred the bill to the parliamentary inquiry. Why did he refer the bill to the parliamentary inquiry? Because it was different from what the committee had previously considered. No matter what claim the Prime Minister makes, it went to a new inquiry. But then the member for Eden-Monaro moved that we had to vote before that committee reported, even though the committee reported before the Senate even began the vote. So, on the complete mess of administration from this government, the only reason the public are paying for us to all be here today is that those opposite decided to have the vote before the committee reported. It is the only reason we are here, the only reason anyone is here.
So the motion in front of us is not actually whether or not the parliament agrees to the bill. The motion in front of us is simply whether or not we agree to the amendments that have been moved in the Senate—amendments which could have gone through the House if the government had not had the abject stupidity of having us vote before it went to the Senate, if they had simply followed the recommendation of the Treasurer and waited for the committee to report. The public has paid for every member of parliament to be here today purely because of the incompetence of this government.
A government member interjecting—
He says, 'Wasn't it because the Senate spoke for too long?' We had already adjourned before they had had the debate. We could have dealt with these amendments prior to the Senate considering it in the first place. We have seen nothing but incompetence from the government in dealing with this.
Honourable members interjecting—
I would like, as a final moment, and a non-partisan moment, so you can all just be quiet for a second—
Honourable members interjecting—
If you could all be quiet for a second as this is important.
Honourable members interjecting—
Scott, seriously. On a straight non-partisan basis, today is the last time that the Parliamentary Liaison Officer, Annette Cronin, will be joining us in the chamber. She has served the parliament well during the entire term of this parliament. I think it is appropriate—and you can see the contrast when we speak about you, Annette!—that the parliament acknowledges the contribution that has been made. Not a lot of legislation has gone through the parliament, but for everything that has gone through the engagement that has happened is a full credit to the work of Annette Cronin. I wish you well.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
Annette, we wish you all the best. The question is that the amendments be agreed to.
The Greens will be supporting the amendments. Indeed, in the 40 hours of debate that we have had, what I understand is the seventh longest debate in recent history, my colleagues in the Senate have set out the reasons why and I am not going to recount here why we support them. I think it is important to go back to basics and realise what this is all about. The effect of this is that when people vote in the Senate they will be able to vote 1 and then allocate their own preferences above the line. This is something that for many years voters in Melbourne, certainly, have said to me that they have wanted to be able to do, because they have been worried about where they have ended up. I remind the chamber that the first bill that was introduced in this place to allow voters to number above the line was introduced on two separate occasions by former Greens leader Bob Brown. It is something that has been pushed for a period of time by the Greens and it is now finally coming to fruition. Without recounting the reasons that my colleagues have put on the record in the past 40 hours, the Green support the amendments.
I am pleased to speak to these amendments, which are a product of the new coalition: Liberals, Nationals and Greens. We had the Prime Minister come in here and speak to a procedural motion. In it he said something very significant. He said that he was indebted to the Greens. We know he is indeed indebted on the basis of this legislation.
But that is not all, because his Victorian party president, Michael Kroger, has given up details of where he also is indebted, because a part of this arrangement is this bloke and the Greens securing preferences from the Liberal Party in seats that they believe that they can win, and in return the Greens issuing open tickets in marginal seats that the Liberal Party either hopes to hold onto your hopes to win. That is the game here that is really on. So we have a circumstance whereby, due to absolute opportunism, we have opposites being attracted. That is what is going on here. This legislation, of course, is designed to have optional preferential voting in the Senate. During the Senate debate last night, Minister Cormann confirmed that it would be formal to advocate a just vote 1 proposition. This means that the up to 25 per cent of Australian voters who cast their votes not for Labor, not for the Liberals, not for the nationals and not for the Greens will have their votes effectively put in the bin. Up to 25 per cent of votes will be exhausted as result of that.
Honourable members interjecting—
It says everything about this government that their final act is not to reform anything that helps average Australians; it is reform to help themselves. It is not about the jobs of average Australians; it is about the jobs of coalition senators and Green senators. That is their big priority. We have had six months of disappointment. He rose to the prime ministership and promised Australians a new deal. We were going to have a forward-looking government that would take the initiative on climate change, on marriage equality and on public transport—on all of these issues—but what we have had is a government and a Prime Minister without an agenda. Of course, he reminded us when he spoke about the need to have the Australian people decide positions and not have backroom deals—oh, the irony. How do you think you got to sit there, buster?
The member for Grayndler will refer to members by their correct title.
The Australian people did not vote for you; they voted for the member for Warringah as the Prime Minister of Australia. They did not vote for you. You got there in a backroom deal to placate the conservatives in your own party and to roll over on all those issues that you held dear over an entire career. Remember the grand statements about climate change—you would rather not lead your party than lead a party that was not serious about action on climate change—when you derided the Direct Action campaign? It is all there, Malcolm. That is the problem.
The member for Grayndler will refer to members by their correct title.
You have the hide to speak about backroom deals. The now Prime Minister, the unelected Prime Minister, the appointed Prime Minister through a backroom deal—that is exactly why he is here—has the hide to come in here over this. Now we have a backroom deal between the skivvy-wearing, no-socks senator over there and the Liberal Party. They are prepared to do deals just to oppose the Labor Party. The fact is that this is part of a rotten deal between you and the Greens.
Very briefly in response, what the member for Grayndler said about supposed deals about preferences is just rubbish and the record must be corrected. That is just absolute rubbish. I say that, if you are worried about your own seat, do what I had to do at the last election and win it without Liberal preferences.
The question is that the amendments be agreed to.
I move:
That the House do now adjourn.
In moving the adjournment, can I thank Annette Cronin for her service as the Parliamentary Liaison Officer for the last 2½ years.
And I particularly thank my 81 colleagues who remained in the chamber today for a historic day. Thirty-one Labor members—they really were opposed to this! You really put your back into it! So thank you very much, colleagues.
Question agreed to.
House adjourned at 15:32 adjourned until 12 noon on Tuesday, 10 May 2016.
Yesterday Harmony Day was celebrated in this parliament. There was a recognition, from the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Greens, of the contribution made to this country by migrants—those who have come to Australia and worked hard for their families, but also, through their actions and their work, have enriched our community.
It is right, of course, that these words were spoken by our political leaders, but such sentiments must also be matched by deeds and sadly—indeed cruelly—this is far from the case under the government led by Prime Minister Turnbull. This is demonstrated by the government's proposed changes to the pension, which are at best misguided and at worst cruel. The Prime Minister wants to make it harder for pensioners to travel to visit family and friends overseas. Presently, pensioners can stay overseas for 26 weeks without having their pensions impacted. The government proposes to change this to just six weeks in legislation which also seeks to carry through cuts from the Abbott-Hockey 2014 budget. This is a big difference, especially for older people looking at travelling great distances, and it is particularly important in electorates like Scullin where many people want, and often need, to visit brothers and sisters, nieces and nephews and children living in different parts of the world.
The context is this: 40 per cent of Australia's pensioners were born overseas. The Prime Minister is effectively telling these people to rush important trips, not to go at all or to lose their pension and support. This does not, of course, only affect those who have family overseas. Labor are standing up for all pensioners by opposing these cuts to the pension and making it clear that, unlike the government, we do not treat pensioners with contempt. Labor would give pensioners the dignity they deserve. People who have worked hard their whole lives do not deserve this treatment. Our pensioners are not a burden and should not be treated as such.
This is a policy, like so many of this government's policies, that adversely impacts low- and middle-income earners. It does not take into account fairness and does not take into account the concerns of people we should be representing. In my electorate many pensioners were born overseas. These changes are sending to all of these people a negative message that carries more than just financial consequences. This has been made clear to me at senior citizens clubs, where great anxiety has been expressed to me. My office has been inundated with calls of concern from people with family overseas who want to spend more than six weeks with them. People are concerned they may not get the chance to see overseas family and friends again. People are angry: they have worked hard their whole lives and are entitled to receive a full pension. These people are entitled to their concerns but, more than this, they are entitled to be treated with the dignity and respect they deserve. Labor recognises this. It is time that the government listened and did likewise.
I am very pleased to rise to acknowledge the contribution made in my electorate of Bradfield by the many active Rotarians throughout the electorate. I want to emphasise in particular an event organised by St Ives Rotary, but let me first acknowledge all of the Rotary clubs in Bradfield and across Australia. This very active community organisation does much good work. To mention a couple of signature projects within the electorate of Bradfield, Lindfield Rotary organise a fun run every year, which is coming up very shortly. They usually have at least one or two local politicians participating, and I can once again confirm that I will take part in the Lindfield Rotary Fun Run. Turramurra Rotary is well known for its graffiti removal project, and I have appreciated the opportunity to participate in that over recent years.
Today I want particularly to acknowledge St Ives Rotary and an event that I attended on Saturday, 6 March, the St Ives Food and Wine Festival. This is an event that has now been running, I think, for three years. Each year the crowds grow larger, having the opportunity to sample some wonderful food and wine from all around Australia and many forms of entertainment, including the Knox Grammar School Pipes and Drums. Most importantly, this very important event contributes to a charity, Room to Read, which is dedicated to improving literacy rates amongst the world's poorest people. Over 250 million children around the world are not achieving basic literacy skills and, of course, countless adults around the world struggle with illiteracy. That, in turn, is a barrier to employment and to full participation in modern life. It is a problem that particularly affects women, who make up two-thirds of the world's illiterate people. Sadly, it also affects many of Australia's Indigenous people. Room to Read, therefore, is a very important charity, providing a vital service to children who might otherwise never have the chance to learn to read. I congratulate, in particular, Peter Laushey of the Rotary Club of St Ives, who has been the driving force behind this very important event. I also want to thank and congratulate the sponsors: Savills Cordeau Marshall, Hornsby Mazda, Mercedes-Benz Hornsby, Talbots Financial Services and Ku-ring-Gai Council. I congratulate the Rotary Club of St Ives and all involved in this wonderful event. I look forward to it continuing to build on its success next year.
Last week, I had the great honour of attending the Sikh new year multicultural celebration as well as the Hindu Holi festival, or the festival of colours. The Sikh new year starts in Nanakshahi year 548. It starts on 14 March every year. It is an important event for the Sikh community. The event I attended was part of the World Sikh Conference being held in Melbourne. Given there were so many people at the event, and its importance to the Sikh community, I was honoured to be invited by the Supreme Sikh Council of Australia. The Supreme Sikh Council is a not-for-profit organisation that has worked tirelessly in our community for the past six years doing a variety of things from organising large-scale blood donation, food donation drives, delivering multicultural programs and educational seminars and providing and serving food for homeless people in our community. It was a great night of celebration. I was joined by a member of the Provincial parliament of Ontario in Canada. Mr Jagmeet Singh, along with the former head of the highest shrine, Giani Kewal Singh, and presidents and secretaries of the Australian Gurdwaras and Sikh organisations from around the world. I would like to thank Harikirat Singh, the General Secretary and convener of the Sikh new year celebrations for the work that he and his team undertook to put on an amazing event. As they say: 'Wahe Guruji ka Khalsa. Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh.' I probably mashed that up, but I had a crack at it. The Sikh community, when you look Sikh values, very much blends in side by side with Australian values of mateship, fairness and equality. There was great organisation, it was a great evening and I had a ball.
I continued my Indian experience at Holi, the festival of colours, which is a festival that is important to Hindus. Around the world, millions come together to celebrate the festival of colours, and I was proud to be a part of this event that Australia held on the weekend. Holi is important for Hindus but it is also a great example for all cultures of the importance of celebrating. It is a festival of joy and gives us a message of friendship and goodwill.
I would like to thank my friend Guri Singh and the Australian multicultural organisation in Melbourne for inviting me to participate in the festival of colours. One thing I did learn is not to buy a brand-new white shirt when you are going to a colour festival where they colour you in different colours and you end up looking like the Partridge family bus. However, it was a sensational day where there were people from all faiths and from all cultures getting together and celebrating in Craigieburn. The kids and everyone had a ball and it was an exciting day. It really showed the value of multiculturalism to this country. Rather than doing what we would normally be doing on a Sunday, we were all out there having fun, getting coloured, having a ball, listening to music, trying different foods and meeting up with our friends and our neighbours, who we hardly see. It was such a good time. I still have to get the car cleaned down. It is covered in different colours, but it was the best way to spend a weekend.
This time last Friday, I was admiring the Jersey cows at the famous Camden Show, now in its 130th year. The show is still true to the nation-defining origins of the region, and I commend show President Hugh Southwell, and his committee on another absolutely outstanding year.
Camden is set to join the Hume electorate, and I am very excited to have the opportunity to represent this historic part of New South Wales and its rapidly growing population. The Camden region is on the brink of a jobs explosion; it is front and centre of the federal government's 10-year Western Sydney Infrastructure Plan. Already more than 300 jobs have been created as part of the first road projects in my electorate and beyond. The federal government is spending not millions but billions of dollars building this massive road network to support development around and near to Badgerys Creek. Rail will come on top of this, and I was delighted to hear the Prime Minister express a keen interest in looking into fast rail links into and around the region.
One road improvement already underway is the 5.7-kilometre upgrade of the Bringelly Road. $1.6 billion will upgrade 30 kilometres of The Northern Road to four lanes from Narellan to the M4. $1.25 billion will build a 14-kilometre motorway from the M7 to The Northern Road. And of huge importance to the Narellan, Mount Annan and Camden areas is the $114 million Narellan Road upgrade. Jointly funded by federal and state governments, it will widen the road to six lanes, remove two serious bottlenecks and install traffic lights to improve peak-hour traffic flows. In total this is a $2.9 billion infrastructure commitment from the Commonwealth to the northern part of the Hume electorate and surrounding electorates. The scale is incredible.
Only the Turnbull government can deliver these big projects. We will approach federal infrastructure investment with a clear aim to maximise returns to taxpayers. Labor simply does not understand how to do this. During construction alone the second airport will create 11,000 jobs for western and south-western Sydney, spilling across into Hume. On completion there will be 9,000 direct on-site jobs by 2031 and a further 7,000 indirect jobs in surrounding areas. we forecast that 61,000 direct on-site jobs will have been created by 2063, and that does not include other businesses being attracted into the area.
At the moment, many residents around Camden, Narellan, Picton, Bargo and the Southern Highlands are travelling long distances to work. The great news is that this will provide ongoing employment closer to where people live. It is a privilege to work with local communities and state and local government colleagues on this exciting stage of the region's development.
I rise today to give my condolences to the family of the late Kevin Driscoll OBE, CBE, who passed away on 27 February 2016 aged 88 years. I was honoured to be present at his funeral and I would like to talk about his larger than life character. Kevin Driscoll was a hard worker. He was quick witted. He was a businessman whose contribution can be tracked not only across this great nation but across almost every sector of industry. He started his life as a union rep and delegate for several years. He had a fascinating history. At 28 years of age he went into business and earned his financial stake in the building and construction industry. Specifically, Mr Driscoll's company, National Homes Pty Ltd, was tasked with building houses in Queensland mining towns. He worked his way up through the building industry to became founding president of the Queensland Home Builders Association, which later merged with the Queensland Housing Industry Association.
In this combined organisation, Mr Driscoll fulfilled the role of president until he was elected national president of the Housing Industry Association in 1966. Mr Driscoll's contribution to the housing industry was then recognised by the federal government. With his expertise, he was sought to head up the Australian Housing Corporation in 1972. He made an incredible, innovative and distinguished contribution to the housing and construction industry, which led to him being recognised and awarded. He was appointed to the Order of the British Empire in 1980 and was awarded the title of Commander of the Order of the British Empire in 1987.
Mr Driscoll's knack for making absolutely sound business decisions placed him in very high esteem. I would like to personally acknowledge for the record Kevin Driscoll's contribution to the nation in Indigenous affairs. In 1998, Kevin Driscoll became the chairman of the business enterprise committee of the Indigenous Land Corporation. It was in his role as one of the ILC's longest-serving directors, and later as chair, that he guided the corporation through profitable livestock and pastoral investments. Much of the good work that he and the committee did we get to see today in the wonderful programs that have been able to be funded.
Kevin Driscoll's business savvy led to the purchase of property and to his own personal creation of wealth over his lifetime. He purchased a total of seven cattle stations and eight hotels across Australia through his lifetime, and this resulted in many opportunities of employment and economic development. I would like to express my thoughts to his wife, Thelma, and Mark, Christine, Sandra and Shaun at this very sad time. We will remember Kevin. He was an incredible asset to this great nation of ours.
I take this opportunity to wish everyone in the Greenway electorate and around Australia a very happy Holi. The official date of Holi is 23 March but, as we know, with these fantastic festivals the festivities continue either side of the specified date. Holi is well known as the Festival of Colours. A fantastic expression of Australia's multiculturalism is that Holi is not only celebrated by people of specific ethnicities or religions but has become very much a community celebration. I would like to quote from an official Indian website which I think provides a good summary of what Holi is:
When Lord Krishna was young, he envied the fair skin of Radha. To express his envy, Krishna rubbed color onto Radha's face. This act of showering another person with color is now considered to be an expression of friendship and love. This story forms the well-known tradition of showering other people with color during Holi celebrations.
The origins of these festivities are in the timeless traditions of victories of our better selves and good triumphing over evil.
I note also that this festival is celebrated right around the world. It does have its roots in Hinduism, as I alluded to, but is celebrated by people of all faiths right across India, the Subcontinent and around the globe. As an example, I had a look at some of the celebrations taking place in the UK; they run for pages and pages. To bring this back home, on Sunday we had the Festival of Holi at Blacktown Showground. I would like to congratulate the organisers of that event, particularly Mr Bikram Cheema, whose Festival of Colour last year won the Blacktown City Council community event of the year. I am sure he is in the running again this year, because that two-day festival was so well attended and so much fun was being had. I was particularly delighted to welcome the Leader of the Opposition, the Hon. Bill Shorten, to that event. He had a great time, and I am sure I will have a great time, along with many others who are attending other festivals of Holi this weekend, including this Saturday the 20th at the Plaza Park in The Ponds, which is being organised by the Council of Indian Australians in conjunction with The Ponds Kellyville Ridge Community Association, and also the Holi Festival of Colour taking place at Gladstone Street, North Parramatta. Lastly, for anyone tuning in. I look forward to welcoming everyone to my Harmony Day morning tea next Monday, 21 March at 10 am at The Ponds Community Hub. This is an opportunity for people to bring a plate of food to share and celebrate our harmonious wonderful multicultural Australia.
A few weeks ago, I had the opportunity to speak at the graduation for the participants involved in the Green Army project along Heatherdale Creek in Mitcham. This was the third Green Army project to take place in the Deakin electorate, after earlier projects had been completed at the Blackburn Lake Sanctuary and the Eastfield Reserve in Croydon. At the Heatherdale Creek site over the preceding six months, a fantastic group of hardworking young people spent a lot of time repairing, replanting and revitalising the creek corridor. The benefits for the local environment seem clear to everybody who has seen them. They will have, in my view, a lasting impact on our local area. There are a couple of interesting statistics for all of the residents who have noticed the great work happening along the creek. More than four tonnes of noxious weeds were removed and a staggering 6,500 native plants planted throughout the Heatherdale Creek area.
Since the completion of this project, I have had overwhelming feedback from everybody who uses the corridor, who walks along there on a daily basis or who intermittently uses one of the sporting facilities in the area. The feedback has been quite outstanding. It is heartening to receive such good feedback, but particularly heartening for the Green Army participants themselves, who have worked so hard for an area that many of them live in and many of them love. I would like to acknowledge each and every one of them for their efforts. They are ultimately the people that made this happen.
I am very pleased that the government was able to give them the opportunity to learn some new skills and to develop some good contacts. I know many of them are moving on to bigger and better things. It is a testament to how well this program was set up by Minister Greg Hunt, and I want to congratulate and thank him for his advocacy on behalf of the Deakin electorate to ensure that we got three first-class projects. I would also like to acknowledge and thank the City of Whitehorse, which has been a tremendous partner in this project, and almost most importantly, the Heatherdale Creek Parklands Advisory Committee, which is made up of volunteers, many of whom helped me originally advocate for the project and have been the stewards of the project ever since. In particular, I would like to thank their hardworking chair, Prue Cutts, as well as Val Turnbull and Gary Cooper. They ensured that this project happened, and are doing everything they can now to make sure that the community takes up where the Green Army left off. We had a very successful Clean Up Australia Day just a couple of weeks ago. It is interesting to see the community revitalised and energised by the great work that the Green Army have done. They are committed to making sure that that good work is continued. I really want to thank everybody involved with the project and look forward to the Green Army at Heatherdale Creek. (Time expired)
One issue that has been raised with me on a number of occasions within my electorate is the situation that exists in West Papua. I have been contacted, and I have read widely, and I have learnt that there are some disturbing facts around human rights abuses that are happening in West Papua. As a member of the parliamentarians group for West Papua, I have heard of some of the atrocities that have happened in that country. I think it is time that we as a nation actually looked at what is happening there and asked some serious questions.
It was brought to my mind again by Tre Clifford when he came to visit me in my office towards the end of last year. He queried the Australian support for what was happening in West Papua. He was particularly concerned, as am I, about the restriction of democracy and human rights happening in West Papua, such that we can no longer turn a blind eye. He also pointed out to me the role that Australia plays in training, arming and engaging with Special Detachment 88, or D88, as it is known, and some of the atrocities that have been associated with that unit. I highlight a number of human rights abuses allegedly committed by D88: the torture and maltreatment of 15 people, including seven- and eight-year-old girls arrested in Nafri in August 2011; the killing of six unarmed independent activists in October 2011; the killing of Mako Tabuni in June 2012; the killing of Hubertus Mabel in December 2012; the torturing and killing of Papuan priests; and razing 13 houses in and around Pogo in December 2012.
The Pacific Islands Forum recently convened, in September, and highlighted the need for nations to address the issues in West Papua. It is something that is right on our doorstep. We cannot continue to turn a blind eye to it. There have been many stories and exposes of what is happening there. As a nation that values human rights, I think that we should call for human rights to be recognised within West Papua. (Time expired)
The Dobell electorate is full of high achievers across a broad spectrum, from sport to innovation. Today I rise to talk about a unique and special high achiever. Little Creek Cheese is a family owned and operated cheese business located in Wyong. Little Creek Cheese was originally a hobby for Russell and Sue Parsons, which began as they mused how to make cheese while enjoying cheese and wine on their deck at their home in Lisarow. From a mere musing, to ordering a cheese-maker online, five years later and the owners and cheese-makers of Little Creek Cheese have never looked back. They are now an award-winning enterprise, with an impressive total of 48 awards won in the past four years. Based in the heritage listed Wyong Milk Factory, the factory yearly processes about 1,000 litres of cows milk to make around 100 kilograms of cheese. The factory also makes about eight kilograms of cheese from around 80 litres of goats milk. Little Creek Cheese produces handmade gourmet cheeses using Australian and Hungarian family recipes. Recently Little Creek Cheese took our five awards at the 2016 Sydney Royal Cheese and Dairy Produce Show. They won gold for club cheddar cumin and club cheddar onion. They were also awarded silver for their barbecue cheese and halloumi, and bronze was awarded to their club cheddar gin, garlic and dill salad cheese. The gold for club cheddar cumin was particularly impressive, as it was the first year this particular cheese has been entered into the competition.
Little Creek Cheese is growing rapidly and is extremely popular with locals and tourists. Now Sue's son Alex is working full-time in the family cheese business. The cheesemakers have recently teamed up with Distillery Botanica in Erina to produce cheeses with Moore's Vintage Gin and are also making a beer cheese with Block and Tackle. They also supply their cheese to restaurants, businesses for corporate functions, cafes and specialty food distributors. Little Creek Cheese can be found at farmers' markets across the Central Coast, but the best way to experience this very special artisan cheese is to visit their factory at the Wyong Milk Factory. Visitors can watch cheese being made, taste the range of cheeses and chat to the cheesemakers and, of course, take home the perfect cheese platter.
My congratulations to Russell, Sue and Alex for their outstanding success at the recent Sydney Royal Dairy Awards. I am sure they will continue to make delicious, award-winning artisan cheeses. I encourage everyone visiting Dobell to drop into the Wyong Milk Factory to try some of these extremely special cheeses. Once again, congratulations to Little Creek Cheese.
Harmony Day is celebrated on Monday, 21 March and it coincides with the United Nations International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. Harmony Day has been celebrated in Australia since 1999, and it serves as an important reminder that we need to foster an inclusive and respectful Australia, where all Australians feel a sense of belonging and a sense of quality. This year's theme for Harmony Day is 'Our diversity is our strength'. We have worked very hard as a country to build a strong and cohesive multicultural society that is often looked upon as a model of success by other countries. We have been successful in settling people from all over the world, and in turn migrants have helped build this country. We as a community are stronger and better for it.
I did have the opportunity this week in parliament to commemorate Harmony Day and celebrate the theme of 'Our diversity is our strength'. Last night I co-hosted an interfaith dialogue commemorating Harmony Day with my parliamentary colleague and co-chair of the Parliamentary Friends of Multiculturalism, the member for Macmillan, Mr Russell Broadbent, in conjunction with Religions for Peace and the Canberra Interfaith Forum.
Religions for Peace is a global, community based organisation working for peace across the world and for social and religious cohesion in Australia and globally. The chair of Religions for Peace, Professor Desmond Cahill, was present to address the audience, and I would like to thank Prof Cahill for his efforts in pursuing interfaith tolerance in the Australian society. I also thank to Sue Innes from Religions for Peace for helping to coordinate the event.
The Canberra Interfaith Forum is an association of people from 12 different spiritual traditions in Canberra. The forum supports interfaith activities in Canberra and promotes multicultural harmony in the capital within a formal group setting. The chair of Canberra Interfaith Forum, Mr Dean Sahu Kahn, addressed the audience; and I want to thank Dean for his efforts in the Canberra community.
I was also pleased that the two guest speakers for the function were religious leaders who represent two of the largest communities in my electorate—the Islamic community and the Chaldean Catholic community. The Grand Mufti of Australia, Dr Ibrahim Abu Mohamed, holds the highest post for an Islamic scholar in Australia, and Archbishop Amel Nona, the Bishop of the Chaldean Diocese of St Thomas the Apostle of Australia and New Zealand, appointed by Pope Francis last year to lead the Chaldean Catholics in Australia and New Zealand.
The two guest speakers came together to discuss and reflect on the topic, 'Creating a religious harmonious society in Australia: Issues and challenges'. Whilst the speakers recognise that there are issues and challenges within their communities and their relations within the broader society, they acknowledge that Australia is largely a successful multicultural society. The fact that these two religious leaders could come together and address a religiously diverse audience was the perfect way to commemorate Harmony Day and to reinforce the importance of inclusiveness and the benefits of cultural diversity.
The mighty Clarence River runs through the heart of the Clarence Valley and its capital of Grafton. I would say it is the most beautiful and impressive river in this country. You cannot live in the Clarence Valley and not be touched by the Clarence River, be it physically or emotionally. It gives much. There are many industries, whether it be agriculture or fishing, that bring wealth to this region, thanks to the river. Obviously, there are many recreational pursuits as well. Often when you are near the Clarence there are many boating and other water activities happening on its majestic stream. Besides being physically beautiful, it also takes as well through the many floods, when the Clarence really rages—it takes from our community in those tough times.
In 1828, Captain Henry Rous, commanding HMS Rainbow, discovered the entrance to the Clarence River, but it was left to the many escaped convicts to stumble across what The Sydney Gazette, back in the early 1800s, described as: 'Plains of a boundless extent' lying between Port Macquarie and Moreton Bay, and 'the country altogether [was] said to be equal, if not superior, to any other part of the continent'.
The river and valley now support a population of more than 50,000 people. It rises on the eastern slopes of the Great Dividing Range, and the Border Ranges west of Bonalbo, near Rivertree. It is joined by 24 tributaries including Tooloom Creek and the Mann, Nymboida, Cataract, Orara, Coldstream and Esk rivers. The river reaches its mouth between Iluka and Yamba. It descends over 250 metres on its course of early 400 kilometres. On its journey it passes through the towns of Tabulam and Copmanhurst, the city of Grafton, and the towns of Ulmarra, and Maclean, amongst many others. The river features many large river islands, including Woodford, Chatsworth, Ashby and Harwood islands, and the Susan Island Nature Reserve near Grafton. As I said, it supports many industries. It gives great wealth to our region and is physically beautiful. I encourage anyone, including you, Madame Deputy Speaker, to visit the Clarence and experience the wonderful things that it has to offer.
To the member for Page, I would like to challenge you as to the most beautiful part of the country, because today I am going to be talking about the Ovens Valley. I would particularly like to talk about the Upper Ovens Valley Landcare Group. I would read to parliament a letter I received from Paul Hellier. But first off, I would say the Upper Ovens Valley Landcare Group began in 1997 with approximately 20 members and by 2001 it had 55 members, rising to over 180 members by 2012. Guest speakers have really increased the attendance at the meetings. In the last two or three years speakers have covered off a wide variety of topics. It is a very active, thriving Landcare group. Around the Upper Ovens Valley there are the two towns of Bright and Myrtleford.
Bright sits on large tracts of Crown land. In most cases the tops of the hills and the ridges are still covered in native, dry, foothill forest vegetation. The Ovens River is the major waterway of the area, and small tributaries from several valleys join it. Bright and its surrounding valleys have a history of goldmining during the 19th century. The resulting soil disturbance allows weeds, such as blackberries, to establish. During the 20th century, the valley floors were farmed intensively as dairy farms or for horticultural crops, such as tobacco and hops. But now apple orchards and beef cattle are found on the higher cleared slopes, and pine plantations have also been established over wide areas. By the beginning of the 21st century the township of Bright was a well-established tourism centre, with approximately one million tourist beds used each year. Forestry, vineyards, apples, tobacco and beef cattle are the major industries.
Paul Hellier, a committee member from the Landcare group, has written to me to outline some of the projects that the group is doing, but he tells me funding is one of their major issues. He says 'the physical boundary of our group's responsibility stretches from Harrietville to Happy Valley the outskirts of Bright', as well as Porepunkah and Myrtleford. He says 'we are a relatively small Landcare group operating in a really large area', and they need to optimise their effectiveness by focusing on particular projects such as willow and blackberry management, native revegetation projects, educational projects. They also work in partnership with the Friends of Germantown Streamside Reserve to build walking tracks; with North East Catchment Management Authority, or NECMA, on their Waterwatch program; Parks Victoria; the pine plantation and various government departments.
This year they are particularly working on the Wandiligong Alpine Park project and the Upper Ovens Valley community awareness group, which has been funded by Victorian Landcare grant, doing Green Army work and various infrastructure work. Paul Hellier particularly asked me to bring to this parliament is the importance of funding. These are community groups, so all these volunteers get in and do an amazing job, but paid support, particularly for administration and project work, makes a huge difference.
On 25 February, the AEC gazetted changes to the boundaries for the seat of Gilmore. The southern part of the Shellharbour City Council was removed, and a large and beautiful part of the northern Eurobodalla shire was added. It is a difficult time for many residents, as they have always been part of the Eden-Monaro. Dr Peter Hendy and I are working together to help the transition process. It is also important to the local residents that they are able to describe their priorities and their needs.
The first meeting was an introduction by the team from Regional Development Australia Far South Coast to meet the presidents of the regional chambers of commerce. There is a very collegiate atmosphere with these amazing small and medium business owners.
After a great overnight stay at Alison Miers's Bay Breeze Boutique Motel, I was off to my first full day in the new part of the electorate, meeting with Eurobodalla mayor Lindsay Brown, and a more detailed discussion with executives Allan Rutherford and Harvey Doberer from the Batemans Bay Chamber of Commerce. Following that discussion, I was informed of a long list of projects to work on and advocate for. The projects are wide-ranging, including an upgrade to the airport at Moruya, seen as a potential business and employment growth hub, and the need for an indoor swimming facility, and of course, improvement to local roads.
No time to stop, as I became acquainted with the local radio team at 2EC. They are very enthusiastic, and it was a pleasure to meet them. Last stop that day in Batemans Bay was the Paleo Cafe for a fabulous juice before travelling down the highway to Moruya for a meeting with the chamber president Steve Picton, again discussing local needs.
Tuross Giant editor Lei Parker was keen to find out about my priorities for the region, before I met the Tuross Head Progress Association President, Gary Cooper, at the beautiful Tuross Boatshed & Cafe. Tuross Head aims to increase their tourism capacity and they are looking at every possible avenue. Jeannie and Dave Brewer added the concept of a performing arts centre as a project to pursue in Batemans Bay. This has been a long-term project, and I am keen to learn more about its benefits to the region.
The next visit was the beginning of my village visits six-monthly schedule, starting out at the Bakehouse Cafe in Batemans Bay, and what a start it was. Annette Beesley from the MBC Employment Services was holding her World's Greatest Shave event, and I am sure we would all say she is a brave woman, raising over $2,000 for leukaemia. I was honoured to be sharing the same space with her—such a special and generous person.
Malua Bay IGA was the next stop, meeting residents to find out what improvements they would like. Following this, I met with Charles Stuart at the Batehaven inclusive playground. The vision for this area is simply absolutely inspiring, with speciality equipment, great soft-fall climbing equipment, swings and rockers—all with a fenced enclosure so parents can relax knowing their children are safe. This is especially important for parents of children with autism, so they can fully utilise the recreation for their whole families.
This project is terrific, and was being well used as stage 1. It is certainly a place of practical vision. Thank you to the Eurobodalla community for sharing your dreams and aspirations.
I have never been asked to grace the pages of GQ or to be a Playboy centrefold, as the current Greens party leader, Richard Di Natale, has. If they were unlikely enough to ask me, I would be guided by the cautionary tale of the doctor. A black turtleneck might go down a treat with Dr Di Natale's urbane new Liberal Party friends, but the Greens party represents all that working people have ever needed to know about the fraud that the Greens political party is when they claim to be a friend of the workers. They are a friend of the Machiavellian Michael Kroger from Melbourne, the master Liberal manipulator, who is enacting what I would call a decapitation strategy on the Labor Party by trying to remove two of our most talented inner-city MPs, potentially Peter Khalil from Wills, and David Feeney, the member for Batman, as well as authentic Labor stalwarts like Anthony Albanese.
In the Senate, we have gone from the influence of the preference whisperer, to now the influence of the preference doctor, and his close collaborator, Michael Kroger from Melbourne. Dr Di Natale is advising people now that the Greens political party would never give preferences to the Liberal Party. He must think that the Australian public, the media and people in this parliament are stupid, because the Greens are not going to give their preferences to the Labor Party, which is what most of their alienated Labor Party voters would want them to do; they are going to issue split tickets. That will reduce the preferences going to people like Mr Feeney, Mr Khalil, Mr Albanese and Ms Plibersek, and the Greens political party will therefore hope to have those people defeated.
I was one of the first people in the opposition to warn about Michael Kroger's role in all of this. I think a lot of people in the government and in the Liberal Party have severe doubts about giving support to a political party with extreme policies, like the Greens, and extreme activists, like Senator Rhiannon. I have been challenged by Michael Kroger to say where my preferences will be going. I said as a matter of principle at the last election that when you have a person like Senator Rhiannon among the Greens you cannot in all conscience get voters to give preferences to the Greens political party, and I will probably say the same again. I call on the Liberal Party and the government to adopt a principled attitude to politics in Australia and not support the Greens political party as they are planning to do.
I rise to acknowledge school leaders in the 28 schools in the northern Gold Coast. I congratulate them on their appointments as leaders within their schools and communities and I encourage them on their leadership journey.
We in this place know only too well that leadership can be a lonely road. What is popular is rarely right and what is right is very rarely popular. So this morning I entreat the young leaders of the Gold Coast to strive hard always to do what is right in their leadership journey within their schools and communities; to serve their fellow students, their schools and their families; and to set the best examples they possibly can, not just in behaviour but in speech, dress and courtesy and in how they work hard and represent their families and schools. I say to our young leaders on the Gold Coast: if service is beneath you, leadership is beyond you. You can never lead until you can first serve. The biblical example of the basin and the towel holds true today as it did almost 2,000 years ago.
We in this parliament are very proud of our young leaders, and I am very proud of what the Gold Coast young leaders are doing, who they purport to be and what they aim to do during the year. I am also extraordinarily proud to present their names today here in the federal parliament of Australia. I look forward to following their leadership journey. I encourage them to be the best they can be. I know they will serve their families and their schools with distinction and pride.
I seek leave to present the names of the northern Gold Coast leaders to this esteemed House.
Leave granted.
Tenders for Townsville is about jobs. Tenders for Townsville is about how we make business work locally. Queensland is a decentralised state. Townsville is 1,400 kilometres from its capital city and there is a population of over 200,000 people. We have viable and vibrant industries and suppliers. We need to make sure the government business that comes into our town is done by local businesses, with training opportunities and jobs done locally, so that the profit from those jobs is reinvested in our city by our people.
Recently my office sent out a survey to gauge what people wanted out of a tender process. These are some of the responses we received:
The size of many tenders prohibits locals from tendering and [we] have to be content with a subcontractor role, which has its own issues with payment terms.
Too much red tape makes it hard for small business to meet requirements or supply at all. One business owner sent in a response saying:
Government tenders, especially for small local companies, can be very confusing and very labour intensive … less red tape is the key.
Another one said:
Tendering is more about completing the 100-plus pages of jargon and not about the quality, local skills, services and goods on offer.
Surely, this is where we should be when it comes to driving home what we want to do with government work. Government work is more than just providing the service. Government work is more than just providing a lovely piece of infrastructure, which we all want. Government work is about being able to facilitate trade, being able to facilitate commerce and providing the settings around which business can operate and profit.
No government creates wealth. What government does is assess the circumstances around which private enterprise can operate and provide that wealth. What we are seeing with the way businesses are operated at the moment, the way tender opportunities operates at the moment, is that too many training hours are being wasted in non-employment generating facilities. When it comes down to where tenders are going at the moment—the big end of town—they no longer employ tradespeople and they no longer build anything. All the work, the debt and everything seems to be carried on by the subcontractor, who then must provide the training opportunities for apprentices.
In this country we go through boom and bust cycles when it comes to apprenticeships and trades. Shifting the focus of where we want to deliver tenders by making it more local and being able to deliver it to local companies who are providing the opportunities for people is the way we will provide skills for the future, jobs for the young, jobs for first-generation migrants. That is the way we will build a community and a society.
Tenders for Townsville is a fantastic opportunity and I will be driving this all the way through to the election.
I am now convinced that the Liberals and Nationals do not believe in TAFE. They are doing their best to ensure that TAFE, as a public provider of vocational educational services, withers and dies in New South Wales. The results speak for themselves. The $1 billion that the Turnbull government is cutting from apprenticeships has seen apprentice numbers across Australia plummet from 417,000 in September 2013 to 295,300 in September 2015—in one year, that is 122,400 fewer apprentices in training. This has affected our local community. In Kingsford Smith, apprentice numbers have fallen from 3,211 in June 2014 to 2,137 in March 2015—in one year, that is 1,000 fewer apprentices working and training in our area. The Turnbull government cannot be trusted when it comes to providing people with a vocational education in Australia. The Liberals have cut almost $2.5 billion from the skills and training budget.
In New South Wales the O'Farrell and Baird governments have sacked 3,600 TAFE teachers—out the door! People who are providing training to kids, ensuring they have a pathway to a solid job in the future, have been kicked out. Courses have been cut. At Randwick TAFE a number of courses have been discontinued and course costs have escalated—in one year, the cost of some TAFE courses is 10 times greater. Since the election of the Abbott-Turnbull governments, the Liberals have cut almost $2.5 billion from skills and training, including $1 billion from the apprenticeship program Tools for Your Trade. We have seen a number of cuts in other areas of education as well.
By contrast, Labor will invest in TAFE. Labor believes in TAFE as a public provider of vocational education services. We will do this by guaranteeing that a portion of government funding for vocational education is dedicated to public TAFE. We will also work with the states on a comprehensive national priority plan which will properly define and support TAFE's place at the centre of our vocational education and training system. A Shorten Labor government will undertake a comprehensive national vocational education and training sector review. Our history shows that, when we invest in TAFE, we grow the number of apprentices in training and the number of future jobs for our kids.
On Tuesday, 8 March, I attended the St George Football Association's defibrillator presentation at St George Maso's Club. Of course, defibrillators can be used in life-threatening situations following cardiac arrest to seek to revive someone who is suffering a cardiac arrest. They are an extremely important medical device.
Under the federal government's Stronger Communities Program, the St George Football Association will receive just over $10,600 to go towards purchasing defibrillators for football fields in the Banks electorate. The need for defibrillators became extremely apparent in our area following the tragic death of Forest Rangers player Matt Richardson at a local football match in 2014. Forest Rangers Football Club and Lugarno Football Club—led by their presidents, Tony Karahalias and John Taylor—organised in memory of Mr Richardson the inaugural Richo Cup, a round robin competition that raised a substantial amount of funding to purchase defibrillators.
The defibrillators, of course, benefit not only the football clubs that use the grounds but other clubs who will use them as well. We were able, through the Stronger Communities Program, to provide some additional funding so that each St George Football Association field in the Banks electorate will have a defibrillator. That includes fields such as Gannons Park, Oatley Park, Olds Park, Peakhurst Park, Poulton Park, Quarry Reserve, Renown Park and Riverwood Park. I would like to thank Sok Mallios, the president of the St George Football Association, for all of his efforts in lodging this application, and Craig Kiely, the general manager, for their hard work in organising this funding. The St George Football Association, and indeed all of the clubs within it, are a critical part of our community, and I thank them for their ongoing efforts in helping to make our community a more sporting and more cohesive place.
I would also like to acknowledge Sydney Today's fifth anniversary celebration, which I attended on 11 March. Sydney Today is a very large website launched in 2011. It provides news in the Australian and Chinese community right around Australia. It has 700,000 followers on the WeChat platform and has been a remarkable success in the Australian Chinese media. I would like to congratulate executive director Roc Zhang, Mr Stan Chen, and also managing director David Han. Sydney Today provides a remarkable example of a great entrepreneurial success story, and I commend them on their efforts.
The ballot is the thing. That was the battle cry of unions, organised labour, workers and radicals during the formative years of Australia's democracy. As a nation, we were unified and bound together by the idea of a free and democratic vote. 'The ballot is the thing,' said unionists, labour activists and poets. Whether they were shearers at Barcaldine or miners at Kalgoorlie, they believed that our Federation would be not just made but made strong by the ballot and by the free, democratic vote of all Australians.
As we meet in this chamber today, in the other chamber a debate is taking place on reforms to Senate voting practices. I must say the position taken by my party continues to simply make me sad. The reforms that the government is pursuing in the Senate are not brilliant reforms, but they are 95 per cent of the reforms that were recommended by the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. There are no perfect reforms in this area. We cannot make it perfect. But we can make it much better than it currently is, because currently and over the past few years, as we have seen at state and federal level, pop-up parties designed to attract small numbers of primary voters have been manipulated through our system of Senate voting. They have been manipulated by those who have sought to get people and parties elected, sometimes for personal gain and sometimes simply because they could. The interests of our population, the interests of workers and the interests of our society have been ignored by these manipulators.
Over the course of the last few weeks, there have been many pieces of misinformation spread about the bill that is currently being debated. Some have said that the bill will deliver the coalition 38 or 39 members—a controlling majority in the Senate. That is not true, unless people vote for it. And if people vote for it—and I do not want them to, but if they do—that is how the ballot falls. None of us can predict the outcome of future elections, but all of us should be concerned about future elections being manipulated by pop-up parties being created and by outcomes being confected by those whose interests are not the national interest, are not the interests of the people and are not the interests of our community.
I strongly support reform of Senate voting practices. I am made sad by my party's position. I will vote for my party's position, but I will do it knowing full well that the reforms that are before the House and before the Senate as we speak are reforms that genuinely improve the operation of our electoral act, genuinely improve Senate voting and are in— (Time expired)
In accordance with standing order 193 the time for constituency statements has concluded.
This week is the fifth anniversary of the Syrian conflict—the worst refugee and humanitarian crisis since the Second World War. Half the Syrian pre-war population is now displaced and 4½ million Syrian refugees are in urgent need of resettlement and a place to call home.
While talks are underway to provide greater financial assistance to Turkey, the fact remains that more than 2.7 million Syrian refugees have taken refuge so far in Turkey since the commencement of this conflict and many more are now using Turkey as a transit point to Europe. The EU agreement aims to discourage Syrian refugees from travelling to Europe through Turkey. The financial assistance to Turkey is to aid its efforts in handling the influx of refugees. However, this package is yet to be finalised. While Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan are making a disproportionate effort in terms of catering for refugees, they simply lack the financial resources necessary to cater for the dimensions of this humanitarian crisis. So far Turkey has already met around $8 billion in the cost of setting up suitable refugee camps, providing educational opportunity for approximately 700,000 Syrian schoolchildren as well as free health services to all refugees.
During my visit to Nizip refugee camp in Gaziantep last year with the member for Berowra, I saw firsthand the despair and desperation. You simply cannot come away from that experience unaffected. However, the visit also gave me the opportunity to see the compassionate and commendable work undertaken by the Turkish government in managing these camps, particularly in establishing schools and in providing for the educational needs of Syrian children. I saw bilingual teachers teaching children in accordance with the national school curriculum in an effort to provide these kids with a future.
Amongst all of the goodwill, regrettably terrorist attacks have now dramatically added to the pressure that Turkey is labouring under. It has no doubt made the administration of humanitarian relief far more difficult. Last week, attacks at a bus stop in the Turkish capital of Ankara killed 37 innocent people and injured 127 others. Reports suggest the attack was carried out by the PKK, a proscribed terrorist organisation. Less than a month ago, the Turkish people were rocked when a car bomb exploded in central Ankara, killing 29 people and wounding another 60. This time it was the Kurdish Freedom Hawks that claimed responsibility. Last year, an ISIS suicide bomber detonated his package of death near the Blue Mosque in Istanbul killing 10 tourists.
Together with Philip Ruddock, I recall very well of being in the same place last year. It is a very popular and crowded tourist destination, but also, for us, we saw it was a place of worship for people of the Islamic faith. This tragedy in many respects personalised, for me, the plight of what is now facing Turkey and its people, who are already shouldering much of the humanitarian responsibility in terms of the humanitarian crisis in Syria.
Over the past 1½ years Turkey has suffered a range of terrorist attacks involving both ISIS and militant separatist organisations. I find it incomprehensible that, with all that occurring, at the moment we have in excess of 90 Australians who have been found to flee Australia to join the militant group, ISIS. Nevertheless, the likelihood of refugees returning to be resettled in Syria, quite frankly, seems a distant hope. There appears no foreseeable end to the Assad regime or to the ongoing atrocities of ISIS.
Turkey is now faced with the complex challenge of providing settlement for hundreds of thousands of Syrian refugees if other countries do not lend greater assistance. This underlines the importance of the key players in coming to an agreement to assist the disproportionate load which is being carried by the neighbouring countries of Syria.
I offer my condolences to the people of Turkey for the recent atrocities they have suffered. I offer our great thanks for the enormous contribution that they have made. (Time expired)
I am pleased to inform the House of the positive progress that the Turnbull-Joyce government and I are making in delivering serious and tangible infrastructure projects to my electorate of Capricornia. I am proud to report that in two and a bit years I have been working hard for Capricornia and I have helped to secure over $550 million—that is over half a billion dollars—in funding for infrastructure projects across the electorate. Such projects are designed to stimulate economic activity and employment. Some of these have a long-term outlook.
Recently, $20 million in federal funding was announced for three key projects under the federal government's National Stronger Regions program. This includes: $2.3 million for the RACQ Capricorn Helicopter Rescue to construct a new hangar and medical aviation centre in Rockhampton; $7 million towards the revamp and upgrade of the Rockhampton riverbank development on the Fitzroy in the CBD to stimulate visitor activity; and $10 million towards stages 4 and 5 of the Yeppoon beach foreshore redevelopment on the Capricorn coast as part of a major economic job creation and tourist drawcard.
These funds come on top of $9.9 million in joint federal-state funding under the category D Natural Disaster Relief and Recovery Arrangements to aid in the continued recovery of Cyclone Marcia. This is being spread across six projects including: $2 million to top up a fund in Livingstone shire to rebuild the Scenic Highway, or Statue Bay Road. Joint government funding now totals nearly $12 million for this project; $3 million to continue further rebuilding of Kershaw Gardens in Rockhampton; and $5.2 million towards fixing stormwater problems in Frenchville Road and York Street at Splitters Creek Crossing in Rockhampton. It also strengthens the rebuild of Pilbeam Drive, Glenmore Water Treatment Plant, Dean Street, Capricorn Street and Elphinstone Street in Rockhampton. The people of Frenchville and other parts of North Rockhampton deserve to have their problems fixed. I am proud that the Turnbull-Joyce government is chipping in to help them out.
It is recognised that, due to current mining downturn, the local economy in Capricornia is doing it tough. The $30 million investments in infrastructure, which I have just outlined, will go a long way to stimulating economic activity and job potential in these areas. Our federal coalition government has already been investing heavily in road-building projects to provide jobs to help offset the mining sector downturn. This includes: $166 million to fix up the Eton Range section on the notorious Peak Downs Highway west of Mackay, where work began in January; $38.26 million to replace seven old bridges in Isaac and Rockhampton shires under the federal Bridges Renewal Program; $8.5 million on overtaking lanes on the Bruce Highway near Sarina; $15.5 million to construct three new overtaking lanes and to extend a fourth lane along the Bruce Highway from Rockhampton to north of Gladstone; $29.4 million in Roads to Recovery grants over five years to help fix up council roads and streets in five shires, including Rockhampton, Livingstone, Isaac, Mackay and Whitsunday; and $136 million to complete the stage 2 Yeppen south flood plain project on the Bruce Highway south of Rockhampton, which opened in December.
Further to this, we are improving mobile phone coverage in Capricornia with a $3.14 million program to build or upgrade four new base stations, delivering better services to families in areas around Clarke Creek, Marlborough, Mount Chalmers Road between Rockhampton and Yeppoon, and Gargett in the Pioneer Valley. There are also 16 Green Army projects in Capricornia from Mackay, Yeppoon and Rockhampton, providing young people with work experience in environmental projects.
Further to this, the Commonwealth Attorney-General and I announced the appointment of a new permanent Federal Court judge in Rockhampton. Judge Anne Demack took up her position this month. Rockhampton has the highest rate of domestic violence in Queensland per capita, and this new role is a significant step forward to help those with Family Court disputes, domestic violence and custody rows.
At the end of last year I was devastated to learn that the Turnbull government planned to close the Belmont Medicare office. At that time I wrote to the minister, and I met with the minister last month. I was horrified with the response I received from the then minister. He showed a total disregard for the people that use the Belmont Medicare office.
Belmont Medicare office has a history. It was closed by the Howard government in 1997, and Labor reopened it when they were in government in 2009. It is in an area where there are a lot of elderly people. There is quite a considerable distance between the two closest Medicare offices. People from Belmont, Swansea and Gwandalan to the south will have to travel to Charlestown, which is some 11 kilometres away from where the Belmont Medicare Centrelink office is. The government is trying to sell it as a collocation of Medicare and Centrelink. There is a collocation of Medicare and the NDIA at Charlestown already, and there is a collocation of Medicare and limited Centrelink services in the Belmont Medicare office.
Over the last three weekends I have been collecting signatures on petitions. We have put in about six hours of collecting signatures, and during that time we have had almost 2,000 signatures. The principal petitioner is Deirdre Ham from Belmont. There has been overwhelming support from the community. Last Friday we held a rally and a march in Belmont. On Friday morning we had over 100 people turn out to march from Cullen Park in Belmont to the Medicare office, and we had a mini rally where we talked about the issues around Belmont Medicare office. The people of Belmont are really angry with this government, as are the people of Swansea. They expected better. The expect a government that will deliver services and make services accessible.
An interesting figure to note is that approximately 40 per cent of all incoming calls result from failure of online services. The aim of this government is to get people online. There are elderly people that rely on the service in Belmont and the government is trying to force them to use online services, but it really will not work for them. Whilst the people that enter Belmont Medicare office now are greeted by somebody with an iPad, if they choose to go to the counter there is no-one at the door greeting them. Then they are recorded. But they also have computers there for people to use—and the staff will help them. That will not happen if the Belmont office is closed. The Charlestown office is a lot bigger and busier. As I have already stated, it will be hard to travel to Charleston, particularly for those with a restricted driver's licence. This will affect not only those who use the Medicare office but also doctors. I have had considerable feedback from local GPs that they are very disturbed about the fact that the Belmont Medicare office is closing. It is a lose-lose situation for everyone. I have an appointment with the minister this afternoon and I will be asking him to reconsider his decision.
I would like to thank my staff. They have done a wonderful job in relation to this and they have done a wonderful job working for me over a very long period of time. I value their contribution. I value the contribution of all those dedicated Labor Party members and volunteers who have worked for me over the years. I value the contribution of my family, who have supported me in everything I have done. In particular, I thank the voters of Shortland for voting me on so many occasions and electing need to this parliament. I am not certain what will happen after today. Maybe this is my valedictory speech!
I seek leave to table two petitions I have received, which I believe are in order, in relation to keeping the Belmont Medicare office open.
Leave is not required but the documents will be forwarded to the Petitions Committee for its consideration and will be accepted subject to confirmation by the committee that they conform with standing orders.
it is a pleasure to rise today to recognise the wonderful work of many terrific women in my community. With International Women's Day being celebrated last week, I would like to take this opportunity to thank all the women in my electorate of Forde for their outstanding contribution to our local community. International Women's Day is about advocating gender equality around the world. Recognising the hard work, dedication and women in our local community is an important part of that process. To mark this special occasion, I called for nominations to hear about local women who are deserving of recognition. I wanted to hear about the unsung heroes, the quiet achievers who always put the needs of others ahead of their own and never seek praise in the process.
It was great to see nominations come in from all corners of my electorate, and it was a pleasure to present these nominees with a Forde Outstanding Women Award in celebration of International Women's Day. I would like to share with the House some of the tremendous work of the award recipients. Firstly, Linda Rowan was one very deserving recipient. Her 40 years of service to the region through the Beenleigh Senior Citizens Centre is to be commended. While Linda has now retired, she has taken up a voluntary role at the centre. It was a great pleasure to present the award to her the other day because, for once, I got one back on her!
On International Women's Day I also had the pleasure of attending a breakfast for Soroptimist International Beenleigh. That gave me the opportunity to present awards to their members Maree Lubach and Jackie Benton. Maree was nominated for her work with Soroptimist International as well as her outstanding efforts in establishing KinKare, which offers support to carers and grandparents. Jackie has made an enormous contribution to Soroptimist International, as well as a number of other organisations, but she was nominated for her support and work in forming Narcolepsy Support Australia.
My next stop on International Women's Day was Edens Landing State School, where I presented certificates to Kay Self and Karen Stoyko. The school would be lost without Kay and Karen. They both do tremendous work with their students, including running a successful student exchange program. I was very humbled that their recognition on this special day to celebrate women was met with a few tears of happiness, and it just goes to show that a little recognition can make a big difference to someone's day.
I would also like to congratulate Acting Sergeant Larissa Shaw, who was recognised for her outstanding work helping women and children impacted by domestic violence. Acting Sergeant Shaw founded the STARR program, which is now run in several districts around south-east Queensland and has provided exceptional support to women, children and families in the Logan area. Some other recipients of Forde's Outstanding Women Award included Nicole Hintz, who founded My Ormeau, the community organisation that runs a fantastic program of family friendly events. Coomera Springs State School principal Martine Gill was also recognised for her contribution, not only to the school but to the wider community. Sister Duo Madison and Taylor Burchnell were nominated for their commitment to their volunteer work, as well as their studies. These young women are absolutely outstanding role models for others in our community and are an example to the younger generation of what can be achieved when you put your mind to it. Debbie Nolan was recognised for her work with the north Gold Coast business networking lunches and annual expo. Both are outstanding events in the southern part of my electorate.
I have had the pleasure of meeting some tremendous women in my local community during International Women's Day and also in Queensland, where it was Queensland Women's Week. I thank each and every one of them for the outstanding work that they do. I hope I will have the opportunity to meet many more amazing local women in Forde who go above and beyond to help make their community a great place to live, and to be able to thank them on behalf of all of us.
I rise today to address the very important issue of employment and jobs in South Australia but particularly in the southern suburbs of Adelaide. Creating jobs for South Australia is important, but I do note the focus has been previously on the northern suburbs of Adelaide. But I today would like to draw attention to the southern suburbs of Adelaide, which are equally important in creating and driving job growth in South Australia. I could stand here and talk about the Turnbull government's failure to support South Australian jobs, but today I want to speak about ways to create thriving businesses and a production centre in the southern suburbs of Adelaide.
There is much opportunity and potential for the south to be a great production centre. However, without concentrated action, I feel the southern suburbs and the industrial area of Lonsdale will not reach its full potential. Action needs to be taken to ensure that manufacturing can flourish in the south. A key component of this is continuing to promote and build the industrial hub of Lonsdale to be the engine room of the south. There are a large number of companies in Lonsdale. These companies produce a multitude of different products. We have a wide variety of businesses that are run by locals who are passionate about the area. These businesses cover a number of different industries, including, importantly, a lot of advanced manufacturing. There are printing companies. There are companies that produce food products and companies that customise batteries, and there is a significant electronics production centre. And of course there is automotive manufacturing. This is just to name a few.
These companies know that Lonsdale is a great place to manufacture and do business. They know that Lonsdale is the engine room of the south. This is the perfect area to promote advanced manufacturing and jobs, but there does need to be a coordinated approach. Action does need to be taken to ensure that the industrial hub of Lonsdale can indeed reach its full potential. That is why today I am calling for the establishment of a Lonsdale task force to be created to support business and growth in the area. This task force's goal would be to not only support businesses to continue to operate in the area but also look at incentives to help business establish in Lonsdale. This task force must have all levels of government represented to ensure its success and must deliver a coordinated approach. It must include the voice of business and the work force to ensure that those directly on the ground are heard. Council can play a very important role with zoning and putting the land to more effective use. State and federal government can provide incentives for businesses to relocate to Lonsdale. Specifically, the federal government can free up funding from the Automotive Transformation Scheme to help the automotive manufacturers in particular, as well as advanced manufacturing, to make the transition to Lonsdale.
Work can be done, as with the Tonsley site, on branding the Lonsdale precinct and promoting it well beyond its borders, as well as supporting business's access to both domestic and international markets to sell their products. I think it is really important that we have job opportunities in the southern suburbs. Many people in the local area travel a long way for their source of employment, but I think it is important that we work to create jobs closer to home, and I believe this area has huge potential. And while, as I said at the beginning, there has been a lot of focus on the northern suburbs—and I understand why—the south cannot be forgotten. There are huge manufacturing opportunities in the south. There are already manufacturers doing great work. But we can really grow this. It is important for our local economy to see job creation from new businesses moving into the area of Lonsdale. It is a good location, but it needs careful attention if we are going to achieve this.
It is now time for all levels of government to band together with business and workers to coordinate a way forward for the Lonsdale industrial precinct. The southern community wants the area of Lonsdale to continue to expand, to be a hub of advanced manufacturing and to continue to be the engine room of the south. I concur with these individuals, I support their plight and I will continue to push for the establishment of a Lonsdale task force so that we can ensure that this area meets its potential.
It is a great honour to represent the people of Bennelong in parliament, and I would like to take this opportunity to update the House on events and projects in my local community. Bennelong is a unique corner of Sydney and a wonderful place to call home. It is one of the most ethnically diverse regions in Australia, being home to a large diaspora of cultures from Asia, Europe and across the globe. These communities retain their traditions but also welcome us all into them, as we have seen in recent times with the Lunar New Year celebrations. For five years now I have been supporting these communities and their integration with the wider Bennelong region through the Bennelong Table Tennis Schools Program. What originally started as a way of getting children of different ethnic backgrounds to play sport and engage with each other has now delivered free tables to almost every school in the electorate and has led to an international tournament that is played in Canberra and Marsfield, featuring professional players from six nations and students from 30 local schools. It has been a resounding success, and I say thank you to Hyundai for their generous support.
Bennelong is the innovative capital of Australia. We are home to tech giants on the cutting edge of the ideas boom. But the innovative heartbeat comes from across the electorate, in many small and medium businesses in our local community. In the coming months we will be celebrating all of these at the Bennelong Innovation Fair here in the Great Hall.
Throughout my time as local representative I have pledged to listen to the views of my constituents. Last year's Bennelong's Biggest Survey saw an unprecedented number of responses, providing feedback and ideas on which I have taken instant action. In response to concerns about local crime, I arranged for the Minister for Justice to come to Bennelong and hear their concerns directly. When only 40 per cent of residents said that they shop at their local small businesses, I put more effort into the Bennelong Village Business campaign, which over the past two years has provided free advertising for over 200 businesses, directed to thousands of local homes. When I learnt that many local seniors were downsizing and missing their gardens, I started Bennelong Gardens, which has recently opened up to a number of local schools and has inspired other gardeners in the area to set up community gardens of their own.
But the benefit of being a parliamentary representative as well as a community advocate is that I am able to shape debate on issues that affect local residents on a national scale. From prior to my election to parliament I have had conversations with thousands of local residents about home ownership and the need to rebalance the tax benefits of property ownership back in favour of the owner occupier over the investor. Home ownership is becoming increasingly out of reach for Australian families, and so, as chair of the Standing Committee on Economics, I instigated an inquiry to look at opportunities for reform. The committee is due to report in the coming months. Prior to that I chaired the Standing Committee on Tax Revenue, which looked at ways of increasing access to light-touch returns. This aims to make an individual's interaction with the ATO as simple as possible. Taxpayers will notice improved options through Etax and myTax in the coming months.
Upon my appointment as chair of the Standing Committee on Infrastructure, Transport and Cities, I immediately commenced an inquiry into the opportunities of value capture to be used as a sustainable funding tool for large transport developments. My particular passion is to stop talking and finally start building high-speed rail from Melbourne to Sydney. This has led to several large international private consortiums approaching me with genuine proposals—watch this space.
My attention always remains focused on my local community. One of the many Bennelong based charities or organisations that I support is Motor Neurone Disease Association NSW. A few months ago in an effort to raise awareness for motor neurone disease, from which I have lost two close friends, I completed a 200-kilometre walk around the electorate, stopping at 35 schools, 24 small business villages and 11 aged-care homes, while also raising almost $10,000 for this great cause. These are just some of the projects that keep me busy as the representative of the people of Bennelong. I look forward to updating the chamber on more developments over the coming years.
One of the joys of being a resident of the electorate of Lalor is taking a drive from the growth corridor, which is situated 25 kilometres from the CBD, down to Werribee South to our agricultural precinct. I did this on the weekend and was in Werribee South again on Monday. On the weekend I was not surprised to see farmers out working on their farms, but I was surprised to see harvested lettuces left lying in the paddocks. When I met with farmers on Tuesday morning, I asked them about this and was told that, because of the high salinity in the water used in Werribee South, it was becoming more and more difficult to get 100 per cent harvest of those crops. I was also told that many farmers across the district had only harvested 60 per cent of their most recent crop.
It brings me to a point, on which I have spoken several times previously, and that is water security for the Werribee South vegetable growers and for the south-west of Victoria. This week I met with Michael and Andrew Fragapane, who grow four crops a year. They are trying to plan next year's crops 12 months in advance so they can order the necessary seed, but with a 15 per cent allocation of water this year and possibly five per cent next year, they are planning in a vacuum. They have, however, made huge investments, like many of our growers, in modernising their methods and their equipment. They are making these investments with the faith that solutions will be found to the water issues of Werribee South. They worry at night about how much money they should invest in their business and about the uncertain future they face.
I have called on the member for New England, the Deputy Prime Minister, on several occasions now to look seriously at Victoria's water issues—and not just at the modernisation proposal for the channels in the Werribee irrigation district—to look beyond that to longer-term solutions that will ensure that Victoria can continue to grow vegetables, which are eaten across the country, to ensure that we can develop markets in China and other countries to grow these businesses. We are talking about 3,000 hectares in Werribee and four crops a year that supply 75 per cent of the lettuce across this country. This is a $100 million industry and 1,000 jobs a day in Werribee South, and they need answers to serious questions.
I refer to Foodprint Melbourne, which released a paper last week suggesting that the use of recycled water is the answer for the farms not only in Werribee South but across Victoria. Werribee South, of course, embraced the use of recycled water. They have stepped out, they have embraced the science and they are using recycled water on the farms. They should be lauded for this and we should support the infrastructure development to ensure that we can make better use of recycled water in Melbourne.
At the moment it takes 475 litres of water per person per day to grow the vegetables. It is getting drier and farmers are running out of water. There are two main water treatment plants in Melbourne, both of which produce recycled water—this is from Foodprint Melbourne's information. Eighty-five per cent of the recycled water is discharged into the ocean. We need the federal government to really take seriously these issues in Victoria, to make a commitment to the water infrastructure that is required and to look seriously at the science and how we can maximise the use of that recycled water to ensure that Victoria can continue to be the food bowl of this country and become the food bowl of South-East Asia.
I know that when I meet with the farmers at Werribee South they know I will continue to stand here in the federal parliament and call for this support. I will work with my state colleagues and I will work with local government as well. We need a concerted effort to get them sustainable and affordable water so that they can continue to grow their vegetables.
It is an absolute pleasure this morning to be able to speak about some of the great things—the positive things—and the encouraging signs within the electorate of Braddon.
But before I get onto that I want to communicate not only to this chamber but to the people of Braddon the very good news of the last few days. The Brotherhood of St Laurence have released their most recent report—and I have been tracking their reports now for some years—in which they announced that the north-west of Tasmania is no longer one of the hotspots in the country for youth unemployment. In fact, youth unemployment in the north-west region, in the seat of Braddon, has fallen by 37 per cent. It has fallen from 21 per cent when we were elected as a government in September 2013 to just 13.2 per cent over the last two-and-a-bit years.
Now, this is great news. The challenge is not over; the work is still to be done, and there are still too many young people—and older people, for that matter—unemployed in the north-west region. But it is a great trend. I am astounded sometimes, when the trolls get working on social media, at how negative people can be. Rather than seeing this as good news they always want to find a way to demean it. I am sure they are our political opponents. But the reality is that this measurement has been taken in the same way as it has been taken for over a decade. There is nothing tricky about it. The reality is that the figures speak for themselves. I would say to those people in Braddon who want to see the negative in everything that it is time to be positive about what is really going on in the beautiful part of the world called 'Braddon'.
I want to refer particularly to the great work of small business in my electorate—the 8,000 small businesses that are doing everything they can. I want to talk about the farmers who are doing everything they can to build their businesses; I want to talk about the innovators in my electorate who still want to see more and more start-ups and jobs in our electorate; and I want to talk about the leadership that is inspiring the electorate on a day-to-day basis.
I said in my maiden speech that innovators are still designing, great people are still dreaming, farmers are still believing and leaders are still inspiring. There are good-news stories going on in the electorate of Braddon. Sadly, as people would know, we lost over 400 jobs with the closure of Caterpillar. That was announced 12 months ago and is pretty well in its final stages of closure, with the exception of research and development. That is a sad story, but the good news out of that is that apparently 60 to 70 per cent of those who have been made redundant have found jobs. And where have they found them? They have found them in the agricultural sector and they have found them in the small business sector. Thank God for small businesses in our economy.
There is another significant part of that number that aspire to commence their own start-up business or, in fact, to get into a small business of their own. They believe in the future of our electorate. They want to stay in the electorate. They want to raise their families in the electorate. I would say to the naysayers in the electorate: get on board with the positive stories that are going on in forestry. Forestry is back in business in Tasmania thanks to the leadership of the Will Hodgman government.
Agriculture is gaining momentum every day. It has been gaining momentum for some years, but imagine what is going to happen when the turbocharge of the free trade agreements kicks in. The China-Australia Free Trade Agreement, which was only finalised months ago, is yet to kick him. Imagine the possibilities and opportunities that will be there for our farming community, our service community and our advanced manufacturing community.
Jobs are happening in horticulture. People are investing tens of millions of dollars in the horticultural sector, and there are good jobs there. It is a great news story. Look at aquaculture. We have the biggest salmon of anywhere in the world jumping out of the water. People are getting well-paid jobs in the aquaculture sector. And that is not to mention the tremendously positive story in tourism. I think in Tasmania we have the largest percentage growth in tourism of anywhere in the country. People from the Chinese and Southeast Asian markets love visiting Tasmania. They love what we have to offer: the produce, the scenery, the quiet and the chance for contemplation outside their busy cities in the much quieter part of the world called Tasmania.
It is an exciting story, but we do have challenges. We have challenges in energy security. My colleagues and I are working on some solutions to that but it is an issue we have to deal with. We have the opportunity to be part of the LAND 400 Defence bid, about which an announcement on selection will be made over the next few weeks. As I said, the free trade agreements are offering many opportunities.
I have a challenge with the NBN solution that has been proposed for the west coast, and my commitment is to try to find a better solution for those people. But the story out of Braddon is a positive story. I say to people: still dream, because it is a great story. (Time expired)
The Labor government introduced the Exporter Supply Chain Assurance Scheme, ESCAS, in response to the appalling cruelty to Australian cattle in Indonesia uncovered in 2011. The system attempted to safeguard the welfare of our livestock in foreign markets. Unfortunately, the continued implementation of ESCAS by the coalition government has fundamentally failed. The extent of this failure has been thoroughly and perceptively analysed in a beautifully written and compelling new book by Bidda Jones and Julian Davies, Backlash: Australia's Conflict of Values over Live Exports. Not only has Backlash effectively reconstructed the history of the live export trade, its social and political ramifications and its implications for policy formation and regulation in this country; it documents ongoing—indeed increasing—serious welfare issues for our animals sent overseas for slaughter.
In contrast with this careful analysis, on 2 March Senator Chris Back spoke in the Senate and attempted to suggest that the welfare crisis of 2011 and the brief suspension of the trade was orchestrated as a convenient distraction from other difficult political issues. The absurdity of such a construction reveals the extent to which proponents of live exports are willing to muddy the real issues: the ongoing cruel treatment of our exported livestock and the serious risk to our reputation as a high-welfare quality meat exporter.
The failure of ESCAS is due to pressure from the live export industry, encouraged by uncritical support from this government. The difficulty of implementing a regulatory system in foreign jurisdictions has been compounded by an aggressive expansion of the trade into new, unprepared markets. Handling and slaughter practices frequently remain inhumane, and leakage from the supply chain is endemic in these countries. Under this government we have seen live export companies accumulate multiple critical or major breaches of ESCAS without prosecution or a single cancellation of an export licence.
Slaughter standards may have improved in Indonesia since 2011, but the expansion of the live trade in Southeast Asia has brought new problems. In Vietnam, where Australian cattle have been killed using sledgehammers, the department has already made 13 findings of noncompliance, with three more cases still under investigation. In the Middle East, where long haul voyages still cramp animals in intolerable conditions, supply chains continue to repeatedly fail.
The latest quarterly report on ESCAS from the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources includes incidents in Gaza of 'cattle being forcibly dragged or made to jump off trucks, slaughter without the use of appropriate restraint facilities, the use of multiple cuts and stabbing or sawing motions, and animals still conscious several minutes after the first cut was made'.
Having lived and worked in Gaza, I understand only too well how difficult it would be for animal welfare standards to be consistently achieved for livestock there. The department itself has noted that ESCAS standards are unlikely to be maintained. Live export companies seem deaf to this message, with Otway Livestock Exports' Alan Schmidt seeking to reopen the trade, claiming 'some of the most impoverished people in the world live in Gaza and they are in desperate need of correct nutrition'. The people of Gaza indeed need our help, but let me be clear: those who profit from the live export trade are not motivated by compassion for the poor. Sending Australian cattle to an inevitably cruel death is not the solution to the Gaza issue.
With the cataloguing of numerous incidents of cruelty and the long delay in their being reported, it is clear that real information is dependent entirely on third parties, including video footage from Animals Australia. All of these factors can only lead to the conclusion that the government does not want to know the reality of the fate of our exported animals. It does not want to know because it is hostage to furthering the trade.
In 2007 New Zealand abandoned the trade for slaughter as not being worth the scandal. World markets are increasingly demanding high-quality meat slaughtered with the highest standards. Australia is well positioned to take advantage of this, if only we have the foresight and integrity to act. With the meat trade seven times more important to our balance of payments than live exports, the future for this industry is already clear. Our meat industry provides 200,000 Australian jobs, compared to only 10,000 in the live trade industry. Most of these are transferable. At present, destructive competition for livestock is damaging the meat processing industry, resulting recently in the loss of 50 jobs at Teys meatworks in Rockhampton. At JBS's Townsville plant, 580 workers have had no work this year due to this same competition. Just last week, 17,000 Angus steers left Portland for a 30-day journey to Russia—17,000 animals that should have been slaughtered here in Australia, bringing work and generating valuable income in Australia.
This government continues to ignore the damage caused by the animal welfare failings of live trade to Australia's international reputation. A planned transition away from live trade, with support for those producers who are dependent on it, makes indisputable sense both ethically and economically.
I want to acknowledge the importance of the Sikh community in Woolgoolga and surrounds. The Woolgoolga district is a very beautiful part of our country, and it has the added bonus of having a large Sikh component in its population. In fact, the first Sikh temple in Australia was built at Woolgoolga. The Woolgoolga community has been in existence for well over 100 years, and prior to white settlement the area was inhabited by the Indigenous Gumbaingirr tribe. The name Woolgoolga came from 'weelgoolga', which was the Aboriginal name for a local wild berry plant. When you drive into Woolgoolga you see a spectacular pure white temple with golden domes and minarets, and Indian elephant in front of the palace.
The early Sikh migrants came to pre-Federation Australia as free settlers. They were predominantly males, who left their families behind and came here to make their fortunes before returning home. Some did return, but the majority of them developed a love and attachment to this country and its people; they remained to lay the foundations of the Australian Sikh community.
The early Arcadian settlers came from the farming community of the Punjab. The first Sikhs came to Woolgoolga in the late 1800s. Initially they worked as labourers on the banana plantations, but later acquired leasehold and freehold banana plantations. Sikh migrants from other parts of Australia were attracted to this area once they were aware of an established Sikh community and that a good living was to be made in banana plantations.
Among the Sikhs who came to Woolgoolga in the late 1800s were Udham Singh, whose grandchild is now a councillor on the Coffs Harbour council, Joginder Singh, Ralla Singh, Ganda Singh and Rap Chand. The first permanent resident of Woolgoolga was Labu Singh from Belga and Booja Singh from the Malpur Arkan district in Jalandhar. Booja Singh was the first Sikh to purchase a banana plantation, in Holloways Road, and a residence, in Beach Street. There are now more than 2,000 Sikhs in the Coffs Harbour City Council area. More than 400 students are enrolled at Woolgoolga Public School; 20 per cent of them are Sikhs. At Woolgoolga High School more than 10 per cent of the children have Sikh heritage.
The establishment of the Sikh community would not have been possible without the welcome and the encouragement of the community. There are many anecdotes of the community assisting Sikh migrants in business, financial affairs, correspondence and encouragement to maintain their culture and their religion. In fact, there were three members of the community on the first committee which built the first Sikh temple. Amongst the Woolgoolga Sikh community, we have solicitors, teachers, doctors, engineers, town planners, accountants and policemen, amongst many other professions.
They have been instrumental in establishing a blueberry coop, which had $120 million turnover last year, and employ many people in our region. They have contributed very much to the local economy. By maintaining their culture, religion and heritage, they have contributed to the ethnic and cultural diversity of the town, thereby giving Woolgoolga its unique and distinctive character. Woolgoolga truly is a microcosm of today's multicultural Australia. I am grateful to them for making their home in this country. I thank them for the wonderful contribution they have made over many generations not only to our community but also, indeed, to our country.
With the Turnbull government's term in office nearing its end, I reflect on what can only be described as the most chaotic, shambolic and useless government in decades. In a period of just over two years, over 70 MPs and senators have been ministers or other senior government office holders, every senior government position has been turned over, the elected Prime Minister was turfed out, the Deputy Prime Minister was replaced and the Treasurer was removed. We have a new Speaker, government whips were replaced, the government leader in the Senate lost his job, three ministers were sacked for indiscretions and one member tried to jump the sinking ship.
What is left is a weak, paralysed government, a Prime Minister and Treasurer who cannot make a decision—GST one day, backdown the next; tax cuts one day, off the table the next—and with negative gearing and superannuation, the government is totally confused. This is a government that has no vision and no strategy, a government that is racked with internal division, a government that complains that it cannot get its legislation through the Senate when the reality is that it cannot get a single idea through its own ranks.
The damage the government is doing to itself, however, is miniscule when compared with the damage that is being done to Australian families and the Australian economy. This is a government that has doubled the deficit, which on the latest trends will be $38 billion, made changes to pensions that will leave 320,000 pensioners worse off, cut $30 billion from education to continue to keep thousands of students disadvantaged and $60 billion from health that is adding to the suffering of sick Australians. This is a government that is presiding over the closure of Australia's car manufacturing industry and the demise of naval shipbuilding in this country, decimating Australia's scientific institutions, forcing Australian universities to push up university degrees to 100,000, presiding over tens of millions of dollars of rorting of Australia's Vocational Education and Training system and destroying the Australian shipping industry by allowing foreign-flag vessels to do Australian work.
Its greatest failure, however, is yet to be exposed. I refer to the Turnbull government's failure to seriously address the risks and impacts of climate change. Climate change will impact on every aspect of life, with the social, environmental and economic costs for adjustment, mitigation and repair running into billions of dollars. CO2 levels in 2015 were above 400 parts per million, compared with 280 parts per million in the preindustrial era. Temperatures are rising and the world is getting hotter. 2014 was the hottest year on record, only to be exceeded by 2015. February 2016 was the hottest month recorded. Since 1960, the number of record hot days in Australia has doubled, and heatwaves have become longer, hotter and more intense. Major heatwaves have caused more deaths since 1890 than bushfires, cyclones, earthquakes, floods and severe storms combined.
The Australian Business Roundtable for Disaster Resilience and Safer Communities' latest report on the economic and social costs of extreme weather events put the cost at $9 billion in 2015. The report projects that by 2050, the cost will be $33 billion per year. What has been the Turnbull government's response? It has been to shoot the messenger by cutting 100 climate science positions and years of expertise from the CSIRO. If the argument is that climate science has been settled, then why is the government persisting with a discredited climate policy in response to such a serious matter? Furthermore, if the science has been settled and climate change is acknowledged, then it becomes even more critical that we have up-to-date, accurate scientific data relating to climate change.
Government members—in particular, National Party members—often, justifiably, refer to the immense contribution made to the economy by Australian farmers. No sector understands the devastation of extreme weather events better than our farmers. Yet it is the future of Australian farmers, and tens of billions of dollars of production, that is so much at risk from climate change. As Australia's Chief Scientist recently warned, the planet is losing the battle against climate change. Other countries are acting, while Australia seems to be going backwards on this. The recent conference in Paris highlighted the urgency of this matter. Again, this country is almost denying reality when it comes to climate change. The members of the Turnbull government may well have exited public life by the time climate change fully impacts on all Australians, so they will not be around to be held to account. But future generations will inherit the fallout of the Turnbull government's incompetence and inaction.
I rise to express my profound concern over the appalling lack of infrastructure development we are seeing in regional Victoria. In 18 months the Andrews Labor government has not put forward for funding consideration by the Commonwealth a single infrastructure project in regional Victoria. This did not happen under Premier Bracks or Premier Brumby. The only regional project currently before Infrastructure Australia, the Murray Basin Rail Project, is a project developed and championed by the former Liberal state government.
The situation is so bad that we have an infrastructure crisis in Victoria, particularly in regional Victoria. Last week I wrote to Premier Andrews urging his government to make a submission to Infrastructure Australia for the duplication of the rail track between South Geelong and Waurn Ponds rail stations. This is a project supported by the Committee for Geelong, G21, the City of Greater Geelong and the Public Transport Users Association. The current single track between South Geelong and Waurn Ponds is constraining the number of train services that are able to operate south of the Geelong station—and that is impacting not just Geelong but also south-west Victoria, including Colac. Services are also compromised because there is only platform at South Geelong, Marshall and Waurn Ponds. The impact is that there are far fewer train services able to run south of the Geelong station. Given our massive explosion in population and the forecast of population growth, particularly in Armstrong Creek, the current chaos that we are experiencing with the V/Line services and the increasing problems with the regional rail link—whereby the needs of Geelong, Werribee and Corangamite commuters have been severely compromised—further investment in rail infrastructure in our region is absolutely vital.
Any infrastructure project valued at more than $100 million requires Infrastructure Australia assessment in order to attract Commonwealth funding. Under Prime Minister Turnbull we recognise the importance of investing in passenger rail. And yet the incompetent government in Victoria has turned its back on regional communities by not asking the Commonwealth to help fund one infrastructure project of its own making—not the Great Ocean Road, not the duplication of the Midland Highway, not the extension of the Geelong Ring Road to the Bellarine and not the duplication of the rail line through southern Geelong. Instead we have a government which paid $1.1 billion to cancel the East West Link, which would have delivered a second arterial road for the people of Geelong and Corangamite, boosting productivity and ending so much chaos for those commuting to and from Melbourne. It is absolutely clear that Daniel Andrews is holding back projects to be funded until after the federal election as part of a grubby game. He is stonewalling. The Western Distributor project that is under consideration is a very poor cousin to the East West Link. It is a short-term fix and it will cost Victorians an estimated $30 billion to $40 billion in tolls imposed, with very little gain.
The state transport minister, Jacinta Allan, has confirmed that she will not be making an application to Infrastructure Australia for the rail duplication project. This is an absolute disgrace. This shows that the Andrews government is not interested in obtaining Commonwealth funding for any project bar the Murry Basin Rail Project in regional Victoria. And what have we heard from the members for Corio, Bendigo and Ballarat? Absolutely nothing. They have shown no courage. They have shown no determination to stand up to this government which is denying Victorians this incredibly vital infrastructure investment. What we need is a proponent to progress a full feasibility study or business case for this vital rail project. I am not going to give up. Just because the state Labor government refuses to do nothing. We need this. On behalf of the people of Corangamite, I will keep on fighting.
I am pleased to announce that I have had discussions with the City of Greater Geelong and I will be fighting for some funding to support them, if they want to take up this project and do this feasibility work or, for that matter, any other proponent that wants to take this project on. I will not stand by and watch the Labor Party pour all of its infrastructure funding into metropolitan Melbourne and deny the people of my electorate—the wonderful people of Corangamite—this vital infrastructure funding. In the meantime, we have members of parliament, like the member for Corio, who do not have the guts or courage to stand up to Labor and say, 'This is not good enough.'
Last Saturday week I went to a celebration of my 20th anniversary of being elected to this parliament. We had a wonderful fundraiser, there, for a cancer charity called COUCH and we raised a very significant amount of money. But as I reflected on the 20 years since I became a member in 1996, I remembered that the Peninsula Development Road sealing finished at Lakeland. From Lakeland to Cooktown it was unsealed. The Mulgrave River bridge flooded regularly, closing the Bruce Highway. Mobile phone coverage was almost non-existent, as you moved further out of Cairns to the outer islands of Torres Strait and Cape York. There was no dental school, there was no medical school, there was no veterinary school, there was no Institute of Tropical Health and Medicine at the James Cook University and there was no mains power north of the Daintree.
Over those years all of those issues have been, pretty much, addressed. We have great coverage for mobile phones now and it is improving all the time. The Peninsula Development Road is in the process of being sealed. The road to Cooktown is sealed. The Mulgrave River bridge has been built and there is no flooding over that bridge. We have the dental school, we have the medical school, we have the veterinary school, we have the Institute of Tropical Health and Medicine at the James Cook University and we have a lot of other things.
What we do not have is power north of the Daintree. It is the only community in Australia where a state government legislated to prohibit the establishment of mains power for a community of close to 1,000 people. It is quite amazing. Their argument is that it is in the interest of conservation. That interest in conservation means it sees hundreds of diesel generators thumping away, burning diesel day in and day out to provide basic power needs. There is a huge cost not only to the environment but also to those citizens living there.
In 2007, when I retired for a short time from this place, I did state that one of my greatest regrets was not being able to influence the state government to put power in north of the Daintree. In 2010 we saw the Newman LNP government take one step forward in that they rescinded the legislation that prohibited power north of the Daintree. Unfortunately, they did not take the next step in making it happen. The Daintree electricity policy at the time was described as a 'despicable, discriminatory policy' that devastated Daintree Rainforest's sole economy much more than any other influence, and has been 'singularly responsible for the failed operation of 56 per cent of businesses within the designated area over the last 10 years'. This is referring to not having the power.
Here in 2016 we are still trying to get this to happen. There is a family who purchased a local cafe and spent more than $80,000 in renovations and new equipment at the start of the 2015 season. Four months later they had to close the business because the takings did not even cover the cost of fuel running the generator. Coconut Beach Resort was the only 4½-star offering in the Daintree. It is now derelict. We also lost other big businesses up there: the Fan Palm, Dragonfly and Jambu cafes were all forced to close because of the power issue. Cow Bay Hotel has been in receivership twice in three years with successive owners. One of the main reasons is the high cost of running generators.
You have to congratulate those businesses up there that actually have some resilience in their business and have continued: Betty Hinton with Floravilla Ice Cream; Rod Lapaer with Rainforest Hideaway; Neil and Prue Hewett with Coopers Creek Wilderness; Pam and Ron Birkett with their Daintree Discovery Centre, a business which has won multiple awards; Justin and Kristie White with Lync Haven; and Carmen Fabro with Cockatoo Hill Resort. Russell and Theresa O'Doherty have been great advocates. Russell is the chair of the Daintree Rainforest Power Committee and he recently wrote a letter to the Queensland Premier asking for support. Unfortunately that was not forthcoming.
I am continuing to work with this community. It is about time they got power. Desperately trying to make this happen, I have recently engaged with Ergon Energy. I know that there is a role here for the federal government, but the first step has to be the state government coming on board. We have to encourage them to do that sooner rather than later. (Time expired)
One of the rights of parliamentarians is parliamentary privilege. Its purpose is to allow elected parliamentarians to speak freely on matters of importance to the Australian public, without which they might not know the full picture of politics or some of the developments in this country. It is my duty, therefore, to today use privilege to explain the background to yesterday's front-page attack on a small group of New South Wales Labor activists by the associate editor of The Australian, John Lyons, and his confederate, Bob Carr.
Firstly, the Australia-Israel Labor Dialogue has a pure purpose, which is to enhance the longstanding ties between Australian and Israeli Labor. They are certainly not Netanyahu supporters. My friend Hilik Barr, the deputy leader of Israel Labor, visited Australia a couple of years ago on a program that successfully renewed those ties. One person helpful with the tiny New South Wales AILD is Mary Easson, who also has a professional life as a consultant. One of her contracts is with Elbit, an Israeli defence manufacturer. Mr Lyons, the associate editor of The Australian, has a longstanding animus in the Israel-Palestinian conflict and he conflated Ms Easson's professional capacity with her role as an individual active within the Australian Labor Party. As a matter of fact, both AILD and Elbit have confirmed that no defence contractor has contributed a dollar to the visits of Australian Labor activists to Israel or to the AILD.
As I follow Australian defence procurements, like my friend the member for Hunter, I am aware that Elbit's main business in Australia is providing integrated communications for various arms of the Australian military forces—hardly the exaggerated image drawn by that bitter partisan Mr Lyons in The Australian. He implies that Labor officials who went over the last few years to visit Israel on programs largely devoted to innovation were somehow funded by Ms Easson's company. I repeat: Elbit does not donate to AILD—something buried in the middle of The Australian article in a statement by its Australian chairman, Mr Dan Webster. AILD, as most people familiar with it know, is a Victoria and New South Wales based organisation with no full-time staff, run by volunteers. It is a tiny organisation whose funding comes from Australian Jewish organisations and individuals and is designated to pay for those overseas visits. It is an organisation so small that I did not even know that it had an executive. It is true that Mary is a supporter of Israel and the New South Wales AILD and an activist in the Australian Labor Party, but no credible link can be drawn between her support for these organisations and her professional endeavours.
In its sensationalist front page yesterday, The Australian juxtaposed pictures of New South Wales recipients of AILD grants with Israeli weapons systems produced by Elbit but not sold in Australia. Given the fact that no link can be drawn between Elbit and this tiny AILD organisation, this front page seems designed purely to smear those Labor activists who have been on these innovation visits to Israel. This exaggerated coverage is in sharp contrast with Mr Lyons's soft sell of Bob Carr's activities at the University of Technology in Sydney. Earlier than 7 March, Mr Lyons was supplied with a long research paper from the Parliamentary Library which details the multimillion-dollar funding—all documented from open sources—by an organisation directed by the international department of the Chinese Communist Party.
As China is the most important issue of Australia's foreign policy, documenting donations of millions of dollars to organisations and institutions in Australia which are considered by Beijing to enhance Australian foreign policy is of course of great interest to all Australians. Yet all references to this paper provided to Mr Lyons were totally censored in his report of Mr Carr and the profile that he wrote in the Australian. The different treatment—with the aggressive speculation about a tiny organisation of volunteers—by Lyons contrasts with his decision to cover up the millions earmarked for his mate Bob Carr. This is particularly outrageous given his cover-up of this organisation documented in this paper which I seek leave to table. We had permission from the opposition to do that.
Is leave granted to table the document by the member for Melbourne Ports?
Leave granted.
Lyons, as a Jerusalem based correspondent, produced a documentary about Palestinian teenagers who were arrested for throwing rocks through the windshields of Israeli vehicles transiting the West Bank. After the events in Parramatta and Endeavour Hills, there would be less sympathy these days for those activities because the activities of very young people are quite well known. Lyons's report in yesterday's Australian is a beat-up designed to embarrass pro-Israel activists in New South Wales. It is a stark contrast with the Weekend Australian several weekends ago. (Time expired)
I rise today to talk about the backpackers taxation issue that is sweeping across the country, which comes into effect on 1 July 2016. In particular, I would like to stress the importance of backpackers right across Australia. I was rather surprised that most rural areas, and to a certain extent city and metropolitan areas, do rely a lot on backpackers and their seasonal work as it becomes available—and weekend work; it is across the board. But I do welcome the change of government heart and the cooperation between different sectors of our community to talk about the issue. The changes were made for very good reasons. We all know that these people who come in on backpacker visas or tourism visas—anyone who comes to Australia—like Australians, are asked to pay for the roads they use and the hospitals that are there for their convenience if they get sick or injured. So it is a compromise of government and industry to come up with a formula that will suit all sectors of our community.
Without backpackers and their labour, we would see a lot of issues come to the fore. Maybe because of the Australian dollar having weakened over the last couple of years, we have seen a fall-off in backpacker trade, from some 240,000 a year back to 200,000, or about a 16 per cent drop. This is an issue. Our farmers who have grown all sorts of crops do rely heavily on manual labour. Sometimes it could even be tractor driving, the harvesting of wheat, the harvesting of cotton. They do take some training; our farmers tell us that they come onto the farm with very little experience. They probably take about one month to get trained in how to drive a tractor properly, even in how to drive a farm ute. But after that initial investment in farmers' time and energy in training these people they become very good employees for the short time they are with the farm. It is well worth investing that time and money into the development of those backpacker skills.
What will we do without them? I am talking about the new tax regime that comes in on 1 July 2016, where they will be taxed 32.5 per cent of their wages.
We think a compromise of maybe 15 to 20 per cent tax would be an ideal situation. We also need to look at the superannuation of these backpackers: they can only collect what their employer puts into their superannuation fund just before they leave Australia. So the money they get from superannuation from their employer would not be spent in Australia; it is only when they leave Australia that they can spend that money. It will probably go countries like Bali, or wherever they continue their world journey. It is an issue that we must confront.
There are other countries in the world that rely on backpacker employment: Canada, United States, Argentina and New Zealand are just a few of the countries that do rely a lot on backpackers. Backpackers are also great for our tourism industry. When they finish a hard day's work in the field they are only too happy to sit around in their nationality groups or the new groups and enjoy a cold beer. And they do work hard—there is no doubt about that. When they work on a quota system, they do perform very well. With that, I congratulate the parties for getting together. (Time expired)
When Galileo pointed to the evidence that the Earth and the other planets revolved around the sun, he was persecuted by the Catholic Church. He was forced to agree not to teach the heresy anymore and he spent the rest of his life under house arrest. We tut-tut with condescension at the lack of intellectual openness of the church in the 17th century, but it seems to me that the attachment to dogma is alive and well in pockets of the medical profession. The rigid attachment to the proposition that one cannot contract Lyme disease or Lyme-like diseases from Australian ticks is one such example.
I have seen firsthand the impact of this mediaeval reluctance to consider the evidence. Indeed, one of my interns, as an 11-year-old boy, was bitten by a tick and went through years of being diagnosed as having a psychosomatic illness that kept him from school for two years. Thanks to the diligence of his mother, he was eventually cured after they found a doctor who treated his classic Lyme-like symptoms with antibiotics.
A Perth woman, Trudi Marchant, has written to me about her son Louis, who was bitten by a tick when he was working on a wheat bin in Carnamah in 2013 at the age of 17. From being in perfect health, his health collapsed entirely over the next few months. The diagnosis and the treatment proposed by various specialists was ineffective and, in some cases bordered on the bizarre. She eventually found a doctor specialising in chronic fatigue syndrome and made progress after the application of antibiotics. She observed:
I have found the intransigence of the medical profession in refusing to investigate, diagnose and treat patients with tick-borne infections beyond belief and bordering on criminal negligence. The evidence indicating the lack of tick-borne infection appears to be incontrovertible in Louis'scase. The lack of clinical evidence and accepted diagnosis and treatment protocols arising from this medical intransigence also has adverse impacts on all aspects of the healthcare system and associated legal and financial consequences. We must rely on expensive and frequently inaccurate overseas testing, and, in our case, expensive diagnosis and treatments through Skype consultations with a practitioner in the US. We also have to rely on diagnosis and treatment outside accepted peer reviewed science, and risks entailing such ineffective treatment and effects of long-term antibiotic use.
I was very pleased to be able to attend this week the launch of the Parliamentary Friends of Lyme Disease to support the Lyme Disease Association of Australia and to support those doctors who are open to treating these conditions and to support the cause of research.
It is good to see that the lobbying by these groups is having some impact and the Commonwealth Department of Health now, at least, is recognising the need for research on these fronts. In particular, we must see the work led by Professor Irwin of Murdoch University in Western Australia into the bacterial cocktails of Australian ticks receive ongoing funding. This is groundbreaking work and has the potential to halt the plethora of false negative pathology tests both in Australia and worldwide. This is a very serious condition and it is one that is capable of being dealt with. Again, I really urge the government to ensure that we properly fund the research so that we can have here in Australia the first-class treatment for this condition that we see in countries like the United States and Germany.
I rise to speak about the Bentley Hospital in my electorate of Swan, but, before the member for Perth leaves, I would like to acknowledge her support for Lyme disease. I am Chair of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Health, and we recently ran a morning session on Lyme disease. It is on the Hansard record, if you want to check it. It was a very adversarial hearing, and there was evidence taken from both sides of the argument. I congratulate the member for Perth on her support for the Lyme disease cause.
I just want to relay some good news about the Bentley Hospital, in my electorate, and that is that we have managed to save the maternity unit, for the second time. On 9 November I spoke in this place about the report that had been released on that same day into the future of maternity services in Western Australia. The report had recommended the closure of the Bentley obstetrics unit in my electorate. We had actually secured this review back in 2010, when we saved Bentley maternity services for the first time. The closure had been slated due to a decision by the previous WA Labor government, and there was concern over whether the new Liberal state government would continue with Labor's policy. I ran a local campaign in my community to keep the maternity unit open which received a lot of support from local residents and, surprisingly, received support from Labor, who were the ones who initiated the closure in the first place.
The state Minister for Health, Kim Hames, to his credit, responded to the campaign and said that he would guarantee the future of Bentley obstetrics until the new Fiona Stanley Hospital opened, at which time a review would be undertaken to see if services were still needed. One thousand births per year was set as a threshold for a viable service that could continue. Bentley at around that time was at about 890 births, and the thinking was that the new Fiona Stanley Hospital would reduce demand further. In fact, the opposite has happened. Following the opening of Fiona Stanley, the number of births recorded at Bentley for 2014 was 1,045, and the Bentley maternity unit safely delivered 1,060 babies in 2015.
So when the report was released on 9 November many were surprised that the recommendation was that Bentley Hospital's maternity unit should be closed. The recommendation was made by obstetrician Professor Con Michael on the grounds of safety, which the minister went on to say he did not agree with. The same day the report was released, I contacted the minister, Kim Hames, to express my concern over its content, and we had a back-and-forth discussion about keeping the maternity unit open. A couple of days later the government seemed to indicate that the report would be accepted and Bentley would close, but we did not give up at that point.
On 28 January I held a meeting in my electorate office with the Bentley Community Advisory Council about the closure. They informed me that the proposed date services would cease was 27 June 2016. The attendees, Colin Stevenson and Linda Beresford, were very passionate about the services at Bentley. They pointed out that the services look after mostly local people, people from culturally diverse backgrounds and many people who do not have access to public transport. One of the points I particularly agreed with was about the important role of the hospital in education and training future nurses and doctors. Students currently rotate around Bentley Hospital as part of their training and, with the new Curtin Medical School set to go ahead locally, thanks to this government, the presence of a local hospital is important. We also spoke about the recent occasions when Fiona Stanley Hospital maternity unit has gone onto 'bypass', sending patients to other hospitals because the demand exceeded the available beds. After the meeting we resolved to keep fighting to retain maternity services at Bentley.
I am pleased to say that on 6 March Kim Hames announced that the recommendation in the report would not be accepted and that the Bentley Health Service would continue to offer maternity services to the local community until at least mid-2018, subject to ongoing operational and cost efficiency reviews. After visiting the Bentley Health Service, as he has done with me on previous occasions, the minister acknowledged the service is strongly patronised and favoured by the local community, with the bulk of the births supported by GP obstetricians and experienced midwives. He said:
I have listened to a broad spectrum of the community and given the current pressures facing maternity services, it makes no sense to close Bentley Hospital at this time.
I thank the minister for listening to the community and listening to me as well and for helping save the maternity services once again, for the second time. I thank everyone in my electorate that has supported this campaign. The maternity hospital will continue to provide an important service to many local people, particularly those who are unable to access the Fiona Stanley Hospital because of the lack of direct transport. But we must not forget that this closure was first mooted by the WA state Labor government. I again thank the minister and the coalition state government, who have saved the Bentley maternity ward once again at the Bentley Hospital.
Governments have a role to play when it comes to securing and helping to create jobs in this country. There is a lot that federal government can do when it comes to policy to help create and secure jobs in this country. Quite frankly, with who has been in this building this week, it is a demonstration that again this government has dropped the ball when it comes to securing jobs and Australian industry. I know many of these people are here with their unions, but we need to look past their union T-shirts and listen to their message.
The AWU are here this week talking about gas and gas policy and about how unfair it is for glass manufacturing and other manufacturing that their competitors in China and Japan can buy Australian gas more cheaply than our manufacturers here can buy it. That puts our products that we make here in this country at a disadvantage, and they are asking for an equal playing field when it comes to gas and gas prices in this country. That is not just an issue for the glass industry; it is an issue for all manufacturing industries. It is an issue for a number of our sectors.
Our shipbuilders are back here this week. Despite the government's announcement and white paper on defence, they are back because they believe the government have not come through with their promise about building ships in South Australia. They are AMWU members, and again I ask the government to look past their union shirts and listen to their message.
The MUA are here again with the jobs embassy out the front of our Parliament House, again calling on the government to do everything it can to save shipping jobs—good, high-skilled paying jobs. They are being replaced time and time again by foreign crews who are paid as little as $2 an hour. The government should do more. Other governments have done more to save shipping jobs in their industry. Shipping jobs in the United States have been saved through the Jones Act. We have seen Brazil and Canada move recently to protect their coastal shipping to save jobs.
We have also had here this week United Voice and SDA members, retail and hospitality workers, speaking out about gross exploitation in their workplaces. They are calling on this government to support Labor's private member's bill in the Senate, stamping out and cracking down on sham contracting and workers' exploitation. Young men and women have spoken about what is going on in their industries, including a 7-Eleven worker who was not paid his proper entitlements and his proper wage for eight months. He was asked to give back half of his salary to his franchisee, and then when he questioned the issue he was sacked; he was shown the door. There was also the hospitality worker who works for a company that engages in a lot of backpacker labour and backpacker visas. She was asked to sign away her penalty rates on a new collective agreement when her employer decided to subcontract her labour and that of her workmates. This is what some employers are doing across the board. Rather than directly employing their workers, they are saying, 'We've decided to outsource you or subcontract you.' They are subcontracting out their HR obligations, and the government have done nothing. It is easy for them. We have done the hard yards. The bill is in the Senate. The government just needs to vote for it in the Senate and in the lower house to crack down on worker exploitation. We have also had the TWU and our truck owner-drivers here about the Safe Rates campaign. This particular issue will ensure not only road safety but that our truck drivers are paid for every single hour worked.
Honourable members interjecting—
I would ask members to desist from interjecting please.
This is good for owner-drivers and this is good for truck drivers. I cannot believe that the government and MPs are bagging out a recommendation—
Honourable members interjecting—
I would ask members to desist from interjecting.
that seeks to have truck drivers paid for every hour worked, yet are standing here and pretending that it is good economics to allow people to be ripped off.
Finally, I turn to our CPSU. You can tell a lot about our government by how they treat their own workforce. It has been 31 months and counting with no agreement and no pay rise, but we have seen attacks on domestic violence leave. The government has done nothing for jobs. (Time expired)
The question is that the Federation Chamber do now adjourn. Before I give the call to the member for Lyons I would ask and remind members to desist from interjecting during the contributions of members when they are on their feet.
As the member for Lyons, I am proud to be part of a government that is working for every Australian. The Turnbull Liberal coalition government is dedicated to managing and facilitating the growth of our economy and to boosting it. Everything that we have done since coming to government has been about jobs. My state of Tasmania is a shining example.
Only this week we saw the Brotherhood of St Laurence's report about youth unemployment. Yes, we have more work to do but, yes, we are making real progress on addressing youth unemployment within our state. More broadly, unemployment in the state of Tasmania, when we came to government, had an eight in front of it; today it has a six in front of it. Is it too high? Yes, it is. Do we have plans to address it further? Yes, we do.
Innovation, investment, infrastructure and opening markets are at the heart of the government's agenda. In December we launched our $1.1 billion National Innovation and Science Agenda to bring more Australian ideas to the marketplace, to incentivise entrepreneurs and to invest more in education and research—and I note that the member next to me is passionate about this. We have launched the defence white paper, investing $1.6 billion over the next 10 years in programs to build industry skills and drive competitiveness, whilst harnessing the innovation that we know lies within small business in Australia. I was particularly pleased last week to see a small to medium business be successful in attracting a $4 million grant from Defence to develop a buoyancy system for our Navy and Army helicopters. We have passed legislation to ban excessive credit card surcharges, and we have been working with our trade partners with great success—for instance, culminating in the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement and, prior to that, the Japan-Australia Economic Partnership Agreement and the Korea-Australian partnership agreement. These are opportunities, and Tasmania has been the beneficiary of the opportunities that we are seeing, of course, in commodities. But also the opportunities are sweet in respect of services. We invested in water infrastructure to support our agricultural sector. Tasmania, again, was the beneficiary, with $60 million in the tranche 2 Tasmanian Irrigation schemes that will open up areas of the state to production of a greater variety of food and fibre. We are supporting record levels of infrastructure investment through our $50 billion infrastructure package—nowhere more evident than in the expansion of the Tasmanian Freight Equalisation Scheme to include exports. We have clamped down on multinational tax avoidance—I know you are very passionate about that, Deputy Speaker—which was, extraordinarily, opposed by those on the other side. We have implemented the Harper review's recommendations to amend section 46 of the Competition and Consumer Act—the misuse of market power provision. An effects test will be introduced to limit the potential misuse of market power. The current provision for the misuse of market power is simply not reliable enough or enforceable enough and risks permitting anticompetitive conduct.
Misuse of market power slows the entry and expansion of new and innovative firms, delays the entry of new technologies and potentially impedes economic growth over the long term. Competition reforms will ensure a better deal for consumers and encourage innovative businesses. We are sticking up for entrepreneurs who are prepared to back themselves and take a risk, knowing that they have a government that supports innovative businesses, big or small, within our economy. Indeed, small businesses are critical to our economy, to our nation's growth and to job creation. There are two million Australian small businesses, employing 3½ million Australians and annually contributing $340 billion to the nation's economy. But this is not just about small business; it is about increasing competition, helping innovative businesses whatever their size, helping consumers and ultimately, therefore, helping every Australian.
I was very pleased this week to hear the announcement from Minister Colbeck that there will be a review of proposed taxation arrangements for people on working holiday visas. I have seen firsthand the concerns that business owners in regional and rural Tasmania have about the proposed changes. I think we are a government that is delivering for Australians and Tasmanians in spades.
In my part of Western Sydney, where families have to travel considerable distances for employment and need to balance family responsibilities with work and the cost of raising a family, there are obviously a number of things that are top-of-mind for me. Not the least of them is the cost of child care and how it impacts on families within the Chifley electorate.
The Turnbull government—the then Abbott government—went to the election promising more affordable child care, but the government's own figures show a massive increase in the cost of child care for millions of families across the country since 2013, and a lot of those families are in the electorate I represent. The Liberals' own policy documents, released in September 2013, promised:
The Coalition will help ensure child care is more accessible, affordable and flexible for Australian parents.
They campaigned on this within the Chifley electorate. Instead, families have been hit with risking out-of-pocket costs and a disorganised and confused approach to improving childcare affordability.
This government is set to go a full term without doing a single thing to help families with the cost of child care, and this is simply not good enough. Local families in the Chifley electorate are facing massive cuts to child care after the Turnbull government again voted to cut family tax benefits. The government have voted to cut family tax benefit supplements for thousands of local families and family tax benefit B payments for local single parents. These cuts will hurt nearly 19,000 families in Chifley who rely on family payments to help meet their costs of living, including child care. When you break those numbers down, that is roughly $726 per child in family tax benefit A and $354 per family in family tax benefit B. A single-parent family in Chifley with a couple of kids in secondary school would stand to lose around $5,000 per year because of the Turnbull government's plan to cut family tax benefits and the schoolkids bonus. Low- and middle-income families with two kids in secondary school will be around $2,600 per year worse off because of cuts to the schoolkids bonus and family tax benefit supplements. These are big numbers to people in the Chifley electorate and they will hurt many young families who are struggling to make ends meet.
On top of this, data from the latest Australian Early Development Census reveals that 20 per cent of Australian children are vulnerable in at least one part of their development when they reach school—rising to one in three children from disadvantaged backgrounds. Significantly, this report found a widening gap, in all areas of development, between the most disadvantaged and least disadvantaged areas of Australia.
This government consistently dodge the fact that their childcare package will slash access to early education for Australia's most vulnerable children. Even under the so-called safety net, a disadvantaged child will lose half their access to early education, a dangerous move that could push vulnerable children even further behind. The coalition has even trashed Labor's needs based Gonski reforms, ripping out $30 billion from education over the next decade, with $270 million ripped out over 10 years from the Chifley electorate alone. So they are cutting early education for disadvantaged children, slashing school funding and making it harder to access child care. They talk about wanting to start the next wave of innovation in Australia, but they take away investment in education needed to skill up our next generation.
And on top of this they have taken away the disability loading for students with a disability. Last week a scheduled meeting of education ministers was cancelled at the last minute to spare the government embarrassment over its broken promises to students with disability, remembering that the government promised to fully implement the Gonski disability loading from 2015. Then they said, in 2016, that they will go a whole term without taking any action whatsoever. These have an impact on the most vulnerable, and the government should stand condemned for it.
Again, I stand here on behalf of families in my area who are very concerned, who are trying to make ends meet. They want to make sure they have access to affordable child care and also to help vulnerable children who need special and increased assistance. And yet this government, despite promising that they would do it, again fail to help those families in need. Quite frankly, I want to stand up for families in my area and say, 'This isn't good enough.'
Today I rise to address the issue of unemployment in my electorate. By way of backgrounding, in 2015 over 300,000 jobs were created across the nation. That is the strongest calendar year in jobs growth since 2006. In fact, this government has a very strong record when it comes to creating jobs. Around 421,400, to January 2016, have been created since this government came to office. The unemployment rate across all ages in September 2015 in Australia was 5.5 per cent. In New South Wales it was 4.9 per cent. But in my region, the Hunter Valley, it was 6.6 per cent. What is even more discouraging is the youth unemployment rate, which has increased since we came to government in 1996. Nationally, it is encouraging that the seasonally adjusted youth 15- to 24-year-old unemployment rate has declined from 14.1 per cent in January 2015 to stand at 12.7 per cent in January 2016.
If I can just provide a bit of background in there. When we were elected to office, the youth unemployment rate in my region was 25.6 per cent. When we lost office in 2007, it was 7.3 per cent. In 2014, it was eight per cent. In 2015, it was 16 per cent. One of the reasons that unemployment has gone up is the closure of many companies, predominantly because the mining boom is over. Sandvik had invested $50 million to open a new facility at Heatherbrae in 2012, with 600 people and lots of apprentices. By May 2013, it was losing workers, cutting 43. In 2013, another 100 jobs were gone. The Kurri Hydro site, which employed 500 directly and around another 1,000 people indirectly, closed in 2014. There has been a massive downturn.
There was the great promise that the Hunter Economic Zone would create 10,000 jobs with $2 billion worth of investment. Sadly, due to some planning issues, that has not come to fruition. I think there is one company there, Ullrich Aluminium, and a little power generation plant. More needs to be done.
That is why this week it was great to join the Prime Minister in launching the Hunter RDA's new program, the Smart Specialisation Strategy for the Hunter Region. We have led the way. This is the first of its kind being delivered in Australia. I congratulate the board in particular for their management, investigation and development of this process. As we transition to a new economy, we have to get things right. We have to develop innovation, investment, infrastructure and open markets.
The government has committed $1.1 billion towards doing this, but youth unemployment cannot be addressed unless we get two key factors right. No. one is that we need to get out young people job steady and job ready. Last week I announced in my area the Transition to Work program, where the Salvation Army, Workskil Australia and Mai-Wel were all given Transition to Work programs. These are very personalised programs to train, develop and get a job-steady job-ready young people into the workforce, but more needs to be done.
We have an extensive Jobactive network throughout the region, with 54 sites across the Hunter. But, as I said, more needs to be done. We need to incentivise and encourage, and remove the barriers for people to invest in the creation of new jobs—new technologies. We have some dynamic industries in the Hunter, based across innovation and technology—nowhere more so than through Defence industries and some of the technologies there.
Some of the old jobs are gone. With the downturn in the mining industry over 10,000 jobs have gone from our region and that has had a massive impact. But we need to work collaboratively with the councils, the state government and the federal government—all the departments coming together—to try to work towards building a solution. We can do it. We did it after BHP closed the doors. We reinvented the region with advanced medical research facilities and with a new and reinvigorated University of Newcastle, which took on new curriculum and rebuilt, redeveloped and retired debt. It trained young people.
What we have seen is people in the Hunter with the spirit to develop, design, innovate and create. Again, I congratulate the RDA on their fine work, but we all need to work together because while ever there is one person out of a job who wants a job, that is one person too many. I am determined to work as hard as I can—as I did when I was elected in 1996 and while we were in government through to 2007—to address this situation.
In early 2011, the Arab Spring was in full bloom. Authoritarian regimes in Tunisia and Egypt had been overthrown, Gaddafi was losing his grip on Libya, and mass protests were occurring in Bahrain, Jordan, Morocco and Yemen. Though there were tensions under the surface, Syria seemed immune.
But later that year, on 6 March 2011, the Syrian government arrested a group of children in the southern city of Deraa for spray painting anti-regime graffiti. The children were tortured, and the antigovernment protests that sparked swept across the nation. A month later, hundreds of thousands of people were demonstrating across Syria on a daily basis. The Assad regime's brutal crackdown marks the beginning of what is now a catastrophe of unprecedented proportions.
This week, sadly, we mark the fifth anniversary of this conflict. Syria is a broken society and a humanitarian disaster. The descent of Syria into a terrible civil war and the making of the largest humanitarian crisis in living memory will have repercussions for decades. Years of development gains have been wound back. Syria has dropped 23 places on the Human Development Index. The life expectancy of ordinary Syrians has dropped by years.
According to a recent report from World Vision, real per capita income in Syria is 45 per cent lower than it would have been in the absence of conflict. Half of Syria's children, 2.8 million children, are not going to school. More than a quarter of Syria's schools—over 6,000—have been damaged by the violence, forced to close, or used for the fighting or for sheltering displaced families. Seventy per cent of Syria is without access to safe drinking water, hospitals are inoperable and in March last year we learnt that the number of night time lights in Syria had decreased by 83 per cent after four years of civil war. Syria has literally been plunged into darkness.
Despite these shocking statistics, there are two things that we need to say very clearly. There is still civil society in Syria. There are Syrians bravely standing up and arguing about the sort of future they want for their country. They are delivering aid; they are struggling against the closed schools, closed hospitals, closed roads to try and bring the necessities of life to people across Syria, including in besieged cities and towns. We need to take a moment to think about those Syrians who are bravely struggling to look after their fellow citizens today, and who are still thinking about the future they want for their country.
The second thing to say is that the international community must do more to help now, and to help in the decades that will follow. Right now, of course, we have seen a momentary cessation of fighting, more or less observed, and some withdrawal of Russian troops. These are slight positive moves in the right direction, and they have to be supported because all of this humanitarian need that I have spoken about will require a political solution before it can be properly addressed. That will take a vast need of international support and Australia, as a good international citizen, must do much more than we have.
During the early years of the Syrian conflict we gave around $100 million in humanitarian aid, when Labor was in government, but as this crisis has worsened Australia has done less. At an international pledging conference in London, earlier this year, the call went out for $10 billion of help. Australia gave just $25 million, where the UK, for example, pledged $2.6 billion. We must do better. Politically, a resolution must be found, but our humanitarian support for this disaster must be greater than it is.
I welcome the decision announced yesterday by the Turnbull government to put the proposed backpackers' tax on hold. I spoke against the tax in the coalition party room and made representations to a number of our ministerial colleagues about the impact that the backpacker tax would have on the Northern Territory economy. It is clear that this tax was a significant handbrake not only on the Northern Territory but also on regional and rural Australia. Hospitality, tourism and the primary sector are key industries that employ thousands of people across the Northern Territory, and there was enormous concern that the tax would deter potential workers from coming to the Territory.
Over the past few months, I have met with representatives from key industries and passed on their concerns to my coalition colleagues. The government now agrees that further discussions with these vital industries are required to ensure that Australia does not lose the market share in backpacker visitation, and that our horticulture sector is able to recruit workers. The tourism minister, along with the ministers for agriculture, employment, immigration, regional development and industry as well as the Treasurer and the office of the Prime Minister and cabinet will now work together to prepare a revenue-neutral proposal.
The key issue is to ensure that we have a balanced and equitable approach to the tax status for workers here on visas. It is essential that we continue to put in place the right policy settings that support tourism, support hospitality, support the pastoral and horticultural industries in the Northern Territory economy as we transition out of the mining boom. I will continue to fight for jobs and investment and will always stand up for Territorians, because I am the Territory's voice in Canberra, not Canberra's voice in the Territory.
I would like to speak on another issue with the time I have left. I have been contacted by a number of constituents who are worried that they are going to be severely impacted, and even go broke, because of another Labor plan that they rammed through prior to the last election when they were voted out. Earlier this week, the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal heard applications from AiG and other peak bodies to delay the commencement date of the payments order which applies to independent contractor drivers right across Australia. Given the significance of the structural reforms that were proposed, a reasonable period of time should be allowed for this to be implemented.
After hearing the various parties, including the Commonwealth, the tribunal made the following orders. Firstly, the tribunal has published a draft amended order, which adopts a new commencement date of 1 January 2017 and the transitional provisions proposed by AiG. Secondly, interested parties have until midday on Monday, 21 March 2016 to comment on the draft amended order. Thirdly, interested parties can comment on each other's submissions until 24 March 2016. The matter will come back before the tribunal on 24 March, and at that time the tribunal will decide whether it will conduct a further hearing to hear from interested parties in person from 26 to 28 March.
Despite this development, the tribunal has not yet changed the commencement date of 4 April 2016. So I say to all those people who have contacted me about this issue: you have until midday on 21 March to make your submissions and specifically comment on the new commencement date. Do not assume that, just because you have made a submission previously, that submission will be considered by the tribunal. New submissions specifically supporting the draft amended order published this week must be lodged by 21 March if they are going to be considered by the tribunal. I repeat: you must make a new submission talking about the new commencement date so that the tribunal can consider that. It is very important that you do not assume your previous submissions about the date will be taken into consideration. (Time expired)
Last week, along with my friend and colleague the member for McEwen, I met with social service providers in the city of Whittlesea, a municipality we both represent in this place, who came together as the Whittlesea Community Futures Partnership. We were keen to better appreciate the pressures these organisations and their clients—our constituents—are under, the demands they are facing, what is driving these demands and what we can do to help them help others. The suburbs which comprise the city of Whittlesea face some particular challenges. We have very high population growth; an increasing complexity of needs; insufficient infrastructure, creating issues of access to services and employment opportunities; increasing diversity of community population groups; and a clear lack of funding and resources. We understand that the gap between the supply of and demand for services is only getting larger.
The high level of cooperation among these local human services providers is indeed heartening, but what we heard from all of them was challenging and a clear condemnation of the record of this government in managing the economy; supporting jobs in our area as we prepare for the consequences of the looming automotive shutdown; investing in and supporting people into work; and supporting people to get through challenges in their lives—in particular, in our area, dealing with the tragic epidemic that is domestic violence. All of these service providers have been adversely affected by the Turnbull government's cuts. They specifically spoke of concerns around access to justice and legal services in Whittlesea and the impact these cuts have had on support for gender equality, settlement services and services dealing with family violence.
A particular concern raised relates to the humanitarian intake of Syrian migrants, many of whom should be welcomed into the Whittlesea community. I was greatly appreciative when former Prime Minister Abbott announced that Australia would be taking 12,000 Syrian and Iraqi refugees, on top of our existing humanitarian intake, but, like so much with this government, as of now the words have not been matched with action. Six months on, only 26 refugees have been resettled, and only in Melbourne's north. Those working on the ground in settlement services were preparing in December to support arrivals. In March, we know no more about when these people might come to be welcomed. When we do receive these people they will need help and certainty. This is very difficult when the community sector continues to face uncertainty and inadequate funding. These are complex issues and the frontline services will be unable to cope with the demand without certainty.
This government is also taking money from community legal services, women's services and vital projects, such as the former Youth Connections. Services are running beyond their funded capacity, and this government's agenda of cuts means that more people will fall to the fringes and be unable to access the services they need to support them in times of crisis. It is one thing to read the statistics that we are provided with; it is another to hear the testimony of those trying to do this vital work in supporting vulnerable people.
I say thank you to Thiyagerajah Abarajitha, the project officer at Whittlesea Community Futures, Max Lee from Hume Whittlesea Primary Care Partnership, Patrick O'Neill from The Brotherhood, Deb Fewster from Melbourne City Mission, Carmen Thayless from the Salvation Army, John Fry from the Hume and Whittlesea LLEN, Phillip Bain from Plenty Valley Community Health and Jemal Ahmet and Peta Fualau from Whittlesea Community Connections. I would say to you that the important work you do in the Scullin and McEwen electorates does not go unrecognised. I will continue to fight for you and the people you support in this place. But I also say today that there is an alternative to the present government's approach.
I acknowledge that last night the member for Jagajaga, the shadow minister for families, presented Growing Together—Labor's response to inequality, which is at the centre of this policy debate. Growing Together outlines a fairer vision for a future Australia—one in which we will reach full employment and in which every child is given equal opportunity; where families are given more equitable support; and those who need a helping hand receive it. The report tells us that inequality is at a 75-year high in Australia; it tells us that 2.5 million Australians today live below the poverty line and hundreds of thousands of Australians are without work. The average wealth of a household in the top 20 per cent wealth group is now 70 times the average wealth of a household in the bottom 20 per cent. We must address these issues now.
The release of Growing Together continues Labor's trend of leading this policy debate in Australia from opposition. It has been decades since an opposition put forward so much policy so far before an election. We are not repeating the coalition's mistakes of policy by slogan; we are providing the real vision for the future that this country needs at this vital juncture. This year Australians in the city of Whittlesea and around the country will have a stark choice between a party with vision—a party tackling the big issues of inequality in a fairer Australia—or a party built on slogans which is heedless of community need.
I would like to conclude my remarks from earlier in the day. My speech was on the melancholy duty of MPs to use parliamentary privilege on certain judicious occasions. I was discussing the fact that Mr Bob Carr had confined his most violent speeches to all-male barbecues in the backyards of Western Sydney. One of his angry barbecue remarks concerned 'the Judeaisation of East Jerusalem', which should put him beyond the bounds of civilised debate, but in the last few days he has been far worse. Carr has offered to speak at a fundraiser in the Northern Territory so long as they pass an anti-Israel resolution. I am sure that the people who paying for the block booking of seats at this fundraiser do not know that Carr was trying to engineer this unethical, cash-for-comment side deal. He, like the other former Labor Foreign Minister from Western Australia, is a distraction. We have an imminent federal election, which Labor has every chance of winning. Unpleasant cranks like Bob Carr should just fade away.
Question agreed to.
Federation Chamber adjourned at 12:34