I present the Selection Committee's report relating to consideration of committee and delegation business and private members' business for today, Monday, 2 May 2016. In accordance with the resolution agreed to by the House on 19 April 2016, the committee's determinations appear on today's Notice Paper. Copies of the report have been placed on the table.
The report read as follows—
Report relating to the consideration of committee and delegation business and of private Members' business
1. The committee met in private session on Tuesday, 19 April 2016.
2. The committee determined the order of precedence and times to be allotted for consideration of committee and delegation business and private Members' business on Monday, 2 May 2016, as follows:
Items for House of Representatives Chamber (10.10 am to 12 noon)
COMMITTEE AND DELEGATION BUSINESS
Presentation and statements
1 Standing Committee on Procedure:
Division required? Electronic voting in the House of Representatives
The Committee determined that statements on the report may be made—all statements to conclude by 10.20 am
Speech time limits—
Dr Southcott—5 minutes.
Next Member speaking—5 minutes.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 5 mins]
2 Standing Committee on Procedure:
Maintenance of standing orders
The Committee determined that statements on the report may be made—all statements to conclude by 10.30 am
Speech time limits—
Dr Southcott—5 minutes.
Next Member speaking—5 minutes.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 5 mins]
3 Standing Committee on Economics:
Review of the Reserve Bank of Australia Annual Report 2015 (First Report)
The Committee determined that statements on the report may be made—all statements to conclude by 10.35 am
Speech time limits—
Mr Coleman—5 minutes.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 1 x 5 mins]
4 Standing Committee on Economics:
Review of the Australian Prudential Regulations Authority Annual Report 2015 (First Report)
The Committee determined that statements on the report may be made—all statements to conclude by 10.40 am
Speech time limits—
Mr Coleman—5 minutes.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 1 x 5 mins]
5 Standing Committee on Economics:
Review of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission Annual Report 2015 (First Report)
The Committee determined that statements on the report may be made—all statements to conclude by 10.45 am
Speech time limits—
Mr Coleman—5 minutes.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 1 x 5 mins]
6 Joint Select Committee on Northern Australia:
Advisory Report on the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility Bill 2016
The Committee determined that statements on the report may be made—all statements to conclude by 10.55 am
Speech time limits—
Mr Entsch—5 minutes.
Next Member speaking—5 minutes.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 5 mins]
7 Australian Parliamentary Delegation:
Australian Parliamentary Delegation to Canada, 6 to 12 June 2015
The Committee determined that statements on the report may be made—all statements to conclude by 11 am
Speech time limits—
Mrs Griggs—5 minutes.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 1 x 5 mins]
8 Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights:
Human rights scrutiny report: Thirty-seventh Report of the 44 th Parliament
The Committee determined that statements on the report may be made—all statements to conclude by 11.05 am
Speech time limits—
Mr Ferguson—5 minutes.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 1 x 5 mins]
PRIVATE MEMBERS ' BUSINESS
Notices
(Notice given 18 April 2016.)
Time allotted—10 minutes .
Speech time limits—
Mr Albanese 10 minutes.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 1 x 10 mins]
Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes—pursuant to standing order 41.
2 MR BANDT: To present a Bill for an Act to establish Renew Australia, and for related purposes. (Renew Australia Bill 2016)
(Notice given 19 April 2016.)
Time allotted—10 minutes .
Speech time limits—
Mr Bandt 10 minutes.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 1 x 10 mins]
Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes—pursuant to standing order 41.
3 MR WILKIE: To present a Bill for an Act to provide a regulatory framework for poker machines that will reduce the harm to problem gamblers, and for related purposes. (Gambling Harm Reduction (Protecting Problem Gamblers and Other Measures) Bill 2016)
(Notice given 19 April 2016.)
Time allotted—10 minutes .
Speech time limits—
Mr Wilkie 10 minutes.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 1 x 10 mins]
Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes—pursuant to standing order 41.
4 DR LEIGH: To present a Bill for an Act to amend the law relating to taxation, and for related purposes. ( Tax Laws Amendment (Tougher Penalties for Country-by-Country Reporting) Bill 2016 [No. 2] ):
(Notice given 19 April 2016.)
Time allotted—10 minutes .
Speech time limits—
Dr Leigh 10 minutes.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 1 x 10 mins]
Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes—pursuant to standing order 41.
5 MS PLIBERSEK: To present a Bill for an Act to amend the Marriage Act 1961 to establish marriage equality, and for related purposes. (Marriage Amendment (Marriage Equality) Bill 2016)
(Notice given 19 April 2016.)
Time allotted—10 minutes .
Speech time limits—
Ms Plibersek 10 minutes.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 1 x 10 mins]
Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes—pursuant to standing order 41.
6 MR BOWEN: To move:
That this House:
(1) recognises that the Assyrian people, who are Christian by religion, are an original and Indigenous people of Iraq and Syria;
(2) is concerned by the ethnic, religious and cultural cleansing of the Assyrian people by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), the systematic killings of Assyrian people and destruction of ancient Assyrian cities, churches and artefacts;
(3) acknowledges the targeted killings and kidnappings of Assyrian clergy and ISIL's destruction of a recorded 45 Assyrian churches between June and July 2014;
(4) acknowledges the forced displacement of hundreds of thousands of Assyrians since the invasion by ISIL in Iraq and Syria, notably in Mosul and the Nineveh Plains in Iraq and the Khabour region in Syria (Hassaka province);
(5) declares that ISIL's treatment of the Assyrian people is a gross violation of human rights under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights;
(6) notes that on 24 March 2015, the Iraqi Council of Ministers, under the Chairmanship of PrimeMinister, Haider Al-Abadi, issued a unanimous declaration condemning the crimes committed by ISIL (Daash) against civilians, Kurds, Christians, Yazidis and Shabak as crimes of genocide;
(7) further notes that the United States State Department and the European Parliament has recently recognised ISIL atrocities as genocide;
(8) associates with the recent remarks of United States Secretary of State John Kerry, describing ISIL as 'genocidal by self-proclamation, by ideology, and by actions';
(9) urges the United Nations Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide to make recommendations through the Secretary-General to the Security Council to recognise, prevent and halt crimes committed by ISIL;
(10) recognises and condemns the:
(a) ongoing genocidal conduct of ISIL against Indigenous minorities in Iraq, including the Assyrian peoples on religious, cultural and ethnic grounds;
(b) forced displacement of hundreds of thousands of Assyrians and other minority communities following the ISIL takeover of north-western Iraq;
(c) systematic killing, taking of hostages and human trafficking of minorities; and
(d) destruction of ancient Assyrian cities and holy places;
(11) reaffirms the rights of Christian and other minorities of Iraq to live in peace and freedom and calls for all steps to be taken to ensure that members of the affected communities can live in freedom in Iraq;
(12) notes the aspirations of the Assyrian people for the establishment of an autonomous region in the Nineveh Plains and welcomes the in principle agreement of the Iraqi Government to this; and
(13) calls for the rights of Assyrian Christians to be respected in the post ISIL makeup of Iraq and Syria.
(Notice given 19 April 2016.)
Time allotted—remaining private Members ' business time prior to 12 noon
Speech time limits—
Mr Bowen—5 minutes.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 1 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
Items for Federation Chamber (11 am to 1.30 pm)
PRIVATE MEMBERS ' BUSINESS
Notices
1 MS L. M. CHESTERS: To move:
That this House:
(1) notes the Government's multiple attacks on the pay, rights and conditions of workers, including but not limited to:
(a) advocating for a reduction in penalty rates;
(b) issuing temporary licences, which resulted in Australian seafarers being sacked;
(c) abolishing the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal;
(d) pursuing legislation that would ensure workers on construction sites have less rights than 'ice' dealers;
(e) the attempted reintroduction of unfair individual contracts;
(f) the failure to address widespread and system exploitation of workers; and
(g) the unfair, ideological bargaining policy which forces agencies to strip rights and conditions from enterprise agreements and offer cuts to pay in real terms;
(2) condemns the Government for its employment and workplace relations agenda; and
(3) calls on the Government to abandon its attacks on the pay, rights and conditions of workers in Australia.
(Notice given 19 April 2016.)
Time allotted—40 minutes.
Speech time limits—
Ms L. M. Chesters 5minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
2 MR CHAMPION: To move:
That this House:
(1) notes with concern that one of Australia's major steel manufacturers, Arrium, has recently been placed into administration, highlighting the risk to Whyalla's economy and our national steelmaking capabilities;
(2) recognises the multiple pressures currently being experienced by the Australian steel industry, including the impact of a global over supply of steel;
(3) further notes the worrying evidence presented to the Senate Economics References Committee's inquiry into the future of Australia's steel industry, on the widespread importation and use of structural steel that does not meet Australian standards and presents a threat to public safety;
(4) notes the plan announced by Labor to support Australia's strategically significant metals manufacturing industries, particularly the steel industry, by:
(a) ensuring Australian standards are upheld in Government funded projects and supporting local steel producers in meeting certification standards;
(b) seeking to maximise the use of locally produced steel in Australian Government funded projects and put in place regular reporting of usage levels;
(c) halving the thresholds for projects required to have an Australian Industry Participation Plan from $500 million down to $250 million for private projects, and from $20 million to $10 million for public projects;
(d) doubling funding for the Australian Industry Participation (AIP) Authority and appointing an AIP Board;
(e) ensuring Australia's anti-dumping system has the right powers and penalties in place;
(f) creating a national Steel Supplier Advocate; and
(g) establishing a tripartite Metals Manufacturing Investment Council to work closely with the Government to deliver these measures;
(5) condemns the Government's failure to take a comprehensive approach to securing the future of Australia's steel industry; and
(6) calls on the Government to take serious action to support Australia's strategically significant metals manufacturing industries, particularly the steel industry.
(Notice given 19 April 2016.)
Time allotted—30 minutes.
Speech time limits—
Mr Champion 5minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
3 MS RYAN: To move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) the Government has:
(i) implemented the biggest ever cut to Australian schools, ripping $30 billion out of our classrooms over the next decade; and
(ii) failed to fund the vital fifth and sixth years of the Gonski reforms, locking Australian students into inequality and an uncertain future;
(b) Labor's Your Child. Our Future plan:
(i) for Australian schools will ensure that every student in every school has the resources they need to achieve their best; and
(ii) will reverse the Government's cuts and fund the needs based Gonski reforms on time and in full—a $4.5 billion commitment in 2018 and 2019 alone;
(2) acknowledges the hard work and dedication of educators and teaching staff around the country, and the need to support them to meet their students' needs; and
(3) calls on the Government to use the budget to reverse their school cuts, fund the Gonski reforms on time and in full, and adopt Labor's Your Child. Our Future plan, so that every student can reach their potential.
(Notice given 19 April 2016.)
Time allotted—30 minutes.
Speech time limits—
Ms Ryan 5minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
4 MS CLAYDON: To move—This House condemns the Government for its repeated attempts to undermine universal healthcare and drive up costs for patients, as evidenced by:
(1) its repeated attempts to introduce an upfront payment for visits to a general practitioner, including:
(a) a $7 co-payment;
(b) a $5 co-payment;
(c) a $20 co-payment; and
(d) the four year freeze on Medicare rebates;
(2) tearing up of the long term hospital funding deal agreed by all states and territories and endorsed by the Coalition in the 2013 election;
(3) the $650 million in cuts to Medicare rebates for pathology and diagnostic imaging which will force up the cost of scans and tests for patients;
(4) the $800 million in cuts to the health flexible funds which will force the closure of health organisation, including those providing support for drug and alcohol addiction, mental health and cancer support;
(5) abandoning the National Partnership Agreement on Preventive Health and abolishing the Australian National Preventive Health Agency;
(6) abolishing the Health and Hospitals Fund, cutting $1 billion reserved for essential health infrastructure;
(7) cutting more than $500 million in public dental programs and moving to scrap the Child Dental Benefits Scheme used by one million Australian children; and
(8) the Government's continuing plans to:
(a) raise the price of prescriptions by $5 for general patients and 80 cents for health care card holders; and
(b) cut the Medicare Safety Net.
(Notice given 19 April 2016.)
Time allotted—30 minutes.
Speech time limits—
Ms Claydon 5minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
5 MS PLIBERSEK: To move:
That this House recognises:
(1) the importance of effective political and diplomatic relationships and economic exchange between Australia and our region; and
(2) a responsible and internationally engaged Australian Government is required to meet the challenges and seize the opportunities of a changing world.
(Notice given 19 April 2016.)
Time allotted—remaining private Members ' business time prior to 1:30 pm
Speech time limits—
Ms Plibersek—5 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes. each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 4 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
THE HON A. D. H. SMITH MP
Speaker of the House of Representatives
2 May 2016
I have received messages from His Excellency the Governor-General and His Excellency the Administrator recommending, in accordance with section 56 of the Constitution, appropriations for the purposes of the bills.
I ask leave of the House to move a motion relating to requesting the Senate to resume consideration of the bills listed on the document circulated to honourable members in the chamber.
Leave granted.
I move:
That:
(1) the House requests the Senate to resume consideration of the Water Amendment (Review Implementation and Other Measures) Bill 2015; Tax Laws Amendment (New Tax System for Managed Investment Trusts) Bill 2015; Income Tax Rates Amendment (Managed Investment Trusts) Bill 2015; Medicare Levy Amendment (Attribution Managed Investment Trusts) Bill 2015; Income Tax (Attribution Managed Investment Trusts—Offsets) Bill 2015; Social Services Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2015; Australian Crime Commission Amendment (National Policing Information) Bill 2015; Australian Crime Commission (National Policing Information Charges) Bill 2015; Registration of Deaths Abroad Amendment Bill 2016; Tax and Superannuation Laws Amendment (2016 Measures No. 1) Bill 2016; Corporations Amendment (Crowd-sourced Funding) Bill 2015; Criminal Code Amendment (Firearms Trafficking) Bill 2015, and the Parliamentary Entitlements Legislation Amendment Bill 2014, which were transmitted to the Senate for its concurrence during the last session of the Parliament; and
(2) the House’s requests be conveyed to the Senate in a separate message for each bill.
I rise to speak to this motion that has been moved by the Assistant Minister for Cities and Digital Transformation. I indicate that we will not be opposing the motion, but this is quite an extraordinary occurrence. This request is a direct result of the decision by the government to prorogue the parliament; we are pretending that this is a new parliament. In the motion put forward by the assistant minister, he indicated that this motion was resuming debate on legislation considered in the last session of parliament. It is the same session. It is the same thing. Something called an election determines when sessions occur. This is still the 44th Parliament, and yet what we had a fortnight ago—a pretence that it was a new session—was a direct result of the government's failure to manage this parliament, let alone manage the nation. We had the Governor-General open the parliament and give a speech to the parliament indicating—as is his task as the representative of our head of state, who remains the Queen of the Commonwealth of Australia—what the government's priorities would be for this session of parliament, as if it were new. People might recall that there were two bills mentioned, but one of them was not even debated by the parliament. It got dropped off and they did not bother to pretend that that was the case. If you cannot run the parliament you cannot run the nation, and this is a government that has shown itself incapable of running the parliament.
The reason this motion is before the parliament is to give the Senate something to do. At one stage during the last fortnight we had the extraordinary circumstance where there was only one bill before the House of Representatives—my bill supporting a high-speed rail authority, which will be moved formally later today. There were the extraordinary circumstances of the proroguing of parliament and the listing of two bills, one of which was not even debated, and now the Senate has to have bills continued for debate, as if none of this had occurred. This is extraordinary, just as it is extraordinary that it appears we will rush to an election in order for the government to avoid scrutiny of its budget measures and avoid the normal processes that would take place: Senate estimates over a two-week period and a full and proper debate between now and 1 July. These are the normal processes, but, because of the government's desperation, its lack of an agenda and its lack of a sense of purpose, it simply cannot even sustain itself in the normal three-year term, which I think most Australians would regard as being too short as it is. Certainly, we on this side of the House support four-year terms for the parliament.
This motion says a lot about this government. I was Leader of the House in the minority parliament from 2010 to 2013. With respect to my friend the member for Sturt, this mob would not make it to lunchtime, let alone to question time, on day one if they had 70 votes out of 150. They have 90, and they still cannot manage the parliament. So we have this extraordinary circumstance, due to the extraordinary generosity of my colleague and friend the member for Watson, the Manager of Opposition Business, allowing this to occur. Otherwise the Senate would be sitting over there on what they perhaps would call 'a long morning tea break', because there would be nothing before the Senate to actually debate—just like after the parliament was prorogued and brought back the Senate had to break not once but twice because it had absolutely nothing before it in terms of business. These are extraordinary circumstances that simply were not considered when the Prime Minister showed how clever he was by pretending that the parliament was new. It is not new. This is an old government with no agenda except a repeat of the 2014 budget.
We will not oppose this. Frankly, if this was the opposition from 2010 to 2013, or the opposition at any time that the member for Warringah was the Manager of Opposition Business, there is no way that this would have been allowed. This would have been blocked. There probably would have been suspension motions on the basis of this absurd proposition in order for the parliament to function. But, because we in Labor are responsible, we do take our obligations seriously and we are not political opportunists like those opposite, Labor will not be opposing this resolution.
Question agreed to.
The following ministerial responses to petitions previously presented to the House have been received:
There is potential for this to be one of my last statements as Chair of the Petitions Committee in the 44th Parliament. It is a role I have enjoyed, not only as the chair in this parliament but also as an ongoing member of the committee, having been the deputy chair in the 43rd Parliament.
The Petitions Committee is a domestic committee of the House, largely providing the stewardship of the House's procedural requirements for petitions. The core business of the committee is receiving and assessing petitions against the standing order requirements for petitioning—and certifying those which comply. Complying petitions may be presented in the House, either by members who have agreed to present petitions on behalf of petitioners, or by the chair of the committee. The House introduced this flexibility of presentation in 2008 when the committee was first established.
My presentation role ensures that petitions which comply with the House's standing orders may be presented in the House—even if a member is unable or unwilling to present a certified petition (for whatever reason). This is important, because it highlights the House's neutrality in accepting petitions on the basis of procedural requirements, not on favour or prejudice. Also, it means that all certified petitions may be considered by the executive. This is because in most cases, complying petitions which are not duplicate terms—or do not cover the same subject matter concerns of other recently referred petitions—will usually be referred by the committee to the executive for a written response.
The committee receives ministerial responses to petition referrals and these are also presented during my statement, as we have seen today. Today's presentation brings the total number of petitions presented by me this parliament to 169 and the total number of ministerial response letters to 193, responding to 233 petitions.
There were 91 petitions presented by members of this parliament to date. That accounts for 35 per cent of petition presentations, showing the importance members place on directly engaging with constituents in the petitioning process. This figure would have been slightly higher but for some presentations by members prior to committee certification—in which case the petition is recognised as a document on presentation and not as a petition until it is subsequently certified by the committee, and is then presented by the chair.
(The petition is not recorded against the member's presentation retrospectively.) Two petitions of this nature, presented in March, await the committee's authorisation this week that they comply with requirements and can be presented by the chair on the next sitting Monday. Potentially those presentations may be delayed until the 45th Parliament. What this means is that the terms are not recorded in Hansard or published on the committee's website and the petition is unable to be referred to the appropriate minister until presented by the chair.
On that note, I wish to stress to members the importance of trying to present certified petitions, which they currently hold, with the intention of presenting before the end of this parliament. If they find themselves unable to schedule presentation of these petitions, or they still hold them at dissolution, then these petitions should be returned to the committee secretariat to make new arrangements for the 45th Parliament. Similarly, at the end of the parliament, any petitions which have been received by members, but have not yet been considered by the Petitions Committee, can be delivered to the secretariat.
Finally, I want to mention that through my work on the committee I have attended numerous meetings—both in Canberra with public servants and petitioners, and interstate, with petitioners and their representatives and supporters. Given the broad subject matter that the Petitions Committee naturally encounters, and from all geographic areas of Australia, these have been interesting, educative and often emotional meetings, at the grass roots of communities.
As the outgoing chair I would also like to take this opportunity to thank the deputy chair and all of my committee colleagues for their enthusiasm for the process of petitioning in the House of Representatives. I thank my colleagues for their support of the work of the committee and their cooperation in carrying out their role with diligence.
Thank you.
On behalf of the Standing Committee on Procedure, I present the committee's report entitled Division required? Electronic voting in the House of Representatives, together with the minutes of proceedings.
Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper.
I am pleased to present the Procedure Committee's report into electronic voting in the House of Representatives. Electronic voting has been considered a real possibility for the House of Representatives for many years. In fact, provision was made for the future implementation of electronic voting when Parliament House was designed and built. Despite a number of inquiries, including by past Procedure Committees, the House has been unable to come to a final decision on the matter.
There has been reluctance in the past to introduce technology into the House of Representatives chamber. In recent years, however, there has been a cultural shift in this place which has seen members embrace the possibilities that technology provides us. Throughout this inquiry, the committee sought the views of all members on the question of electronic voting and it is clear that 'the ayes have it'. Members are ready to embrace the technology available to us to modernise voting procedures in the House of Representatives.
While members have offered their in-principle support for electronic voting, the committee does not wish to see voting procedures which are valued by members and observers of proceedings abandoned. There is no question, for example, that members must continue to attend the chamber to vote, with the exception of nursing mothers who may vote by proxy. The committee also feels strongly that members should continue to move to the right and the left of the chair to vote. This practice is a symbolic and meaningful act, particularly when a member 'crosses the floor' or when there is a conscience vote. Divisions also have the practical benefit of indicating to members which way their colleagues are voting and add interest for observers of proceedings.
This report considers a number of technology options for electronic voting in the House of Representatives chamber. The committee has determined that the most practical option, which warrants further investigation, is voting by touch or swipe cards or electronic tokens. The committee proposes that after the bells have stopped ringing and the doors locked, members would move to the right or left of the chair and register their vote by touching their individual voting card on readers at any seat. This method would maintain traditional voting procedures but would automate the count, saving time and allowing for the immediate distribution and publication of accurate results. The committee has also recommended that the results of divisions be displayed on screens within the chamber, for the benefit of members and observers of proceedings.
While further investigation into technology options, costs and heritage issues is needed, the committee proposes that the time for action on electronic voting has come. Introducing electronic voting into the House of Representatives chamber will save the time of the House, will allow for the immediate availability of accurate results and will demonstrate that the House is willing to embrace technological change to enhance its procedures while maintaining valued traditions and practices.
This has been an active committee, and I commend the chair on the points that he has made in tabling this report on electronic voting. There has not been much disagreement in this committee. There have mainly been refinements of each other's views. We know that electronic voting has been discussed in this House since 1970, when the planning for this building determined that provision should be made 'in the new Parliament House' for the necessary conduits to be installed. In 1970, they thought of the prospective internet, electronic voting and the world we live in now: the digital age.
Through the 1990s and 2000s, the Procedure Committee and others have endorsed the idea of electronic voting but failed to make any firm recommendations. I think this report is excellent. I commend the chair and secretariat for helping the committee refine its ideas. As the chair said, there is no suggestion that we would abandon the traditional divide to the left and right of the chair. Electronic voting should be implemented provided that the voting occurs in this chamber. There is no prospect of us doing what is done in other countries, where voting is conducted by noting one's vote on a computer but not necessarily attending the chamber. Tellers would continue to be appointed under our recommendations to ensure proxy votes for nursing mothers and as a backup in the event of a technology failure.
The issue of a swipe card has been investigated as the option for allowing members to vote from anywhere within the chamber. It is a good idea. Voting from anywhere within the chamber is an important suggestion, because we know what happens during divisions: it is a useful opportunity for backbench members to catch up with ministers or shadow ministers and, therefore, they do not want to sit in their seats. Having people have to swipe their cards in their actual seats would be something that might be difficult because people would prefer not to be in their seats, quite understandably. I think it is an important custom of the House that should not be interfered with by new procedures.
Just as the screens we have inside and outside the front door tell us what the actual vote and adjournment is, it is recommended that the results of divisions be displayed in the chamber. I think that would, again, make it more involving for the public, and even the press gallery, to actually be able to see what we know. It is all rumbling in the background when the Speaker announces—I am not criticising you, Mr Speaker, far from it—that the votes are such and such. Everything that makes this chamber more democratic and makes the decisions more clear and transparent is all a very good idea. I commend this report, the chair, the secretariat and these conclusions to the House.
I move:
That the House take note of the report.
Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).
Debate adjourned.
On behalf of the Standing Committee on Procedure, I present the committee's report entitled Maintenance of the standing orders, together with the minutes of proceedings.
I am pleased to present the Procedure Committee's report into the maintenance of standing orders. As members would be aware, it is the 'bread and butter' business of the Procedure Committee to review the operation of the standing orders each parliament.
This report examines amendments made to the standing orders at the commencement of the 44th Parliament and makes recommendations for change in those areas that have not operated as successfully as would have been intended. It recommends changes to certain standing orders to reflect current practice or to better reflect sound parliamentary practice. It also provides suggestions for possible amendments to standing orders to be considered by the House recognising the change in practices to debate management motions and urgent matters.
This examination led the committee to consider some of the other cultural and procedural challenges that the House has faced over recent years. It acknowledges that the turbulence the House has experienced—changes of speakers and prime ministers mid-term, a hung parliament and a return to majority government—has influenced the practices and procedures of the House.
The standing order changes made in the 44th Parliament have highlighted the inevitable tensions in a parliament from which members of the executive government are drawn and the careful balance that must be struck between the executive's desire to pursue its legislative agenda and the parliament's role as a scrutiny body.
This report considers the balance of this tension and recommends measures to ensure the relative standing of the House. It makes the point that procedural changes made by an executive to ease its relationship with the legislature risks blurring the important distinction between the legislature and the executive that is at the core of the Westminster tradition. This does not serve the long-term interest of the House, the government and ultimately, the Australian people.
Some of the recommendations in this report are far-reaching and seek to place control of matters which are not strictly government business firmly in the hands of private members. With Westminster principles and the primacy of the House in mind, the committee has recommended changes to the composition and operation of the Selection Committee to enhance the status of private members' business and that House support be given to this important committee by the adoption of general principles relating to the selection of private members' business by resolution with continuing effect.
Significantly, the committee has considered the changes made this parliament that provide for the appointment of chairs of committees by the Prime Minister and deputy chairs by the Leader of the Opposition. Committees have an important scrutiny role over the executive and this change in practice raises questions about the relationship between the House, its committees and the executive and, if chairs are appointed by the executive, to whom they are responsible. In effecting this change, the executive has appropriated for itself, and the opposition leadership, a function which properly belongs to the House and its members.
At the very least, this standing order should revert to the longstanding practice of committees electing their own chairs and deputy chairs. However, in considering the principle of the primacy of the House over its functions, the committee has taken the view that the House should have a more active role in the selection of committee chairs. It has therefore recommended that chairs of committees be elected by secret ballot by the House as a whole. It is the House to whom chairs are ultimately responsible and the House should have a decisive influence on the identity of the chair. This practice has recently been adopted in the mother of parliaments, in Westminster, and is working well.
It is important that the executive is able to fulfil it legislative program and the procedures of the House should support this function. It is equally important that this does not encroach on the House's capacity to fulfil its scrutiny role. All members of the House must understand, value and defend their rights as individual members. It is only through a strong House that we can achieve sound governance for the electorate we represent in this place.
In conclusion, I imagine that this will be the last report that I table from the Procedure Committee and that this is probably my last speech in this place. I have been Chair of the Procedure Committee for the last six months and, in that time, we have produced four reports, which I think are very far reaching—on nursing mothers in this place; on the consideration in detail process after a budget to allow for more genuine to and fro between the government and the opposition; on the issue of electronic voting; and also on the standing orders. So, it has been a productive six months. I would like to thank the secretariat, both James and Siobhan, who have done a tremendous job in preparing these reports and enabling us to fulfil our role. I commend the report to the House.
Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).
This report addresses the operation of the standing orders during the 44th Parliament. I again make it clear that the opposition members on this committee have responded well to the leadership of the member for Boothby and the secretariat. The report makes a number of recommendations regarding what I would describe as minor technical amendments to clarify the operation of certain standing orders and to make minor consequential changes, such as clarifying the nature of the presentation of documents in standing orders 2 and 34, on page 23 of the report; clarifying the role of the Clerk in certifying matters in the Federation Chamber, on page 24 of the report; and amendments to standing order 192 to reflect current practice in the Federation Chamber.
The report also discusses matters for further consideration, on pages 25 to 27 of the report, to reduce disruption caused by unscheduled divisions during the period for deferred divisions and to reflect the now well-established practice of debate management motions, rather than use of the guillotine. We have seen ministers in the last few years seeking to have their matters debated immediately, with decisions being made immediately and longstanding meetings of backbench members and ministers being disrupted.
The most significant discussion and recommendations in the report go to matters which rightly belong in the control of the House but which the executive has appropriated for itself. As the member for Boothby outlined, this is a prerogative of this place that ought not be conceded to the executive. Most significantly the committee has recommended that the House elect chairs of committees, on pages 12 to 16 of the report, and the appointment of chairs and deputy chairs by the Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition raised serious concerns for the committee. The report suggests that this new practice seriously undermines the role that committees play in scrutinising the executive.
Of course this follows a progression of history in this parliament where members of both sides in question time follow the leadership of the Leader of the House or the Manager of Opposition Business. In the past, during question time, the first two or three questioners were at the suggestion of the executive and then it was a free-for-all and a lot of people got up and asked questions based on their own research. The ability of backbench members to do that kind of thing has passed, regrettably, and it does not seem like it is coming back. That has led to people in this House being a lot less involved in questioning the government of the day. It is a regrettable development which we do not want to see go further with the election of committee chairs nominated by prime ministers or other members of the executive, including the opposition executive.
The report recommends changes to the composition of the Selection Committee in order to enhance the status of private members' business and encourages members to be more actively involved in this process by suggesting a process by which members seek direct responsibility for justifying the merits of their items of business and seeking support for the debate from other members. That is on page 9 of the report. Finally, the report notes:
The House and its Members ought to be mindful to safeguard their rights and prerogatives against excessive encroachment by the Executive.
That is ultimately what this place is all about. There has been a continuing trend, since this place transferred from down the hill, towards an increase in executive powers. I am not sure this has been a good thing, but we ought to try and draw a line in the sand at least with the election of committee chairs. This committee operated very well after the untimely death of Don Randall, and I commend the secretariat and the member for Boothby for his four reports, I wish him well in his future happy trails.
The time allotted for statements on this report has expired. Does the member for Boothby wish to move a motion in connection with the report to enable it to be debated on a future occasion?
I move:
That the House take note of the report.
In accordance with standing order 39, the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
I move:
That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate.
Mr Albanese interjecting—
I take the interjection from the Manager of Opposition Business and commend this report to him. It is a very good report and I do encourage him to have a look at it.
Question agreed to.
On behalf of the Standing Committee on Economics, I present the committee's report entitled Review of the Reserve Bank of Australia annual report 2015 (first report), together with the minutes of proceedings. On 2 February this year the RBA decided to leave official interest rates on hold at two per cent, following the most recent rate cut in May 2015. In making this decision, the governor commented that the current circumstances called for an accomodative monetary policy, with inflation continuing to remain close to target and reasonable projections for continued economic growth. At the public hearing on 12 February, the governor stated that the Australian economy is continuing to progress through significant adjustment challenges, with current growth being driven most strongly by the non-mining sectors of the economy, particularly the services sector. The RBA forecasts that year-end GDP growth will be 2½ to 3½ per cent over the year to December 2016, increasing to three to four per cent over the year to June 2018. The governor remarked that the modest growth of the economy has been producing more employment growth and lower unemployment than anticipated, while inflation remains low with the CPI rising by 1.7 per cent over calendar 2015.
Given that current labour conditions have been better than expected, unemployment is likely to reduce further, while the participation rate is expected to increase over the coming years. Wage growth is expected to be moderate over the next few years due to spare capacity in the labour market. The RBA reports that household consumption growth has increased, which has been supported by lower interest rates and increasing employment. House prices, particularly in Sydney and Melbourne, have eased since their peak in September 2015. Substantial increases in higher density housing in recent years have led to slower growth in apartment prices, which has been linked to a rise in rental vacancy rates, while rental yields remain low.
At the time of the hearing, while the Australian dollar had appreciated a little against the US dollar and on a trade-weighted basis from its lowest level in September 2015, the effects of the dollar's long-run depreciation were still coming through. The RBA anticipates the effects of the exchange rate depreciation will continue to put some upward pressure on CPI inflation over the course of the next few years. The governor noted at the February hearing that, at its current level, the Australian dollar was supporting demand for locally produced goods and services, which has been reflected by strong growth in the services sector.
On behalf of the committee, I thank the Governor of the Reserve Bank, Mr Glenn Stevens, and all of other representatives of the RBA for appearing at the hearing on 12 February 2016. I commend the report to the House.
Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).
The time allotted for statements on this report has expired. Does the member for Banks wish to move a motion in connection with the report to enable it to be debated on a future occasion?
I move:
That the House take note of the report.
In accordance with standing order 39, the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
On behalf of the Standing Committee on Economics I present the committee's report entitled Review of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission annual report 2015 (first report) together with the minutes of proceedings.
The committee held its first public hearing with the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission last February and examined its role, recent activities and priorities for the coming year. The committee also queried the ACCC on the implementation of recommendations of the competition policy review, commonly known as the Harper review, which were released in March 2015. At the hearing, the ACCC outlined its principal roles under the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 as a competition, consumer and safety regulator and its additional functions in regulating monopoly infrastructure and analysing the petrol market, among others.
The committee was particularly interested in the ACCC's views on the apparent disconnect between the lowering of global oil prices and Australian petrol prices. The ACCC advised that, whereas fixed taxes and levies account for some of this disparity, there had clearly been some profit taking by both refiners and retailers. The committee notes the ACCC has engaged with the industry on this issue and that these higher margins do appear to be returning to usual levels. The ACCC must remain vigilant in this matter. The committee notes that the ACCC successfully concluded proceedings against petrol retailers in 2015 for sharing information for the purpose of keeping prices higher. The committee expects the ACCC to ensure that such anticompetitive behaviour in the petrol market, and indeed in any market, is quickly identified.
Preventing the use of substantial market power by larger businesses to engage in anticompetitive activities is a central plank of competition law. In this regard, the proposed introduction of an effects test into the Competition and Consumer Act, as recommended by the Harper review, was an important topic of discussion at the hearing. The effects test will enable the ACCC to prosecute businesses for activities that have the effect of substantially lessening competition. The committee will explore the impacts of this and other Harper review recommendations with the ACCC at future hearings. On behalf of the committee, I would like to thank the chairman of the ACCC, Mr Rod Sims, and other representatives of the ACCC for appearing at the hearing on 24 February. I commend the report to the House.
Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).
The time allotted for statements on this report has expired. Does the member for Banks wish to move a motion in connection with the report to enable it to be debated on a future occasion?
I move:
That the House take note of the report.
In accordance with standing order 39, the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
On behalf of the Standing Committee on Economics I present the committee's report entitled Review of the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority annual report 2015 (first report), together with the minutes of proceedings.
At the recent public hearing held by the committee with APRA in March, the committee was updated on the state of the Australian financial sector and on APRA's recent activities and priorities for 2016. It is certainly pleasing that Australia's financial system remains sound in the face of recent volatility. The committee agrees with APRA's view that complacency must be avoided, and it will continue to monitor any future changes in subsequent APRA responses.
In the banking sector, APRA states that its activities will continue to be strongly influenced by the financial system inquiry recommendation for unquestionably strong capital ratios. We will monitor and scrutinise APRA's planned framework to achieve this over the next few years.
APRA's measures to reinforce sound residential mortgage-lending practices, announced in its letter to all authorised deposit-taking institutions in December 2014, are of particular interest to the committee. We will continue to scrutinise whether the objectives of these measures are being achieved and their impact on the housing market. The committee will also examine at future hearings the outcomes of the higher mortgage risk weights for larger banks that APRA is implementing from July of this year.
The governance of APRA-regulated institutions is a major focus for APRA, and is of course of continuing interest to the committee. APRA informed the committee that a good corporate culture within the entities that it supervises protects against poor outcomes, and is therefore a key area of its focus. APRA also stated that this emphasis reflects its prudential mandate.
In the superannuation sector, APRA advised that board appointments, strategic planning, performance assessment processes and conflict management were priorities in 2016. APRA also indicated that it is consulting on changes designed to improve governance standards for superannuation funds, which it intends to introduce at a future date. The committee looks forward to future updates from APRA on the implementation of these standards and their impact.
The committee was also advised that it has been engaging with the directors of authorised deposit-taking institutions and insurers to make certain that they understand their obligations under the prudential framework. APRA indicated that it would also release a road map later this year for its new prudential oversight of the private health insurance industry. The committee will seek advice from APRA on the progress of this framework at future hearings.
On behalf of the committee I would like to thank the chairman of APRA, Mr Wayne Byers, and all the representatives of APRA who appeared at our hearing on 18 March of this year. I commend the report to the House.
Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).
Does the member for Banks wish to move a motion in connection with the report to enable it to be debated on a future occasion?
I move:
That the House take note of the report.
In accordance with standing order 39(c), the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
I move:
That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate.
Question agreed to.
On behalf of the Joint Select Committee on Northern Australia I present the committee's advisory report, incorporating a dissenting report, on the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility Bill 2016.
The Joint Select Committee on Northern Australia was pleased to undertake and report on the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility Bill 2016, or the NAIF bill.
Throughout this parliament the Northern Australia Committee has been considering new approaches to tackle the economic and social issues which have plagued northern Australia for over 100 years.
The committee's first report, Pivot north, which underpinned the government's white paper on developing northern Australia, recognised infrastructure's vital role in stimulating the economic and social development so crucially needed in northern Australia.
Fourteen of the recommendations in Pivot north concerned the provision of new or existing infrastructure in northern Australia, these being: the development of critical road, rail, water resource, agriculture, digital communications and energy infrastructure, and the creation of a rural investment fund to make it easier for rural infrastructure projects to access capital investment.
Importantly, as part of the NAIF bill inquiry, the committee further considered the official geographic boundary of northern Australia as defined in the NAIF bill.
The original NAIF bill defined northern Australia as: the whole of the Northern Territory, and the areas which lie above the Tropic of Capricorn in Western Australia and Queensland, including the areas below the tropic of Capricorn which capture the statistical areas level 2 of Gladstone, the Gladstone Hinterland and Newman. The Exmouth Statistical Area Level 2 which lies above the Tropic of Capricorn was excluded, with the exception of the town of Exmouth. The definition of Northern Australia was raised with the committee by the members for Durack and Perth and later by the Chairs of the Gascoyne and Pilbara Development Commissions, the Shire Presidents of the Shires of Upper Gascoyne, Exmouth, Carnarvon and Shark Bay.
In discussions with the minister, it was agreed that the definition of Northern Australia, as included at clause 5 of the NAIF Bill, should be amended. This amendment of the NAIF Bill will expand the definition of Northern Australia to include in the Western Australia Statistical Area Level 2 of Exmouth and Carnarvon, as well as the local government shires of Meekatharra and Wiluna. The definition will be amended to include additional regions in Western Australia that are viewed as operating as part of Northern Australia.
Broadly the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility, established by the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility Bill 2016, will provide the necessary financial assistance to begin to address the infrastructure gaps the committee highlighted in its Pivot North report. The facility is one of the government's white paper key proposals, and it places the development of infrastructure at the centre of the government's plan to unlock the economic and social potential of Northern Australia.
The facility will partner with the private sector to develop projects that, despite being commercially viable, have not been able to attract sufficient investment to go ahead. In its own right the facility's $5 billion investment in infrastructure is significant, but by leveraging private sector capital, the value of the infrastructure projects it supports will be far greater than $5 billion. Northern Australia is a region of vast potential. The facility will accelerate the development of an infrastructure base that can underpin the long-term social and economic development that is crucial to realising this potential. For these reasons, the committee recommended that the parliament pass the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility Bill 2016.
Mr Speaker, I would like to thank all those who participated in the inquiry by providing submissions and appearing at public hearings. I would like to thank the Department of Industry, Innovation and Science and the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources for their timely responses to questions on notice. I would especially like to thank the committee secretariat for their assistance in enabling the committee to develop this high-quality report in such a short time frame. To Stephanie and Tim, thank you very much indeed for your cooperation. Finally, Mr Speaker, I would like to thank my fellow committee members—including the member for Perth, my very able deputy—for their support and participation in this inquiry. I commend the report to the House.
It is very rewarding that, in my last week in this place, I feel that I have actually achieved something. I am extremely pleased that the government has agreed to amend this bill to rectify what I considered to be a considerable injustice embedded in the original formulation of the legislation. Because of the very complex and convoluted definitions that were being used, I am sure that most people were unaware that parts of Western Australia above the Tropic of Capricorn were excluded—Coral Bay, the whole Cape Range National Park and all the developments along there, as well is a great proportion of the area that lies between the 26th parallel and the Tropic of Capricorn—in Western Australia has always been considered part of the North-West. I want to commend the Gascoyne Development Commission and the Pilbara Development Commission for bringing this to my attention while we were in China a couple of weeks ago representing Northern Australia at an investment conference. They showed me the definition and expressed their concern. I began to pull it apart and I contacted my colleagues on the committee, asking them to have a look at that. Unfortunately because I was in China I was not able to be there to drive that, but I do want to thank the chairman of the committee for providing support so that we were eventually able to get this amended.
To me, this is really important. I guess I have always have a particular affection for Carnarvon, ever since I worked there in 1980. The real potential of the town of Carnarvon has never been met. There is an opportunity right up that Ningaloo Coast for tourism development and horticulture development. It is a great little horticultural area. We need at least another 400 hectares, if not another 800 hectares, to be added to that precinct and for that we need investment in water infrastructure. I am pleased to see that Andrew Forrest himself has now got involved in pastoralism in the Gascoyne, and I think with better infrastructure we will see the pastoral industry, together with the horticultural industry, taking a great leap forward. We can look forward to much greater development in the precinct, exploiting the opportunities that lie there. But we do need investment. We need access to this important loan facilitation fund to enable those areas to have concessional access to finance. It is a good piece of legislation. I hope that we hand this money out very judiciously, that proper cost-benefit analyses are done before these funds are allocated, but I do think that we can see great potential for Northern Australia to go forward using these facilities. I am pleased to have been able to play my little bit in ensuring that Western Australia receives equal treatment with Queensland and the Northern Territory in that regard.
From 6 to 12 June last year I was privileged to be one of four members of this parliament to participate in a delegation to Canada. The delegation formed part of the official 2015 bilateral parliamentary visits, and was one of four such delegations which included Canada. The delegation visited Ottawa, Ontario, Vancouver and Victoria. The delegation met with members of the federal and provincial legislatures including the Presiding Officer of the federal parliament, some public servants at the forefront of policy making, law enforcement and defence officials as well as business representatives.
Through these meetings, members of the delegation were able to discuss and learn more about issues of mutual interest to both Australia and Canada. Topics of discussion included:
The delegation also toured HMCS Calgary and received a briefing from the Canadian Maritime Forces Pacific and Joint Task Force Pacific.
The delegation was also pleased to be able to meet with the Hon. Andrew Scheer MP, Speaker of the Canadian House of Commons. Discussions were centred on the respective roles of and election processes for the positions of Speaker in the Canadian and Australian parliaments. Continuing the theme of strengthening parliamentary ties, the delegation also met with members of the Canadian Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, federal ministers and members, provincial members, and the Deputy Clerk and Clerk of Committees of the British Columbia Legislative Assembly.
In addition to discussions about matters of mutual national interest, the delegation was fortunate to be able to receive a briefing about the Canadian parliament's response to the 2014 terrorist attack which occurred within the Canadian parliamentary precinct.
In closing, I would like to thank everyone who gave their time to meet the delegation and who provided additional information to members. I would also like to thank His Excellency Tony Negus APM, Australian High Commissioner to Canada, and his staff who assisted and accompanied the delegation during its visit to Canada. I would also like to make particular mention of Mr Lucas Robson, who so ably assisted members during the visit and arranged an engaging and well-orchestrated visit program. Finally, I would like to thank Stephanie Mikac, who was the delegation secretary, and the members of the delegation for their enthusiasm and participation during this visit. I commend the report to the House.
On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, I present the committee's report entitled Human rights scrutiny report: thirty-seventh report of the 44th Parliament.
Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).
by leave—The committee's 37th report of the 44th Parliament examines the compatibility of bills and legislative instruments with Australia's human rights obligations. This report considers bills introduced into the parliament from 15 to 17 March 2016 and legislative instruments received from 4 to 17 March 2016. The report also includes the committee's consideration of 10 responses to matters raised in previous reports.
Sixteen new bills are assessed as not raising human rights concerns. The committee has also concluded its examination of six bills and nine regulations.
This report concludes consideration of the Australian Border Force Bill 2015. The bill provides the legislative framework for the establishment of the Australian Border Force within the Department of Immigration and Border Protection. The minister's response in this instance enabled the committee to conclude that a number of measures were compatible with human rights. This includes measures which give the departmental secretary the power to delay an employee's resignation by up to 90 days in circumstances where the employee may have engaged in serious misconduct, and measures that may require Border Force workers to disclose matters that may be self-incriminatory. On two measures, relating to the application of additional employment screening measures across the department and extending alcohol and drug testing to the entire department, committee members came to differing conclusions as to whether the measures were compatible with human rights.
The committee did, however, find that the secrecy offence provision, which criminalises the disclosure by an Immigration and Border Protection worker of any information obtained in their capacity as an Immigration worker, is likely to be incompatible with the right to a fair trial. This is because the offence provision includes limited exceptions which reverse the onus of proof and place an evidential burden on the defendant to prove that the statutory exception applies in a particular case. An offence provision which reverses the onus of proof engages and limits the presumption of innocence. This is because a defendant's failure to discharge the burden of proof may permit their conviction despite reasonable doubt as to their guilt.
Reversing the onus of proof may be justified where an element of the offence is peculiarly within the knowledge of the defendant, and it would be significantly more difficult and costly for the prosecution to disprove than for the defendant to establish the matter. The committee considered that reversing the burden of proof in this case was not justified.
The committee also concluded that measures which would enable the exclusion of certain remedies for unfair dismissal under the Fair Work Act 2009 may be incompatible with the right to just and favourable conditions of work. The committee considered that it was unlikely that the Fair Work Commission would order the department to reinstate an employee found to have engaged in serious misconduct and, accordingly, the committee considered the measure had not been justified as necessary and proportionate.
Obviously, I encourage my fellow members and others to examine the committee's report to better inform their understanding of the committee's deliberations.
With these comments, I commend the committee's 37th report of the 44th Parliament to the chamber.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Inspirational author Helen Keller, the first sight-impaired person to earn a university degree, once made a critical observation about vision.
She said:
The only thing worse than being blind is having sight but no vision.
The proposed high-speed rail link between Brisbane and Melbourne via Sydney and Canberra is a project that requires vision.
It is big—more than 1,700 kilometres long.
It is challenging—it will involve the construction of tens of kilometres of tunnels.
It is complex, necessarily involving the governments of Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria and the Australian Capital Territory as well as dozens of local councils.
Making a project of this scale a reality requires vision.
We must imagine a better future and take actions to create that future.
We have done the research.
We know that the project is viable.
What this parliament needs to do is commit to the next step required to make it a reality—the creation of an authority to advance detailed planning and work with other jurisdictions and begin to acquire the corridor before it is built out by urban sprawl.
That is the thinking behind this bill.
A long road
This is the third time this bill has come before us.
I first introduced it in December 2013 as the first private member's bill before the parliament this term.
However, a lack of political will from the government meant the bill lapsed, requiring me to reintroduce it in October last year.
But once again, this bill lapsed last month when the government prorogued the parliament in extraordinary circumstances and then reconvened it for a special fresh sitting staged to allow it to contrive reasons for the double dissolution of the parliament.
So I reintroduced this bill on 19 April.
We could have debated it back then. Indeed, at one stage it was literally the only piece of legislation that was before the House of Representatives.
Yet this government showed no vision, despite the fact that people like former trade minister Andrew Robb, have come out as strong supporters of high-speed rail.
Mr Robb has stated that he could produce the names of international companies that had told him they could deliver the project in full.
Last month someone in the government floated the idea in a national newspaper that the entire project could be delivered using value capture.
This, I do not think, is realistic.
Any politician who tells you that they can fund an entire rail line using value capture is pulling your leg.
And like most of the government’s thought bubbles, the idea collapsed within hours when the parliamentary secretary for cities ruled out support for the project.
This is indeed a shame.
It is another lost opportunity from a government that had a plan to win government but no plan to govern.
The project
As transport minister in the former Labor government, I commissioned a two-part study involving extensive consultation with industry and international operators of high-speed rail, as well as significant community input.
The study, published in April 2013, included the business case for the project, consideration of environmental issues, projections of patronage, the proposed route, proposed stations and proposed time lines.
It found that high-speed rail down the east coast of Australia was indeed a viable proposition.
For example, it found that high-speed rail would return, for the Sydney to Melbourne section, $2.15 in economic benefit for every dollar invested.
The report found that once fully operational across the Brisbane to Melbourne corridor, high-speed rail could carry approximately 84 million passengers each and every year.
At speeds of 350 kilometres per hour, people would be able to travel from Melbourne to Sydney, or Melbourne to Brisbane, in less than three hours. Of course, new technology is seeing speeds in excess of that.
The report found that Commonwealth leadership and coordination would be essential, given the number of jurisdictions involved.
High-speed rail would also be an engineering challenge, requiring at least 80 kilometres of tunnels, including 67 kilometres in Sydney alone.
But despite these challenges, the experts said that high-speed rail had huge potential, particularly if we consider where our society is headed over coming decades.
We can anticipate significant population growth over coming decades along the route of this proposed line.
We can also anticipate that growing pressure for a carbon-constrained economy will drive the economics of this project ever more positively over time.
We can also anticipate that if we fail to act soon, delivery of high-speed rail will be made more difficult and more costly because parts of the corridor will be built out by urban sprawl.
That is why this bill proposes to create an 11-person high-speed rail authority to bring together all affected states and territories as well as rail and engineering experts to progress planning and, critically, focus on the corridor.
Members would include:
The authority’s roles would include consideration of:
This is not an idea that I came up with. We had proper process, and I appointed a High Speed Rail Advisory Group that included people such as the former Deputy Prime Minister Tim Fischer, the Business Council of Australia’s chief executive, Jennifer Westacott, and Australasian Railway Association chief executive Bryan Nye.
It was chaired by the deputy secretary of my former department, Lyn O’Connell.
Serious people having a look at a serious issue and coming up with serious suggestions about the way forward, and a way forward that should have been bipartisan.
That is why the former Labor government embraced these recommendations, which were unanimous, and allocated $54 million to establish the authority and begin the process of corridor acquisition.
But in 2013 the incoming coalition government scrapped this allocation and turned its back on the project.
Vision
To best understand the potential of high-speed rail, we need to look well beyond 2016 and consider where this nation will be in coming decades.
We know that our population will be larger.
We now that this growth will be concentrated precisely on the route of this high-speed rail proposal.
We can also expect the world will have moved in terms of economic options as it is doing in Asia and Europe towards rail. Rail is the transport of the 21st century.
According to the high-speed rail study I referred to earlier, travel on the east coast of Australia is forecast to grow by about 1.8 per cent every year over the next two decades and to increase by 60 per cent by 2035.
The study said east coast trips would double from 152 million trips in 2009 to 355 million trips in 2065.
There is another compelling reason to proceed with high-speed rail, and that is the boost to regional Australia. That is why this bill will be seconded by the member for Newcastle.
Stations are proposed for the Gold Coast, Casino, Grafton, Coffs Harbour, Port Macquarie, Taree, Newcastle, the Central Coast, Southern Highlands, Wagga Wagga, Albury-Wodonga and Shepparton.
This project will position these centres to take some of the population growth pressure off our capital cities, which will no doubt be a key issue in the future.
Importantly, it will also provide for uplift value by the economic improvement that will occur in those regional centres to be factored into the funding, building and construction of the high-speed rail line.
It could also deliver a massive improvement in liveability.
Imagining living in Newcastle or the Southern Highlands and being able to commute to the central business district of Sydney in under an hour. It will transform those centres and facilitate new business.
Conclusion
Vision is one of the obligations of leadership.
Today's leaders will best serve those who follow us if we think ahead.
True leaders do not just sit around waiting for the telephone to ring. They act.
This parliament should show some genuine leadership by acting on high-speed rail, starting today by debating and supporting this bill.
I fear this is unlikely, given the government's refusal to debate this issue over the last three years.
But there is light at the end of the tunnel.
In the general election in July, the people of Australia have the ability to take this issue out of this visionless coalition government's hands.
A Shorten Labor government will act where the Abbott-Turnbull government has failed.
We will establish a high-speed rail authority.
We will ask the authority to move quickly towards calling for expressions of interest from international rail companies that have shown a capacity to deliver real projects.
Labor is prepared to think ahead.
Future generations will be the beneficiaries.
Is there a seconder to the motion?
I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I rise to introduce the Renew Australia Bill 2016. The bill establishes Renew Australia, an authority to plan and drive the transition to a new clean energy system.
We are in the middle of a climate emergency. The recent widespread bleaching of our Great Barrier Reef is only the most recent manifestation and the beginning of the catastrophic effects that our pollution is causing. The security of our nation is at threat, and our way of life needs to be protected. We need to act and we need to act urgently.
But the good news is that approaching the enormous challenge of climate change is also an opportunity to remake our economy and ensure our future prosperity. By powering the new economy with clean energy, we will make a new future where economic growth is decoupled from pollution.
The Greens have a plan to renew Australia by powering the new economy with clean energy. Our plan will ensure energy generation for electricity is at least 90 per cent renewable by 2030 and that our energy productivity is doubled. We will establish a $500 million government authority, Renew Australia, tasked with planning and driving the transition to a new clean energy system and to leverage $5 billion of construction in new energy generation over the next four years. We will create a $250 million clean energy transition fund to assist coal workers and communities to transition, with the total amount spent rising to $1 billion over the decade.
We will implement pollution intensity standards to enable the gradual staged closure of coal-fired power stations, starting with Australia's dirtiest, Hazelwood. This is critical. We have to get off coal and onto renewables if we are to have any chance of meeting the challenge that climate change has laid down to us. But as we do so we need to ensure that no-one is left behind, that the workers in those coal-fired power stations and their communities are looked after and that supply is continued so that the lights stay on as we make this transition.
Our plan aims to electrify transport and industry, including new industries that want to access cheap and clean energy. As a result of that, even with a doubling of energy efficiency, energy production for electricity in Australia actually needs to increase by about 50 per cent by 2030. So the Green's plan is to grow the amount of electricity that we produce in this country but to make it clean and green. To do that, we are going to need all shoulders to the wheel. The future of the energy market is going to continue to be a mix of private, public and community infrastructure.
Central to the implementation of our plan will be Renew Australia, the authority that this bill would establish. Government needs to grab this issue by the scruff of the neck. Government needs to be the midwife of our clean energy society. Renew Australia will drive Australia's transformation into a clean energy powerhouse and will utilise a combination of mechanisms, including driving down costs and creating a highly skilled clean energy workforce through a staged pipeline of construction projects over the next 15 years. This will be the Snowy Hydro for the 21st century, accessing capital raised by the Commonwealth's publicly owned and operated clean energy assets and contracting with clean energy companies to build these renewable energy power plants.
Renew Australia would also run reverse auctions for the construction of lowest cost clean energy assets, with a preference awarded towards community owned energy projects and those projects that commit to buying their materials and employing people locally. There is 20 tonnes of steel in a wind turbine. If we can make that Australian steel, we should. Renew Australia would encourage workers to purchase energy infrastructure through superannuation funds, which hold billions of dollars available to be invested in nationally significant infrastructure.
The bill that I am introducing today will establish Renew Australia and put in place the legal machinery to enable it to do this important work. I will turn now to the important elements of this bill in detail. Part 1 of the bill sets out the starting date for the bill, its objects and number of other related details. The objects of the bill are: to help reduce Australia's greenhouse gas pollution by transforming Australia's electricity system; to create a new statutory authority to oversee the transformation; to achieve new energy objectives to ensure a transition plan for affected communities; and to ensure that the closure of coal-fired power stations happens in a planned manner.
Part 2 of the bill establishes Renew Australia as an authority and outlines its functions. The general functions of Renew Australia are set out, including law reform, advice, renewable energy projects, support to affected communities and workers and other functions that are conferred to it. Clause 11 outlines some of those functions, and it is worth examining them closely. Clause 11(1) lists Renew Australia's law reform functions:
(a) to review Commonwealth, State and Territory laws relating to electricity generation and propose changes to those laws for the purpose of achieving the new energy objectives; and
(b) to consult with Commonwealth, State and Territory governments about the proposed changes; and
(c) after consulting as mentioned in paragraph (b), to recommend to the Minister changes to Commonwealth laws for the purpose of achieving the new energy objectives; and
(d) to publish the results of reviews mentioned in paragraph (a), and the changes recommended under paragraph (c), on its website.
One of the first tasks of Renew Australia will be to review our national energy laws and come up with draft legislation to explain how we will make this transition and reform the national energy market, which is in dire need of change.
Clause 11(2) lists new energy objectives for Renew Australia—and, indeed, for the country—which will drive the decisions of the authority. The new energy objectives, which will be enshrined in legislation, are to:
(a) to achieve a transition in generating electricity in Australia, so that by 2030:
(i) 90% of electricity generated in Australia is derived from renewable energy sources; and
(ii) electricity generation capacity in Australia is increased to 358 TWh …
(b) to phase out the generation of electricity in Australia from fossil fuels;
(c) to maintain supply of electricity in Australia while the transition mentioned in paragraph (a) is achieved;
(d) to lower energy costs to households and businesses, including by enabling them to become generators of electricity from renewable energy sources;
(e) to make Australia a destination of choice for industry seeking reliable and clean energy;
(f) to have a national electricity grid that is suited to the transition mentioned in paragraph (a) and to which generators of electricity from renewable energy sources have a right to connect.
That last one, like many of the others, is vital. People should know that when they generate renewable electricity, whether it is on their rooftop or whether they are building a new wind farm or solar plant somewhere, they will be connected to the grid.
The bill goes on to outline Renew Australia's responsibilities to layout a timetable for the planned closure of coal fired power stations and for principles of investment in the new national electricity grid. Importantly, in clause 11, Renew Australia is to develop laws that will proceed by complementary legislation between the state and the Commonwealth, but, if the states are not going to come to the party, then the Commonwealth needs to act alone. The Commonwealth needs to step in to ensure that our pollution in this country is reduced, as we switch over from coal to wind and solar. If the states do not want to be party to it, the Commonwealth needs to lead the way. It will also be clear—and this is set out in clause 13—that Renew Australia has the capacity to build, finance, own or operate renewable energy projects and also to run reverse auctions for new private sector renewable energy projects. Renew Australia must take action that is in the public interest.
Parts 3 and 4 set out the powers, privileges and immunities for the Renew Australia board, chief officer and other machinery relating to it. Part 5 sets out that parliament may appropriate money for Renew Australia and the finance minister may give them directions. Finally, Part 6 outlines matters in relation to the legal delegations and the power for the minister to make rules.
Tackling global warming needs real leadership. In the face of the climate challenge, the rest of the world is moving rapidly to transform their economies and we cannot be left behind. On 25 July last year, Germany produced 78 per cent of its electricity from renewable energy. Why is cloudy Germany leading the way, when Australia is blessed with a high level of manufacturing capacity, very smart people with intellectual resources and more wind and solar than almost any other country in the world? We should be world leaders; we should be the new energy superpower; we should not be leaving it up to other countries to grab the benefits that are going to come in the 21st century to those countries which produce clean, green renewable energy.
Our hope it is that Australia becomes a destination of choice for industry around the world, which is looking for a place to come to for cheap and plentiful power supply that is produced cleanly. Let us be the place in the region where you come to run your business if you want to know that your business is being run on secure renewable energy. We want to increase the amount of electricity that is produced in this country, as we start getting transport—cars, buses, trains—off fossil fuels onto electricity. The jobs that will flow from this are manifold. The German experience suggests to us that there is somewhere in the order of 100,000 jobs available in renewable energy. The Greens want to seize that opportunity for Australia and make Australia a new energy superpower. This bill will go a long way towards doing that.
I second the bill and reserve my right to speak.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
This bill would in essence implement the recommendations of the Productivity Commission from 2010. The bill I have just tabled is exactly the same as the bill that I introduced in November 2014, which, regrettably, because of the decision of the government and I am sure supported by the opposition, was never listed for debate. This bill is consistent with the Productivity Commission's recommendations. It would implement mandatory precommitment for all poker machines in Australia. It would introduce $1 maximum bets; it would introduce a $250 withdrawal limit on all ATMs and EFTPOS devices in poker machine venues. It would restrict jackpots on poker machines throughout the nation to a maximum $500. It would make the maximum banknote that could be inserted into any poker machine at any one time $20. It would make the maximum credit that any poker machine could accrue $20. Also, it would require that all machines sold in Australia were capable of complying with all of the above by 31 December 2017 and that all machines sold must comply with all of the above by 31 December 2021. Moreover, it is quite clear that venues with more than five poker machines must be compliant by that date of 31 December 2021 but venues with five or fewer poker machines are given two years longer and must be compliant by 31 December 2023.
It would be at least an understatement to say that it is beyond time for the national parliament to act on poker machine problem gambling. Just to remind honourable members and, through this place, the broader community of just how serious poker machine problem gambling is and how great the harm is: the Productivity Commission found in 2010 that almost 95,000 Australians have a serious problem with poker machines. There is no reason to think that number of about 100,000 poker machine problem gamblers has changed much since then. Moreover, the Tasmanian government's own research shows that for every poker machine problem gambler there are another five to 10 people affected—whether they be brothers, sisters, mums, dads, husbands, wives, sons, daughters, work colleagues, the business owner or friends. The bottom line is that when you tally that up there are a million or more Australians who are either poker machine problem gamblers or directly affected by someone who does have a gambling problem with poker machines.
The enormity of this problem is also illustrated by the amount of money that is at stake. It is hard to know an exact figure but we do know that between $10 billion and $12 billion is lost each year on the pokies in this country and about 40 per cent of that money is lost by problem gamblers—that is, people who cannot afford to lose that amount of money. In other words, four or five thousand million dollars is lost in this country every year by people who cannot afford to lose that money. These are real people. They have real families. They have real jobs. These are human beings. This is not just some statistic in a Productivity Commission report. This is not just some number in a newspaper article. This is about 100,000 human beings who are being deeply affected by a machine that is legal in this country and that is almost encouraged in some jurisdictions by the way that advertising is allowed when it comes to these machines. These are people who cannot afford to pay their bills, who cannot afford to feed their children.
In Victoria, the second most prevalent cause of crime—second only to drugs—is problem gambling, mostly from poker machines. That we have a problem of such magnitude in this country and yet this place has failed to act and has certainly failed to act decisively is to our great shame. For the life of me, I do not know why it is so hard to get the attention of this place, to get attention of the major political parties, when the problem is so severe. I am delighted that the honourable member for Melbourne will be seconding this bill. I do applaud the Greens, because the Greens is one of the very few parties that actually has taken a decisive and strong leadership position on this. What does it say about our parliament and the situation with politics in this country right now that again it is left to the crossbenchers, the minor parties and the Independents, to stick up for the majority of Australians and what concerns them? And it is the majority of Australians, because we know for a fact through poll after poll after poll that a clear majority of Australians want legislative reform regarding poker machines. The community knows these things hurt. The community knows that these things can kill, that the rate of suicide among problem gamblers is markedly higher than the baseline rate of people who take their own lives in this country.
Why is it so hard? I will tell you why, Mr Deputy Speaker: it is because the parties in this place are on the take. It is simple as that. I will give you a few examples. Before the last election, ClubsNSW and the Australian Hotels Association indirectly donated $75,000 to the re-election of Kevin Andrews, who was the shadow spokesperson on social services for the then coalition opposition. The man who would become—if he became minister, as he did—the central figure, the driving force, the architect, of this government's poker machine policy. Yet people did not seem to bat an eyelid that the industry gave him $75,000 for his re-election. What about in the previous parliament when the reforms that I was pushing at that time were a big issue for that parliament and the crossbench had the balance of power. Who batted an eyelid when Crown Casino gave Katter's Australian Party $250,000 at the time? In a developing country that would be considered corruption on a grand scale, and we here in Australia would be all high and mighty and sanctimonious about it and criticise that developing country—but it goes on in this place and it goes on all the time. How dare Crown Casino give the Katter's Australian Party a quarter of a million dollars when the member for the Kennedy was then part of the balance of power and considering serious poker machine reform.
The Labor Party are also no better. In fact, the Labor Party owns poker machines. In the ACT, the Labor Party owns the Canberra Labor Club. It has four venues, which, between them, operate almost 500 poker machines. The gambling revenue each year, including from those poker machines, is some $14 million, and those clubs give the Labor Party half a million dollars in donations a year. In other words, none of the major parties in this place is beyond reproach. In essence, they are on the take. With our donation laws, the poker machine industry hands over enormous amounts of money, and they do not do it for any other reason than to buy influence in this place—and what a great investment they make!
For the sake of a handful of millions of dollars a donation, their $12 billion industry is spared decisive action.
It needs to be decisive action by this place, by this parliament, by this level of government, because, regrettably, the state and territory governments cannot be trusted. They are significant financial beneficiaries of poker machines through the taxation they collect through those poker machines. In Tasmania, the poker machine regulator is in the Treasury department, not in social services or human services or the Premier's department. It is in the Treasury, because in Tasmania—like in every other jurisdiction—poker machines are regarded, first and foremost, as a source of revenue. In this day and age, when the state and territory governments have proven time and time again that they cannot be trusted on poker machine revenue, it is up to this place to pick up the 2010 report by the Productivity Commission. That is where the blueprint is.
I am proud to say that the bill I have table today, seconded by the member of Melbourne, picks up on those recommendations and lays out the blueprint. You know what? This week, if people cared, they could get the bill through this House and through the other house, and it would be law. We could go to the election figuring we had finally done something for the people of this country.
Is the motion seconded?
I am very pleased to second the Member for Denison's motion. I reserve my right to speak.
The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The image of blue Caribbean seas, golden island sands and a lonely coconut palm standing above a spot marked X on a faded map remains a powerful image in our social mythology.
And well it might, because the notion of buried treasure in the Caribbean is no myth. In the 2012 American election there was widespread outrage at the notion that Mitt Romney had been keeping a significant share of his wealth in the Cayman Islands. Perhaps this was because he and other wealthy people with money to hide from tax had noticed that the previous year the Tax Justice Network's Financial Secrecy Index had declared the Cayman Islands to be the world's second most significant tax haven.
In that year, according to Nicholas Shaxon, author of Treasure islands: Tax havens and the men who stole the world, the Cayman Islands hosted 80,000 registered companies, more than three-quarters of the world's hedge funds and $1.9 trillion on deposit—four times as much as all the banks in New York City.
It might also have been the fact that on the Cayman Islands law books the Confidential Relationships (Preservation) Law makes it a crime punishable by jail to reveal or even ask for information about financial or banking relationships in the Caymans. Making multinationals pay their fair share has always been a Labor agenda. From Opposition, we have led the debate and we have released strong policies. We have announced that if elected to government we will introduce further work.
A key aspect of Labor's multinational tax transparency policy is our commitment in this amendment to raise the penalties for noncompliance with country-by-country reporting. Right now the current penalty for failing to file country-by-country reports is a mere $5,400—lower than the fine that a streaker gets for streaking across the SCG. We do not believe that is fair. We believe that a company which has continued to fail to file its country-by-country reports should face a fine 50 times larger, of $270,000, and also, failure to file should lead to an automatic audit.
One in four of the 1,300 firms covered in the public tax transparency laws introduced by Labor paid no tax despite earning over $100 million. As tax commissioner, Chris Jordan, recently told the Senate:
Our Australian tax system is under fire from the actions of multinationals and large companies seeking to abuse it.
Nicholas Shaxon makes the important point that:
Companies that engage in tax avoidance are engaging in economic free riding—they are taking the benefits from a country without paying for it. This is not only unfair, but it is economically harmful, undermines respect for the rule of law, and distorts markets.
We believe that the right thing to do for companies with the revenue of $1 billion or more, significant global entities, is to ensure that they pay an adequate penalty if they fail to file country-by-country accounts.
This bill continues a strong Labor legacy of asking the big end of town to pay their fair share. If you ask the Prime Minister what he intends to do to help low- and middle-income Australian households, he will hem, whore and dither around. But if you ask him to defend the big end of town, he will be out of the box like Usain Bolt, standing at the dispatch box telling Australians why he cannot do anything serious to stand up against multinationals.
Labor takes a different view. Labor has brought to this place a package of multinational tax bills that will close down loopholes and add $7 billion to the budget bottom line. We believe in greater transparency and lowering the threshold for private companies to have their taxable income and tax paid reported.
We have also said that Labor will disclose the beneficial ownership of Australian legal identities, ensuring that the G20 principles Australia committed to in 2014 are properly enacted.
This bill provides the Treasurer, the Prime Minister and the coalition a clear map in which X is marked to show where Australia's tax treasure is being hidden and a chance to pass considered, constructive and effective tax policies. If the coalition will not act, Labor will. I commend this bill to the House.
Is there a seconder to the motion?
I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Yesterday in Sydney I joined my colleague the Member for Grayndler and a state colleague, Jo Haylen, the member for Summer Hill, and many other families and individuals, at a picnic hosted by Rainbow Families, a wonderful organisation that supports and empowers LGBTI families. At that picnic we met many wonderful parents, some with tiny babies and young children and some with children much older.
We talked about the usual struggles and joys of being a mum or a dad—the young baby that will not sleep through the night, the toddler taking their first steps, the teenager who gives you grief, the pride of a son or daughter graduating from university.
The way people at that picnic put it yesterday was: love makes a family.
And as we watched the kids running around the park, kicking a ball with their two mums or their two dads, love was, indeed, all that you saw.
I am deeply, deeply concerned about what the debate leading up to a plebiscite on marriage equality would mean for these beautiful kids and their families.
For kids who have got two mums or two dads, to hear for months, or possibly even years, that there is something not right about their families I just think is unforgiveable and unacceptable.
We do not need a plebiscite. The parliament can, and should, get marriage equality done.
Seven in ten Australians support marriage equality.
They recognise that the relationships—the love of their sisters or brothers, sons or daughters, colleagues, team mates, friends—are not lessened if that love is between two people of the same sex.
For all the campaigns, the efforts of those of us in this place and the tireless work of community activists, the groundswell of support for equality owes most to the courage of the men and women who have lived and loved openly—despite prejudice, discrimination and even danger.
I want to thank them for their bravery and determination. It has made Australia more inclusive, fairer and closer to the sort of Australia I want my kids to grow up in, where we are all equal.
I did think that we would be there by now.
At the beginning of this parliament, recognising that equality ought to be a bipartisan issue, I sought a seconder from the coalition parties for a private member's bill removing discrimination from the Marriage Act.
For more than a year, I waited for someone on the other side of the House to feel that they could put their name to ending legal discrimination.
When, last year, it became clear that waiting was in vain, Labor's leader, Bill Shorten, introduced a private member's bill to the same effect, and I seconded it.
The introduction of that bill finally did produce some action from the other side. When we heard that coalition MPs did not feel they could support a bill introduced by the Leader of the Opposition, we withdrew our bill to allow another to be put forward, sponsored by backbenchers from all parties.
Neither the Leader of the Opposition nor I cared whose name was on the bill, only that it would pass.
And for a while, with support from all sides of politics, it looked like it might.
But everybody knows what happened next. Everybody knows that the former Prime Minister Mr Abbott ambushed the supporters of equality in his own party and stacked the party room meeting to make sure that there would be no free vote and no marriage equality.
Instead he proposed a national plebiscite—expensive, divisive and meaningless, but a way of delaying equality for a little bit longer.
Members of his own party spoke publically against this 'captain's call', including the member for Wentworth.
So when the member for Wentworth became the Leader of the Liberal Party and the Prime Minister, it seemed that the moment had come when things might have changed, that we might be able to get this done, once and for all, that we might be able to finally leave behind discrimination against people because of who they love.
But this Prime Minister has been an enormous disappointment.
He sold out LGBTI Australians—traded away their right to equality—to become Prime Minister. He signed on to the plebiscite-delaying tactic to secure the support of the Liberal Party's right wing.
We know it is nothing but a delaying tactic because there is no sign of movement from this government.
In fact the Attorney-General was told to shelve work on the enabling legislation in March this year.
Because of the Prime Minister's tricky move to get a double dissolution election that saw the whole parliament recalled for just two days at a cost of more than a million dollars, the cross-party bill has lapsed.
That is why, today, we will try to put right some of that by reintroducing a bill for marriage equality.
Australians who have waited for decades to marry their lifelong partners and who fear they may not live to see marriage equality a reality have waited too long.
Young people who want their grandparents to be able to come to their wedding have waited for too long.
Australians of all ages who have been told that their love is not equal, that their family is not real, that their relationship is bad for their children or somehow bad for society have waited for too long.
The Prime Minister says he supports marriage equality. And we know that he supports a free vote, not a plebiscite, because he said so. It is time he did the right thing.
This week, of course, is budget week.
Quite rightly, our focus will be on the economy—on jobs, on health, on education and on the environment.
And, as we all know, it is almost certain that by the end of the week the Prime Minister will be going to the Governor-General and asking him to dissolve this parliament and to call an election.
So, sadly, it is unlikely this bill will pass this week. But our push for full equality is not going away.
Think of this bill as a marker.
More than that, think of it as a promise, a promise that Labor will introduce legislation for marriage equality in the first 100 days of a Shorten Labor government.
That is the clear choice: the Liberals' divisive and expensive plebiscite, a delaying tactic designed to stop marriage equality, or a Labor government which will make marriage equality law. Let's get this done. It is time.
Is there a seconder to the motion?
I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this House:
(1) recognises that the Assyrian people, who are Christian by religion, are an original and Indigenous people of Iraq and Syria;
(2) is concerned by the ethnic, religious and cultural cleansing of the Assyrian people by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), the systematic killings of Assyrian people and destruction of ancient Assyrian cities, churches and artefacts;
(3) acknowledges the targeted killings and kidnappings of Assyrian clergy and ISIL's destruction of a recorded 45 Assyrian churches between June and July 2014;
(4) acknowledges the forced displacement of hundreds of thousands of Assyrians since the invasion by ISIL in Iraq and Syria, notably in Mosul and the Nineveh Plains in Iraq and the Khabour region in Syria (Hassaka province);
(5) declares that ISIL's treatment of the Assyrian people is a gross violation of human rights under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights;
(6) notes that on 24 March 2015, the Iraqi Council of Ministers, under the Chairmanship of Prime Minister, Haider Al-Abadi, issued a unanimous declaration condemning the crimes committed by ISIL (Daash) against civilians, Kurds, Christians, Yazidis and Shabak as crimes of genocide;
(7) further notes that the United States State Department and the European Parliament has recently recognised ISIL atrocities as genocide;
(8) associates with the recent remarks of United States Secretary of State John Kerry, describing ISIL as 'genocidal by self-proclamation, by ideology, and by actions';
(9) urges the United Nations Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide to make recommendations through the Secretary-General to the Security Council to recognise, prevent and halt crimes committed by ISIL;
(10) recognises and condemns the:
(a) ongoing genocidal conduct of ISIL against Indigenous minorities in Iraq, including the Assyrian peoples on religious, cultural and ethnic grounds;
(b) forced displacement of hundreds of thousands of Assyrians and other minority communities following the ISIL takeover of north-western Iraq;
(c) systematic killing, taking of hostages and human trafficking of minorities; and
(d) destruction of ancient Assyrian cities and holy places;
(11) reaffirms the rights of Christian and other minorities of Iraq to live in peace and freedom and calls for all steps to be taken to ensure that members of the affected communities can live in freedom in Iraq;
(12) notes the aspirations of the Assyrian people for the establishment of an autonomous region in the Nineveh Plains and welcomes the in principle agreement of the Iraqi Government to this; and
(13) calls for the rights of Assyrian Christians to be respected in the post ISIL makeup of Iraq and Syria.
The parliament this week is focussed, quite rightly, on the budget and on the robust political debate in Australia, but we should not forget that there are people around the world facing the most horrendous of circumstances. Included in that are the Assyrian people of Iraq and Syria, who are currently being subjected, it must be said, to genocide.
The Assyrians, the indigenous Christian people of Iraq and Syria, have long suffered persecution, particularly since the fall of Saddam Hussein, but since the rise of ISIS—Islamic State—we have seen an attempt to eradicate the Assyrian people and to destroy their culture and their heritage. Recently, the United States Secretary of State described ISIL as 'genocidal by self-proclamation, by ideology and by actions'. Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has said:
I'm sure now we have enough evidence that what is happening is genocide, deliberately aimed at destroying, not only the lives but wiping out the existence of Christians, Yazidis, and other religious minorities in the Middle East in territory controlled by ISIS.
It is right and proper that this House associates itself with these sentiments and declares that enough is enough, the genocide must stop.
The Assyrian people have been subject, of course, to persecution for many, many years. The world has witnessed the destruction of Assyrian holy sites, of ancient cultural artefacts and the obliteration of places of worship. We have seen footage of masked men with sledgehammers rampaging through museums and galleries, in an attempt not only to kill Assyrians but also to destroy the heritage and culture of this great and ancient civilisation. It cannot be allowed to occur.
It is right and proper that the United Nations Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide make recommendations through the Secretary-General to the Security Council to recognise, prevent and halt crimes being perpetrated by Islamic State. As the member for Fowler, the member for Calwell and other members of the House, with the support of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, have said before: it is also right that we plan for a post-Islamic State world for the Assyrian people in which they can live in Iraq, in particular, in freedom—in their homeland in freedom—with all of the necessary protections and the necessary abilities to make their own decisions within Iraq for their own protection. This is very important. We cannot simply wait and hope and pray and work for the defeat of Islamic State without planning for the future.
The Assyrian community in Australia has been very vocal in ensuring that this is the case, particularly the Assyrian Universal Alliance, led by Hermiz Shahen and David David, who, again, have worked with me, the member for Calwell, the member for Fowler, the member for Kingsford Smith and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, and have met with the Leader of the Opposition, to progress this case. It is they, I know, who are also very keen to see this motion adopted in the House of Representatives, as does every Assyrian Australian and as does every Australian concerned about human rights anywhere.
The Assyrian people have been forced from Iraq in massive numbers. Many of them were forced from Iraq into Syria, seeking refuge in Syria, and they have now been forced out of this nation, which has given them some degree of protection over the last 10 years, into other countries in the Middle East. Many Assyrians have sought and achieved to find refuge and homes in Australia. They have become fine and upstanding Australians, but they do not rest and will not rest until their brothers, their sisters, their cousins can achieve the same protections as they have. And not necessarily by seeking asylum elsewhere.
I have not met an Assyrian who seeks to leave Iraq out of choice. Assyrians have been forced out of Iraq. This is a land which has been their homeland for thousands of years. This is an ancient and noble civilisation which has done so much for the world. They have been subject, as I said, to terrible, terrible incidents since the fall of Saddam Hussein, but none worse than what they are being subjected to now, which, it can clearly, soberly and regretfully be concluded, is genocide. This attempted genocide cannot be allowed to succeed. We cannot look back on this age and think, 'If only the world had done more, we would not have lost one of the world's great civilisations: the ancient Assyrian civilisation.' The ancient Assyrian civilisation has given the world so much over many thousands of years and it is now time for the world to step in and offer them some protection in return.
Is the motion seconded?
I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Supply Bill (No. 1) 2016-2017, together with Supply Bill (No. 2) 2016-2017 and Supply (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2016-2017, seeks appropriations to facilitate the continuation of normal government business.
Supply Bill (No. 1) 2016-2017 provides for appropriations for proposed expenditure on the ordinary annual services of the government for the first part of 2016-2017, broadly until about the end of November.
The bill seeks approval for appropriations from the Consolidated Revenue Fund of just over $35 billion.
The bill must be passed in this session to ensure funding is available to all entities from 1 July 2016, thereby ensuring the continuity of program and service delivery.
The provisions in the bill are generally based on five-twelfths of the estimated 2016-2017 annual appropriation with special provision, where necessary, for entities with a disproportionately high level of expenditure early in the financial year. This includes the Australian Electoral Commission.
I wish to emphasise that this bill seeks provision only for appropriate money to fund government expenditure on an interim basis until appropriation bills have passed. It does not include budget measures.
This arrangement allows for Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2016-2017, or a similar bill, to be passed in 2016-2017 by the next parliament if necessary.
Details of the proposed expenditure are set out in the schedule to the bill and the portfolio budget statements tabled in the parliament with the budget appropriation bills.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
Leave granted for second reading debate to resume at a later hour this day.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Supply Bill (No. 2) 2016-2017 along with Supply Bill (No. 1) 2016-2017, which I have just introduced, and Supply (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2016-2017, which I hope to introduce shortly, are the supply bills for the first part of 2016-17.
Supply Bill (No. 2) 2016-2017 provides for appropriations that are not for the ordinary annual services of government, such as for capital works and for services and payments to states, territories and local governments, broadly until about the end of November.
This bill seeks approval for appropriations from the Consolidated Revenue Fund of just over $6 billion.
The bill must be passed in this session to ensure funding is available to all entities from 1 July 2016, thereby ensuring the continuity of program and service delivery.
The provisions in the bill are generally based on five-twelfths of the estimated 2016-2017 annual appropriation, the same approach as for Supply Bill (No. 1) 2016-2017.
The bill also provides the debit limit for the Nation-building Funds, the Building Australia Fund and the Education Investment Fund; the general purpose financial assistance payments; and the national partnership payments. The debit limits relate to the estimated expenditure for the first part of 2016-17.
As with Supply Bill (No. 1) 2016-2017, this bill seeks provision only for appropriate money to fund government expenditure on an interim basis until appropriation bills have passed. It does not include budget measures.
This arrangement allows for Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2016-2017, or a similar bill, to be passed in 2016-2017 by the new parliament if necessary.
Details of the proposed expenditure are set out in the schedules to the bill and the portfolio budget statements tabled in the parliament with the budget appropriation bills.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
Leave granted for second reading debate to resume at a later hour this day.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of Supply (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2016-2017 is to provide interim funding for the running costs and other expenditure of:
This bill seeks approval for appropriations from the Consolidated Revenue Fund of just over $97 million for parliamentary expenditure for the first part of 2016-17, broadly until about the end of November.
Supply (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2016-2017must be passed in this session to ensure funding is available to parliamentary departments from 1 July 2016, thereby ensuring the continuity of parliament's operations.
The provisions in the bill are generally based on five-twelves of the estimated 2016-17 annual appropriation, excluding budget measures.
As with the other supply bills introduced earlier, I wish to emphasise that this bill seeks provision only for appropriate money to fund government expenditure on an interim basis until appropriation bills have passed. It does not include budget measures.
This arrangement allows for Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2016-2017, or a similar bill, to be passed in 2016-17 by the next parliament if necessary.
Details of the proposed expenditure are set out in the schedule to the bill and the portfolio budget statements for the parliamentary departments tabled in parliament with the budget appropriation bills.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
Leave granted for second reading debate to resume at a later hour this day.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
This bill amends the Medicare Levy Act 1986toincrease the Medicare levy low-income thresholds for singles, families and seniors and pensioners in line with increases in the consumer price index. These changes will ensure that low-income households who did not pay the Medicare levy in the 2014-15 income year will generally continue to be exempt in the 2015-16 income year if their incomes have risen in line with, or by less than, the consumer price index.
In addition to providing a concession to low-income households, the Medicare levy low-income thresholds ensure that people who pay no personal income tax due to their eligibility for structural offsets—such as the low-income tax offset or the seniors and pensioners tax offset—do not incur the Medicare levy.
The changes to the thresholds mean that no Medicare levy will be payable for individual taxpayers with income under $21,335 in 2015-16—that has increased from $20,896. Single seniors and pensioners with no dependants who are eligible for the seniors and pensioners tax offset will not incur a Medicare levy liability if their income is less than $33,738 (increased from $33,044).
Couples and families who are not eligible for the seniors and pensioners tax offset will not be liable to pay the Medicare levy if their combined income is less than $36,001 (increased from $35,261). Couples and families who are eligible for the seniors and pensioners tax offset will not be liable to pay the Medicare levy if their combined income is less than $46,966 (increased from $46,000). The thresholds for couples and families go up by $3,306 for each dependent child (increased from $3,238).
The increase in thresholds will apply to the 2015-16 year and future income years.
Full details of the measure in this bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
Leave granted for second reading debate to resume at a later hour this day.
This package of supply bills is required to ensure the ordinary functions of government continue in the context of a double dissolution election. Funding is being provided to see through the ordinary functions of government till the end of November. These bills essentially provide about five-twelfths of the year's appropriations for government entities with two exceptions—the Australian Electoral Commission, on the basis that they have to conduct an election, and the Australian Bureau of Statistics, on the basis that they have to conduct the quinquennial census.
Labor, as is our wont, will not block supply. The appropriations in these bills do not contain any 2016-17 budget measures, and as these bills presume the rolling forward of the budget bottom line from this financial year to the next they also assume the budget bottom line as it currently stands—as at the 2015-16 Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook, which includes the impacts of measure which have not yet passed the parliament but still remain on the books. That means that the bottom line includes cutting $30 billion from schools; a plan to inflict $100,000 university degrees on Australian students; a plan to increase the cost of medicines for everyone by increasing co-payments as part of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme; a plan for Australia to have the world's oldest pension age, by increasing eligibility for the pension to age 70; calling parents 'rorters' and 'double dippers' through changes to the Paid Parental Leave scheme; cutting the bulk-billing incentives for diagnostic imaging and pathology services; making young job seekers wait four weeks before receiving income support, leaving many of them to potentially end up homeless; and cutting the pension of 190,000 pensioners through the plan to limit overseas travel for Australian pensioners, hitting migrant pensioners the hardest, a particularly cruel blow in a country where a quarter of the country was born overseas.
This is not to mention the fact that under this government the deficit has doubled between the 2014 budget and the 2015 budget, and the deficit increased again in the 2015-16 MYEFO. Net debt is estimated to be $100 billion higher next financial year than it was at the election, increasing from $217 billion in the 2013 Pre-Election Economic and Fiscal Outlook to $317 billion in the 2015-16 MYEFO for the 2016-17 financial year.
Spending is at global financial crisis levels and spending as a share of GDP is on average higher under this government than it was under Labor. A useful piece by Bernard Keane in Crikey on 15 April laid out the situation. He set out two government lies which have led him to feel so frustrated with what the Treasurer was saying that he needed to take them to task—using nothing more than their own numbers. He said the first lie is 'the government isn't taxing Australians more', but points out that as a share of GDP:
… the tax burden on the economy has risen from 21.5% of GDP in the last full year of Labor to 22.3% this year and is planned to be over 23% in 2018-19 -- putting the Commonwealth tax take at—
more than $100 billion above the final year of Labor. Treasurer Morrison will therefore be the highest taxing Treasurer since Peter Costello.
Bernard Keane points out a second lie: 'the government is showing expenditure restraint'. This year spending will be 25.9 per cent of GDP, higher than it was in 2014-15 and significantly higher than in Labor's final year. In Labor's final year spending as a share of GDP was 24.1 per cent of GDP. This year spending will be 25.9 per cent of GDP.
The government keeps on promising that it is going to show expenditure restraint but is demonstrating the precise opposite, demonstrating that it is unable to follow through on its fiscal promises. It used to be that, in opposition, the coalition would drive around flat-bed trucks with 'Too much debt' ads on the back of them. Frankly, they need to trade in their flat-bed debt truck and get a B-double or a road train for the increase in debt that we have seen under this government. It is no wonder that the government had to do a dodgy deal with the Greens upon coming to office to remove the debt cap, to allow Australia to have unlimited debt, because under this government we are seeing record levels of debt and deficits doubling and doubling again.
Most concerning is what is happening to the real economy. We keep on hearing about the 25 years of uninterrupted economic growth in Australia will clock up this year. What is often ignored is that this is based on GDP—the total output of the economy, not divided, for example, by the number of people in Australia. When you are a nation with some of the fastest population growth rates in the world it makes little sense to look at aggregate output. Instead, many economists argue that we should look at real net national disposable income per capita, a measure which is down four per cent since the election. That measure, a far better measure of living standards, demonstrates that the typical Australian's living standards are worse today than when the coalition won office, that living standards have gone backwards under this government, and the average Australian living standards, accounting for inflation, are four per cent lower than they were in 2013. Over that period we have also seen a fall in consumer sentiment. The Westpac-Melbourne Institute consumer sentiment measure is down 14 per cent since election.
We have challenges in innovation. Just six per cent of ASX 300 firms describe Australia as being a highly innovative nation. According to former Chief Scientist Ian Chubb the typical OECD country has 10 to 40 per cent of firms producing new-to-the-world innovations; in Australia that figure is just two per cent. Larry Summers has warned that we might be entering an era of what he calls 'secular stagnation'. Paraphrasing Keynes, he compares the economy to a car and says:
A car with a broken alternator won’t move at all—yet it takes only a simple repair to get it going.
The problem in Australia is that we do not have a government willing to make those simple repairs. We do not have a government willing to get living standards rising again. We have a government who are too keen to pat themselves on the back for being innovative, without realising that there is nothing innovative about ripping needs based funding out of schools and putting young Australians in a situation where their schools cannot give them the education that they need to participate in an increasingly technologically driven economy.
Another significant headwind, which Labor is speaking a great deal about, is inequality. Since 1975 we have seen earnings rising three times as fast for the top tenth as for the bottom tenth. We have seen a doubling of the top one per cent share. We have one in five families saying that they cannot even afford a week's holiday away from home. Jenny Macklin's critical social policy report, Growing Together, charts an important path towards a more egalitarian nation. My colleague Brendan O'Connor has shown the importance of talking about penalty rates and minimum wages—a crucial bulwark in the fight against widening wage inequality. In the area of education, Kate Ellis has been speaking about the important role that teachers play, saying, 'Teachers don't just help students build skills, they change lives'. Labor recognises the need to tackle inequality and build an economy which is ready for the innovation challenges. We recognise too the global headwinds that are facing Australia—the challenges of a Republican frontrunner in the US presidential campaign who favours greater 'unpredictability' in world affairs, and the risk of Britain exiting the European Union and the impact that would have on the trading relationships of Britain with other countries.
We have just heard Chris Bowen, the member for McMahon, speaking about the humanitarian catastrophe in Syria, a catastrophe that has flow-on economic consequences. We have the challenges of the Chinese leadership, which is managing the economic transition from export-led growth to consumption-led growth while at the same time accumulating more power at the centre than under any leader since Mao. Labor is aware of these challenges: falling living standards and rising inequality; challenges to innovation and challenges of international events. That is why we have released more than 70 practical policies on education, health, tax, housing affordability, climate change, infrastructure, start-ups, innovation, marriage equality, domestic violence, the sharing economy, competition policy and more. We recognise, as this government does not, the challenges for the Australian economy go beyond the debt and deficit crisis that we have seen getting worse under this government. We have the policies to deal with the big economic challenges, and if this government is not willing to step up, Labor, led by Bill Shorten, will do so.
It is my pleasure to follow my colleague the member for Fraser, who is right to point out that these supply bills are about funding the ordinary course of government for a few more months while the nation makes a big decision about who is to govern it in the three years ahead. It is worth noting though that this is a highly unusual thing to be asked to do—to pass these interim supply bills so that the government does not go broke in this period of uncertainty. It is an unusual thing to do. It might be about funding the ordinary course of government, but it is still an unusual thing for the House to be asked to consider.
It is an illustration, a symbol, of the dysfunctional way that those opposite have been going about this budget in an election year. It has been a complete shambles from go to woe, the way that this budget has been put together. This is the sort of thing that you are required to do when you do things like move the date of a budget without telling the Treasurer. These are the sorts of things that you have to do when you create all this uncertainty in the economic policy machinery in this country. These bills are about keeping the wheels of government turning while the people of Australia make their choice at the election in 61 days time, while the Australian people make their choice between a Liberal agenda, which is written and authorised by the top end of town, or positive Labor policies, which, as my colleague the member for Fraser said, underwrite health and education and improve people's lives in this country.
Tomorrow, the Treasurer will stand right there and announce—or reannounce—a grab bag of Abbott-era cuts. He will announce a whole series of agendas written and authorised by big business, and he will announce some policies that his party intends to copy from the Labor Party, after of course spending the best part of three years going around the country saying how damaging those policies are. We have some indications that some of those policies will be copied. So while it will be a grab bag of those three different types of policies, there will be a hole in the middle of the budget. The hole in the middle of the budget will be the economic leadership that the Prime Minister of this country promised when he took over from the member for Warringah. At the time he said the whole reason for it was that we needed to supply and provide economic leadership in this country. That was his whole rationale for knocking over the member for Warringah. And all indications so far, in the months and months that have passed since then and on the day before the budget is handed down at that dispatch box over there, are that that economic leadership will be sorely lacking from this budget.
It is fair to say that when it comes to economic policy, the Prime Minister, as he is known to do, promised so much and delivered so little. This is one of the reasons why the regard for the Prime Minister out in the community is fizzling out. It is one of the reasons why people are so disappointed, because they believed him when he said, 'I will provide economic leadership in this country.' They were prepared to give him a chance and their hopes have been dashed by the Prime Minister's performance.
This is precisely the wrong time for people in this building to vacate the field of economic policy leadership. Australia's remarkable quarter-century of continuous growth is in jeopardy unless we give more of our people a chance to benefit from the big changes in our economy and our society by giving people a genuine stake in that economy, by teaching and training them for the jobs of the future, giving them the tools to succeed, getting the technological infrastructure right, getting the energy mix right—not by encouraging the accumulation of wealth into fewer and fewer hands and attacking schools and hospitals, which seems to be the agenda of those opposite.
I will take a moment, as the member for Fraser did, to salute the member for Jagajaga, who is here in the House, for the terrific work that she has done, along with senior colleagues on our side of the parliament, in really highlighting the dangers of an agenda where wealth is accumulated in fewer hands and an agenda that does not invest in people—that does not try and get as many people as possible into the workforce and does not invest in their skills and capacity to play a genuine role in the Australian economy in the years ahead. So, as many members of this House have done, I mark, acknowledge and pay tribute to the work of the member for Jagajaga in that respect.
The bills before us keep the wheels of government turning, as I said, but they also carry over so much of the damaging agenda of the Abbott era that has been picked up now by Prime Minister Turnbull and the Turnbull cabinet. There is a direct line between the 2014 budget, what we are discussing today and what will be in the budget tomorrow. For example, still in the budget, still on the books, are those big cuts to family payments, big cuts to paid parental leave, $100,000 degrees, cuts to the guarantee of employee entitlements, cuts to Medicare, cuts to the pensions of 190,000 elderly migrants who want to visit family overseas and, of course, increasing the pension age to 70. That is just a flavour of the sorts of things that we are talking about today and that we will be talking about tomorrow, of course—the direct line that can be drawn from the member for Warringah's 2014 budget to the member for Wentworth's 2016 budget.
Unfortunately, tomorrow we will see more damage done to the aspirations of middle Australia by a budget where the highest priority is placed on tax cuts for big business and for the wealthiest among us, at a time when others are told to tighten their belts or accept inferior schools and hospitals. That is what makes people in our community so livid about the approach of those opposite. They are lectured time and time again about how they have to accept an inferior version of Medicare, billions of dollars being ripped out of local schools and billions of dollars ripped out of hospitals all in the name of budget repair, at the same time as those opposite contemplate giving money to the wealthiest people amongst us and giving tax cuts to big corporations. It does not square away with the way that Australians think of their own country. This is not the country that people want to live in—the type of country that is promoted and encouraged by those opposite. That is why there is such a sense of disappointment in the community about where this government is headed.
This will be a budget by the top end of town, of the top end of town, for the top end of town. In recent days, in the papers, a shabby, cynical attempt has been made, by dropping stories into the papers over the last couple of days, to make the Australian people believe that all a sudden the government care about low-income earners. Today's example was superannuation. After 2½ years of freezing the superannuation guarantee and smashing the low-income superannuation contribution, there it is on the front page of the Fin. Review. All of a sudden, 61 days out from the election, they want people to believe that they care about women and super and that they care about low-income earners and super. It is cynical and it is offensive that they think they can get away with that at five minutes to midnight in an election year.
There are many examples of the government trying to pretend they are something that they are not. They pretend to care about the average Australian out there, working hard, doing their best for their families, at the same time as they go out of their way to diminish people's aspirations and attack their ability to make ends meet. For 2½, almost three, years now, that has been the agenda of those opposite. Now they want us to believe, 61 days out from an election, that they are different. I think Australians will see through them. I think Australians are onto them. I think they know that the Prime Minister, Mr Turnbull, will never, ever govern in the interests of low- and middle-income earners in this country, and I think that is well accepted in the Australian community.
With all the damage done by the government—all the cuts to schools, hospitals and Medicare; all the attacks on low- and middle-income earners—you would think that they could at least get budget repair right. Their reason for being was supposed to be to fix the budget bottom line. They cannot even keep that promise. There has been a substantial deterioration on their watch. They are still repeating all the tired old slogans from 2013 about how we have this serious budget situation. They should concede, they should fess up to the Australian people, that the budget has deteriorated substantially since they took over. Whatever they say about the position of the budget in 2013, the facts in their own budget papers will show tomorrow night that there has been a substantial deterioration in this country's budget position since those opposite took over.
Nine weeks before the last election, at this exact time in the electoral cycle, all they would talk about was budget repair. It was their whole reason for being. They promised lower taxes, no cuts to education and health, and a surplus of one per cent by 2023-24. It is clear now that all those promises have been broken. Much worse than that, as at the midyear update, this year's budget deficit has blown out by $33 billion—$33 billion in one year—and, next year, net debt is expected to be $100 billion higher than it was at the last election.
The inevitable result, the predictable result, of all this is that the AAA credit rating that Labor earned while in office—for the first time, from all three major credit ratings agencies, and it was stable—is at real risk. Just a couple of weeks ago, Moody's absolutely humiliated the Treasurer when they warned that our credit rating is at risk unless we address both the spending and the revenue side of the budget. That is at the same time as the Treasurer has been running around the country saying that there is nothing that needs to be done on the revenue side of the budget. No wonder the Treasurer of this country is not taken seriously anymore when it comes to economic policy or, more specifically, budget policy. So many things have been ruled in and then out, ruled in and then out again, such as capital gains tax on super, and negative gearing—the excesses in negative gearing that he conceded not that long ago, but now they say they will not touch it.
I was very pleased to see the member for Bennelong in the last couple of days having what I described this morning as his Kelly O'Dwyer moment. He said that negative gearing is part of the problem when it comes to housing affordability. That is now two members of Mr Turnbull's government who have come out with the truth about house prices and negative gearing in this country. I commend the member for Bennelong for his honesty in saying that. It is very embarrassing for the Treasurer and for the Prime Minister.
There are too many examples. In the three minutes remaining to me to speak, there are too many things to go through all the things that the Treasurer has ruled in and out, in and out, in and out, as he stumbles around in a sort of haze of economic policy confusion, not knowing if he is for or against an issue from one day to the next.
While the Prime Minister and the Treasurer dither, Labor has been working hard to offer the Australian people a real alternative. The member for Fraser, who spoke before me, did a terrific job of running through the many positive policies that Labor has out there on the table. For at least 20 years or more, in people's recent memory, this opposition has done more policy work than oppositions in the last, at least, couple of decades to put out their early, fully costed, fully considered and well thought out policies well in advance of an election. We say to the Australian people, 'Hey, this is where we stand,' so that you know where we stand, and you can compare that against the policies of the government.
We have been taking the lead on this side of the House when it comes to economic policy in this country. We will stand up for middle-income families and working-class families with our positive policies for the future, whether it be in schools with our 'Your Child. Our Future' program, the most significant improvement in school education in Australia for two generations; real and meaningful action on climate change ensuring that at least 50 per cent of our electricity comes from renewable energy by 2030; or productivity enhancing infrastructure, including that notorious southbound M1 Gateway merge in my electorate, which has $168 million of federal money promised by Labor and $42 million from the state government. Let's get that fixed.
I notice that the Treasurer put into The Courier Mail today that he intended to fix the Ipswich Motorway. He said nothing about the M1 Gateway merge southbound, so the people who live in the member for Forde's electorate, and certainly the people who live in my electorate and further south, will be very troubled to see the M1 Gateway merge missing from that list of things dropped into The Courier Mail by the Treasurer today.
We will also stand up for better paid and protected jobs, supporting TAFE and penalty rates. The list of our properly funded and costed policies goes on and on. On top of that, we will fund $100 billion worth of budget improvements to fund these policies and improve the budget position over the medium term. There are a whole range of savings measures and, yes, some revenue measures as well.
The choice at the election will be pretty clear. These supply bills are a symbol of that choice. The choice is between better paid and protected jobs, our policies versus cuts to penalty rates, better schools and better teachers versus cuts to schools and $100,000 degrees, health care that people need and deserve versus cuts to Medicare and hospitals, and a Shorten-Labor government that puts people first versus a Liberal government that prioritises the top end of town—fronted by a Prime Minister who dithers but does not deliver.
These are the issues at the very core of these bills we are discussing today. They will be at the very core of the budget that the Treasurer hands down tomorrow, and they will be at the very core of the election campaign in 61 days time.
Today Westpac posted a $3.9 billion profit. What is the response from the Liberals? To come in here, introduce an urgent bill and call an election during budget week to say, 'Let's give the billionaires more tax cuts.' In the face of pressures on government revenue, which means less money available for schools and hospitals, the government's response is to turn around to the big banks and the likes of Gina Rinehart and say: 'You deserve a tax cut. How are we going to fund it? We'll just continue to rip $80 billion, out of schools and hospitals, that we are seeing enshrined in this bill.'
This budget has all the hallmarks of being a budget for the billionaires where there is not enough money for schools and hospitals but, apparently, we can find enough to give a tax cut to Gina Rinehart and the big banks. It is no wonder that they want to call an election early, and it is no wonder that the government has brought everyone back here for an early budget, to call an election during this week and to minimise the amount of scrutiny that the parliament is going to be able to put on the budget, because they know that they are ridiculously out of step with where the Australian people are at now.
This is not the time for company tax cuts. This is a time for asking big business and multinationals in Australia to pay their fair share of tax. For some companies, they will be looking at this saying: 'The Liberals want to offer us a tax cut. It probably doesn't matter to us because we pay zero tax at the moment anyway.' Let's not start talking about how we can offer tax cuts to big business; let's ask them, first, to pay their fair share of existing tax. Once we have done that, then, we should have a debate about how we are going to spend it.
Now is also not the right time to be offering tax cuts to people on above-average incomes. Taxpayers earning above $180,000 a year, as a result of the figures contained in this bill and the budget that we are going to see tomorrow, are going to get a tax cut of a couple of per cent when the so-called deficit levy comes off. You are going to benefit if you are earning above $180,000. People like politicians—people like me—are going to benefit, while the burden is going to fall on others.
Now is also not the time to be offering personal income tax cuts to the top 25 per cent of income earners, which is what the Treasurer is out proposing to do today. He says, 'Of course you're on an average income if you earn $80,000.' He may not have spoken to the Australian Bureau of Statistics recently, because what they tell us is that it is only the top 25 per cent of income earners who earn $80,000 or above—not everyone works full-time and not everyone has two wage earners in their household. The government comes here pretending that they are offering something to average income earners in this budget when, in fact, they are talking about the top 25 per cent.
Of course, there is the thing about changing the tax rate to deal with the problem of so-called bracket creep. The thing about changing the tax rate is that the benefit flows up to everyone else as well, so people on $200,000 who get an additional benefit as well as getting a two per cent tax cut from this government are also, potentially, going to get a tax cut from them by dealing with bracket creep. Even with these changes only applying to the top 25 per cent of income owners, for someone on about $85,000, you are talking about a tax break of $5 a week. You are talking about $5 a week by changing the marginal tax rate.
If you asked people, 'Would you rather that the top 25 per cent of society get a tax break, potentially in the order of $5 a week if they are on $85,000, so that they can buy an extra half a sandwich at an expensive cafe or would you rather that public schools are well funded and that the hospital down the road from you in your city or country town is well funded so that if you or your family get sick there are nurses, doctors and other staff available there to look after you or them?', I know what most of them would say.
Instead of coming here with this bill, the government should have paid attention to a recent poll that showed 64 per cent of Australians would rather not have a few dollars a week extra in tax cuts if they knew the money was going to health care or if they knew it meant Australia would remain a place where, when you get sick, you get looked after no matter your bank balance or income or if they knew that money was going to be used to make sure Australia does not become like the United States where there is a two-tiered health system, one for the rich and one for everyone else. And the United States spends about three times as much money on health care as us. I will stand corrected, but that is my understanding. They spend about three times as much money on health care as us as a share of GDP and yet they get worse outcomes. Sixty-four per cent of Australians said, 'We would rather have a strong health care system and a strong education system in this country, even if it means paying a little more tax.'
That is the debate we should be having—not how we can have a race to the bottom on tax in this budget but how we can stop the tax cut arms race. If this budget and this election turn into a tax cut arms race, that will mean less money that is available to spend on schools and hospitals. You only have two choices then. We have seen this government choose both of them. You only have two choices if there is less money. One is that you put up the cost of going to the doctor by having a GP fee or you cut the amount that you get from Medicare. So what appears as a tax cut is actually just illusory because what they give you with the one hand they take away with the other.
The other alternative is that you just stop spending on these things at all. We have also seen that from this government. We have seen funding for schools and hospitals pulled out to the tune of $80 billion a year. We have also seen critical things pulled out like funding for legal services that look after people who are responding to the ads we are seeing on television about who might be at risk of domestic violence. We have seen this government cut their funding. We have seen this government cut funding to Aboriginal legal services. We have seen this government cut funding right across the board. That is what happens when you have a tax cut arms race.
I would hope that the opposition does not take the bait from the government and join in a tax cut arms race, because otherwise where will it stop? If every election becomes about who can offer the most in tax cuts, it will mean whoever comes along next will have less money to spend on the kinds of social services that people in Australia expect and deserve.
There is a distinction between keeping the ordinary machinery of government going, which is what supply bills are about—and that is what we are debating now—and, on the other hand, how we deal with the budget. The Greens will block unfair budget measures. The Greens will not support tax cuts in this budget while our schools and hospitals are struggling to find the money that they need. People can be assured that the harsh and unfair impacts of this budget that require separate legislation to this bill we are dealing with at the moment will be blocked in the next parliament if people vote for the Greens in enough numbers.
The closer that we get to the election, the more attention will turn to the Senate because the Treasurer has said, 'I am not going to try to legislate any of this before the election is called.' That may be as soon as this Friday. That means it will be coming up in the next parliament. We are sending a clear warning shot to this government, saying, 'If you are re-elected, don't expect to get this through the Senate by relying on us because we will stand up to you.' We will not support these measures, because we the Greens know that to have a caring society and to make society more equal you need to fund social services, and that means taxes. We are unafraid to go to this election as a party that will not support tax cuts. I hope that Labor joins us. I hope when people are thinking about where they will vote in the Senate they have a look at some of the other people who are standing and ask, 'If I vote for them, are they going to side with a re-elected Liberal government if that is what happens and give big companies and the rich a tax break?'
Increasingly, people are going to have to make a clear choice. They understand that. This budget and this election should be about what kind of society we want and whether we want to be able to talk proudly about Australia as a place where everybody gets good-quality education and good-quality health care no matter how much they earn. We want to be able to talk proudly about Australia as a country that is grasping the opportunities of the 21st century. This government have said this budget is going to be a new plan, but it is straight out of the old Liberal playbook. There are tax cuts for billionaires while they are asking everyone else to do more and they are turning a blind eye to the biggest issue of our time, which is how to deal with climate change.
We have an opportunity in this budget, in this bill and in this election to say, 'Why not start this task of so-called budget repair at the top rather than at the bottom? Why not ask the likes of Gina Rinehart to pay the same for her diesel as everyone else pays for their petrol by getting rid of the unfair tax rebate for wealthy miners who frankly do not need it? Instead of propping up the fossil fuel sector, let's put that couple of billion dollars a year into building more solar plants and more wind farms around this country. Let's make Australia a renewable energy superpower.' Those are the kinds of debates we should be having. That is exactly what this election should be about.
Someone in the government must have a great sense of humour because they started running ads during budget week supposedly about terror but which could be about Scott Morrison's first budget speech. They are saying, 'If it doesn't add up, speak up.' Whoever decided to do that has a great sense of humour!
What is absolutely clear is that this government is going to take a leaf out of the old Liberal playbook and say, 'Tax cuts for the wealthy, and we're going to try and scare everyone else into voting for us by running terror ads on television.' Let's stop that; we have had enough of elections being about a race to the bottom, when they should be about reaching the stars. This budget and this election should be better. This budget in this election should be about setting Australia up as a new renewable energy superpower, which is the envy of the world and which makes Australia a place people want to come to because they know that in Australia people are looked after, no matter how much money they have or where they have come from. That is the kind of country most people want; it is the kind of debate they want to see. All indications are that these supply bills are going to enable the government to run to an early election, hiding their budget because it is the budget for the billionaires. The Greens will stand up to this government.
I am pleased to make a contribution on the supply bills. As has been said previously in this debate, Labor will not be blocking supply, but it should be noted that the whole purpose of these bills is to ensure the continuity of government during the period of a double dissolution election. Of course, the reason for the double dissolution election is a political decision of the Prime Minister, who has started to panic and, in order to appear decisive, has pursued a double dissolution. In the process he has used the federal parliament as his political plaything. It is very clear that the Prime Minister had a plan on how to backstab the member for Warringah and achieve the prime-ministership but he had no plan to govern. That is why we are barrelling along towards a double dissolution election. Regardless of the political facts that got us here, Labor will not block supply. Unlike other parties in this place, we have a proud record of allowing the normal operations of government to go ahead.
These bills assume the budget bottom line, as it currently stands, as at the last MYEFO. This includes the impacts of previous measures that have not passed the parliament. These measures are part of the radical right-wing agenda of the Member for Warringah, when he was the prime minister, that are being continued and expanded by the current Prime Minister. Let's look at some of these draconian and cruel measures. There is still $30 billion in cuts to schools, regardless of the thought bubble from the education minister yesterday. There is still the plan to inflict $100,000 university degrees on young Australians. There is still the plan to increase the costs of medicines for everyone by increasing the co-payments as part of the PBS there is still the plan to have a backdoor GP tax through freezing the rebate for GPs. There is still the plan to keep the world's oldest pension age; and there is still the plan to make young job seekers wait four weeks before accessing crucial income support, which is the conservative compassionate approach for our youth. I say that very ironically, Mr Deputy Speaker.
These are the same draconian right-wing policies that have been rejected by both the parliament and the Australian people. They are hostile to our Australian belief in a fair go for everybody and they make the greatest demands on Australians who are least able to afford it. I will say one thing about the discredited 2014 budget: it placed fairness squarely back at the heart of Australian politics—it reinserted the concept of fairness back into the heart of Australian politics. The 2014 budget so egregiously breached that fundamental principle of Australian society. The burden was borne by those who could least afford it; the burden was on those who were poorest and on the lowest incomes, while the wealthy got off comparatively lightly. It is right that those measures have not passed the parliament, and Labor will continue to oppose those measures and fight for economic fairness and social justice, as we always have.
In discussing the supply bills, I want to address the issue of economic management and competence, which is at the heart of the supply bills and the heart of the budget that will be delivered in this place tomorrow. The Prime Minister, in explaining his move on the member for Warringah, said it was because the previous prime minister had failed to provide economic leadership. I agree with him on that point—the member for Warringah had clearly failed to provide economic leadership—but unfortunately the current Prime Minister, the member for Wentworth, is also failing this vital test. This is despite the fact that the Liberal Party always asserts that they are superior economic managers to the Labor Party. Yet nothing could be further from the truth.
Australia is now in its record 25th year of economic growth. This is a truly remarkable statistic: our economy has grown every year for a quarter of a century, including during the biggest international financial crisis since the great depression—a crisis that those on the other side always seem to forget. Yet the Liberals cannot airbrush away this history. This growth period began during the Hawke-Keating period and, of course, I acknowledge that it continued under the Howard government, but it was under the stewardship of the Rudd-Gillard government that we faced the greatest test, the GFC. Had we followed the austerity measures of the Liberals—or at least those who were awake during the debates—we would have been plunged into a recession that would have cost hundreds of thousands of jobs. That is not just the opinion of the Labor Party; it is the opinion of esteemed economic professionals such as the Reserve Bank of this country and Treasury in testimony to Senate estimates. I again acknowledge the economy has continued to grow since 2013, but, unfortunately, most economic indicators demonstrate a fundamental weakness in the economy, and the growth rate was downgraded at the most recent MYEFO. I will return to the current economic situation in a minute.
I do want to draw the attention of the House to the recent detailed analysis by a respected economist, Stephen Koukoulas, who, following a thorough examination of GDP and employment growth since 1972, concluded:
Contrary to perception, the data for GDP and employment growth over the past 43 years suggest a stronger economy with a faster pace of job creation when Labor is in power than when the Coalition is in power.
The statistics are: on average GDP growth has been 0.1 per cent higher per annum under Labor and on average 25,000 more jobs have been added in each year of a Labor government than under the Liberal government.
Economic competence will be a key issue at this election, and I have every confidence in the economic leadership of the Leader of the Opposition and the member for McMahon in presenting an alternative government to Australians. The truth is that the Abbott-Turnbull governments have not been competent economic stewards. Under the Liberals, growth is down, investment is down, the deficit has greatly expanded and government spending has significantly increased. The economic figures do not lie. In MYEFO, economic growth was downgraded from 2.75 per cent to 2½ per cent. We have sluggish employment growth, we have flat wages and we have actual deflation. The last ABS-CPI data shows that underlying inflation was a negative figure. In our economy, prices are deflating. This demonstrates the sluggishness of the economy under the leadership of the Liberal government. Inequality is at the highest it has been in 75 years. Let me repeat: Australia is now a more unequal place than it has been in the last 75 years. This is important not just from a social justice point of view in terms of the benefit for all Australians. High inequality is bad for economic growth. Research from the IMF and from the OECD demonstrates that an economic emphasis on boosting equality helps growth; it does not detract from growth. Yet, we have sluggish economic growth and we have some very poor economic indicators. On top of this, government spending has increased to 25.9 per cent of GDP. In the next financial year, it is estimated that net debt will be $100 billion higher than at the last election. The budget deficit has more than doubled under the Liberal's watch.
This government, before it came to power, promised a surplus in year 1. Then they tried to airbrush that from history. The shadow Treasurer, who then became Treasurer—the former member for North Sydney—promised a surplus in year 1 of an Abbott government. That government failed abysmally to deliver it. They then promised it over the term of the government. I am going to go out on a limb and predict that they are not going to announce a surplus tomorrow. Most economic forecasters project a deficit of somewhere north of $40 billion. So, not only will they not deliver a surplus; they will deliver some of the highest deficits in Australian political history, only rivalled in real terms by what John Howard delivered when he was Treasurer under Malcolm Fraser.
The truth is that the Liberals cannot manage the economy. We now have a Treasurer who makes the former member for North Sydney look positively Keatingesque in his abilities. We have got the very definition of a tabloid Treasurer—a man who thinks that appearing on the Ray Hadley show and getting the occasional front page of TheDaily Telegraph is a way of managing the economy; a man who thinks in thought bubbles; a man who gets rolled constantly by a Prime Minister who is scared of his own shadow when it comes to economic issues. This is a Treasurer who still does not understand that workers earning over $80,000 are the 25 per cent highest income earning Australians in this country. This is a man with no real plan for this country; a man with no real plan for our economy; a man who, in the negative gearing debate, compares existing housing stock to a used car; a man who thinks that, just because he mouthed platitudes and appeared to be strong on border protection as immigration minister, somehow that has made him qualified to be Treasurer; a man who underperformed in every role he had before entering parliament, whether he was on the tourism council or Liberal director in New South Wales. Unfortunately, this superficiality will be continued in tomorrow's budget.
I will be, like all my Labor colleagues, supporting the supply bills. I will be supporting the continuation of government, unlike what the Liberals and Nationals did in 1975. But let us be under no false impression that this government can manage an economy. We have deflation in this country. We have ballooning deficits and debt. We have economic management that makes the Fraser period of economic management look positively glorious by comparison. I look forward to this election. I look forward to this election being fought on economic ideas. This party, the Labor Party, has been bravely putting forward some great, progressive economic policies, while all we see with those on the other side is thought bubbles, hollow scare campaigns and no real plan for Australia.
Why are we here? The most important feature of the parliamentary calendar occurs this week. It is the week when we see the budget being delivered—an outline of what the government is intending to do to help manage the economy, to manage finances and to meet community expectations. It is supposed to be a considered, thorough process, yet it has been scrambled a week forward. Why? Effectively, the reason is that this government knows its political fortunes are sinking like a stone and therefore it has to have this mad scramble to bring forward the budget so that it can bring forward an election to save as many skins from that side of the House as possible. In actual fact, there are not too many of them in this debate on the supply bills and what the government is going to do in its budget. There is, like, no-one—absolutely no-one—from their side, other than the assistant minister, who is here, who will stand up and defend the government's economic record, defend the government's budget strategy and advance or advocate on behalf of this government as to why they believe they should be in control of the nation's finances. There is not one present. And why would they? It is a hard sell. They do not want to have to be in parliament after the budget is brought down. They want to be as far away as possible from this place where they are required to actually speak for themselves, defend their decisions and stand up for their actions. They will not do that—no way, no how.
Can we expect any sort of demonstration of real economic leadership in this budget? I doubt it. Remember the promise of new economic leadership that was the cornerstone of the Prime Minister's pitch for his new job back in September last year? He promised new economic leadership—and when he said it, he said it deliberately. What he wanted to do was convince people that the change from Tony Abbott, the member for Warringah, to him would signal a shift. By saying that he would be delivering economic leadership he signalled that there would be something different, something unique, something new, something altered from the trajectory that the previous administration or regime under the member for Warringah and the then member for North Sydney—which was just simply chaotic—was on. There would be something different. As it is always with this government, it is all about style. It is never about substance.
What people are finding out very quickly is that statement about new economic leadership has turned out to be misleading. It has evaporated its luck with everything that has to do with this government. It is founded on false expectation. For example, under new leadership will we see, in this budget, a change to the $30 billion that has been cut from schooling in this nation? Will we see a move away from a plan to inflict $100,000 university degrees? Will we see a change from the plans to increase the cost of medicines for everyone by increasing the co-payments as part of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, the PBS? Will we see a change or a move away from a plan to make us have the world's oldest pension age by increasing our pension age to 70? Will we see the end to calling parents rorters and double dippers, through changes to the Paid Parental Leave scheme? Will we see a move away from cutting bulk-billing incentives for diagnostic imaging and pathology services? Will we see young job seekers no longer forced to wait four weeks before receiving income support? On all of those things you will not see one change.
There has been very little move away from the hardline economic decisions that were suddenly foisted on us by the member for Warringah and the member for North Sydney, the former Prime Minister and the former Treasurer, respectively. Those things will stand. They will remain the same—every single thing. It is Tony Abbott's agenda, just delivered with a flashier smile. This bloke, the new Prime Minister, is simply a Cartier copy of Tony Abbott, delivering the same version of hard nosed economics—a reality that was never delivered and a promise that was never given to the Australian public, before they went to vote, that this is what would happen. In fact, the opposite was suggested: a whole lot of things that were going to happen were said to keep people calm and reduce their nerves about what the member for Warringah would be like as Prime Minister. All those promises—no cuts to health, no cuts to education, no changes to the GST, no changes to pensions and no cuts to the ABC or SBS—were ditched the minute they got into office.
Then, we have a Prime Minister who says he will promise a change of economic leadership. For example, in recent days—after, a few weeks ago, stunningly signalling that he would walk away from supporting public education along the lines advanced by the Gonski review and the report that David Gonski put out—he suddenly backtracked and announced on the weekend leading into the budget that they would have some money and that they would find some funds to back schooling. But when you look at it, when you go beyond the style, when you go beyond the glitz and you see what is happening, it is a pittance relative to what is required under the Gonski plan—an absolute pittance. And people have been ripped off. Parents who were expecting a better deal out of this government have been ripped off. We are just seeing the same thing.
Before the election we saw the coalition say that, for instance, it would stand on a unity ticket with Labor when it came to Gonski. If you voted for Labor, because of the fact that we made a commitment to funding better educational outcomes in this country, you could vote for the coalition because 'we would do the same thing', according to them. What did they do when they got into office? In their first budget they cut $30 billion from schools. We had a chance to change educational opportunity and outcome in this country by getting on with this plan early, quickly and thoroughly. It was ditched by those opposite: a stunning reversal of a commitment that they had given at an election.
To try and calm down the type of anger that is been felt as a result of moving away from that commitment—and some of the stunning comments that were made by the Prime Minister a few weeks ago, where he shocked everyone saying that he would move away from public education entirely and leave that as something that should only be managed by the states and territories—he has come up with this. It is, again, an absolute pittance and a disgrace.
There is nothing new about this form of economic leadership. It is merely a copy of what we have seen before. People are realising that this government is not delivering on the expectations that they raised: that the Prime Minister would be different, and that his team would be different. The promise that there would be an altered course is not materialising. As a result, they are scrambling. That is why have we have this package of bills before the House today: to ensure that the ordinary functions of government continue while we are headed off to a double dissolution election that has been sprung on people and has only been manufactured to save as many people as possible on that side of the fence.
It has not been done to have a considered, measured approach to the budget or to deal with the types of things that those opposite said they had to deal with. Remember when they always used to talk about debt and deficit dramas that they thought they had fixed? Now, the deficit has doubled and debt is growing. Net debt, next financial year, is estimated to be $100 billion higher than what it was at the election, increasing from $217.3 billion in the 2013 pre-election fiscal outlook to $316.5 billion in MYEFO, of 2015-16, for the 2016-17 financial year. Spending is at global financial crisis levels: 25.9 per cent of GDP. Those opposite promised so much and have failed to deliver. In fact, the result is way worse since they have taken over.
We have said we will not block supply. We will not impact on the smooth management of government in this period. This has to provide the five-twelfths of the year's appropriation for the government entities, with the exception of the Australian Electoral Commission and the ABS. However, the appropriations in these bills do not contain any of the budget measures that will be announced. We will be interested, in the next 24 hours, as will the nation, to see if we are going to have new economic leadership or more of the same: cuts, pain and broken promises.
In summing up I would like to thank those who have contributed to the debate on Supply Bill No. 1 2016-2017, Supply Bill No. 2 2016-2017 and Supply (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No.1). They seek appropriations from the Consolidated Revenue Fund for proposed expenditure for the first part of 2016-17 broadly until about the end of November. The total of appropriations being sought through these three supply bills is just over $41 billion. These supply bills must be passed in this session to ensure funding is available to all entities from 1 July 2016, thereby ensuring the continuity of program and service delivery of the operations of the parliament. I commend these bills 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.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
():
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
This bill increases the Medicare levy low-income threshold for individuals and families, along with the dependent child/student component of the family threshold, in line with movements in the consumer price index and also for single taxpayers and families eligible for the seniors and pensioners tax offset, also in line with movements in the consumer price index, so they do not have a Medicare levy liability where they do not have an income tax liability. As honourable members will be aware, the Medicare levy currently kicks in for individuals at the level of $26,120. Below the threshold of the $20,896 the Medicare levy is not paid and between those two income levels the Medicare levy is 10 per cent of the excess over the threshold. Both of those amounts, and respective amounts relating to seniors, will be increased by approximately two per cent under this bill.
This bill benefits low-income Australians, which is—let's face it—a rare bill for this government to be moving and is a too rare example of decency from a government far more concerned with looking after multinationals than protecting Medicare. We will support the bill, ensuring as it does that vulnerable Australians are not disadvantaged and will maintain their access to Medicare. But it does remind us on this side of the House of the Abbott-Turnbull governments' attacks on Medicare—the GP tax, the $650 million cut to Medicare payments for pathology and diagnostic imaging, and now their plan to axe the child dental benefits scheme.
This bill will provide a small measure of tax relief for low-income earners but, let's face it, this is a government that is increasing the tax take, except at the top. If the Treasurer's latest thought bubble is to be believed, the government intends to provide not only a tax cut for those earning over $180,000 but perhaps even a modest tax cut for those earning over $80,000. The Treasurer seems unaware of the fact that this is not the median figure for earnings in Australia and that about three-quarters of Australian workers in fact earn less than $80,000. The Treasurer also seems unaware in his recent statements that under him Australian living standards are not rising but falling. While this government came to office promising to raise living standards and cut debt, in fact they have cut living standards and increased debt.
Labor is concerned about defending Medicare, we are concerned about making sure that multinationals pay their fair share and we are committed to doing something about inequality, which has risen substantially over the course of the last generation and which is now as high as it has been in 75 years. The careful work that the member for Jagajaga has done on social policy and the careful work that is being done in the area of health by the member for Throsby and others in the shadow health team are part of the more than 70 policies that Labor has put on the table. They are practical policies in education, health care, housing affordability, climate change, the sharing economy, marriage equality, domestic violence, competition policy and more.
Labor is committed to a strong Medicare. We are committed to standing up for low- and middle-income Australians. We are committed to making sure that multinationals pay their fair share. We believe that it is absolutely vital that we look after not just the big end of town but all Australians.
On 1 February this year Medicare celebrated its 32nd birthday. Although this bill is a tax bill, which is dealing with the essential taxation arrangements which underpin and fund Medicare, at the heart of Medicare was a critical social innovation. That social innovation was directed at ensuring that Australia was different to so many other countries around the world where wealth inequality has a direct trajectory to health inequality. The reason why it was different was the genius of Whitlam and the genius of Hawke who put in place a system whereby we could fund a person's access to primary care through the general taxation system by establishing an additional levy upon wages—at that point in time around one per cent of wages—and ensuring that through a progressive taxation scheme we could fund the primary care and associated care needs of this country. Of course, it has expanded over the years, but at the heart of that social innovation was a scheme which made access to your GP and to other parts of the primary healthcare system available to all Australians.
This bill is necessary to ensure that the income thresholds continue to represent that progressive idea behind the scheme to ensure that we continue to adjust them, as the member for Fraser has outlined, to ensure that they cut in at exactly the right level. This bill is technical. It indexes the income thresholds below which Australians do not pay the Medicare levy or the Medicare levy surcharge. We have dealt with similar measures in previous years. It is a regular process that ensures that the most vulnerable Australians and those from the lowest end of the income scale are not disadvantaged, while maintaining their access to Medicare. Labor, therefore, supports the measures and will support it in both Houses.
The bill is a reminder to millions, maybe even to every Australian, about how important Medicare is to them. It is a devastating reminder to all Australians about the shameful record that this government has when it comes to Medicare. Unfortunately, the progressive measures in indexing the Medicare levy and the Medicare levy surcharge are well and truly outweighed when it comes to the rest of the government's record on Medicare over the last 2½ sorry years. We have lived through their attempts to dismantle Medicare through the introduction of a GP tax—marks 1, 2 and 3—and now the GP tax through the backdoor, being the freezing of Medicare rebates. When we consider the importance that is associated with this bill, we must also consider the things that are not in this bill and the other damage that the government is doing through its regressive Medicare changes.
In the time that I have left before we switch to another order of business, I would like to talk a little bit about pathology, because any one of the thousands of Australians who has needed a pathology test at one of the 5,000 collection centres around the country recently would have noticed the warnings that are being issued by the pathology sector. The pathology sector is not known for its radicalism. They are not known as radical supporters, particularly not for this side of the parliament, so to walk into a pathology collection service, or indeed many of the GP services around the country, and to see warning signs posted and petitions on the counter warning about the egregious cuts that are being made by this government, about to be implemented from 1 July this year—the reduction in Medicare bulk-billing arrangements—means people are quite rightly shocked.
At a recent mobile office in my electorate, I had person after person come to me and ask me to explain what was going on from 1 July this year and why there was a threat that they would no longer be bulk-billed for their pathology tests. Liesel Wett, the CEO of Pathology Australia, has said:
These unfair cuts would see patients having to pay for services from July this year.
She has pointed out, as constituent after constituent has pointed out to me, that if they have to pay the full up-front fee, then they simply will not have those blood tests.
For many people, not having a blood test may not be a critical threat to their health and wellbeing, but I can tell you that if you are one of the thousands of electors in my electorate who is suffering from diabetes, then having a regular blood test is absolutely critical. If laboratories decide that they have to implement this co-payment, we will see patients forgoing having their blood tests and people's illnesses will get worse. If you are undergoing a course of chemotherapy, you will be regularly required to have blood tests as part of your post-treatment care. It is these people who are going to be the most affected by these changes. As you know, if you are undergoing a course of chemotherapy then chances are you on leave from work and chances are your income has been severely affected by that illness, so it is hitting you at the most vulnerable time in your life.
For the life of me, I cannot see why the government is putting these changes in place. Constituent after constituent has said to me, 'This is a threat to us.' It is going to impact upon them. So when we look at the legislation before the House, which Labor supports—
Order! 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?
In the short time available I wish to raise three urgent issues. Firstly, I note the tragic passing of young Iranian refugee Omid Masoumali, who set himself alight on Nauru last week after a visit from UNHCR. He cried, 'This is how tired we are. This action will prove how exhausted we are. I cannot take it anymore.' There are reports that he did not receive timely medical treatment. I agree with Human Rights Commission President Gillian Triggs that:
This is a shocking situation that frankly is not a sustainable one.
The second urgent issue concerns Iranian asylum seeker Behnam Satah, the key witness to Reza Barati's murder, who is detained on Manus Island and who fears for his life after receiving regular death threats including from guards at the detention centre. I reiterate my support and that of the many Australians who signed the petition calling for Behnam to be brought to Australia.
Finally, there is the appalling matter of the young African refugee woman who was raped on Nauru while suffering an epilepsy attack and became pregnant as a result. The young woman has been transferred to Port Moresby for a termination. However, such operations are illegal in PNG, and it would be difficult to find a doctor who would have the necessary experience and skills to undertake an operation that will be exceedingly complicated due to the young woman having been infibulated in her childhood—that is, subjected to the most severe form of female genital mutilation. It is imperative that this young woman be brought to Australia for appropriate treatment.
Australia bears ultimate responsibility for the plight of this young woman, for Behnam Satah's safety and for Omid's despair. It is time for the government to correct a number of great wrongs and end offshore processing.
In Gilmore last week, the Minister for Health, the Hon. Sussan Ley, came to address a number of issues in our local community. The first task was to explain the new free dental benefits available to every child in Australia and the free services available to adult concession card holders. This represents a doubling of money allocated to state governments to help clear the backlog of dental health care, putting a truthful perspective in place that relates to our plan for the teeth and oral health of our children. Minister Ley also addressed a public forum and explained how the lousy scare tactic Labor is running about patients facing increased costs for pap smears or blood tests is just that—a scare tactic. The Medicare rebate to the patient will not change on 1 July.
We also visited Nowra East Public School to talk to students and teachers about diabetes. We met with Breeana Gurney, who has type 1 diabetes, and her mum Julie, to launch the booklet Mastering Diabetesa fantastic resource for schools to raise diabetes awareness.
Another significant part of the Minister's visit was the announcement of $764,000 for Waminda's Dead or Deadly program for the next three years. Faye Worner and Hayley Longbottom were almost speechless when this was announced at the forum, where health professionals had just been asking the minister to place a greater emphasis on preventative medicine. And that is the beauty of the Dead or Deadly program, which is all about prevention and education. I have been working with Waminda for over two years in order to get this funding for them, and I am so proud.
Yesterday afternoon a capacity crowd of over 50,000 people, virtually creating a sea of red around Adelaide Oval, turned out to watch Adelaide United win the 2016 Australian Soccer League grand final over Western Sydney Wanderers in a 3-1 result. After ending the season on top of the ladder, yesterday's win made clear that in 2016 Adelaide United was the best team in the competition.
Having played but lost grand finals in 2007 and 2009, it was the first A-League championship for Adelaide United. That of course will make it so much more memorable for the players; their coach, Guillermo Amor; their supporters; and everyone who in any way contributes to the club.
I acknowledge Greg Griffin, who several years ago took over the reins of Adelaide United as chairman and whose determination to get the team to the top has been unrelenting. I give a special mention also to Adelaide United captain and goalkeeper, Eugene Galekovic, whose partner Nancy had only a week earlier given birth to their son Jayden and who finished the season with a cause for a double celebration.
I also commiserate with the Western Sydney players but give well-deserved congratulations to Adelaide United. You have done your club and your State proud, and South Australians celebrate with you.
Last week I took the opportunity to comb through the Victorian state budget, searching, on behalf of my constituents, for funding for the missing link in Melbourne, and that is the East West Link. It was a hopeful but vain attempt. This was because a fortnight earlier, the Prime Minister and I had recommitted $3 billion to fund the construction of Melbourne's missing East West Link. Instead, we uncovered the Victorian Labor government's plans to tax and borrow to pay for spending commitments that do not include the most important road project in our state—the East West Link. That is right: after throwing away $1.1 billion to rip up the contracts, Labor now wants to reach its hand into the pockets of the people in the eastern suburbs through higher taxes and more tolls to pay for its spending!
Residents in my electorate already know what the experts are now confirming for us: traffic on the Eastern Freeway is getting worse by the day, and the bottlenecks at Hoddle Street and Alexandra Parade represent some of the worst and costliest congestion in the whole country. Our roads are experiencing unprecedented congestion because of Labor's neglect of road infrastructure. The reality is that if it were not for Daniel Andrews, Bill Shorten and Labor, construction of the East West Link would already be underway, saving motorists on the Eastern Freeway up to three hours per week in travel time. I want to assure all of my constituents that we have $3 billion on the table for the East West Link and we will get it built. (Time expired)
I rise to talk about a very important event in my electorate recently. It was such an absolute privilege to present the French Legion of Honour to Mr Rob Jenkins, a 92-year-old gentleman who lives at Clothiers Creek in my electorate of Richmond. Of course, this order is France's highest decoration. Indeed, it is usually reserved for its own citizens. On this occasion, the award recognised Mr Jenkins's service as a wireless operator in the 463rd squadron of the Royal Australian Air Force in World War II, in which he completed 26 bombing missions over France and Germany in 1944 and 1945.
At the event for presenting the Legion of Honour a number of pieces of correspondence were read out. I would like to read from one from the French embassy:
France will never forget the thousands of soldiers who came to fight on French battlefields and we still remain grateful today. It was in this regard that the President of the French Republic opened the Legion of Honour to World War Two veterans to pay tribute and to express France's gratitude towards soldiers who risked their lives for the liberation of France.
I thank Mr Jenkins for his service and also thank his family for inviting me to what was a truly special occasion.
After the war Mr Jenkins returned to Sydney, where he met his wife of 64 years, Patricia, who was there with the whole family to celebrate. The couple now have four children, seven grandchildren and seven great-grandchildren. Thank you for your service, Mr Jenkins.
I am proud to share with the chamber that my electorate of Forde has the second largest uptake of participants for trade support loans in Australia, with the program supporting over 660 apprentices in my electorate and some 40,000 nationwide. I thank my colleague the Minister for Vocational Education and Skills, Senator Scott Ryan, for recently visiting the electorate to share the exciting news with some young apprentices at All Trades Queensland. During our visit we met with some young apprentice painters. I am very pleased to share with the chamber that, out of the four we met, three were young women. One of the young women undertaking her apprenticeship had herself just applied for a trade support loan. She shared that the trade support loan will help her to complete her apprenticeship without having to worry about the upfront costs.
The government's trade support loan program is an important commitment by the coalition government to ensure apprenticeships are equally valued as a choice for those seeking further education or training. I encourage local apprentices in need of a helping hand to apply for a trade support loan, as it is a terrific way to help them through their apprenticeship. I also thank the Prime Minister and the Minister for Employment for their announcement last week of women in construction, with many of those young ladies explaining how that apprenticeship is of tremendous benefit as well.
I would like to congratulate Monak Guides 3rd Wangaratta for their first 60 years of service. I am very proud to be a guiding ambassador for the Hume region, supporting and promoting guiding, enabling girls and young women to grow into confident, self-respecting, responsible community members. On Friday night it was my absolute pleasure to experience guiding in action in Wangaratta. From Joelle Everingham and Jess Lewis, the MCs, to the colour bearers and escorts—Olivia McDonald, Zoe Goodger and Giverny O'Bryan—I offer my congratulations. The candles were lit and extinguished by Elle Brendel and Emily Doig. Thank you for your lovely work. The poem was read beautifully by Pipa Sanderson.
I would also like to acknowledge the founding work of Mary Sadler and Melda Broadcribb, who was present on the night. Thank you very much for being with us. The leaders make it all possible—Alex Lewis, Rebecca Card and Louise McDonald. The district manager, Stephanie Goodger, was also present on the night.
I say to the young women of Wangaratta: 'Be involved in Guides. Go the whole way. Get your Queen's and get your Baden-Powell badge and then proudly take your place as leaders in our community.' I am so proud to be your ambassador in this place. I am so proud to let this House know of the excellent work of guiding in Wangaratta. Thank you for all you do for our community.
Today I would like to talk about some outstanding capital projects in Bonner. I have been proud to support these projects through the Stronger Communities Program. The fantastic thing about Stronger Communities is how it makes our local communities a priority. Wayne Cameron from B4C, a local environmental group that has received funding for a vital revegetation project, put it well to me. He said the project has many social as well as environmental benefits. Their newly funded project will help get more locals involved in the group and help build a shared love of the environment.
Stronger Communities has also helped support other activity groups that are a cornerstone of Bonner. Karen Dixon, President of Wyndham District Horse and Pony Club, said they are now able to go ahead with lighting and electrical upgrades that will boost safety for the over 1,000 people who use their facilities each year. Jim and Sue Horton from the Mount Gravatt Lapidary Club tell me they are now finally able to upgrade equipment that is between 20 and 40 years old. This will help the club be more energy- and cost-efficient, saving them money in the long run and helping them bring in more members.
I thank the members of my Stronger Communities committee. They recently met to decide which submitted projects in round 2 would go on to the next stage of the selection process. I am grateful for their time and assistance. I very much look forward to delivering more upgrades to our community.
Yesterday I joined thousands of Sydneysiders who came together at Moore Park in a last-ditch effort to rally to save Sydney's historic Anzac Parade trees. The community is justifiably outraged that the New South Wales Liberal government is removing century-old fig trees that line Anzac Parade in Sydney—a beautiful boulevard named in honour of those who marched down that road in 1914 to board ships at Circular Quay to travel to serve our nation in the Great War. This Liberal government is completely destroying the character of that road named in their honour.
Despite community outrage, the New South Wales government simply will not listen. Sadly, literally as I speak the chainsaws are being cranked up and these trees are now being taken down and removed. This is needless environmental vandalism. It did not need to occur. We can have Sydney's light rail project and we can preserve these historic trees. Because of the Liberal's mismanagement of this project, because of cost blow-outs, they have refused to countenance alternatives.
These trees are in the electorate of Wentworth, the seat of the Prime Minister. I once again call on Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull to intervene and stop the destruction of Sydney's historic trees. It does not need to be this way. We can have light rail and we can save these trees.
Australia is a food secure nation, exporting 70 per cent of what we grow—and that is a $19 billion food export surplus—and 90 per cent of everything we eat here is local. As a medical specialist I am also pretty aware that we are not going to beat sedentary lifestyle and poor dietary choices with public health campaigns alone. We need everyone on board. I am glad to see big food is playing a role. Mars Food Australia particularly are focusing on one billion more meals around dining tables by 2021 and a third of those will be here in Australia. That is a global goal. It is impressive. How are they going to do it? They are going to do it by sticking to clear, evidence based criteria around their products, ensuring that all of their product lines meet those evidence based criteria by 2021 and, if something does not meet those criteria, being honest about it and labelling those food products as 'occasional consumption'.
This is not a journey that started yesterday. Over the last five years, Mars Food estimates that it has taken 1,000 tonnes of sugar and about 300 tonnes of salt out of Australia's diet. Recommending more whole grains and vegetables with their products could mean potentially another 13½ million serves of vegetables over that time. They think they can get another 20 per cent reduction.
Further, they have come up with the Dolmio Pepper Hacker, an ingenious device for you gadget lovers which, the minute you turn up at the dining room table, deactivates every mobile device and turns off the TV. What a great way to reclaim the dining room table. Well done, Mars Food.
There are precious few opportunities remaining for members of the coalition government to come into the House and apologise for axing the Child Dental Benefits Schedule.
Government members interjecting—
It is not too late! There are a few days left for members opposite to come in here and apologise to their constituents for ripping $1 billion out of a scheme which is going to provide dental care for needy families and needy children around Australia. I have heard members opposite try to patch over this $1 billion slashing of the child dental benefits scheme by saying that the answer is to send all of these people back to the states and, what is more, to send more people back to the states.
I am surprised to hear the member for Braddon, who is from Tasmania, up the back there being so wholehearted in his support for this when he knows full well that the waiting list for the public scheme in Tasmania is 2½ years. The kids will be adults by the time they get access to the public scheme in his state. In New South Wales there are currently 16,000 people waiting to get access to the public dental scheme—16,000 people on a waiting list. Is it any wonder that the Premier, Mike Baird, refuses to publish waiting times in New South Wales? In Western Australia it is four months. In Victoria it is eight months. In South Australia it is 8½ months. And this is supposed to be an answer. Is it any wonder— (Time expired)
On Thursday of last week I presented the Prime Minister and the Premier of Tasmania with a detailed plan to deliver a fibre-to-the-node service to the mining towns of Queenstown, Rosebery and Zeehan and fixed wireless to Strahan, it having been discovered in 2015 that there was no existing fibre backhaul link between Queenstown and the north-west. NBN Co then decided the west coast would have to have a satellite service. Like many of the problems with the NBN that have been faced by the Turnbull government this one has its genesis with the previous federal and state Labor governments, which rolled out a state-wide backhaul fibre network but forgot all about the west coast of Tasmania.
Cynically, the day before I presented my plan to deliver fibre to the west coast the Labor Party quickly cobbled together a policy and rushed to announce it. So poorly was this policy put together they completely left off the map Strahan, one of Tasmania's premier tourist destinations, failed to work with the state government to utilise existing infrastructure and neglected to state which technology each town would receive. I see the Labor Party has been out there trying to say it is fibre to the node, but they were not willing to include that in their written media release. Here is the kicker, their plan is uncosted. They say it will be $29 million—$11 million more than the plan I have come up with—and they say the NBN can pay for it, as if it has a bottomless pit of money to fund election promises from Labor.
WA's economy is struggling. Today's CommSec report shows WA has the sixth ranked economy in Australia, spiralling downwards from top spot in 2014, yet the Commonwealth Grant Commission's latest recommendation will bring WA's share of GST revenue from 29.9c in the dollar to—wait for it!—30.3c in the dollar. I support horizontal fiscal equalisation—it is a very Australian concept—but the rules being used corrupt that very sense of fairness. Most disgracefully, WA's share is being driven down by our state's bipartisan, socially responsible policy of containing pokies. The eastern states earn more than $5 billion per year in gambling taxes. New South Wales alone earns almost $2 billion a year. Yet this revenue is quarantined for the purpose of GST distribution. Every cent of our iron ore revenues are counted but pokies revenue is protected. If we change that, if we brought that to account, WA in 2014 would have received an extra $413 million. This reprehensible policy actually encourages states and territories to promote gambling. It is the only significant source of state revenue protected— (Time expired)
On 20 April I attended the Rotary Club of Padstow annual service awards presentation dinner. The Padstow Rotary service awards are a great event on our annual calendar in the Banks electorate. The awards acknowledge the remarkable contributions to our community of people who are involved in services in our area—the Police Force, the State Emergency Service, the Ambulance Service, Fire and Rescue, and St John Ambulance. What distinguishes all of the nominees is that they place themselves on the line for the community. In the case of some of these services, such as the police service, the fire service and so on, they are literally placing their personal safety at risk for the community, and in services like St John Ambulance and the Ambulance Service there is tremendous emotional strain that those people are put under by doing the job they do every day. We acknowledge and thank them for their efforts. A thankyou to President Terry Martin of Padstow Rotary club, Julie Harris and Keith Roffey. Padstow Rotary is one of the great community organisations in our area, and I always enjoy attending this annual dinner.
I rise today to commend the Andrews Labor government on a terrific budget delivered last week in the great state of Victoria. It is a budget that does some really important things—they have gone alone on funding Melbourne metro. Yet, miraculously, today the Turnbull government is claiming that it is going to make an $857 million contribution. Well, blow me down with a feather!
What does Treasurer Tim Pallas have to say about this? Treasurer Pallas says that this money is money the Commonwealth owes the state for the lease of the port of Melbourne. This is not new funding; it is the 15 per cent for the asset sale—talk about tricky accounting! The facts are simple. Victoria is still being dudded by this Commonwealth government. Trickery and accounting will only get you so far. Of all the people in this country, Victorians are fairly astute, particularly when it comes to promises made and reading a Treasurer's report. We know when we are getting duped, and this government is duping Victorians.
But on the other side of the scales, the Andrews Labor government in Victoria know how to look after Victorians. They are funding roads in outer suburbs and public transport. They are getting on with the job in Victoria while these people do nothing. (Time expired)
I want to speak on the West Torrens Cricket Club, which was formed in 1857 and has been a part of the sporting fabric of the western suburbs of Adelaide since then. The club has won four club championships in recent times—no small feat. West Torrens has produced many test and state players, including the late, great, David Hookes, who made his debut at 17 before going on to greatness for South Australia and Australia.
Unfortunately, the South Australian Cricket Association—SACA—has decided that it needs to move to a 12-club grade competition and, following a confidential report, the West Torrens Cricket Club is one of two clubs that are in SACA's sights to merge. The use of a confidential report reduces transparency and creates problems with due process. Furthermore on matters of due process, there has not been a clear criteria outlined to West Torrens as to what they will be evaluated against. If there had been, and if it was on those matters that SACA has raised with both me and the club—such as on-field success, assets, financial stability, demographics, community support and future potential—then on any objective assessment the club definitely would not be at the bottom of the evaluation list. In fact, in many areas, especially their junior program or on-field success, they would be among the top performers.
The board of the club and many of its members, many of whom I met at a recent club night, are proud of the club and are committed to its future. I have spoken to SACA and informed board members of my concern, and so I urge SACA, in the best interests of cricket in the western suburbs and South Australia more broadly, to reconsider their decision and undertake a new process where they will clearly outline the criteria against which all clubs will be evaluated.
Australian voters—
Order! The member for Hotham will remove that prop or herself from this chamber!
Ms O'Neil interjecting—
That is grossly disorderly.
Ms O'Neil interjecting—
Opposition members interjecting—
The member for Hotham will remove herself from the chamber under 94(a).
The member for Hotham then left the chamber .
I rise today to speak on behalf of Katharine Marsh, a young woman from a farm near Kojonup in my electorate of O'Connor. I plan to present a petition of 15,000 signatures in the near future on behalf of Katharine, who is campaigning for complete triple 0 access across the country. Katharine has asked me to tell her story:
My partner, Mick McInnes, died in a motorbike accident on 31st October, leaving me widowed and pregnant with a son who will never know his dad.
Sadly the accident occurred in a mobile black spot with '000' unable to be called.
20 precious minutes were lost seeking medical assistance.
Given Mick walked away and was conscious for almost two hours, this lost time probably would have saved his life.
I am devastated '000' is not accessible everywhere, and most mobile users are also unaware this is the case.
This is deplorable in a first world country.
… … …
My petition for further funding and a deadline to resolve identified mobile black spots has now gathered 15000 written signatures.
The mobile black spot program is imperative—it is the difference between life and death.
Although the government has announced 60 new mobile phone towers for my electorate to eliminate black spots—and I anticipate many more in round 2—there is much more work to be done. Katharine's tragic story underlines the importance of addressing mobile phone black spots. We cannot rest until every Australian has emergency phone access, regardless of their location.
I rise to speak about the position of UN Secretary-General, which has been debated somewhat in the media in recent months and, indeed, years, and to say how important it would be, should an Australian stand, that the Australian government nominate and support that Australian. Indeed, the governments of Portugal and New Zealand are doing just that in supporting their former prime ministers for the position. The conservative government of New Zealand is supporting former Labor Prime Minister Helen Clark.
The person who is being discussed as a potential Australian head of the United Nations is former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd. You cannot think of a better qualified person for the position, not just because of his time as Prime Minister but also because of his extensive experience as foreign minister of this nation. I would like to think that positions like this would be above politics. Indeed, while we were in government we supported Tim Fischer to become the ambassador to the Holy See. We supported Alexander Downer to become the UN Special Envoy for Cyprus. We supported Brendan Nelson to become the ambassador to the European Union, Belgium and Luxembourg. In contrast, we saw Mike Rann's and Steve Bracks's appointments cancelled by this government. You only need to go back to the fact that we supported Malcolm Fraser in his position on the commission of apartheid to know how important bipartisanship is and how important it is to back the Aussie—always back the Aussie.
For the last 12 months I have been fighting for an upgrade of the Monash Freeway. It has been a major issue in the electorate of La Trobe. We had fantastic news recently when Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, announced a $1 billion upgrade plan for the Monash—precisely what was needed. The Turnbull government will deliver the following: a $500 million commitment that will include widening of the Monash Freeway, not just from the South Gippsland Highway to Clyde Road but also from Warrigal Road right down to Cardinia Road in my electorate. In addition to this, the Turnbull government will also complete the Beaconsfield interchange, which sadly has been missing two ramps since it was first constructed, and the extension of O'Shea Road from Soldiers Road to the interchange. This is fantastic news as we want to build an IT business park in this area. You compare this to the Labor plan: at a federal level, the Labor plan is just a $63 million commitment for traffic management and lights—traffic management; not even turning over any bitumen! This is a really sad state of affairs. I highly commend the Turnbull government's $1 billion plan for upgrading the Monash Freeway.
In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded.
by leave—I move:
That the resumption of debate on the Prime Minister's motion of condolence in connection with the death of the Hon. Rex Alan Patterson be referred to the Federation Chamber.
Question agreed to.
I rise on indulgence to acknowledge the passing of the Hon. Tom Lewis, former Premier and Treasurer of New South Wales, on 25 April. I want to place on record the House's appreciation of his service to the parliament and the people of New South Wales and tender our profound sympathy to his family. Tom Lewis served not only New South Wales, and eminently, but Australia. He was in the Australian Imperial Force during the Second World War, stationed in the Celebes, Java and Borneo. He worked at our embassy in Washington in the late 1940s and he entered the New South Wales parliament in 1957. Mr Lewis represented the people of the state electoral district of Wollondilly for more than 20 years. He was a minister in the Askin and Willis governments and was Premier between 1975 and 1976. When he was not at parliament, he was skiing, flying his own plane or farming at Castlereagh on the Nepean River, and later at Moss Vale. He was known by his staffers and colleagues to be impatient, wanting everything done yesterday, but he was also regarded as a good administrator and admired for his efficiency and ability to cut through red tape. He was a veritable bundle of enthusiasm and energy, as I discovered when I came to know him in my capacity as a very, very young reporter in the New South Wales press gallery of that era.
Tom Lewis, as Minister for Lands, founded the National Parks and Wildlife Service for New South Wales in 1967, and that is a great legacy for all of us who have marvelled at and enjoyed the beauty of the New South Wales national park system. A generation of Australians can also be grateful that, in order to promote the National Parks and Wildlife Service, Tom Lewis gave permission to film the iconic Australian television series Skippy the Bush Kangaroo at what became known as Waratah Park.
In recognition of his services to the environment, the community and the parliament, he was appointed an Officer of the Order of Australia. We recognise his service again today. On behalf of honourable members and the government, I offer our deepest condolences to Mr Lewis's wife, Yutta, to his children, Mark and Jon, to his stepchildren, Phillip and Michelle, and to his grandchildren, Tom, Amelia, April, Holly, Lucy, Molly and Annie.
So often there is a melancholy symmetry to the passing of old political warriors. Having just honoured a man brought down by the Dismissal, we now offer our respects to someone whose actions helped trigger that constitutional crisis. Tom Lewis's decision to fill the casual Senate vacancy created by Lionel Murphy with the conservative mayor of Albury, Cleaver Bunton, set the Senate on a path to the gridlock and obstructionism that eventually brought down the Whitlam government. And yet, just as Malcolm Fraser's part—and, indeed, Gough's part—in the bitter conflict of those times does not define those leaders or their legacies, Tom Lewis, someone who served New South Wales as Premier and Australia as a member of the AIF, deserves a larger part in history than a cameo from 1975.
In particular, today, as the Prime Minister and also the Premier of New South Wales have noted, we pay tribute to Tom Lewis's foresight in establishing the National Parks and Wildlife Service of New South Wales. Like all great decisions, hindsight makes it appear so obvious, but, in the early 1970s, it was courageous in the Yes Minister sense. Tom Lewis had the fortitude and the integrity to take on elements in his own party and constituencies in his own support base who bitterly opposed locking up land. That is real leadership, and its legacy lives around us and has enriched the lives not just of the people of New South Wales but of all who have been drawn to visit the natural beauty of that state. I think that Tom Lewis's contribution to preserving some of our most beautiful country illustrates the truth at the heart of that ancient piece of Greek wisdom:
A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in.
Labor offers its condolences to Tom Lewis's family and all who feel his loss. May he rest in peace.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister explain why his government is cutting $5,000 a year from a family earning $60,000 but giving a $2,600-a-year tax cut to an individual who is earning $300,000 a year?
The premise on which the Leader of the Opposition has asked the question is completely fallacious.
Is that it!
The member for Jagajaga will cease interjecting.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister update the House on the government's economic plan to deliver jobs and growth? How will the government's plan encourage Australians to work, save and invest?
I thank the honourable member for his question. My government's economic plan is to ensure that Australia continues to make a successful transition from an economy that has been fired up by an unprecedented mining and construction boom to one that is more diverse and takes advantage of the great opportunities of the 21st century economy. Every lever of our policy is directed at making our economy more innovative, more competitive and more productive so that we can deliver the great jobs and great opportunities for Australians, their children and their grandchildren.
This will be the focus of the budget to be presented by the Treasurer tomorrow night. It will detail our plan to drive investment and enterprise and encourage jobs and growth. It will outline changes to the tax system to make it more sustainable, fairer and set us up the 21st century for those great economic opportunities that await us if we have the vision and the enterprise to take them. It will set out our plan to return the budget to balance by living without our means, making sure that any new expenditure is offset with savings elsewhere in the budget so that we can reduce the burden of debt that the Labor Party left us with.
This budget will be responsible, fairer and prudent. It will back Australian families and businesses to work, save and invest. In the year 2015, our economy grew at three per cent in real terms—stronger than any of the G7 nations. As the NABhas reported today, the NAB business survey continues to point to a very favourable business environment for Australian firms. Service industries have persistently been the best performers, although other sectors are looking relatively upbeat. The number of Australians in work increased by around 300,000 in the last calendar year, which is the highest jobs growth since 2007. The labour force data for March showed that that strong growth continues: there were 260,000 new jobs for that month.
Our economic plan maximises the opportunity for new growth and new jobs. Our Defence industry plan directs every dollar we can to supporting innovative, high-tech and advanced manufacturing. Our free trade agreements with China, Japan and Korea and the TPP are providing our businesses with unprecedented market access. Our National Innovation and Science Agenda unleashes the creativity, innovation, jobs and industries of the 21st century to ensure that we benefit from those opportunities that await us.
My question is to the Prime Minister: data from the Australian Tax Office shows that four out of five Tasmanian workers earn less than $80,000 a year. Why is the Prime Minister giving large multinationals a tax cut at the same time as leaving four out of five Tasmanian workers with absolutely nothing?
I can well understand the excitement and the anticipation that the Leader of the Opposition has as he awaits the Treasurer's budget tomorrow night. I can understand him being convulsed with all of the speculation and feverish questions. He only has to wait until tomorrow night. Rather than asking speculative questions based out of fantasy, he can learn it all tomorrow night from the Treasurer.
The Treasurer will set out a plan that will drive jobs and growth right across Australia. It will drive jobs and growth right across Tasmania, where—as the honourable members representing Tasmanian electorates know full well—we are seeing stronger growth there than we have for many years. The reason for that is in large part because of the free trade agreements that Andrew Robb negotiated when he was trade minister. Let us not forget that all of those jobs in Tasmania that are the result of that free trade agreement—especially the agreement with China—would be gone if Labor had its way.
Remember the bitter and vicious campaign the trade unions waged against the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement? Remember how the Labor Party was opposing it? Only at the eleventh hour did they finally buckle and recognise the reality that the opportunities for Australia in free trade in those big markets are enormous. Time and time again—pick your policy area—Labor is unfailing in its determination to stand in the way of jobs, growth and opportunity.
My question is to the Treasurer: will the Treasurer please advise the House of the importance of a strong budget to support our transitioning economy? How important is sound economic management and fiscal discipline for promoting jobs and growth in our new economy?
On a point of order, Mr Speaker: the Prime Minister has just made clear that we should not be asking questions about the budget today. Does that only apply to members on this side of the House?
I am not here to answer questions. The Treasurer has the call.
I thank the member for Petrie for his question and his keen interest in jobs and growth. The budget I will bring down tonight, on behalf of Turnbull government, will not be a typical budget. This is not a typical time. This is a time when the government needs a strong economic plan for Australia's future. This will be a plan that will stick to our plan for jobs and growth by backing in. Australians are out there making this transition and making our economy work every single day. It is a budget that will fix specific problems in our tax system to sustainably meet our commitments for future generations. It is a budget that will ensure the government lives within its means. Australians, Australian businesses and Australian households are living within their means, and they know that the government must live within its means. That is what the budget I will bring down tomorrow night will do, because when you do that you are in a position to bring the budget back to balance and address the long-term issues of debt.
This budget will contain affordable commitments, with real money that is actually there, not the sort of commitments we saw from those opposite. They were spending money from mining taxes that never came in. They were spending money that was never there, letting down Australian families and letting down people relying on those commitments, because those opposite made commitments with money that was not there. And that is the problem of the economic management approach of those opposite. What we on this side will do is live within our means and have affordable commitments—like the $2.9 billion we have announced and committed to for our hospitals and the $2 billion that we announced yesterday for education. This is real money that is focused on getting real results and outcomes. That is what a budget needs to do. It needs to make commitments when the money is actually there and you can actually afford, and deliver on, those commitments.
So, in this budget, innovation and science will continue to prosper under this government—a defence plan for local high-tech manufacturing and technology; export trade deals to generate new business opportunities; incentives for small business to go out there and work hard, as they always do, and they are the hope of the side; a sustainable budget crackdown on tax avoidance and ensuring that the funding commitments that we make can be paid for. They will be paid for by saving, not by tax increases like we have seen from those opposite, who want to put a $100 billion tax burden in addition on the Australian economy. That is not a plan for jobs and growth. What I will deliver is a plan for jobs and growth.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Four out of five workers in Queensland earn less than $80,000. Why is the Prime Minister giving the top one per cent of income earners a tax cut at the same time as leaving four out of five workers in regional Queensland with absolutely nothing?
I thank the honourable member for his question. We were all interested to read today in The Australian an extract from his latest publication—
Mr Dreyfus interjecting—
The member for Isaac is warned.
in which he said:
As Labor leader, I still think like an organiser. I'll lead like a unionist.
That does bring to mind Australians on low wages. Indeed, it is a reminder of how the Leader of the Opposition cares about Australians on low wages. We think about the cleaners who work for Clean Event, some of the lowest paid workers in Australia, who were represented by the honourable member and his union. They had wages and conditions traded away in a special deal, a secret deal, between the AWU and the employer. The Leader of the Opposition sold them down the river. That is how he looked after workers on low wages. His answer to workers on low wages is: 'Don't worry, don't look into the deal that the union is doing with the employer, don't you worry about the payments from the employer to the union'—and any royal commission that dares to look into that is a horrible partisan exercise.
Mr Speaker, on a point of order that goes to standing order 68: I have given an explanation of how the Prime Minister has previously misrepresented me in this matter—
Opposition members interjecting—
Members on my right will cease interjecting. The member for Mitchell is warned.
Mr Speaker, under standing order 68—where I have already given a personal explanation on a number of occasions and this Prime Minister has been misrepresenting me—I am now seeking for you to intervene.
With respect to standing order 68—the addition to it, I should say—I have made the point, when this has been raised before, that this is a difficult area. Obviously it was introduced at the beginning of this parliament. It requires a number of things. It needs for me to be able to compare the Leader of the Opposition's previous personal explanations with the words that are being uttered by the minister—in this case, the Prime Minister. The previous speaker outlined her approach—which, as I have told the House, is the approach I am adopting. I cannot be in a position to have with me every personal explanation and any variation that has been used. I think in this parliament it has been upheld once, and that was on a very clear-cut issue with respect to the member for Jagajaga. But on this occasion, given the breadth of the subject matter, I am happy to review the Leader of the Opposition's personal explanations this afternoon and monitor any answers through the course of this week.
I recognise the sensitivity of the Leader of the Opposition on Clean Event. But we will move on—
Mr Dreyfus interjecting—
The member for Isaacs is warned.
because the low-paid workers that the Leader of the Opposition betrayed did not just work at Clean Event. It was only a few weeks ago that 50,000 self-employed owner-drivers in the trucking industry were put out of work. They do not earn much money. And they were earning nothing thanks to the Road Safety—
Mr Speaker, on a point of order: the question was about workers today, not the subject of a royal commission—
The member for McMahon is warned. He did not state the point of order, and he has made a habit of misusing points of order. The Prime Minister has the call.
I have never seen so many grasped straws in a row in one question time! There was the first one, and then the second; there will be a third: the Manager of Opposition Business will be up next.
The member for McMahon just said, 'We're not interested in workers referred to in the royal commission; we're interested in the workers of today.' Well, let me remind the honourable member: two weeks ago there were 50,000 workers—self-employed owner drivers—who were out of work, and they were out of work because of a crooked deal done between a Labor government, represented by the opposition leader when he was minister, and the Transport Workers Union. That is not theory, that is not rhetoric; that is fact. Those men and women had no income—and that was the objective: low-paid workers. The Leader of the Opposition has a track record that should put every low-paid worker in Australia in fear of him forming a government.
My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport. Minister, the Victorian government has committed, as an interim measure, to refurbishing rolling stock for the North East Line while the plan for replacing the entire fleet with new trains is completed. Can you please tell the parliament what your government is going to do to ensure that the people of north-east Victoria have an efficient, effective, reliable and modern train service?
I thank the member for Indi for her question and note her ongoing interest in and determination to take credit for all of the coalition's policies in relation to regional Australia. There are many, many great coalition policies for growth and jobs. In fact, there is a whole smorgasbord of great coalition policies for regional Australia. And the member for Indi, as an Independent member, has actually had no impact on the development of those great policies in relation to Roads to Recovery or mobile phone black spots or the bridges renewal program—no impact whatsoever. But because this government believes in the future of regional Australia and because the coalition is passionate about jobs—
The member for Indi has a point of order—and the member will state the point of order.
My point of order is about relevance. The question was about trains.
The minister has the call. He will ensure that he is relevant to the question.
This government is focused on the future of regional Australia and the coalition is passionate about jobs and growth in every regional community—and we have a very proud record of delivering for the people of Indi. In relation to the detail of the question the member for Indi raised, the Australian-government-owned Australian Rail Track Corporation operates the rail track between Melbourne and Albury, and the responsibility for passenger train services resides with the Victorian government, as the member has correctly indicated. We do note that the Border Rail Action Group made some criticism of the Victorian government's announcement last week and has called on the Victorian government to provide new rolling stock. The member has received regular updates from the ARTC in relation to the North East railway line. And I look forward, if in fact a request does come forward from the Victorian government, to considering it in the appropriate manner.
The member for Indi would be aware that the program in relation to the ARTC on the North East Line has benefited in the order of $134 million of federal government funding, starting with the previous government and continuing under the current government. But passenger services are primarily a matter for the state government to consider. And I would take the opportunity to make the point, given that the member asked a question in relation to infrastructure, that there has been a lot of interest in road and rail infrastructure across Indi in recent times—a lot of interest across her whole electorate. Two people have been particularly focused on infrastructure in Indi. The Nationals candidate for Indi, Marty Corboy, has rung me on many occasions. He is a good local businessman, passionate about the future of Indi, and a champion for improving infrastructure in Indi.
Opposition members interjecting—
Those opposite asked, 'What about Sophie?' Well, the former member for Indi, Sophie Mirabella, has rung me as well. She is passionate about the future of the infrastructure needs of the community of Indi. She has rung me in support of her community on roads and rail infrastructure. She is determined to deliver for the people of Indi because this government, this coalition, is determined to deliver for all regional communities. They have rung me in relation to a whole range of regional funds, and I note that this is the coalition, this is the government, that has actually delivered for all regional communities, because we are passionate about jobs and we are passionate about growth. We will continue to deliver for the people of Indi into the future, and I thank the member for her question.
I would like to inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon a delegation of parliamentarians from the Fijian parliament. On behalf of the House I extend a very warm welcome to you.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister advise the House of the vital role of Australia's defence industries in the government's economic plan for jobs and growth and our responsibility for Australia's national security?
I thank the member for his question. The honourable member knows very well how the defence industry contributes to local economies, including particularly in his electorate of Hindmarsh in South Australia. Our plan for the defence industry is a key element in my government's national economic plan to support the transition to a strong, new 21st century economy that is more diversified and more technologically advanced, taking advantage of the enormous opportunity of these exciting times in which we live. Our industry policy statement, in our defence white paper, secures an advanced defence manufacturing industry and new high-tech, higher paying jobs for our children and grandchildren for decades to come.
The defence industry plan ensures that so far as is possible all our defence dollars are spent here in Australia, to support local economies, especially in regional Australia. Creating these new high-tech, higher paying jobs is central to our innovation and science agenda as we transition to the opportunities of the 21st century economy. The defence industry plan includes the new fleet of submarines, creating 2,800 jobs, and all of the enormous spin-off benefits for Australian industry; a continuous shipbuilding program, creating 2,500 direct and thousands more indirect jobs; and upgrades to bases and airfields and new investment in innovation and technology across our defence industries.
We secure Australia's future by ensuring that our defence forces have the physical capabilities they need—the ships, the planes and all of the equipment they need—but we also secure it by ensuring that we have an Australian defence industry with continuous commitment and is able to plan and put in place the measures that will ensure that the expertise will grow and grow and the spinoff benefits will grow and the jobs will grow, as they do in other countries that have been committed to their defence industry. It was neglected for six years by the Labor Party—not one vessel commissioned from an Australian yard—and now that responsibility is taken up by our government. Right across the industrial supply chain, right across Australia, we will see enormous opportunities; opportunities for children too as they grow up. One man in Adelaide observed that he had a little boy who was very good at maths and science, but he felt he would not be able to get a job in South Australia. Now that he saw the commitment to technology in Adelaide, he knows that little boy's future is secure.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Why is the Turnbull government giving large multinationals a tax cut while cutting billions of dollars from Australian schools?
Again the honourable member is seeking to anticipate what he imagines is going to be in the budget. Let me remind him of the realities of his own plan for spending on education. What the honourable member seeks to do is assert that he has the funds to pay for that, but he has not identified any. His friend, the Labor Premier of South Australia, has said that Mr Shorten, the opposition leader—
An opposition member: Tobacco!
Someone called out 'tobacco'. Is that the answer? Very good. The member for Adelaide nominates tobacco as the answer. Very good. That has not impressed the South Australian Premier, because what he has said, again and again and again, is that there is no coherent plan on behalf of the Labor Party to pay for it. What we have is a commitment to the highest level of spending on schools in the history of the Commonwealth, rising from $16 billion this year to $20 billion in 2020. What we have is a plan that will ensure that we get the outcomes parents value. The children will have the skills that enable them to compete in the 21st century economy. Teachers will be rewarded for their high capabilities, to encourage the most capable teachers to stay teaching. We will ensure that kids are assessed for literacy and basic numeracy when they come to school at age 5. The reason for that is that we know that what is happening at the moment is the gap between the best-performing kids and the worst-performing ones is growing. We have to recognise that we have been spending more and more on education, but the outcomes have not been improving.
The answer to that is ensuring that the taxpayers' dollars, the parents' dollars, are better deployed so that we get the better outcomes. So we are backing the parents; we are backing their aspirations. We are backing good teachers. And what we are doing is ensuring that, when kids get to year 1, we will find out how they are going and if they need support. If they need remedial teaching, they will get that support at a time when it can make the biggest difference. We are for great outcomes, we are for great schools, we are for great teachers. We are committed to ensuring that our children have the skills they need to compete and seize the great opportunities of the 21st century economy.
My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Will the minister advise the House how the government's historic decision to construct the next generation of Australian submarines in South Australia will strengthen Australia's national security and support a sustainable local shipbuilding industry?
I thank the member for Mayo for his question and note his commitment to a local defence industry in South Australia. The coalition government decision to build 12 next-generation submarines in South Australia gives us a vital element in Australia's naval capability well into the middle of this century, helping to secure Australia's vast maritime domain, which is one of the largest in the world. In the decades to come, Australia will face an increasingly challenging maritime environment. By 2035 it is estimated that half the world's submarines will be operating in the Indian Ocean and Asia-Pacific region. The 12 submarines to be built with Australian jobs, with Australian steel and with Australian expertise, will be among the most sophisticated naval vessels in the world and will enable Australia to play an even greater role in safeguarding the peace and the security of our region.
The Future Submarine program will invest around $50 billion in our local shipbuilding industry, generating an additional 2,800 jobs. The investment is in addition to the government's decision to implement a program of continuous surface ship construction in Australian shipyards—major warships, offshore patrol vessels, Pacific patrol boats—in South Australia and Western Australia, with support and maintenance across Australia. Together, these programs represent around $90 billion of investment in our defence capability and in our local shipbuilding industry, creating over 3,600 direct jobs, with significant flow-on effects through our supply chains.
Compare and contrast these three facts. We have now commissioned up to 54 naval vessels. I remind the House that Labor failed to commission one—
Members on my right will put their props down. The attendants will collect them.
Not one ship in any Australian shipyard during their entire six chaotic years in government. Two: the coalition is creating thousands and thousands of jobs for Australia's defence industry. Labor's inaction—
Mr Williams interjecting—
The member for Hindmarsh is warned!
Mr Williams interjecting—
The member for Hindmarsh will leave under 94(a).
The member for Hindmarsh then left the chamber.
The second fact is that we are creating an environment where thousands and thousands of defence industry jobs will be maintained. During Labor's years of incompetence and inaction, there was a 10 per cent workforce loss in the defence industry. Ten per cent of the workforce lost their jobs. The third point is that Labor slashed defence spending to the lowest percentage of GDP since 1938, and the coalition is boosting—
Mr Perrett interjecting—
The member for Moreton is warned!
defence spending by almost $30 billion over the next 10 years. The coalition can be trusted to support the defence industry in Australia, and defence industry jobs. (Time expired)
My question is to the Prime Minister. The Abbott-Turnbull government cut $30 billion from Australian schools. Yesterday, the Prime Minister promised to reverse $1 billion of those cuts. Does the Prime Minister really expect people to be grateful that he is now cutting only $29 billion from Australian schools—cuts which will mean less individual support and less individual attention for every student at every school?
I thank the Prime Minister for the opportunity to respond to the question on education. The announcement that we made on the weekend would see public school funding increased by a third over the budget and forward estimates—by over a third. What it means is $1.2 billion in additional funding over that period of time. What is important about the announcement is not just the amount of funding in addition that we are putting into it but the focus on getting outcomes for that spending, ensuring that we get back to basics and we get the outcomes that parents are looking for and the improvements in teacher quality that are necessary to drive those education outcomes.
There are many people who support a greater focus on outcomes and education when it comes to how we match our spending, and one of those is the member for Fraser. In one of his many tomes, 'Long-run trends in school productivity: evidence from Australia', the member says:
All too frequently, education policy debates focus on inputs rather than outputs.
That is what he has to say. He says that what is important are:
… the results a school system is achieving for a given level of inputs.
Those opposite are proposing to the Australian people that what they claim they can do in education will be funded by tobacco excises and by increased spending with higher taxes. Now, we have heard all that before. We have heard it all before. When the then Assistant Treasurer, the now Leader of the Opposition, introduced the Minerals Resource Rent Tax Bill, this is what he had to say:
The MRRT will fund billions of dollars of new roads, bridges and other critical infrastructure …
He said:
The MRRT makes it possible to increase the superannuation guarantee …
He said:
The MRRT also makes it possible to deliver fairer super concessions for 3.6 million low income earners …
He said the 2012-13 budget outlined that the MRRT would raise—
Mr Husic interjecting—
The member for Chifley is warned!
$9.7 billion. That is what he said. But we know that the outcome demonstrated that it raised around just $400 million. We know that, when those opposite try to fund important expenditure through tax measures, with the Leader of the Opposition, with Bill Shorten, we know it just never adds up.
My question is to the Minister for Defence Materiel. Minister, will you tell the House what the government is doing to create a sustainable shipbuilding industry in Australia?
I thank the member for Cowan for his question. I know he is a passionate advocate for jobs in his electorate and, in particular, defence industry jobs in his electorate.
The Turnbull government is securing Australian jobs and ensuring Australia's economic future by investing in defence. For the first time in our history, Australia will have a continuous shipbuilding plan, delivered by the Turnbull government. The Turnbull government has announced $90 billion of investment for Australia's Navy and our shipbuilding industry. This will result in more than 5,300 direct jobs, and there will be many more indirect jobs around the country when you remember the $1.6 billion investment in the defence white paper, which is all about encouraging the Australian defence industry to take advantage of this investment.
The Turnbull government has announced that Australia will build 21 new Pacific patrol boats, to be built in Western Australia; 12 new offshore patrol vessels, to be built in South Australia and Western Australia; nine new future frigates, to be built in Adelaide; and 12 new submarines, to be built in Adelaide. This takes the number of vessels this government has commissioned to be built in Australia to 54. As the foreign minister so beautifully articulated, compared to Labor's six years in office, this brings the shipbuilding scorecard to 54-0. That scoreline reminds me of the 1980 grand final! The Leader of the Opposition might not remember it—I know he now barracks for Collingwood, and he was probably barracking for Sydney then—but it was an absolute shellacking. As a matter of fact, if this was a footy match, those opposite would be filing out of the grounds. As the member for Sturt said last week, we have made more decisions in the last six weeks than Labor made in six years in office—six weeks compared to six years, and it is 54-0.
Mr Mitchell interjecting—
The member for McEwen is warned!
For the first time in this country, we have a continuous shipbuilding plan. This will deliver security for Australian jobs and it will mean a more secure Australia.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister agree with his Liberal colleague the member for Bennelong that, because of the government's current negative-gearing policy, 'Too often we see the young couple getting beaten out at the auction, and then renting out the very place that they were trying to buy'?
Mr Speaker, the member for Bennelong has spoken about negative gearing, and he has also spoken about Labor's policy. I think it shows a moment of great self-awareness on part of the member for McMahon that he is citing the member for Bennelong as an authority on his policy. The member for McMahon says he agrees with the member for Bennelong. In this rowdy chamber it is touching to see a note of bipartisanship, and I thank the member for McMahon because the member for Bennelong observed, and I will quote the member for Bennelong, 'Labor's irresponsible proposal to abolish access to negative gearing on existing homes will devastate the housing market.' The member for McMahon knows what he is up to; he is seeking to devastate the housing market and today, at least, he has been honest enough to admit it.
My question is to the Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science. Will the minister explain the challenge facing Australia's steel sector and the actions the government is taking to deal with those challenges? Is the minister aware of any threats to the progress being made?
I thank the member for Gilmore for her question. I know she is very interested in the future of the steel industry. The government recognises the importance of the steel industry to Australia's economy and, of course, to the manufacturing sector in general, and we are making the steps necessary to support Arrium's steelworkers to have a future in Whyalla but also all around Australia with the decisions we have been making. Seven thousand steelworkers who work for Arrium, spread all around Australia, will be benefiting from the government's decisive action to secure their future.
Not only have we brought forward 72,000 tonnes of steel for the Adelaide-Tarcoola rail line, which will be won by Arrium to supply; we brought it forward to 2016 from the early 2020s. We have announced 12 submarines, nine future frigates, 12 offshore patrol vessels and Australian build in all of them using Australian steel, guaranteeing Australian jobs. And as the minister responsibility for antidumping, I have imposed up to 53 per cent duties on steel coming from Asia that is attempting to be dumped here, and injure Australia's businesses, or circumvention attempts that would get around the duties that we have imposed.
By contrast, Mr Speaker, we face a Labor Party that wants to bring back a carbon tax, which will hit Arrium and the steelworkers there just at the moment they are trying to get off the canvas. What could be more calculated to damage the steel industry in Australia than forcing up electricity prices by reintroducing a carbon tax? So we now know the choice that Labor has made. They have decided to go for the cafe latte set in the inner-city rather than support the workers in the Hunter Valley or in Whyalla or in Gilmore or in Port Kembla—all around Australia. They have chosen, instead of supporting jobs and growth, to pander to their particular minority interests through the reintroduction of the carbon tax that will damage the steel industry and cost jobs.
The problem with the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Speaker, is he is very unreliable. On the one hand he says that he wants to govern like a union leader, and then he hits the Arrium steelworkers by reimposing a carbon tax. He says he wants to govern like a union leader, yet he takes away the penalty rates of the Cleanevent workers in exchange for membership lists and cash for his union. He says he wanted to support Kevin Rudd while he was supporting Julia Gillard, he then abandoned Julia Gillard to support Kevin Rudd.
The problem with this Leader of the Opposition is he is inconsistent. He is unreliable. He is so bad he shifted from South Melbourne to Collingwood in the AFL, Mr Speaker. He has never been able to keep a consistent line in his entire political career. (Time expired)
Ms MacTiernan interjecting—
The member for Perth was consistently interjecting throughout that answer. She is warned.
My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the Prime Minister's $1 billion cut to dental services. Prime Minister, isn't it better for kids to get easy access to check-ups from their local family dentist instead of spending years on public dental waiting lists?
Mr Perrett interjecting—
The member for Moreton has already been warned, twice. He will leave under 94(a).
Mr Perrett interjecting—
The member for Moreton will leave immediately without comment. The Minister for Health will resume her seat. The member for Moreton will leave immediately. It is highly disorderly to interject when you have been asked to leave. I had the option to name the member for Moreton, then, but I chose not to, just to allow the flow of question time.
The member for Moreton then left the chamber.
Thank you to the member for Ballarat for her question. Thank you to the Prime Minister for the opportunity to answer because it gives me an opportunity to talk about the coalition's policy for a child and adult dental benefit service. The public national scheme that should have been introduced by Labor—but never was—legislated for the long-term, locked in with the states and territories, doubling the funding to those states and territories, treating 600,000 more patients a year and a truly public scheme.
Let us contrast that with Labor's scheme. Labor did have a scheme called the child dental benefit scheme. It was the member for Sydney's scheme and she was very excited when she announced it and she said it would treat three million children. But the other day the opposition spokesperson stood up and admitted that it had only treated one million children. It had, in fact, only reached 30 per cent of the children it was targeting—so what we have done is fix up another Labor mess in public dental, because we recognise that a truly public dental scheme looks after every child and looks after low-income concessional adults. As I said, this scheme will reach 600,000 more patients a year.
Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order on relevance. Minister, you need to talk about the billion dollars you are cutting—
The member for Ballarat will resume her seat. There is no point of order. The Minister for Health has the call.
Ms King interjecting—
The member for Ballarat is warned.
There is $1 billion, but it is Labor's $1 billion. They took it out of Medicare and spent it on other things. When you talk about $1 billion being removed from dental services, it is actually Labor's $1 billion. The scheme that they introduced, $4 million of which is now the subject of questions of rorting and misuse, only targeted one in three children.
There is an important public policy point to make here. If you want to look after—
Ms Owens interjecting—
The member for Parramatta is warned.
truly public patients in the dental area, you must target low-income workers, the disadvantaged and children who would never be taken to a dentist. Labor's scheme ignored those children. These are the children in all our schools now who do not get taken to a dentist and who need good preventive oral health. Our scheme will allow state governments to deliver exactly that. Those children will be seen before they need a dentist. The scheme will perhaps send a dental van with oral therapists to a school to intervene and train young people who have never seen a toothbrush let alone a dentist.
I cannot emphasise enough that this is a public scheme that will matter to every public dental patient in Australia. It is a scheme that Labor could not get right. Every state government will have twice as much of their current funding locked in and legislated for the long term.
My question is to the Minister for the Environment. Will the minister outline how the government is tackling climate change without a tax on electricity? Is the minister aware of any alternative plans?
I want to thank the member for Capricornia, who voted to bring on the largest reduction in electricity prices in Australian history, along with every member on this side as opposed to every member of the other side, who voted for higher electricity prices.
We have managed to do two things to bring down electricity prices and emissions on our watch. Let's look at this. On our watch, what have we achieved? In the comparison between what Labor projected and our targets and actual emissions, we saw a reduction in 2015 alone of 100 million tonnes compared with what Labor said emissions would be in their last Senate projections in 2012. In 2020 we will see a reduction of 116 million tonnes. As I was able to announce to the United Nations only just over a week ago, we will close a gap of 755 million tonnes in the period between 2013 and 2020 and be 78 million tonnes in surplus. In other words, on our watch, in our time, under our policy, we will be 78 million tonnes ahead of our target and we will meet and beat our 2020 target. That is now accepted.
More than that, though, we have reduced electricity prices by the largest amount on record. Every member on this side of the House voted to reduce and deliver that electricity price outcome. Every member on the other side of the House voted to increase or maintain electricity prices at the highest of levels. That is the difference.
We did see an alternative approach put forward in the last week. That was for a new electricity tax, a new carbon tax. What is the goal of those opposite? It is to drive up electricity prices. That is the nature of their tax. It is to increase electricity prices for the lowest income earners, families, pensioners, farmers and small business owners. What did Labor's modelling say about Labor's policy when Labor was in government? This was modelling done by the Treasury of Australia. It said a similar target would produce a 78 per cent increase in wholesale electricity prices, a carbon price of $209 and an impact on family incomes of $4,900. Labor's modelling of Labor's policy when Labor was in government said there would be a 78 per cent increase in wholesale electricity prices. They are out to have an impact on the lowest income earners— (Time expired)
My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister join with the opposition today on a bipartisan basis and support the nomination of an Australian candidate for the position of Secretary-General of the United Nations?
There are 24 million Australians, and what the honourable member has omitted to mention is the name of the person she is actually proposing. I suspect it is somebody whose deficiencies she has set out in great detail at various times. In the event of this matter becoming a live one, certainly the cabinet will consider it and give it due attention.
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 what action the coalition government is taking to secure the health and productivity of Australian waterways? How is this government's commitment to our valuable water resources helping to boost jobs and growth in my electorate of Page and across the nation?
I thank the honourable member for his question. If there is one thing that we are very focused on, it is making sure of the environmental health of our rivers and waterways. It was great to be able to announce the $15 million that we will put towards the eradication of carp. We know that it is incredibly important. We are afflicted with these disgusting, mud-sucking creatures—bottom-dwelling, mud-sucking creatures. The only form of control is a version of herpes; it is the only thing that will get rid of these disgusting, mud-sucking creatures. We will move forward on this because we believe that we should be getting rid of these disgusting, mud-sucking creatures in order to support some of the better animals of our waterways—the silver perch, the yellowbelly, the Murray cod, the Eastern cod and the catfish. We do not want to deal with carp; we have to get rid of the carp. When we have dealt with this virus, we are going to have between 500,000 and two million tonnes of carp. We often bury the carp, put it in the paddocks or put it underground—it will probably take the place of horse manure.
It is really important that we have a healthy nation and a strong economy. You have to go to some extreme measures at times to make sure that we keep our economy and our environment healthy—even if it requires a version of a venereal disease to deal with the carp. If that is what is required, then that is what is required. We are looking forward to keeping the Peel a very healthy river. We want the Balonne—it is a shame to see the member for Moreton is no longer here—to be a healthy river. We want the Hunter to be a very healthy river; we want the Clarence to be a healthy river; and we would love the Fitzroy to be a healthy river. We want the Murray and the Murrumbidgee to be healthy rivers. We in the coalition are going to make sure that we have healthy rivers and a healthy economy, because we are going to get rid of the carp.
My question is to the Treasurer, representing the Special Minister of State. I refer to the case of Damien Mantach, the former director of the Victorian Liberal Party, who has pleaded guilty to stealing $1.5 million in party funds and is reportedly appearing in court this Friday. Can the Treasurer inform the House whether any public funds have been repaid in accordance with the commitment of the current president of the Victorian Liberal Party?
I thank the member for his question. These are matters, as he said, that are before the courts, and so I do not be making any comments on those matters. Any specific issues that he has raised I will raise with the Special Minister of State, and obviously he will get back in touch in accordance with the normal processes.
I do find it interesting, Mr Speaker, that we are two days from the budget. The budget is tomorrow—
Opposition members interjecting—
Today, tomorrow—two days—Monday, Tuesday. Did I get one question from those opposite about the budget?
Opposition members interjecting—
The Treasurer will resume his seat. Has the Treasurer concluded his answer?
On a point of order, Mr Speaker: it is important that the Treasurer knows that the budget is tomorrow.
the Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat.
Tomorrow in the budget, what you will not get from this government is the sort of approach that those opposite are proposing. What we have had from the Leader of the Opposition is that he wants to run the country like a union. If those opposite, with their tax-and-spend approach, get to run the economy like a union, it will be deregistered under the sort of economic management that we will see from those opposite. We will not allow the economy to be run like a union, as the Leader of the Opposition wants to do. We will do it soberly; we will do it responsibly; we will not tax in order to spend like those opposite are proposing to do.
Tomorrow night what we will see is a budget that backs in Australians, who will ensure that we make the transition of the economy from the resources boom to a more diversified economy. We are going to do it—whether it is investing in our Defence industry to ensure the technology transfer and the jobs operating in that sector. And we are going to get there with the export trade agreements, which have been such a resounding success of this government. We are going to back in Australians who are making this transition a success.
What those opposite and the Leader of the Opposition want to do is to run the country like a union. We will not be using the bookkeeping skills of unions to run this country. What we will be doing is what coalition governments always do, and that is to ensure that governments live within their means and do not go on a tax-and-spend rampage that we know from those opposite.
My question is to the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection. Will the minister update the House on the importance of strong and consistent border protection policies? What are the risks to maintaining strong border protection into the future?
I thank the honourable member for his question. This government has achieved a lot in the space of national security. As we approach a federal election, the Australian public will focus very clearly on who is united to make sure that we can defend our borders and to keep our community safe. They can look at the record of those opposite to determine whether a Shorten led government would have the capacity to stop the boats and to provide national security.
When Labor went into government in 2007, there were four people in detention and there were no children. Two thousand children entered detention and 10,000 people went into detention under Labor because 50,000 people came on 800 boats. We have been able to reduce the number of children in detention from 2000 down to zero—down to zero! At the same time we have been able to stop the boats and to close 13 of 17 detention centres.
What you will not see in the budget tomorrow night is an $11 billion blow-out in border protection. That is what happened under Labor when they were in government last, an $11 billion blow-out, because they completely lost control of our borders and national security. I am very interested to have a look at what the Labor Party have had to say over the course of the last 48 hours or so, because the Leader of the Opposition wants the Australian public to believe that they are as united as this side of the House when it comes to border protection. They want the Australian public to believe that if Mr Shorten were elected at the next election he would just implement a continuation of the policies that this government has presided over—but they would not, because five members so far have stood up and opposed this Leader of the Opposition. As you look, there are a few heads down there at the moment, but there are five people and counting who have stuck up their hands publicly to oppose Bill Shorten, to say that they would stand against a Labor leader if he were to be elected at the next election. Do you know what that means? It means a green light for people smugglers.
This side of the House has been united and has stood as one in staring down the threat of people smugglers. If we are re-elected, we will continue to do it. But let us note: we know that there are many on the front bench that would sit in the National Security Committee of Cabinet if Mr Shorten were to be elected as Prime Minister who are vehemently opposed to the policy when it comes to stopping the boats. This side, under this Prime Minister, is absolutely adamant that we will secure our borders so that we can have a safer community. The Labor Party stand for a dead opposite policy.
I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
I present the Auditor-General's Audit reports of 2015-16 No. 27 entitled Strategies and activities to address the cash and hidden economy: Australian Taxation Office,and Audit report No. 28, Administration of concessional loans programs: Department of Agriculture and Water Resources.
Ordered that the reports be made parliamentary papers.
Documents are presented as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members. Details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.
On indulgence: Mr Speaker it is perhaps not known as broadly in the community as it should be that you are visiting electorates in order to visit schools to promote the parliament and to promote the important role that democracy plays. I was very grateful to welcome you to Birchgrove Public School newly in my electorate, now currently in the electorate of the member for Sydney, last Thursday to address years 5 and 6. I think it is a very good thing indeed that you are using your role as Speaker to promote the parliament to young people not just when they are here but outside. On behalf of not just me but I am sure all members of this House, we thank you for the constructive role that you have played and the way that you have brought dignity to that office here and outside. Thank you.
Before question time, I was speaking on the importance of considering the equity measures contained within this bill, which adjusts the threshold—the point at which the Medicare rebate cuts in—against the inequitous measures that have been visited upon Australian people as a result of this government's attacks on the Medicare rebates for pathology and the attacks that this government has made in relation to the Child Dental Benefits Schedule.
Despite what the minister said during question time, the fact is that this government is slashing $1 billion out of dental care—that is right, $1 billion from dental care—in this country. It is a figure which has been confirmed by the minister herself. On ABC News online on 23 April, a spokesman for Ms Ley confirmed the $1 billion cut. The government is abolishing Labor's Medicare based dental scheme for children under the age of 18. It is a surprise to all of us on this side of the House that we have not seen members on that side of the House come up and apologise for the cuts and the problems that are being visited by their government upon people within their electorates.
I have been looking at the figures. During question time today, the minister said that a million children—that is right, a million children—have enjoyed the benefits of Labor's child benefits scheme and a million children will no longer have the benefits of that scheme because the government has closed it down. I have had a look around the country to see where children are who have been relying on this means tested, tightly targeted scheme, which is benefiting kids, many of whom would probably have never been to a dentist before in their life. I looked at the postcode of 2250, a postcode which takes in the members for both Robertson and Dobell. I found that 31,309 children have accessed the child dental benefits scheme over the years of its existence within the electorates of both Robertson and Dobell. I am not surprised that we have not seen the members for either Robertson or Dobell come into this House and say anything about the operation of this scheme, because what we know is that in closing down the child dental benefits scheme somewhere in order of 31,000 children are going to be forced to join the public dental scheme—a scheme which has at the moment somewhere in the order of 12,000 children already waiting in New South Wales to access public dental care.
I looked at the figures for postcode 2259, which falls exclusively within the electorate of the member for Dobell, and 29,657 dental services have been accessed over the life of the scheme. The member for Dobell has not had a peep to say about her government closing down the scheme. All I can say to the electorate of Dobell is that it is a good job that we have a great candidate in the form of Emma McBride, who is campaigning very tough and very hard in that seat to ensure that she becomes the next member for Dobell. I am confident that Emma McBride has the interests of those 29,000 children who have been accessing the child dental benefits scheme, in heart as she approaches the task of the election campaign.
In the electorate of Page, where there are around 28,500 children who have accessed the child dental benefits scheme, I went looking around to see whether the current member for Page has had anything to say about this. He has had absolutely nothing to say about the fact that his government has closed down the scheme. This is a surprise, because if you think of the impact of the closing down of the child dental benefits scheme will have, it is going to fall more harshly upon people in regional Australia than anywhere else. It is in regional Australia where Labor's scheme, which provided up to $1,000 over a two-year period to have access to the services of a private dentist—it is precisely in regional Australia where these services are needed the most, because it is a lot harder for people in these areas to be accessing the public schemes, which are so heavily oversubscribed.
It is a good job that we have a great candidate in the form of Janelle Saffin, who knows the electorate well. She is a fierce campaigner of regional Australia and regional health who will be standing up for children in that electorate as well. The member for Gilmore had a bit to say before question time about the benefits that the government's new scheme was going to have for people in her electorate. She said that it was going to be a huge help for people in the electorate of Gilmore. If this is a huge help, I would hate to see what it would be if there were a problem for the people of New South Wales and Gilmore.
As I said prior to question time, the waiting lists in New South Wales are so long and so great that Premier Mike Baird has refused to even issue average waiting times. In every other state around Australia there are waiting times published, by the public dental scheme, so that people know when they enrol or when they make an appointment how long it will be before they have access to that public scheme. With over 116,000 adults—that is, adults alone—and 12,000 children on the list, in New South Wales, those in the member for Gilmore's electorate are going to be behind a lot of people in a very long queue before they have access to the public scheme.
You have $1 billion worth of cuts, you have the scheme opened up to everybody, you have got over 116,000 adults and 12,000 kids on the scheme in New South Wales, and the member for Gilmore thinks that this is absolutely beaut. It is a good thing that we have a great candidate in Fiona Phillips, who is down there in Gilmore, putting the health interests of people in regional Australia first.
There you have it. You have a government that introduces measures, which adjust the threshold at which the Medicare rebate kicks in—a provision which Labor supports. We support it wholeheartedly, but it has to be viewed against all of these other egregious changes that have been made from the GP tax proposals, the GP tax by stealth, the changes to pathology bulk-billing and the changes to the child dental benefits scheme. We are well and truly in a deficit when it comes to health and health care under this government.
In summing up today, firstly, I would like to thank those members who have contributed to this debate. The Tax and Superannuation Laws Amendment (Medicare Levy and Medicare Levy Surcharge) Bill 2016 amends the Medicare Levy Act 1986 to increase the Medicare levy low-income thresholds for singles, families, seniors and pensioners in line with increases in the consumer price index. Full details of the measures in this bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum. I commend this bill to House.
Question agreed to.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
by leave—I move:
That the proceedings on the following bills, which lapsed on 15 April 2016, be resumed immediately at the point where they were interrupted:
Tax Laws Amendment (Tax Incentives for Innovation) Bill 2016;
Financial System Legislation Amendment (Resilience and Collateral Protection) Bill 2016;
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment Bill 2016;
National Disability Insurance Scheme Savings Fund Special Account Bill 2016; and
Omnibus Repeal Day (Autumn 2015) Bill 2015.
Question agreed to.
Labor welcomes the opportunity to make a contribution to this debate on the Tax Laws Amendment (Tax Incentives for Innovation) Bill 2016. It is an important contribution. Both sides of politics recognise that changes in this area are required and need to be made for a number of very important reasons. We welcome the opportunity also to add comment to the types of things that are being sought to be achieved through this bill.
Labor certainly recognises that jobs of the future will be generated by today's investment in smart, innovative Australian enterprises. With an estimated two out of every three Australian jobs expected to be impacted upon by automation between now and 2030 the challenge is definitely on to create new jobs. That challenge is serious and demands a serious policy response by government. On our side of the chamber, through the release of three waves of innovation policy Labor has proposed a very comprehensive framework of measures designed to encourage the emergence of new, innovative companies in Australia. These policies include: teaching young Australians coding and the value of computational thinking; boosting the numbers of STEM graduates and qualified STEM teachers; creating a start-up university to help launch 2,000 new enterprises every year; providing a $500 million smart investment fund to back new ideas; and establishing a regional innovation fund to encourage talent in our regions to be actively involved in the nation's efforts to become a smarter, richer country. Importantly, Labor has also proposed changes to our taxation system and the rules applying to venture capital in this country, to help ensure money is there to nurture and develop good ideas and to transform them into strong new firms generating jobs of the future.
Why in particular are the types of things that are being encouraged by this bill, and also what the opposition has put forward, important? They are important for a number of reasons. Firstly, and primarily, start-ups typically find it more difficult to access capital than their larger commercial counterparts. This is mainly because of a lack of prior financial history, limited supporting collateral and, ultimately, their risk profile. They are engaged in early-stage innovation, which by its very nature has a greater degree of risk and is something that some financial institutions will not necessarily embrace by extending capital to those types of innovations and to that type of activity at that point and at that stage in their life cycle. It is hard to find that amount of support.
Strengthening capital flows within this ecosystem will deliver substantial support to early-stage innovation. The two major sources of support at this point are, first, angel investment—that is, high net worth individuals on incomes largely around the $250,000 per annum mark who are willing to dedicate some investment towards early-stage innovation companies—and then, later down the track, you will have venture capital enter the field to also support investment through series A and further investment rounds. However, we have not necessarily had the best track record in this space.
We have had a number of communities support early-stage innovation in this country. For example, I note the important role of people in groups such as Brisbane Angels, Sydney Angels and Melbourne Angels, who I have drawn on for their ideas about what needs to be done in this space. I want to thank them on the public record for their assistance, in particular for at an early point bringing me up to speed on the complexities within this space. There are also groups like Scale Investors, which brings together investors and female entrepreneurs to try to boost the level of female entrepreneurship in this country. That is a major challenge which does need to be addressed a lot more vigorously, and I congratulate them and the other angel investors who, quite frankly, have been willing to put their hands into their own pockets to support early-stage investment and innovation without the need for a tax incentive.
While we are very supportive of the types of arrangements that are being put forward in this bill, it is important to place on the public record our gratitude for the investment that angel investors in past years have been willing to direct to early-stage innovation in this country. I certainly think that that is important for us to recognise in this place. We now seek to boost this through these types of arrangements. And to boost it the challenge is real. Angel investors, for example, in 40 deals in 2012 directed about $21 million. We have to do more to lift that figure. It is great that people have been willing to do that, but we need to find a way to unlock capital to ensure that new enterprises emerge and that they create the jobs that Australians will require in the years ahead.
In relation to what is happening in other parts of the world: the UK government, for example, introduced the Seed Enterprise Investment Scheme in 2012 and that recognised in that jurisdiction there were particular difficulties which early stage companies faced in attracting capital. They have had a degree of success. In fact, so much so that both sides of politics in this country have watched very closely the framework that was put in place in the UK and you can see the way it has influenced our respective policy responses. The official United Kingdom HM Revenue and Customs statistics show, for example, that in 2013-14 alone almost 2,000 companies received investment through the Seed Enterprise Investment Scheme, with around 164 million pounds in funds raised for early stage start-ups. Some of the reports that have looked into the success of this scheme in the UK angel market found that promoting angel investing through, for example, Deloittes work promoting angel investing as an asset class with substantial tax benefits is regarded as an important factor to attract new angel investments into the market.
Further, they noted that many angels that they had interviewed had said that they would not have invested in their seed deals without that level of support. It is the type of support that we are trying to encourage in this country. Both sides of politics focused on this, though, admittedly, there are some variations in the way in which we would approach it. But that support in the UK is paying off. For example, when you look at the statistics, nearly 3,000 start-ups received support through that scheme. You cannot for a moment ignore what that would have done in boosting the chances of those enterprises going on to be larger concerns, generating jobs and also making a difference in that UK start-up ecosystem. We certainly see that there is importance in doing that.
On our side of the political fence, we also argued for reforms to the early stage venture capital limited partnerships. We note that this legislation will make some changes in this space. We certainly believe that venture capital funds of between $10 million and $100 million invested in Australian businesses are entitled to preferential tax treatment through the ESVCPL program and that entitles a fund to flow-through tax treatment and its investors to receive a complete tax exemption on their share of the funds income, both revenue and capital. We outlined further changes that we believed could be embraced to promote this. We note that this will be an area that we will continue to focus on should we be granted the opportunity to gain government.
We welcome the fact that the government's announced policies via this bill reflect, in large part, the ideas that we spelt out in November last year, in particular to introduce an Australian angel investment scheme and liberalise the early stage venture capital limited partnership framework. In relation to the angel investment scheme, we argued for an up-front 50 per cent tax deduction for investments up to a maximum of $200,000 per annum. We also advocated: a carry-back tax relief mechanism if investors do not reach the maximum $200,000 cap in any particular year, full capital gains tax exemptions for equity held in start-up ventures held for greater than three years, any realised losses following in the scheme could be deducted against wage and salary income, and deferral of capital gains tax on investment if that investor directs a prior capital gain into a new start-up venture to help keep rolling investment and building support in the sector. We want to see support flow through to early stage innovators as quickly as possible and, considering the time remaining in the parliamentary term, the opposition will largely support this bill.
However, we wish to indicate our intention to review some key elements of the bill if we are successful in winning government and we would indicate one area where we believe that both parties could actually work constructively to benefit the start-up community today. The key elements of the government's legislation, Tax Laws Amendment (Tax Incentives for Innovation) Bill 2016, are: tax incentives providing a 20 per cent carry-forward non-refundable offset on investments which will be capped at $200,000 per year, and a 10-year exemption on capital gains tax for investments held in the form of shares in early stage innovation companies, as they will be defined, for at least 12 months, provided the shares held do not constitute more than a 30 per cent interest in an innovation company.
An early stage innovation company, or ESIC, is defined: as an Australian- incorporated company that is in the early stage of its development and developing new or significantly improved innovations with the purpose of commercialisation. The tax offset will be available upon investment, not when the funds are used by the innovation company, and any sale of the shares will be taxed on a 'deemed capital account' basis. A regulation-making power is also included so that measures can be updated as required, which is an important flexibility mechanism. A number of new arrangements to Venture Capital Limited Partnerships and Early Stage Venture Capital Limited Partnerships are being introduced, notably: a non-refundable tax offset of 10 per cent of the value of new capital invested into Early Stage Venture Capital Limited Partnerships during the income year, an increase in the maximum fund size of Early Stage Venture Capital Limited Partnerships from $100 million to $200 million, improved access to funding from managed investment trusts, and broadened and simplified rules for both Venture Capital Limited Partnerships and ESVCLPs. The tax incentives introduced by the bill will be available to all types of investors.
However, considering the high level of risk associated with investment in ESICs, this bill limits the risk exposure of retail investors to no more than $50,000 per year and sophisticated investors will have no restriction placed on the amount of money they wish to invest, bearing in mind that an offset cap will be applied. Once the bill receives royal assent, the incentives will apply to the 2016-17 income year and the government intends to review the incentives after a period of four years to determine how well they are delivering on policy objectives, which we welcome wholeheartedly.
What is good about this bill? The government has applied a principles based and objectives based test to help determine the legitimacy of a company styling itself as an early stage innovation company—that is a good thing. This will attempt to better target the concessions towards genuine innovation companies and should be welcomed in principle. These measures are reinforced via the application of general anti-avoidance rules, which will apply to prevent taxpayers from being able to obtain tax benefits by entering into artificial or contrived arrangements to access the tax offset. That is another important mechanism, which obviously received support from our side. It has been a longstanding provision and it is an important mechanism in there.
There are some elements of the bill that we consider warrant further consideration down the track. First—and we flagged this to the government—it appears that start-up founders will be prohibited from accessing the tax concessions provided for in the bill. This does seem a little harsh insofar as start-up founders often dig deep into their own pockets to invest in those companies. They do so at great risk and they also sacrifice a great deal in the process. We would certainly be open to reviewing this down the track, to see whether or not this constraint is liberalised.
It has been pointed out that these start-ups can, through their founders, access the support that comes through the R&D tax offset, for instance. A lot of companies and a lot of start-ups indicate that they are very much in favour of the R&D tax concession system. In some cases, start-ups have said to me that it is the defining point as to whether they will stay in Australia or move overseas. If we have that system in place, that is a good thing. Having said that, while the R&D tax offset is very important, we certainly think that consideration should be given to extending that benefit down the track to start-up founders, who, as I said earlier, sacrifice a great deal and are doing important work for the nation's economy. We commit to reviewing this oversight after the bill takes effect.
While overlooking the inclusion of start-up founders and directors in receiving this tax benefit, the bill seeks to improve the targeting and identification of suitable investors—that is, that they are investing in the right type of company in order to qualify tax incentives. The issue with the current structure is that the bill places the onus of reporting primarily on innovating companies themselves and their reporting to the ATO will help later validate the tax offset claim.
Secondly, while prohibiting founders from accessing the concessions, the bill allows trusts and companies to access the benefits. As I indicated earlier, the opposition and the government both modelled their taxation reforms in this area largely on the system that operates in the United Kingdom. This scheme has seen, as I indicated earlier, new enterprises and jobs created. Unlike the UK scheme, which expressly prevents trusts and companies from accessing similar taxation concessions, the coalition will allow trusts and companies to take advantage of these liberalised arrangements. While the specific arrangements in the bill aim to improve tax benefits to investors who make genuine investment in early stage innovating companies, including trusts and companies, this means that minor innovations or practices that do not represent actual innovations—like a company introducing a new product in Australia that is already being sold elsewhere—will not be eligible for tax incentives. While we will not oppose the arrangement allowing trusts and companies to access the tax benefits at the moment, we will leave open the option of reviewing this measure in due course. But we will only make any changes pending the outcome of such review after extensive stakeholder consultations.
Thirdly, under the federal opposition's policies we will not cap the capital gains tax exemption for innovation investors to 10 years, which is what the government proposes in this bill. We take this position because development and commercialisation of ideas takes time. Sometimes start-ups will start on one course with one idea and then pivot to something else, and their development process does take time. That is why our policy will not impose a 10-year cap in the way that the government has. We believe that any capital gains that are immediately directed into new ventures should remain capital gains tax free and that this will help build innovation momentum in this country. Again, we will review the government's legislation in this area in due course.
Finally, Labor note that when the government made the announcement on these types of incentives in the release of its National Innovation and Science Agenda back in early December they did two things. One is that, in the venture capital space, they said that the arrangements announced by this bill would take effect from 7 December, yet on the angel investment side the measures that are being put in place do not take effect until 1 July. As people in the start-up community have pointed out, the unintended consequence of this is that it created an investment hiatus where some potential angel investors would hold off investing in new start-ups or extending angel investment until the new arrangements take effect on 1 July. Some people have dubbed this an 'investor strike'. In late March, we raised our concerns about this. In late March we publicly committed to work with the government on bringing forward the start date of these measures to, at that time, 1 April. The government, frankly, ignored the offer. It is hard to believe that they could see much needed capital being held back from start-ups today in the interests of meeting an artificial, self-imposed start date.
The delay of investment decisions is a real problem and a lot of people have said that it gives them concern—there have been people on public record that have expressed their concern. Some will be very careful about the way that they couch those concerns, because they clearly do not want to be seen as waiting for a tax incentive before making an investment decision, but the reality is just that—that some investors will wait. Given the low level of angel investment in this country relative to other countries—for instance, the $21 million I focused on from 2012—it is important for us to get this moving much quicker, to raise awareness, get new investors in and have that money flow through.
There are people working to help boost angel investment in this space. I note that that last year, for example, KPMG released a very important guide on educating angel investors on the best way to direct their investment to ensure that enterprises and investors understand the process well, and, through that, to encourage more people to put the money into early-stage innovation in this country. There are people there trying to do the work, yet the government, for reasons best known to itself, decided that it would not bring forward the start date. Even though we extended to them the offer and we made that statement publicly, they did not come back to us to work with us on this.
A lot of people, particularly in the start-up space, laud the bipartisanship of both sides of politics on this. I would say in relation to that that bipartisanship would entail collaboration, active engagement and a preparedness to accept ideas on both sides of the fence. Bipartisanship in the eyes of the coalition is that it makes an announcement and expects us to just support it blindly. That is not bipartisanship. It is basically forcing one side of politics to accept that the other side is completely infallible and that it has got its system right. We have seen the way the government have got that system right on equity crowdfunding! We have worked closely—and I do welcome that there has been a commitment to work closer on that particular bill—but again the government makes these announcements and has these things set within the arrangements and then will not accept ideas to work collaboratively to address them.
If you think it is an important policy objective to get more angel investors in, why would you set an arbitrary deadline that will not get more investors in sooner? The government can explain to the start-up community why it believes that it could not have aligned the angel investment start date to the venture capital start date of 7 December. It makes no sense. We will be interested to see in the summing-up report by the government why they did that in that way.
We are certainly happy to support large parts of this legislation. We think it is important to get more money in. We think it is important to encourage angel investors and also those in the venture capital industry who do believe in the inherent talent that exists in this country. We need to see more money go into this space. We do not have a great track record when it comes to venture capital. Compare, for instance, the level of venture capital in this country to the US. Some will say you have to be careful about making these comparisons because of the maturity of the venture capital market in the US, but it gives you a sense of what we have to aim for. Venture capital investment as a percentage of GDP is less than 0.025 per cent. In the US it is greater than 10 times this. Obviously the markets are different and it is not always neat to compare the two but it does give you an indication of the gulf. So we do need to do more.
There is another area where I think we need to do more. In the interim while these arrangements take effect we need to work with other mature venture capital markets to raise awareness of the potential that exists in this country for venture capital. If any trade mission to the US does not include talking with US based venture capital firms to build investment bridges between the two countries, it would be an absolute waste of time for that trade mission. They should ensure we take every single opportunity we can to strengthen investment flows into Australia. There are some funds that are seeking to do this. I note that Signal Ventures, through Niel Robertson and Atlanta Daniel, for example, recently announced a deal that would bring US investors and Australian investors together, not only bringing capital but bringing expertise. These are the types of initiatives that will help in the longer term. We hope, ultimately, to work with the government on these things. It is important for the country and it is important to generate the jobs of the future.
I rise to speak on the Tax Laws Amendment (Tax Incentives for Innovation) Bill 2016. I note the comments of the member for Chifley. As I have done in person, I congratulate him on his performance on Q&A a number of weeks ago, along with Assistant Minister Roy, a panel of angel investors and the chap from the University of Sydney involved in quantum computing—I cannot remember his name. It was an extraordinary episode of that program. As I mentioned to the member for Chifley a few weeks ago, I thought it was very constructive and cooperative. It showed what can be achieved with bipartisanship.
I take the comments that the member has made in the spirit in which they were intended because this is very important for our country. Of course it is about innovation. In many respects, whilst we are focusing in this bill on start-ups and the new economy in terms of IT, technology and other things, this nation has a very proud history of being innovative in a whole range of areas. We have had to be innovators by virtue of our geography. In agriculture we have had to be innovators because farming in a country like Australia is not always easy, as you well understand, Mr Deputy Speaker Scott.
I note last week in my home state of Tasmania the investment of taxpayers' money in a monitoring program has attracted additional funds from Bosch Ltd—obviously, a corporate entity. The program is called The Yield, which is about sensors put in fish farms, aquaculture and agricultural settings. Indeed, the catalyst that was provided in this case by taxpayers has now seen additional funding come from a corporate investor.
I note the member's comments in respect of angel investors. He talked about an investor strike. The fact of it is that no investor seeing a good idea in front of them would delay that investment. The notion that a tax deduction or a tax incentive would be justification for not putting money into a good project, an investment that has merit, I think really would not stand up to scrutiny. Indeed, if the investment is good enough the money will flow.
This is very much part of this government's overall plan to transition the Australian economy from the mining industry—itself a very innovative area. Through the construction phase of the mining sector and the jobs it created this country prospered very much. Australia is a leader in innovation within the mining sector. We export that knowledge and those services all around the world to this day and will continue to do that. We have been a global leader for many years in these areas, but our economy is transitioning. The construction phase of the mining sector has pulled back, and we are now into a production phase. The jobs are different jobs. That is why it is very important that as a government we are seeing and are investing in a whole range of measures that will see the Australian economy transition.
Not least of all of those is the Innovation and Science Agenda, which is designed to help develop the skills that are going to be increasingly required for the jobs of the future, for my children and my grandchildren. It is also about supporting great Australian ideas and bringing those ideas to market. This country has a very proud history in R&D, but our track record within the OECD is not such an impressive one in commercialising those initiatives and bringing to market that R&D, which is often some of the best in the world. Perhaps that will change following the investment and announcements we have seen this week in relation to the defence industry plan, which will allow so many small and medium businesses to participate in a very significant investment in very smart and high-tech jobs that will be a support to the Australian economy for many years to come.
We are supporting small businesses, which of course also means we are supporting micro businesses in the area that we are discussing today. The competition law changes that we have seen in response to the Harper review over recent weeks, particularly in respect of section 46 on the misuse of market power and the introduction of an effects test, are showing this government's commitment to small business, to innovation and to encouraging that part of the economy that is so important in driving and encouraging investment within so many aspects of the Australian economy, including the IT and start-up sectors.
There are opportunities through the free trade agreements also. We will see increasingly opportunities for what we hope will be start ups that become businesses that can attract further investment, be it from overseas or otherwise, and export the products and services that they create.
I am a member of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Education and Employment, chaired by the member for Bowman, Andrew Laming. We are in the middle of a very, very substantial public inquiry into innovation and creativity. We have had a number of submissions and have had public hearings here in Canberra. On Tuesday of last week I was in Melbourne for a public hearing for the inquiry. We have had over 75 written submissions to the committee so far. The inquiry is demonstrating the complexity of this whole space but also the interest that exists within a wide range of people, from business, through academia and vocational education and training, to angel investors and venture capitalists, who see opportunities for greater success within this area. It is a big piece of work that we have undertaken. I thank Richard and his team within the secretariat of the committee for collating the many, many submissions we have had thus far and for organising the public hearings we have had. Last week, as I say, we were in Melbourne, but the following day there were hearings in Sydney and in Brisbane.
We have a proud record of innovation and creativity, but we have challenges in respect of being able to commercialise those. One of the areas that are covered by the National Innovation and Science Agenda is the many smart young Australians who have been forced or have chosen to travel overseas to look for the greater opportunities that they believed have been available to them, particularly in the United States—in California and San Francisco, and Silicon Valley specifically—but also in other parts of the world. I think there is opportunity being created through the establishment of landing pads, whether they be in Silicon Valley or in Israel, most likely in Asia, but I think there is also opportunity to support some of those Australians who have left—and potentially international people—but who would want to come back to Australia. The opportunity to see a landing pad located here in Australia would support the objective that I think all of us in this place, not least the member for Chifley, who spoke earlier, have of unlocking the capital that is available and is looking for a place. I note that one of the real success stories in Silicon Valley is Sam Chandler. While he is a bit younger than me, he did go to the same school as me—I do not know what that says. He is a Tasmanian and we are very, very proud of the work that he is doing in Silicon Valley. We would also be looking for ways that we can attract people of his calibre to our country to support innovation and attract other people to the knowledge that he has gained in the time that he has been overseas.
These are dynamic people, and I again refer to some of the submissions and presentations that we have had throughout our committee hearing process. They are very dynamic and innovative people. It is quite extraordinary to see young people with a drive and an energy that is truly inspiring.
We have some challenges within our educational institutions. Some of the training that we are providing is not allowing these start-up companies to bring people in. While on paper they have those skills, what is happening is that those skills are not the relevant skills that many of these start-up businesses require, particularly around the IT space. We have a lot of work to do within our institutions to make sure that the things that they are learning and the courses that we are offering in this space are in line with the very fast moving changes that are occurring within these start-up businesses. The skills that they need in terms of coding are things that we can start teaching at an earlier age to our primary and high school students. These are skills that are going to be needed.
The bill before the House today and the measures announced in the 2015-16 Mid-Year Economic Fiscal Outlook are all based around the National Innovation and Science Agenda. The complementary tax incentive measures are designed to align the tax system and business laws to encourage that transition that is occurring within our economy from the production phase of the mining industry into a new economy that needs to be more diversified and a base that is based around entrepreneurship and fostering a culture of innovation.
A number of measures that the government has put in place have been tailored to innovation companies as they increase in size, value and the level of their financial activity. For example, schedule 1 of this bill gives effect to tax incentives for early stage investors. This measure provides concessional tax treatment to investment in innovative, high-growth potential start-ups through a 20 per cent carry forward, non-refundable offset on investments and capped initially at $200,000 per year. There is also a 10-year exemption on capital gains tax for investments held in the form of shares in the early stage innovation company for at least 12 months, provided that the shares held do not constitute more than 30 per cent interest in the innovation company. Indeed these are very important measures for being able to attract the right sort of staff with capacity in these areas, along with other incentives that we have made in terms of employee share schemes. These are the sorts of things that will allow start-up businesses to have the best chance of success to be able to convince angel investors and venture capitalists that there is an opportunity and a worthwhile investment to make in a fledgling business.
In respect of section 360-40, there is a list of early stage innovation companies. It is a very technical piece of legislation in respect of who qualifies and who does not. I again take note of the comments made by the member for Chifley, in terms of the support that those opposite are showing for this bill. I note, and I take them in the way that they were intended, some of the additions or modifications that those opposite believe should occur. Through our submission, through the employment and education committee as well, a number of the start-up companies that made representations also looked at the timing in terms of where a company is recognised and at what point it was considered, and, therefore, they might be eligible for such tax concessions. These are things I think that we can work on together, in a bipartisan way, over the coming months and years to make sure that we can create in this country a place where there is a culture of innovation, and foster the investment that needs to flow into the sector.
It is truly a pleasure to be able to step up and support this bill. It represents a considerable path forward for Australia in coming to terms with innovation. But first, I will respond to one of the comments that was made by the previous speaker, the member for Lyons. The member for Chifley pointed out that one of our concerns about this bill is the fact that we are delaying the start date for this bill, and that this was having an impact on the sector to the extent of what one might call 'a capital strike'. The previous speaker, the member for Lyons, has suggested that that was a nonsensical idea, that no-one would not invest in a good project simply for the tax incentive. That is really quite a nonsensical statement. The very fact that we have this legislation here, which is providing an attractive tax framework for angel investors, says that these incentives are in fact useful and worthwhile and will aid companies coming to the fore.
I want to indicate my support for the comments that were made by the member for Chifley in this regard. I think it is unfortunate that the introduction and start date for this particular package has been delayed, because that is having the impact of slowing down the investment as people quite understandably await for the new arrangements to be in place in order for them to have a tax effective investment.
Speaking more generally, the need for a whole raft of legislation, government response and policy in this area cannot be underestimated. We rank very poorly in the OECD. When you look at the overall innovation, we come up reasonably well, but, when you unpack it, you see that we do well particularly in the inputs and we do far less well in the outputs. In terms of some of the basics of education and university research, we are doing reasonably well, but that is not translating into the production of innovative enterprises. We are not taking those necessary parts of the cycle, where we are educating and skilling up our people and doing research in academic institutions or other research bodies, and turning them into viable business opportunities that will create jobs and economic opportunity in this country. Clearly, 'business as usual' is not the path forward.
What we have in the bill here before us today, a package of tax incentives for angel investors, is an important part of the process but certainly not the only response that we need. Investment in research and in early-stage commercialisation of that research by government entities is very, very important. Indeed, there are some commentators in this area that suggest that that might even be a more effective way of promoting innovation than spend money on tax incentives. I think it is very interesting to look at ARENA, the Australian Renewable Energy Agency, and just how effective they have been in fostering innovation in the renewable energy space. Their approach of focusing on early commercialisation, helping companies through the 'valley of death', as it is called, has been producing some quite spectacular results. As I say, this bill is an important measure, but it is part of a suite of measures that we need in order to move forward.
Part of what I think we need to do too is to support initiatives that bring innovative start-ups together with large enterprises—which, because of the very nature of their structure, the need to protect their reputation and the rather bureaucratic structures they have, are not always the best places for fostering a culture of innovation. As we have seen happen very extensively in Europe, when these very large companies get together and collaborate with those in the start-up innovation space, you get some pretty dynamic results. I have been asked to speak for a bit longer here, to keep this going, but it is a pleasure to do so because I think there is some really important, exciting stuff happening.
In Perth we recently had an event called the Unearthed Perth Hackathon 2016. The Perth hackathon has now been in place for a couple of years. It is where the collaborative workspace group Spacecubed, led very ably by Brodie McCulloch, get companies in our resources sector to frame a problem or an issue that they have and then teams working in competition with each other come up with solutions to that particular technical problem. At one of the first hackathons, a very successful project involved Rio Tinto's problem of very large rocks coming into the crusher. The train would come in, and, if there was a very large rock in the mix, they would often have to shut down the crusher for quite some time while they went in manually and found this very large rock and got it out so operations could resume—a very costly issue for such companies, particularly as they want to speed their stuff through and given, as we know, the margins on iron ore are nowhere near what they used to be. At this hackathon, the winning team had noticed that, when there was a large rock in the train, the train vibrated differently. So they were actually able to predict when there was a large rock in the train before it went into the crusher. Work is continuing now on that idea.
At the hackathon that was held earlier this month—another great success—one of the big issues that they were trying to deal with was put to them by Woodside, about how you maximise deck space on oil and gas vessels and how you maximise scheduling. Some great, sophisticated algorithms have been developed by the teams that were competing.
I think that sort of activity, where large companies work with companies that are more flexible, nimble and agile because they lie outside those big corporate structures, is a great way forward, and I want to compliment the Unearthed mob in Perth on doing such a good job in bringing this together.
I am very pleased to say that my very good friend the member for Chifley and I went out to see the premises of FLUX, the latest collaborative workplace that is being developed in Perth, and to see the new resources hub that will form part of that, right on St Georges Terrace, which will be under the able leadership of Kelly Turner. So some really fantastic stuff is going on, and, as I said, we need to have in place a whole suite of measures to encourage innovation.
I want to also acknowledge a submission that was made to the education committee in the last week of sitting, by Zoe Piper. Zoe is from Allaran and she has presented ideas to various parliamentary groups. The idea is to conduct a project similar to what Unearthed do in their hackathons with the resources sector, but with the public sector. Rather than government trying to come up with an answer to various problems, be it something like the Centrelink computer or one of the many other administrative problems and, often, failing spectacularly—rather than go out to contract for a predetermined solution to the problem—allow this level of engagement in the formulation of the solution to the problem. I thought it was a very interesting idea.
I would like, in the final few minutes I have here, to pick up some of the points that the member for Chifley made about what the true nature of a bipartisan approach might look like. It cannot simply be the government saying: 'This is our idea. We want you to agree with it,' and that is bipartisanship. The community, in general, is wanting us to do better on this. We have seen a great amount of goodwill, in this innovation area, across parliament and I compliment all of those who have been involved in the development of the various friends of innovation groups. But, particularly in this area, people are so over the adversarial style of politics that we are going to be in a very challenging and competitive environment, internationally. I would like to think that this is a space where we could start growing up a little bit as a parliament, moving beyond the adversarial structures that are inherent in this place, and devising a path forward where we truly have a committee system dealing with this, where we want to embrace the ideas of all sides or parts of parliament to forge our way forward.
There is great opportunity here. We have a whole new Zeitgeist, a whole new energy that is coming within our community around this space. People are wanting to get out there and create new ideas—not just pizza aps but really substantial innovation and new ways of thinking of things. That is what keeps this a very exciting space: the challenge of looking at a problem from a totally different perspective. That is going to be a challenge for this parliament. If we are to retain our relevance into the 21st century, I believe that the old adversarial structures on which we are absolutely predicated will need a great deal of reform. With that, I conclude my remarks.
I thank the member for Perth for a sterling effort.
Debate adjourned.
I ask leave of the House to make a ministerial statement relating to Anzac Day commemorations.
Leave granted.
I present a copy of my ministerial statement. I rise to update the House on the recent Anzac Day commemorations, both here and overseas. Anzac Day is a time for all Australians to remember the more than one million service men and women who have defended our country since Federation, and the over 102,700 who gave their lives for their country.
Across Australia, hundreds of commemorations mark the occasion and hundreds of thousands turned out at dawn services, marches and wreath-laying ceremonies. From the Australian War Memorial here in Canberra, to Yarloop in Western Australia, wherever they were and in whatever circumstances they were in, Australians remembered.
Anzac Day commemorations were held in many other locations of significance for Australians, including at Bomana and Isurava in Papua New Guinea, Sandakan in Malaysia and Hellfire Pass in Thailand. I was honoured to represent the Australian government in Gallipoli where I intended a number of important commemorations. On 24 April, the Turkish International Service, the French Memorial Service, the Commonwealth and Ireland service, and the 57th Regiment Memorial service all acknowledged the sacrifice of thousands of young men who lost their lives on the Gallipoli Peninsula.
We cannot forget that this time means as much to Turkey as it does to Australia and New Zealand. Visiting the battlefields and gravesites, the tangible loss of life—87,000 young Turkish men—is heartbreaking. It is remarkable that over 100 years later our countries have bonded as firm friends from this sacrifice. The welcome that is extended to visiting Australians and New Zealanders by the local Turkish community is akin to family. I would like to thank the Turkish people, and the Turkish government, for their ongoing assistance and hospitality to all Australians who visit Gallipoli to remember and commemorate.
On the afternoon of 24 April, I also laid a wreath at the Lone Pine Cemetery with the New Zealand Minister of Defence, Gerry Brownlee. This service is in addition to a formal commemorative service that will be held at Lone Pine on 6 August. It will provide Australians with the opportunity to pay their respects on the anniversary of the battle.
In the darkness of 25 April at Anzac Cove, over 1,200 Australians and New Zealanders gathered to mark the official commemoration of Anzac Day. This year's ceremonies marked the end of the centenary year of the Gallipoli Campaign and served as an opportunity to reflect on how that remarkable story ended as our focus turns to the Centenary of the Western Front.
Delivering the address on the behalf the Australian government, I reflected on the significance of the Gallipoli Campaign as the beginning of our Anzac story and where it has taken us. I told story of Lieutenant Duncan Chapman, an office worker from Maryborough in Queensland, as follows:
As a member of the 9th Battalion, Lieutenant Chapman was in the first wave of Australian forces sent to land at Gallipoli and one of the very first Anzacs to land. He wrote:
What a living Hell it was, too, and how I managed to go through it from 4 o’clock in the morning of Sunday, April 25th, to Wednesday, the 28th, under fire the whole time, without being hit, is a mystery to me.
Duncan was lucky enough to leave alive. Many others did not. Over 11,000 Australians and New Zealanders died in the eight-month-long ordeal that was the Gallipoli campaign.
However, thanks to the talents of Australian Lieutenant-Colonel Cyril Brudenell White, Duncan Chapman was not the only Anzac to leave alive. The evacuation of Gallipoli was an operation which saw more than 93,000 troops, 200 guns and over 5,000 animals leave the Anzac and Suvla sectors without incident. The remarkable story of the evacuation is often forgotten. It was an incredible feat of logistics. It was the equivalent of moving a city the size of Rockhampton in Queensland, Bunbury in Western Australia or Palmerston North in New Zealand from the Gallipoli peninsula without the enemy engaging. It is not often that a withdrawal is held up as a victory, but so much of the Anzac story is more than ordinary.
In Egypt, Duncan Chapman was present when General John Monash paraded the troops on the first Anzac Day in 1916. Even at the time, Monash knew the importance of those first soldiers who fought at Gallipoli to the coming Western Front campaign. In a letter home, Monash recorded that:
Every man who had served on Gallipoli wore a blue ribbon on the right breast, and every man who, in addition, had taken part in the historic landing on 25 April 1915, wore a red ribbon also … Alas how few of us are left who were entitled to wear both.
Promoted to major, Duncan Chapman sailed from Egypt to France with the newly raised 45th Battalion and entered the massive theatre of warfare on the Western Front. On 6 August 1916, German shellfire killed Duncan Chapman at the battle of Pozieres. He was 27. Less than three weeks after Duncan Chapman’s death, his father wrote to the Australian Minister for Defence:
It is a great blow to me in every way as he was my sole support. Still I gave him freely for the cause … still we are human and would almost grudge what we gave. My heart is not very strong being 73 years of age.
In a sad conclusion, Duncan’s father died soon after.
Duncan's story is part of our own commemorations which this year will see us remember the 300,000 Australians who served on the Western Front. It was a campaign where more than 46,000 lost their lives and some 18,000 were left with no known grave. This year represents the 100th anniversary of Australia's entry into the Western Front. It remains Australia's greatest commitment to a single theatre and our greatest loss of life. On Anzac Day at Villers-Bretonneux more than 3,000 Australians commemorated this service and sacrifice.
Further services will be held as each battle marks its centenary. These are battles such as the disastrous and abortive diversionary attack at Fromelles. It was there the Australian 5th Division suffered more than 5,000 casualties in little more than 24 hours. We will also mark the service of the 1st, 2nd and 4th divisions at Pozieres and Mouquet Farm where in six weeks they suffered 23,000 casualties. Over 7,000 of whom were killed in action or died of wounds, including the Anzac Duncan Chapman.
In remembering these centenaries this year we also commemorate Australia's involvement in other significant battles that have become part of the Anzac story. Earlier this month, I attended a service here in Canberra along with 25 veterans of the siege of Tobruk for its 75th anniversary. It was a siege that saw 3,800 Australians lose their lives and heroically defend the city months longer than expected. The 75th anniversary of the Greece and Crete campaign was also remembered this year. It may not be well known that in 1941 the defence of Greece was largely in the hands of the Australian and New Zealand forces.
Looking forward, this year is also the 50th anniversary of the Indonesian confrontation where 23 Australians died in a conflict largely hidden from public view. And 2016 marks the 50th anniversary of one of our most costly days in the Vietnam War, the Battle of Long Tan, when just over 100 Australian soldiers held off a force of almost 2,000 with the loss of 18 men.
One of the most important legacies that can come from the Anzac Centenary is our understanding as a society of our wartime history, particularly for younger Australians. I am pleased to note that there was no shortage of young Australians at the commemorations in Turkey. One significant way we are doing this is through The spirit of Anzac Centenary experience. The travelling exhibition showcases a collection of over 200 artefacts from the Australian War Memorial and will provide a unique opportunity for Australians to view the Anzac tradition. It provides a unique opportunity for people in cities and regional Australia to mark the most significant commemorative period in our nation's history by engaging with this story.
Almost 130,000 Australians have visited the exhibition, which is currently in Tamworth, with Toowoomba and Brisbane to follow. By the end of April 2017, The spirit of Anzac Centenary experience will have been staged in 23 locations around Australia. I encourage all members to promote this important exhibition to their constituents so that the Anzac story can be seen through this collection by as many people as possible.
Each year we remember the beginning of the story of Anzac at Gallipoli. But, while it began on those beaches, we cannot forget where it has taken us. The commemorative day of 25 April gives us as a country the opportunity to remember the value of that story, to honour the men and women who died for our freedoms and beliefs and to thank those men and women who currently serve. I am pleased to say that this Anzac Day Australians have shown in droves that we will continue to remember, to honour and to thank those who began this story as well as those who continue to keep it.
I rise to join my parliamentary colleagues to acknowledge the great debt of gratitude that our nation owes to our serving men and women, both past and present. In response to the ministerial statement today by the Minister for Veterans Affairs, the Hon. Dan Tehan MP, I thank him for the update on commemorations at home and abroad. I also offer my thanks to the Department of Veterans Affairs for their ongoing work on commemorations throughout this Centenary.
Each year on 25 April we pause as a nation to honour and remember all of those who served and died in all wars, conflicts and peacekeeping operations, as well as the contribution and suffering of all those men and women who have served. This year we commemorated 101 years since Australian troops stormed the beaches at Gallipoli and remembered all those who sacrificed their lives in World War I. Last year I had the honour of attending the Gallipoli dawn service. Surrounded by a sea of Australians and, indeed, New Zealanders at the place where thousands of young Australian, New Zealander and Turkish men died—it is an experience I will never forget.
This Anzac Day, I commemorated those lost men with my local community at the Darebin RSL dawn service at All Nations Park in Northcote. Every town in Australia has its own story and its own personal connection to the terrible events of the Gallipoli campaign and the First World War. I offer my sincere gratitude to the Darebin RSL and all local ex-service organisations who honour and renew that personal connection year on year, every year without fail. Whether at home where the journey began or in Gallipoli where the journey ended for far too many, the depth of our gratitude remains unchanged. These things are immutable, neither place nor scale nor time can diminish them.
The Anzac campaign will always hold a special place in our nation's consciousness. But for far too many, it was only the beginning of bitter story that traversed the blood soaked years of World War I. Landing on the beaches 101 years ago today, Arthur Seaforth Blackburn and Phillip Robin penetrated 1800 metres inland from Anzac Cove, further than any other Australian on that day. Phillip Robin died later that day, but for Arthur World War I had only just begun. After surviving the Gallipoli campaign and being promoted to second lieutenant, Arthur would go on to fight in a battle that saw the greatest loss of life in our nation's military history—the Battle of Pozieres.
In 2016 we commemorate the centenary of the Battle of Pozieres and the Battle of Fromelles, two battles that cut short the lives of tens of thousands of Australians. On 19 July 1916 the Australians attacked at Fromelles with disastrous results. The Australians suffered a shocking 5,500 casualties—their greatest loss in a single day. It was a harsh lesson about the scale and intensity of warfare on the Western Front. Four days later, Australians went into action on the Somme, attacking and capturing the village of Pozieres. The Battle of Pozieres saw Australia suffer its greatest loss in World War I and, indeed, of all of our conflicts with some 7,000 men killed and 16,000 wounded. Of those killed, the remains of 4,112 men were never found or able to be identified. These staggering losses accounted for some 12.9 per cent of all the Australians lost in World War I.
To put that into perspective, Deputy Speaker, when you look at the World War I Memorial Rolls in your electorate, you will find that one in eight of those men died at Pozieres. The battle lasted six weeks. Eighteen months after the conclusion of the Gallipoli campaign, many of the Australian veterans who had landed on the shores of Gallipoli and survived would then fight in the battle of Pozieres, and Arthur was one of them.
A small village in the Somme Valley in France, Pozieres was the scene of bitter and costly fighting for the 1st, 2nd and 4th Australian Divisions. Pozieres was overrun by the Australian 1st Division on 23 July 1916. Those soldiers then clung onto Pozieres, despite almost continuous German artillery fire and ferocious counter-attacks but they suffered heavily. By the time that force was relieved on 27 July, it had suffered 5,285 casualties. The Australian 2nd Division took over from the 1st and mounted two further attacks—the first, on 29 July, was a costly failure; the second, on 2 August, resulted in the seizure of further German positions. Again, the Australians suffered heavily from retaliatory bombardments. They were relieved on 6 August, having suffered an astonishing 6,848 casualties. The 4th Division was next into the line, and it defeated a major German counter-attack on 7 August, the final effort by the Germans to retake Pozieres.
Arthur was part of the 10th Australian Infantry Battalion and he led an attack to drive the enemy from a strong point, and made up approximately 370 yards. At just 23 years old, as a second lieutenant, he led an attack for which he received the highest award for acts of bravery in wartime, the Victoria Cross. Charles Bean said that Pozieres ridge was 'more densely sown with Australian sacrifice than any other place on earth'.
In the 99 years which have passed since the Battle of Pozieres, not once have we stopped as a nation to officially commemorate it. This year, as we continue to commemorate the Centenary of Anzac, let us remember Arthur and the Battle of Pozieres.
This year also marks the 50th anniversary of the Battle of Long Tan. On August 18, 1966 the Battle of Long Tan—perhaps the most famous battle for Australia in the Vietnam War—was fought primarily between Delta Company of the 6th Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment, supported by other Australian Task Force elements, and a force of up to 2500 from the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese Army. The Vietnam War took a heavy toll on our nation and an even heavier toll of those servicemen who were fortunate enough to return home. As ever, the Australian soldiers serving in Vietnam upheld the very high standards of the Anzac tradition and the Australian Defence Forces. They remained faithful to one another and their duty to the nation. We must repay that faithful service with our respect and ongoing gratitude.
I am pleased that this year there is to be a national commemorative event, paying tribute to those who served and those who sacrificed all during the Vietnam conflict. I also welcome the decision to repatriate those remaining Vietnam war dead from Terendak, whose families have requested they be brought home. In doing so, we right a half century of wrong.
I wish to make special mention of the efforts and advocacy of the coordinators of Operation—'Bring Them Home': Vietnam veteran Bob Shewring and former ADF member Luke Gosling, who have worked so hard to bring about that result.
Each Anzac Day we remember the staggering sacrifice of a young nation, and the quintessentially Australian values that found expression in the horrors of WWI's trenches: mateship, sacrifice, loyalty to one another, courage, that particular Australian larrikinism and humour, and our own brand of Aussie egalitarianism. This year I encourage all Australians to remember those who have embodied those values in conflicts and peacekeeping missions from France to Vietnam and in the Middle East even today. I thank the House.
I move:
That the House take note of the document.
Debate adjourned.
It gives me great pleasure this afternoon to speak on the Tax Laws Amendment (Tax Incentives for Innovation) Bill 2016. Over recent weeks, there has been a lot of debate and discussion about putting more money into education and hospitals and into roads. But what we really need to understand is that the only way we can truly do so is if we have an economy that is creating additional wealth. We in the government do not have any money or resources ourselves. The only way that we in government can get those dollars to put into all those social services—to pay for our pensions, to put more money into education and health and towards kids with disabilities—is to have an economy that is growing and creating wealth. The only way to do that is by having the economic settings that have incentives for risk-takers to go out there and start up new businesses, to experiment with new ideas and to look at their existing products and take them to new markets. That is what we have done with the free trade agreements. We need to remember that 98½ per cent of the world's economy lies beyond our shores.
Another way that we get innovation—the creation of new products and services—is by encouraging businesses, companies and individuals to go out and take that risk. The third way that we get innovation is to do the things that are currently being done in a more efficient manner. There would be hundreds of thousands of companies out there today, no matter what goods and services they supply, who would have thought: 'What are we doing? How can we do that in a more efficient way?' All of that takes experimentation and risk. We know that most of those experiments to get those new products, to break into those new markets and to work out a way of doing things more efficiently will fail—but there is nothing wrong with that. That is how the history of innovation has always been. All the great inventors did not just sit down and come up with one brilliant idea. For every brilliant idea, they would have had hundreds of ideas that failed.
Most successful entrepreneurs have had many ideas that have failed. In fact, when you look at the tech start-ups in Silicon Valley in the USA, you are not considered experienced unless you have had several companies or several ideas that have failed. That is the type of culture which we need to imbue our society with. We need to engrain it in our schools. We need to engrain this culture of entrepreneurialism and risk-taking, because, at the end of the day, that is the only way that we can get this economy to grow, that we can see jobs created, that we can see more wealth created and, ultimately, that we can give whoever is in power here the resources to fund all of the things that we so desperately want to fund. If we are going to encourage that entrepreneurial culture in our schools, we should be telling the stories of entrepreneurs and their successes, as well as the failures that they have had in the past.
On Friday of last week, I was most fortunate to be invited to an event to celebrate the 100th anniversary of the birth of the creator of the Lamborghini motor car, Ferruccio Lamborghini. His story is one that we should be telling in schools if we are going to encourage an innovative and entrepreneurial culture. Lamborghini, whose background was humble, was born in Italy on 28 April 1916. He survived the Second World War in Europe. He was captured by the British and made a prisoner of war. After the war, he was released. At the end of the Second World War, he noticed that the Americans had left behind an enormous quantity of used military equipment. They had simply dumped it, because it was too expensive for them to ship it back to the states. He saw this surplus, which was for all intents and purposes useless military equipment.
With his engineering background and his entrepreneurial skills, he realised that he could convert that excess military equipment into tractors and use it for agricultural production. So he got some of that old military equipment and converted it into a tractor to use on his farm. Other farmers saw how successful this was and they wanted the same thing. This greatly improved the productivity of his region. It created wealth and prosperity. He went on to build a factory called Lamborghini Tractors, and his tractors were exported throughout the world.
The story goes on. After being successful, he looked for another area to go into. That was in his love of motor cars. The famous story is that he bought a Ferrari for himself, but he thought that the Ferrari motor car was not good enough. He thought he could build a better car. It is said that when he went to Enzo Ferrari he sat down and explained the problems with this car. Enzo Ferrari famously brushed him off. He summed up Lamborghini. The quote attributed to him was him calling out, 'Hey Ferrari. Your cars are rubbish.' So he put his money where his mouth was. He set up a factory to build a car in competition with Ferrari, because he thought he could do it better. That was in 1963. Today, the Lamborghini motor car is one of the most famous and prestigious motor cars in the world. That is the type of story we need to be imbuing in our kids and teaching them at school, rather than some of the other rubbish that we have seen.
The specifics of this bill are simply aimed at encouraging greater start-ups and to encourage venture capitalists to put their money into Australian start-ups. We need that because in Australia we have a corporate tax rate of 30 per cent, and that makes us uncompetitive when we compare that internationally—one of the highest tax rates in the OECD. When we compare it with our near neighbours, across the ditch in New Zealand or in Singapore or in Hong Kong, where the corporate tax rate is 15 and 17 per cent, or even in the UK where they are lowering their corporate tax rate down to 20 per cent, our corporate tax rate at 30 per cent is uncompetitive. As the years go on, the gap between Australia's corporate tax rate and corporate tax rates in the rest of the world will continue to expand, and we are at risk of losing venture capitalists investing in Australia.
This particular bill provides a 20 per cent tax offset of up to $200,000 for investors who invest in what is called early-stage investment companies. There are a few limitations on what classifies an early-stage investment company: they must be less than three years old, they must have income for the current year of less than $200,000 and they must have incurred expenses of less than $1 million in the previous year. Providing that, someone who invest in those companies as a venture capitalist gets a 20 per cent tax offset, plus they get a 10-year exemption on capital gains tax if they keep those shares for 12 months or more. This is an important thing that we need to do.
It was pleasing that we heard support for this bill from the Labor Party. It was pleasing to hear the member for Chifley and the member for Perth come into this chamber and talk about the importance of entrepreneurship, start-up businesses and innovation. Although it is great to have their support on this bill, everything else that we have heard from the Labor Party today has been to the contrary. Everything that they are doing with their pernicious policies is damaging entrepreneurs. It is putting a 'disencouragement' to start-ups, and has an adverse effect.
Just look at negative gearing. You cannot have it both ways. If someone invests in an income-producing asset and they are getting a positive cash flow and they are getting a profit from that, that profit should be taxed, which is simply positive gearing. If that investment is losing money, they should be able to take that loss and offset it against other income. The plans to get rid of negative gearing mean that you cannot take the loss and offset it against other income. This becomes a disincentive for investment and a disincentive for innovation, yet this is exactly what we are seeing proposed.
Then, there is the other plan we hear of about changes and increases to the capital gains tax. This bill provides a 10-year exemption from capital gains tax to someone who holds their shares for 12 months in an eligible early-stage investment company. Yet we are seeing proposals from the Labor Party to increase capital gains tax by 50 per cent in this country, giving us one of the highest rates of capital gains tax anywhere in the world. I think one of the few places where the capital gains tax is higher than what is proposed by the Labor Party is Venezuela. And we have seen what has happened there.
If we are going to encourage start-up businesses in Australia we have to make sure we are giving them low-energy costs, because low-energy costs equal jobs. Low-energy costs encourage investment. But what we are seeing are pernicious policies, put up by the Labor Party, doing exactly the opposite, with their reintroduction of the carbon tax—call it an ETS or whatever you like—which will only push up electricity prices. That becomes a discouragement for investment and innovation in Australia.
We on this side of the chamber understand that the only way we can get more government resources into the education sector, into the health sector and into the disability sector is not through higher taxes or through putting greater penalties on people. Instead, it is to grow the size of the economic pie. It is to create more wealth. It is to free the hands of entrepreneurs in this country to give them the incentive to get out there and to have ago. That is exactly what this bill does.
I commend the Treasurer for his work in putting this bill together, for working with the start-up community and for giving those venture capitalists greater incentive to invest in Australia. Currently, there are many disincentives in this country. One is our high corporate tax rate. The other is the threat and the risk of the Labor Party of Australia ever coming to take these Treasury benches. That is the greatest risk that we have to this country. That is the greatest risk. Anyone who wants to risk their capital has that fear in the back of their mind—should the Labor Party ever sit again on this side of the chamber.
With that, this is a good bill. This bill will encourage entrepreneurs to invest and to take more risks to get more innovation and to grow the economic pie of this country. I commend it to the House.
It is a pleasure to follow my colleague the member for Hughes. This legislation, the Tax Laws Amendment (Tax Incentives for Innovation) Bill 2016, is about jobs for the future. It is about the 21st-century economy. It is about ensuring Australia is competitive on a global scale, and that we have a broad base from which to build our national wealth. The Australian economy is fundamentally strong and unemployment is relatively low. The surplus left by the previous coalition government shielded us from the worst effects of the global financial crisis. There is a sense, overall, that the nation is on the right track. But governments should not rest on their laurels—and this government will not.
The Turnbull government wants to ensure that the foundation stones for change are laid now and that the frameworks for business and industry to prosper into the future are put into place now. The successful transition of the Australian economy from the resources-led boom will be fuelled by innovation, investment in a more diverse range of industries and support for businesses to create more jobs. We have announced important building blocks in our economic plan to support this transition, including the innovation and science agenda, which will develop the skills required for the jobs of the future, bring more great Australian ideas to the market and support start-ups.
I see a very different Australia in the next few decades—one still reliant on our natural resources but also more attuned to the needs of the region and beyond. In the same way that the United States' economy has benefited from the genius that is Apple, Microsoft and so on, so too can Australia lead the world in innovation and technology. In the United States, one of the fascinating stories is the rise of Tesla Motors, in part due to its charismatic founder and CEO Elon Musk but also due to the drive for innovation that has been central to its development over the past decade and a half. Tesla first gained the public's interest following the release of the Tesla Roadster, the world's first fully electric sports car around 2008. It was the first electric vehicle to have a range in excess of 300 kilometres between charges, thanks to the innovative lithium battery cells. Between 2008 and 2012, it sold about two and half thousand models. But concurrently with that, in 2009, Tesla released the Model S all-electric sedan. By the end of last year, it had sold 100,000 models worldwide.
In March, the company unveiled the Tesla Model 3, the first vehicle aimed at the mass market. Within weeks, global reservations totalled around 350,000 units, representing a potential sales figure exceeding US$14 billion. For America, the success of Tesla Motors is not just defined by the advance orders. Tesla is one of the new economy industries that has been able to create jobs by the thousands. In December 2012, Tesla employed almost 3,000 staff. Three years later, that figure had increased to more than 13,000—a rise of more than 10,000 jobs in just over three years. Through the drive and determination of the Tesla team and its charismatic driving force of Elon Musk, Tesla has been able to create a low-emissions vehicle that is expected to one day be affordable to the average wage earner. The Model 3 is estimated to cost around $35,000 in US terms, which might still put it out of the reach of some Australian families just at the moment. But, through innovation and development, the organisation has been able to substantially reduce the cost of purchasing a low-emissions vehicle in the United States and elsewhere.
It has not all been smooth sailing with Tesla. There have been some legal issues around copyright and patents that have dragged the company through the courts. Then there was a particularly famous episode of Jeremy Clarkson's Top Gear in which the crew were filmed pushing a Tesla into the garage, presumably after its batteries had run out. But, overall, the company has defied the odds to deliver long-range electric vehicles, which have been promised for years but have, until recently, remained a pipeline dream.
This is what I referred to earlier when I mentioned Australia being more attuned to the needs of the region and beyond. With the many great minds we have at our universities and research institutes across the country, I have no doubt that one of the areas of innovation where Australian will lead the way will be in the development of sustainable technologies and green energies that will meet the demand in the Asia-Pacific region and in the Northern Hemisphere, as well. But, of course, the scope is endless. This legislation that we are discussing today will help facilitate innovation and smart thinking for years and decades to come in this country. In the process, it will mean new jobs, more export dollars and more investment.
So, on to the legislation. The two key headline items from this package of amendments were very appropriately, and I think accurately, summarised in the March edition of Tax Month. Their appraisal focused on the 20 per cent tax offset on investments of up to $200,000 in innovation and the 10-year capital gains tax exemption. The Tax Laws Amendment (Tax Incentives for Innovation) Bill 2016 was introduced into the House of Representatives by the Treasurer, Scott Morrison, in March. The bill proposed the following: early stage innovation company amendments to the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997, which are intended to encourage new investment in Australian early stage innovation companies with high growth potential by providing investors, who invest in such companies, with tax incentives.
These amendments form part of the tax incentive for early stage investors. Tax incentives to encourage innovation via these entities include a 20 per cent carry forward non-refundable offset on investment capped at $200,000 per year. The tax offset will be available upon investment, not when the funds are used by the innovation company. There will also be a 10-year exemption on capital gains tax for investments held in the form of shares in the innovation company for at least 12 months, provided that the shares held do not constitute more than 30 per cent interest in the innovation company and that any sale of the shares will be taxed on a deemed capital accounts basis.
To qualify for these incentives, the investments must be in an early stage investment company that is broadly unlisted, is less than three years old, has $220,000 or less assessable income in the previous year and has $1 million or less in total expenses in the previous year. There are no investment limits on sophisticated investors under section 708 of the Corporations Act 2001, except for the $220,000 investment limit for the tax offset. Other investors will have a $50,000 limit. These amendments will apply in relation to shares issued on or after 1 July 2016 or on royal assent.
The Early Stage Venture Capital Limited Partnership, otherwise known as the ESVCLP, and the Venture Capital Limited Partnership, the VCLP, regimes within the Venture Capital Act 2002 and ITAA 1997 will be amended to improve access to venture capital investment and make the regimes more attractive to investors. The amendments provide additional tax incentives for the limited partners in new ESVCLPs, relax restrictions on the ESVCLP investments and fund size, and clarify the legal framework for venture capital investment in Australia. Under the changes there would be: a non-refundable tax offset of 10 per cent of the value of new capital invested into Early Stage Venture Capital Limited Partnerships during the income year, an increase in the maximum fund size of Early Stage Venture Capital Limited Partnerships from $100 million to $200 million, improved access to funding from managed investment trusts and, also, broadening and simplifying rules for both Venture Capital Limited Partnerships and Early Stage Venture Capital Limited Partnerships.
These amendments will broadly apply on and after 1 July 2016; however, the ESVCLP tax offsets will be available for any qualifying contributions made to ESVCLPs that became unconditionally registered on or after 7 December 2015, which was the date that the measure was announced in the Prime Minister's innovation statement. By way of definition, the explanatory memorandum answers the question, 'What is an early stage investment company—or ESIC?' Generally, an Australian incorporated company will qualify as an ESIC if it is at an early stage of its development and it is developing new or significantly improved innovations with the purpose of commercialisation to generate an economic return. The specific objective threshold tests apply to determine if the company is at an early stage of its development, whereas a combination of tests may apply to determine if the company is developing a type of innovation. These different tests recognise that while objective tests are easier to apply in Australia's self-assessment income tax system, companies may be innovating in a variety of different ways and so may need to apply a combination of different tests depending on their circumstances.
A company must pass four tests to satisfy the early stage limb of the qualifying ESIC test. Test 1 is where the company has been recently incorporated or registered in the Australian Business Register, then the company must have been incorporated in Australia within the last three years. If it has not been incorporated within the last three years, then it must have been registered in the Australian Business Register within the last three income years. If it has not been registered in the ABR within the last three income years, then it must have been incorporated in Australia within the last six income years and any wholly-owned subsidiaries must have incurred expenses of no more than $1 million in total across all of the last three income years.
The ATO's company tax return requires companies to report total expenses as part of the total profit-and-loss calculation. A company that has submitted a company tax return in the previous income year must rely on the amount reported in item 6 for the purposes of this test. Alternatively, if the company was not required to submit a company tax return, it may use the amount corresponding to this item. A company that does not meet any of these requirements will not qualify as an ESIC.
I commend the Treasurer on his work in putting this piece of legislation together. As I said at the beginning of my comments, this legislation is all about jobs for the future. It is about the 21st century economy. It is about ensuring Australia is competitive on a global scale. I am really pleased to have been able to speak on it. I commend the bill to the House.
I commend my colleague the member for Solomon on her comments, especially the story of Tesla. I think in Australia we aspire to have more Teslas, more Facebooks, more Apples, more Samsungs and more LGs—these types of world companies that have fantastic technology, fantastic innovation and have used brilliant intellectual property to create wonderful, world-leading products. In Australia, we are not without our great success stories in this space. We think about SEEK, a company that has dominated online recruitment for many, many years now. It has been a world leader, expanding its borders and product diversification. We think about Atlassian, one of the great success stories, listing on the stock exchange in the US and being a leader in its software. We think about other companies, like Freelancer, with niche software. The list goes on.
The challenge for our nation is to have more of these companies, because they provide great jobs and a great future for our nation. This is why the Tax Laws Amendment (Tax Incentives for Innovation) Bill 2016 is so important. It helps create an entrepreneurial and risk-taking culture, and it inspires innovation. It is this risk-taking and entrepreneurial culture that Australia has not been brilliant at, when we compare ourselves to other countries. If we change our culture for the better, we will have greater economic benefits—more jobs, a better economy and a better future.
The National Innovation and Science Agenda contains complementary initiatives to ensure start-ups and innovation companies are supported at different stages of idea development. It was only just last week that colleagues and I met with a number of start-ups and entrepreneurs from around Australia. We heard similar stories of the challenges they face seeking venture capital, seeking financing and, unfortunately, having to go to the United States or elsewhere for that. That is why these measures are so important. They will help improve investment in early stage innovation companies. They will help entrepreneurs overcome a difficult stage in the financing life cycle, sometimes described as a 'valley of death'. I know from experience in my own state that 'valley of death' has many, many different interpretations; in shipbuilding it has similar connotations of an industry that struggles, but we are fixing that, as we know, through our commitment to Defence shipbuilding. In terms of the valley of death for start-ups, the term applies to an early stage development where they are unable to meet their cash flow requirements.
The tax incentives for early stage investors measure will support investments in these early stages by attracting investors who can offer funding and, importantly, business expertise that will assist with the development and commercialisation of innovative ideas. In Australia we are often very good at the research part of it. Our universities, our research institutions and our companies do some great research. It is that commercialisation element that we struggle with, and that is something that this bill will assist.
In terms of commercialisation, the Venture Capital Act, amended by schedule 2 of this bill, will attract greater levels of investment in growing companies, improving their international competitiveness. The complementary measures provide tax incentives for funding through venture capital limited partnerships, including early stage venture capital limited partnerships to attract investments at the early stage of development. Although Australia has experienced recent momentum in this field, with over $600 million in venture capital raised or planned since 30 June 2015, this funding has been generally concentrated in the technology sector. The measure builds on this momentum, to improve funding for promising projects in industries beyond the technology sector.
In framing this bill, we consulted with a range of stakeholders, from experienced investors to start-up founders and industry bodies, to design these two measures in a way that attracts investment without creating unnecessary regulatory burdens. We are answering the call from industry, and this has been replicated through our focus on innovation since late last year, with the appointment of a cabinet minister for innovation—the Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science—an Assistant Minister for Innovation and a national innovation statement, which has received great acceptance and recognition from broad industry, universities and others. They see it as a massive step in the right direction. You will recall, Mr Deputy Speaker, that we have had other initiatives, whether they be employee share ownership schemes or crowdfunding, with support for greater incentives in those fields to help finance the start-ups and the entrepreneur culture and ecosystem we have in Australia.
In closing, this bill is another practical example of how the Turnbull government is acting to support the transition in our economy from the mining boom to the ideas boom. I commend the bill to the House.
In summing up, firstly, I would like to thank those members who have contributed to this debate.
I am proud to introduce the Tax Laws Amendment (Tax Incentives for Innovation) Bill 2016, which amends our taxation laws to implement a range of incentives to drive economic growth and jobs in our transitioning economy. These measures will help encourage innovation, risk taking and an entrepreneurial culture in Australia. These measures comprise the heart of the government's National Innovation and Science Agenda, and represent its commitment to making Australia a more modern, dynamic, 21st century economy. These actions also go towards ensuring Australia remains one of the world's leading locations when it comes to doing business.
The National Innovation and Science Agenda contains complementary initiatives to ensure start-ups and innovation companies are supported at different stages of idea development, by aligning our tax system and business laws with a culture of entrepreneurship and innovation. The government is delivering on two commitments that form part of the National Innovation and Science Agenda. The first measure, schedule 1 to this bill, will amend the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 to improve investment in early stage innovation companies. This will help entrepreneurs overcome a difficult stage in the financing life cycle, sometimes described as 'the valley of death' where many start-ups find themselves unable to meet their cash flow requirements.
The tax incentives for early stage investors measure will support investment in these early stages by attracting investors who can offer funding and business expertise that will assist with the development and commercialisation of innovative ideas. The tax incentives for eligible investors include a 20 per cent carry-forward non-refundable offset on investments capped at $200,000 per year. There will also be a 10-year exemption on capital gains tax for investments held in the form of shares in the early stage innovation company for at least 12 months, provided that the shares held do not constitute more than a 30 per cent interest in the early stage innovation company.
The tax offset will be available upon investment, not when the funds are used by the innovation company and any sale of the shares will be taxed on a deemed capital account basis. The eligibility criteria will ensure that the incentives are targeted towards companies that need it. For instance, criteria around incorporation, expenditure, assessable income and not being listed on any stock exchange, such as those prescribed under the Corporations Law, help ensure that investments go to start-ups. It is important that the government helps connect entrepreneurs with business expertise so that innovative ideas can reach the market through commercialisation. Innovation in Australia is dynamic. A regulation-making power is also included so the government can keep the measure up to date.
The second measure, schedule 2 of this bill, will amend the Venture Capital Act 2002 and the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 to reform the arrangements for venture capital investments. This will attract greater levels of investment in growing companies and improve their international competitiveness. The complementary measure provides tax incentives for funding provided through venture capital limited partnerships, including early stage venture capital limited partnerships, to attract investments at the growth stage of development. At this stage entrepreneurs have often received initial funding but are not yet able to market themselves for public or broader investor buy in.
Although Australia has experienced recent momentum in this field, with over $600 million in venture capital raised or planned since 30 June 2015, this funding has been generally concentrated in the technology sector. The measure builds on this momentum to improve funding for promising projects in industries beyond the technology sector.
We are introducing new arrangements for venture capital limited partnerships and early stage venture capital limited partnerships. Notably, there will be: a non-refundable tax offset of 10 per cent of the value of new capital invested into early stage venture capital limited partnerships during the income year, an increase in the maximum fund size of early stage venture capital limited partnerships from $100 million to $200 million, improved access to funding from managed investment trusts, and broader and simplified rules for both venture capital limited partnerships and early stage venture capital limited partnerships.
The tax incentives will apply for the 2016-17 income year, once the bill receives royal assent. I can assure the member for Chifley that in framing this bill we consulted widely with a range of stakeholders—from experienced investors to start-up founders and industry bodies—to design these two measures in a way that attracts investment without creating unnecessary regulatory burdens. We are answering the call from industry. We are creating the ecosystem that Australia needs to succeed in the modern world. We are setting up the environment to reward our innovators and our entrepreneurs, who have the concepts and ideas to benefit jobs and growth for all Australians.
Backing innovation to drive productivity is part of the Turnbull government's economic plan to successfully manage our transition. The Turnbull government knows that our transitioning economy requires increased investment, and we will build the conditions necessary to succeed. This is another practical example of how the Turnbull government is acting to support the positive transition in our economy from the mining boom to the ideas boom. 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.
Mr Deputy Speaker, thank you for this opportunity to outline Labor's position on the Financial System Legislation Amendment (Resilience and Collateral Protection) Bill. In a week that will be dominated by some fairly willing and high-profile debates on economic policy, the very technical changes in this bill are unlikely to attract the same attention, but that does not mean that they are not very important for the stability of our financial system. Though we may find much to disagree on in this place and beyond in the next week over the budget and indeed over the next 61 days, I think it is important to mark that, when it comes to this bill and when it comes to financial resilience and living up to our international obligations, both sides of the House do agree in this instance.
The bill makes changes to the regulation of over-the-counter derivatives that come out of international agreements made after the global financial crisis. Clearly the GFC made us rethink a whole host of regulatory measures in our financial system. The legislation being discussed today relating to OTC derivatives is one such example.
Labor has always played a productive role in supporting the development and improvement of Australia's financial regulation. The floating of the dollar, the sale of the Commonwealth Bank, deregulating the banking system, ending centralised wage fixing and the beginnings of Reserve Bank independence: all were key features of the legacy of the Hawke and Keating governments. Of course the last Labor government took decisive action to keep Australia on the path of growth during the last financial crisis. It is extraordinary that we have had a quarter century of uninterrupted economic growth in this country when you consider that within that period there was the sharpest synchronised downturn in the global economy since the Great Depression in the 1930s. This is something we should all be proud of.
Our decisive action during the global financial crisis included being instrumental in the development and elevation of the G20, which was key to the international response to the crisis. I did get to work on some of these issues in a former role here. I think the part played by Australia is, as I said, something that all Australians should be proud of. Certainly both sides of the parliament, the business community and every Australian have cause to be proud of what Australians achieved together during the global financial crisis, including the role that we played in the big international forums and principally the G20. We are pleased now to be supporting this bill, which comes out of one of those international agreements—in this case, the one on margining requirements for derivatives. It was part of a process kicked off by the G20.
The effect of this bill will be to improve the stability of the financial system and to bring Australia's derivative-trading sector into line with internationally agreed standards. It is expected that these measures will ease the financial burden of compliance with international standards by $3.9 million annually.
This bill implements the agreement between the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision and the board of the International Organization of Securities Commissions on margin requirements, which are being phased in internationally from 1 September this year. The agreement came out of several major pieces of work by the G20. It goes back to about 2009. With input from the then Treasurer, the member for Lilley, the G20 committed to improving transparency, mitigating system risk and protecting against market abuse in derivatives markets. By 2011, it was recognised that not all derivatives are suitable for central clearing, so the G20 called for uniform margin requirements for OTC derivatives. Australia has already indicated its support for this international agreement, and that is a good thing. In November 2015 our own Council of Financial Regulators announced its intention to implement the Basel-IOSCO framework for margining and in February this year APRA released its proposed margining requirements, which will become effective by 1 September 2016 and be phased in over several years.
Participants in non-cleared derivatives markets have traditionally transferred margin, otherwise described as collateral or credit support, by way of absolute transfer rather than by way of security. The new requirements will likely mean most participants transfer margin by way of security instead.
APRA's margin requirements will only apply to institutions with significant activity in OTC derivatives, where the institution or the group it is a part of has average month-end notional outstanding OTC derivatives of greater than A$3 billion. The Council of Financial Regulators has indicated it will consider the approach for non-APRA regulated institutions this year. Several other developed countries, including the UK and EU members, have enacted similar legislation to clarify their own securities laws.
Labor supports measures to improve the stability of the financial system, noting the negative impact that unsecured derivative contracts had on the deepening of the global financial crisis. That is why we support this bill and why we support responsible steps to bring our derivative-trading sector into line with internationally agreed standards.
It is pleasing to speak this afternoon on the Financial System Legislation Amendment (Resilience and Collateral Protection) Bill 2016. Why is this bill needed? From September 2016, regulators in many key jurisdictions will phase in margining requirements for trading in over-the-counter derivatives. Without legislative change, entities subject to Australian law might not be able to fully comply with margin requirements that are imposed upon them or their counterparties by domestic or foreign regulation. This could significantly restrict the ability of Australian entities to participate in certain financial markets or to trade with particular counterparties. The bill creates a facilitative regime that will allow financial institutions in Australia to meet margining requirements and deliver on the government's commitment, set out in its response to the financial system inquiry:
… to clarify domestic regulation to support globally coordinated policy efforts and facilitate the ongoing participation of Australian entities in international capital markets.
The bill also resolves a number of inconsistencies in Australian law to provide legal certainty about the operation of termination rights, often referred to as close out rights, under certain financial market transactions and of real time gross settlement payment systems, approved netting contracts and netting markets in all market conditions.
Specifically, the bill will do three things. First, it will:
enable entities subject to Australian law to give, and enforce rights in respect of, margin provided by way of security in connection with certain financial market transactions in a manner consistent with international requirements —
and therefore let them meet international margin requirements due to be introduced from September this year. Second, it will:
clarify domestic legislation to support globally coordinated policy efforts and provide certainty about the operation of Australian law in relation to the exercise of termination rights (also known as close out rights) under certain financial market transactions.
And, third, it will:
enhance financial system stability by ensuring legal certainty for the operation of approved Real Time Gross Settlement … systems, approved netting arrangements and netting markets (more specifically, market netting contracts) in all market conditions.
The bill amends six pieces of existing legislation—namely, the Payment Systems and Netting Act 1998, the Banking Act 1959, the Financial System (Business Transfer and Group Restructure) Act 1999, the Insurance Act 1973, the Life Insurance Act 1995 and the Private Health Insurance (Prudential Supervision) Act 2015.
Although this legislation is important and is in reaction to the GFC, we must make sure that in the international response to the GFC—where we are trying to get, or governments around the world are putting in additional legislation to try to create, greater stability—we do not tell the legislative pendulum too far on the side of stability. Business transactions involve risk. We do not know what the future holds. Things are uncertain. We need entities taking risks and experimenting with new ideas if we are going to get the innovation to continue to drive our prosperity. So we must be very careful that we do not implement too many of these regulations that tie people's hands in red tape and deter some of that risk taking.
The member for Rankin said that Australians should be very proud about our response to the GFC. Anyone who thinks that Australia was saved from recession because the previous government spent money installing pink batts in people's roofs and then pulling them out, building overpriced school halls or wasting billions on failed border protection simply needs to wake up.
What saved Australia from the GFC was the demand and the buying from China, but we are still paying the penalty for that Labor government's reckless spending. That spending during the GFC ran up a debt; all those pink batts, all those school halls they paid two and three times the price they should have, and those failed border protection policies they tried to fix—all of this was done with billions of dollars of borrowed money. When we borrow money, we have an ongoing obligation to pay the interest until such time as we pay it back. Someone who earns $80,000, which I think is around average male full-time earnings, this year will pay $628 in tax on the interest that has been run up on all those things. The supposed response to the GFC of putting the country deep in debt has a cost, and that cost for the person on $80,000 is $628 in interest this year. And guess what? That goes on, year after year after year after year, until we eventually get the budget balanced. We have the long, hard haul to pay that borrowed money back.
The irresponsible response to the GFC, the reckless and wasteful spending of the previous Labor government, is costing this country now and it will cost this country for decades to come. They were the mistakes that we made in the past. All governments have to learn from those mistakes made with that reckless and wasteful spending. This is one of the small steps that we are taking so that another financial crisis has less chance of happening in the future. With that, I commend this bill to the House.
I rise to speak on the Financial System Legislation Amendment (Resilience and Collateral Protection) Bill 2016. At the 2009 Group of Twenty, or the G20 as it is better known, meeting at the Pittsburgh Summit, the Australian government joined other jurisdictions in committing to substantial reforms to practices in over-the-counter—or OTC—derivative markets. According to the Australian Securities and Investment Commission website, three of the key G20 commitments for OTC derivatives were:
The overarching objectives of the OTC derivatives reforms are to:
These commitments aim to bring transparency to these markets and improve risk management practices. These changes provide a framework for the regulation of OTC derivatives reporting, clearing and trade execution.
The legislation forms part of Australia's response to the 2009 G20 commitments, as I said. By way of background, 'derivative' is a security instrument whose price is dependent upon or derived from underlying assets such as stock, bonds, commodities, currencies, interest rates and market indexes. Derivative products have traditionally been traded through bilateral agreements between parties or over the counter, which is the OTC, and not through a central clearing exchange like a stock exchange or trading platform.
Leading up to the 2008 global financial crisis, there was a lack of transparency concerning the risk profile of participants and the value of their transactions. The Australian legislative framework to implement these reforms commenced in January 2013, when the new part 7.5A of the Corporations Act 2001 became effective. Under part 7.5A:
… the Minister has the power to prescribe certain classes of derivatives as being subject to an ASIC rule-making power in relation to mandatory reporting to a derivative trade repository, mandatory clearing by a central counterparty (CCP), or mandatory execution on a trading platform.
A decision by the minister prescribing a class of derivatives under the framework will be based on advice from the Council of Financial Regulators, or the CFR, which is comprised of ASIC, the Reserve Bank of Australia and the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority. ASIC has responsibility for implementing derivative transaction rules and derivative trade repository rules in Australia as part of Australia's G20 OTC derivative commitments.
In general, the reason for which a stock is traded over the counter is usually because the company is small, making it unable to meet exchange listing requirements. Also known as 'unlisted stock', these securities are traded by brokers or dealers, who negotiate directly with one another over computer networks or by phone. But small companies may not always remain small and the power of over-the-counter trading should never be underestimated. United States retail giant Walmart was founded in 1962 and began trading over-the-counter stocks. By 1969 Walmart was incorporated and in 1972, with stores in five American states, Walmart had earned over US$1 billion in sales—the fastest company to ever accomplish this—and was listed on the New York Stock Exchange.
Experts believe the role of over-the-counters in contributing to that 2008 global financial crisis was hidden because of the more high-profile real estate bubble which spectacularly burst in the United States and elsewhere. In 2010, on-line magazine Business Insider Australia stated:
Although media attention continues to focus on the political theme of economic recovery and residential real estate, the true cause of what came to be known as the credit crisis continues unabated, outside the purview of the central banks and governments.
Business Insider Australia's analysis of the wrecking-ball capacity of OTCs if not properly regulated paints a sobering picture. It said:
Derivatives on different underlying assets are traded in the absence of clearing houses, i.e., in unregulated markets. Since they are not exchange traded, derivatives, such as CDS, are not widely understood. In OTC markets, counterparty default risk generates a network of interdependencies among market actors and promotes risk volatility. The resulting emergent property of the financial system is systemic risk, which became apparent in 2008 when Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc. failed.
Officially, roughly $604.6 trillion in OTC derivative contracts, more than 10 times world GDP ($57.53 trillion), hang over the financial world … but to the average investor the derivatives bubble is invisible. From the perspective of those outside the bubble, the explosion of OTC derivatives is a mania.
Business Insider Australia contends that the inherent lack of transparency in OTC markets impairs price discovery and undermines the contention that financial instruments are always priced correctly. It therefore follows that OTC derivatives and the risks associated with them may be priced incorrectly.
In response to a request by the Australian government to ascertain how its G20 commitments might best be implemented, the CFR developed an extensive report which concluded that the volumes and types of OTC derivatives transactions undertaken in Australia are small by global standards, comprising only two per cent of global notional turnover.
Further, as is the case in most countries, participants in the Australian-located OTC derivatives market undertake a large amount of cross-border activity. The CFR report states that financial institutions use a wide variety of derivatives in the Australian market, and some participants use simple single-currency interest rate derivatives to hedge interest rate risks. Others use a range of single and cross-currency derivatives, foreign exchange derivatives and credit derivatives to manage exposures. Corporates use derivatives covering single and cross-currency interest rates, FX and commodity derivatives.
In response to the G20 agreement and the GFC, many other industrialised countries, including the United Kingdom and other members of the European Union, have enacted similar legislation to clarify their securities laws to provide for rapid and non-formalistic enforcement procedures in order to safeguard financial stability and limit effects in case of a default of a party to certain financial markets contracts. In doing so, they both reduce possible risks for parties to certain contracts in respect of which margin is provided and remove impediments to the international competitiveness of their local financial institutions. For example, these reforms will reduce the risk that a secured party which had based its evaluations of its counterparty credit risk on the expectation that its exposures were appropriately secured actually loses priority to other parties on the counterparty's default.
This bill amends six existing pieces of legislation: the Payment Systems and Netting Act 1998, the Banking Act 1959, the Financial Sector (Business Transfer and Group Restructure) Act 1999, the Insurance Act 1973, the Life Insurance Act 1995, and, finally, the Private Health Insurance (Prudential Supervision) Act 2015. The bill will create a more resilient and stable financial system and allow our financial institutions to continue to be effective participants in international markets.
The bill delivers on the government's commitment in response to the Financial System Inquiry to 'clarify domestic regulation to support globally coordinated policy efforts and facilitate the ongoing participation of Australian entities in international capital markets'. The bill also delivers on Australia's commitment, as part of the G20, to address systemic risks associated with over-the-counter derivatives markets post the GFC. It complements a series of reforms already in place that make these markets more transparent and accountable. It also creates a regime which will allow financial institutions in Australia to meet international OTC derivative margining requirements, which are due to be phased in from 1 September 2016, and any corresponding prudential standards set by the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority or APRA. It also resolves other issues of concern to regulators and industry participants in Australian financial markets. For example, this bill strengthens the protection of certain payment systems, settlement systems, exchanges and central counterparties, in all market conditions.
It has been developed in careful consultation with APRA, the Reserve Bank, ASIC and industry stakeholders. Stakeholders have been broadly supportive of the reform, and recognise the considerable cost to business of maintaining the status quo.
The bill will allow Australia to maintain its position as a regional financial centre with a strong regulatory and legislative framework. Some of the reforms set out in the bill adopt similar concepts to those used, as I said, in other developed countries. It is really good to see that Labor are supporting this legislation. With that, I commend this bill to the House.
I would like to thank those members who have contributed to this debate on the Financial System Legislation Amendment (Resilience and Collateral Protection) Bill 2016, in particular the member for Solomon. Following the global financial crisis, the GFC, G20 leaders agreed to 'implement sweeping reforms to reduce the risk that financial excesses will again destabilise the global economy'. Imposing margin requirements for non-centrally cleared derivatives is central to this agenda. Margin requirements are the next significant wave of regulatory reform in over-the-counter derivatives markets. They are designed to reduce the kind of contagion and spillover effects seen in the GFC by ensuring that collateral is available to offset losses caused by the default of a derivatives counterparty.
This bill allows financial institutions operating in Australia to meet international margin requirements for trade in over-the-counter derivatives, which are due to be phased in from September 2016. It removes impediments in current Australian law which may otherwise prevent our institutions from transacting with international counterparties. This bill will also resolve an inconsistency in Australian law which arose in 2008 by clarifying the way in which certain rights—particularly early termination rights, or 'close-out rights'—may be exercised by counterparties against an Australian regulated financial entity when it becomes subject to resolution measures such as authorised deposit-taking institution statutory management or judicial management. This amendment will clarify domestic legislation to support globally coordinated policy efforts and provide certainty about its operation. This bill proposes an approach which is broadly consistent with international best practice, as set out in the Financial Stability Board's Key attributes of effective resolution regimes for financial institutions and International Swaps and Derivatives Association Inc.'s ISDA 2015 Universal Resolution Stay Protocol. Finally, this bill also enhances the stability of the financial system by providing legal certainty for the operation of approved real-time gross settlement systems, approved netting arrangements and netting markets—more specifically, market netting contracts—in all market conditions. These systems, arrangements and markets are vital to the smooth functioning of the Australian financial system.
The bill is the product of careful and rigorous consultation with the Council of Financial Regulators—the Reserve Bank of Australia, the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission and the Australian Treasury—and a range of market participants, industry associations, and professional advisers. The submissions received during the consultation process broadly supported the reforms set out in this bill. 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 am pleased to speak on the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment Bill 2016. This bill amends the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act to increase the number of board members of the National Disability Insurance Agency from nine to 12, including the chair. Labor is pleased to support the bill. The National Disability Insurance Scheme—designed, funded and introduced by Labor—is already transforming the lives of thousands of Australians with disability, their families and their carers. We are incredibly proud of the NDIS. It is one of Australia's biggest social reforms, in the same great tradition as Medicare. Once it is fully rolled out, the National Disability Insurance Scheme will support 460,000 people living with profound disability. This proposed legislation reflects an agreement reached by the Disability Reform Council earlier this year to increase the number of board members and extend existing board terms. As the scheme expands across the country, it is sensible to also expand the board. This will give the agency more stability as the NDIS continues to grow and as the terms of other board members progressively expire.
The transition over the next three to four years will be hard—nobody can deny that—and we know it will get more challenging as the scheme ramps up, not less. Of course, it was not going to be easy; reforms of this size and scope never are; but, three years in, we already have so much to celebrate. The NDIS is being delivered on time, satisfaction among participants is very high and, despite the many inaccurate claims to the contrary, the scheme is running on budget. The success of the National Disability Insurance Scheme is due in no small part to the tireless work of the agency's staff and its board. I want to pay particular tribute tonight to Bruce Bonyhady, the father of the National Disability Insurance Scheme and the agency's inaugural chair. For Bruce, the design and delivery of the NDIS is more than a profession; it is a life mission. There simply would not have been an NDIS without Bruce Bonyhady. I sincerely thank him and his colleagues for their work so far. They do a very difficult job and they do it so well. They deserve the support and respect of this government and the whole parliament.
Unfortunately, on too many occasions, this has been in short supply. Just imagine waking up one morning, opening the newspaper and seeing an advertisement for your own job. That is what the current members of the board were subjected to last year. There was no phone call from the minister, no consultation and no prior warning; just a none-too-subtle hint that this government considers them entirely expendable. This act effectively fired the starter's gun on a series of attacks on the governance of the NDIS.
In March of this year, it was revealed that the Turnbull government was pressuring the states and territories into sweeping changes to the NDIS. These changes would have allowed the Turnbull government to unilaterally decide who is eligible for the scheme and what support people would receive. The exposed plan proposed giving the Turnbull government the power to ignore the needs of people with disability, sideline the states and territories, sack board members and put its own conservative cronies in charge. Thankfully, this plan was rejected by the states and territories.
Labor does support the legislation before the parliament today, but we will continue to fiercely oppose any attempt by this government to undermine the future of the National Disability Insurance Scheme. If anyone opposite in this Liberal-National Party government tries to cut, cap or delay the National Disability Insurance Scheme; attempts another federal takeover or make more baseless claims about funding, Labor will stand with people with disability and defend the National Disability Insurance Scheme against any of these cynical attacks. People with disability, their families and carers have waited their whole lives for the NDIS. It is unforgiveable for the government to keep trying to mislead and frighten Australians about the future of the scheme.
Before the minister reveals his next round of cuts in tomorrow night's budget, he should remember this: people with disability are not the political playthings of the Turnbull government. Australians will not accept more cruel cuts from this government under the guise of funding the NDIS. The National Disability Insurance Scheme is already funded; the last Labor government made sure of it. Labor's 2013 budget set out a 10-year funding plan for the NDIS. This included an increase in the Medicare levy and also several other savings and revenue measures.
These budget measures, and the numbers underpinning them, were prepared by the Treasury. The Treasury secretary at the time was Martin Parkinson—the current secretary of the Prime Minister's own department. The coalition knows the NDIS is funded because they actually supported most of these budget measures. Not only did they vote for all but one of them, some of the measures even passed the parliament after the election when the Liberals were in government. To now say—as this government does—that the NDIS is not funded amounts to an effective theft of money that was always intended for people with disability.
Tomorrow night, when the government will claim it must yet again cut support from vulnerable people in order to fund the NDIS, Australians will see it for the falsehood that it is. We are entering a really crucial period for the National Disability Insurance Scheme, and there are plenty of unanswered questions. We need answers from the government on housing supply; we need more action on preparing a high-quality, well-paid workforce; and more attention needs to be given to sector development. This is where the government's focus should be: not on trying to take complete control of the scheme, picking fights with the states and territories, fibbing about the funding or trying to sack the board.
No matter what the Turnbull government throws up tomorrow night and no matter what other attacks they have planned for the NDIS, people with disability know that Labor will always stand with them. Labor built the National Disability Insurance Scheme. We most certainly will not stand by and watch the Turnbull government tear it down.
I did not realise that the member for Jagajaga was a clairvoyant who can predict what is going to happen in tomorrow night's budget! Before I begin to focus on the legislation at hand, which is the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment Bill 2016, I want to provide the chamber with some background on the National Disability Insurance Scheme in the Northern Territory. To do this, I am quoting from the NDIS Barkly progress report from last October, which assesses the first year of the scheme's operation in the Northern Territory.
In his foreword to the progress report, National Disability Insurance Agency—or NDIA—Chairman Bruce Bonyhady recalls that:
When it was first decided to trial the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) in locations around Australia, we knew that trials in metropolitan sites would tell us very little about how the Scheme should work in rural, remote and very remote areas.
And so, in 2013, the Commonwealth and Northern Territory Governments agreed to trial the NDIS in one of the least densely populated regions in Australia, the Barkly region.
The Barkly Regional Council is the second largest local government area in Australia, an area 42 per cent larger than the state of Victoria.
While Victoria has a population density of 2,431 people per 100 square kilometres, the Barkly region contains two people in that same area. Centred around the junction of the Stuart and Barkly highways, the region stretches from the old telegraph station at Barrow Creek in the south to the historic droving township of Newcastle Waters in the north and 620 kilometres east to the Queensland border. The largest town in the region is Tennant Creek, which is approximately 1,000 kilometres south of Darwin and 500 kilometres north of Alice Springs.
The resident population of the Barkly region is estimated at approximately 8,100 people, which includes 3,560 people in Tennant Creek—the largest concentration of residents. The next largest urban area is the town of Elliott and its surrounding district, and then there is an assortment of communities and outstations, including Ali Curung and Canteen Creek. There are also 49 pastoral stations, mining operations and commercial properties in this district. You can see that the Barkly was an ideal place to trial the NDIS. As Bruce Bonyhady says, 'It provides an exciting opportunity for improving the lives of people with disabilities in remote parts of the Northern Territory.' Through the trial of NDIS in the Barkly region, the NDIA is learning a new way of working with remote and very remote communities and about the best ways to spread the NDIS through these communities.
During a trip to Tennant Creek last year with colleagues from the NDIA and the scheme's independent advisory committee, Mr Bonahady said he was once again struck by the size of the challenge and the opportunities it presented. The NDIA in Barkly is working with a range of groups, including disability organisations in the Northern Territory, to find the right solutions to the challenges of building the NDIS in remote and very remote areas. I will go into that in a bit more detail shortly.
They said in the progress report that they are taking a community development approach, building capacity directly with communities and working closely with Aboriginal corporations and service providers in health and other allied sectors. For example, they are partnering with the First Peoples Disability Network to establish local support groups and working closely with other government agencies and departments. The progress report focuses on what has been achieved in the Barkly region over the past year and what lessons have been learnt. And I can say it provides a very interesting snapshot of progress so far. As at 30 June 2015, 61 people with disability have approved plans in place; 24 providers have registered to deliver services as part of the NDIS in the Barkly; additional options for shared supported accommodation for people with disability have been delivered; and almost half of the NDIS staff on the ground in the Barkly trial site are Aboriginal people. Of the 61 people with approved plans, 44 per cent are female and 56 per cent are male. As of July last year, the total amount of support committed was $3,061,377. Sixty two per cent of participants have early intervention support in their plans. To summarise: people with disability in the Barkly region are receiving support such as new equipment, and providers new to the area are registered and are delivering support.
Community engagement is a significant part of how the NDIS is increasing its profile in Tennant Creek and around the Barkly region. In July 2015 the NDIA joined locals in Tennant Creek to celebrate the 26th annual Desert Harmony Festival. With a $60,000 sponsorship from the NDIA the festival celebrated all people with disability, showcasing their strengths and talents. Staff attended events throughout the festival to talk to the community about the NDIS and what it means for people with disability in the remote Northern Territory. One of their ambassadors was three-time Australian Paralympic gold medallist Kurt Fearnley, who visited the local high school to talk about his experiences living with disability. Participants, families and carers were also invited as VIPs to the NDIS football match between local teams in partnership with the Barkly Australian Football League. The BAFL agreed to schedule a local game between the Sporties Spitfires and the Elliott Hawks, which was a 2014 grand final re-match to celebrate people with disability. NDIA representatives spoke directly to participants, families and carers about how the scheme is working for them and met people who may become part of the scheme in the future. NDIS General Manager Anne Skordis attended Desert Harmony and said the agency is completing more plans for people with disability every week. She said it is not just about what each person needs in their plan, but about how all of the pieces of a person's life work together. It is about how a person's plan works alongside school, community, family and other services that are already an important parts of people's lives.
One of the successful partnerships reached by NDIS is with the Barkly trial site local advisory group, which consists of representatives from local Aboriginal organisations, community representatives, participants and providers. The advisory group is providing the NDIA with local advice to ensure the NDIS is rolled out effectively in the Barkly region. As I mentioned earlier, the alliance with First Peoples Disability Network aims to support more effective and enduring engagement with local communities in the Barkly. Through this project, the First Peoples Disability Network is establishing strong relationships and networks with communities to raise awareness of the NDIS.
Through the NDIA's connection with Barkly Regional Arts, art is being used to build awareness of the NDIS and disability. The successful Story Plates project has encouraged five communities to explore what disability means to people living in the Barkly region and convey these discussions visually through creating painted ceramic plates. The Story Plates were exhibited at the National Rural Health Alliance Conference in Darwin in 2015 and at the Desert Harmony Festival.
The NDIA understands that developing the local workforce is critical to the delivery of the NDIS in the Barkly region. While this continues to be an area of development for the NDIA, progress is being made. A new service provider in the region, ITEC Health, recently trained 17 people as potential disability support workers for additional assisted living and supported accommodation services. Sixteen of these people are local Aboriginal people. The NDIA wants to see as many local Aboriginal people as possible delivering services to people with disability in the community. In response to the question 'What has been learnt?' the progress report states that 'service delivery requires agile, responsive, innovative and flexible solutions that are tailored to address community challenges and take account of cultural differences', and that 'developing trust with remote communities is key to the successful implementation of the NDIS'.
Strong partnerships with mainstream agencies that already have a presence in a community can help to develop innovative solutions and options for delivering supports. Ensuring sufficient time to build relationships with the communities is key to increasing awareness of disability services and the rights of people with disability.
We have also learnt that culturally skilled workforces will enhance the acceptance and involvement of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in using disability support services. A 'one size fits all' approach does not work in Aboriginal communities. What will work well in one community will definitely not work with all communities. A tailored approach is absolutely needed. As most Aboriginal languages in the Barkly do not have a word for 'disability', it is key that the NDIA works closely with communities to build an understanding of what the scheme is about and who it can assist. Additional effort is required to attract and retain providers in remote regions, acknowledging the challenges of workforce availability, service delivery costs and the need to ensure a reasonable level of support for participants.
So I am hopeful that the NDIS trial in Barkly is yielding positive results, and I can report that from July 2016 the NDIS will progressively roll out across the Northern Territory and that by July 2019 all eligible residents will be covered. To people with an interest in the NDIS rollout in Darwin and Palmerston, I say 'Watch this space.' As for the legislation at hand, this bill amends the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 to allow for up to 11 members to be appointed to the board of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Launch Transition Agency and to change the quorum arrangements for board meetings so it is clear that a quorum is the majority of members of the board. The Council of Australian Governments agreed in April 2015 that there was a need to strengthen the governance arrangements of the board of the agency. This was to ensure that the board was best equipped to administer the challenges associated with managing the transition of the National Disability Insurance Scheme to the full scheme.
When the trial site in Barkly was first announced, I was really delighted, because of Tennant Creek's remoteness. I thought that if the trial site was successful in Tennant Creek then it would highlight all the issues and that the scheme could be implemented right across Australia, and the lessons would be learnt. If anyone can do anything, it is we Territorians.
I am pleased to rise to support this legislation here tonight—the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment Bill 2016—and basically to lend my support for the National Disability Insurance Scheme generally. During my time in parliament I do not think I have had much of an opportunity to comment on it, but I will say that this is an incredibly important scheme. I guess I became very much aware of this as an issue when quite some years ago—probably more than a decade ago—I was adopted as part of an 'adopt a politician' scheme in Western Australia that the Disability Services Commission was running there. A family with a child with a disability would adopt a politician and invite that politician into their lives to have them understand exactly what managing the disability meant for the child and for the family. I have to say, I thought it was a brilliant scheme. In my generation particularly, people with disabilities were shunted away to special schools. We had very little exposure to people who had disability, and I think it led to an entirely unhealthy 'us and them' culture and reduced the empathy and compassion between people with disabilities and the rest of the community. It was very good when we reversed those sorts of policy settings. But still, if you have not really had a personal experience, very often you fail to understand just how profound the problems are.
So, a family from Seville Grove adopted me. Watching as they did their absolute best to provide for their son, Daniel, who was a severely autistic young boy, and seeing him grow into a young man, and watching the difficulty they had in trying to get him into appropriate schooling and then to provide appropriate opportunity for him to do something after he left school, really opened my eyes to the nature of the problem we had, and indeed those of many of the politicians in Western Australia and around Australia. I am very pleased that under Labor, with bipartisan support—and I particularly acknowledge the role of Bill Shorten and Jenny Macklin in this—we did grasp the mettle and say that we have to do something here, that this cannot be a case of pass the parcel where one group of people has this problem and the rest of us do very little to contribute to help them. So, I think the fundamental principles are right.
I want to use this occasion to express my concern about what is happening in Western Australia. I am aware that sometimes schemes that are developed in the east are not necessarily suited to particular circumstances, such as our population structure in Western Australia. So, I thought it was very interesting and appropriate that two different models were allowed to be trialled in Western Australia: the state model and the federal model. The understanding was that there would be a report—an independent evaluation of both of these systems—which would be made public before a decision was made in respect of Western Australia as to which model would be put in place.
So I was deeply concerned when just a couple of months ago, before the trials had finished and certainly before any independent report had been released, the state government made a final decision to go with the WA model. Our concern is that people with disabilities and their families deserve to have a say about their future and they deserve to have the opportunity to look at these independent evaluations and comment on them before a final decision is made. I call upon Minister Porter to bring WA into line in this regard.
I also want to use this brief opportunity to talk about some of the problems that the NDIS would not resolve. There is the need, notwithstanding this rollout—and it will be a rather slow rollout of the NDIS—for us to have a vaccine injury compensation system at the same time. I am working on behalf of the Hammond family in Kalgoorlie. I think I have mentioned them before. The father, a FIFO worker on a mining site, was advised by hospital staff that he needed to have a pertussis booster before he could see his baby in the neonatal ward. He did that and, within three days, he suffered a permanent impairment. He went through a period of quadriplegia. I am glad to say that he has recovered somewhat from that, but there is no doubt that he is left with a permanent incapacity. It has now been acknowledged by the hospital in the negligence case that it was unnecessary to have the vaccination and that it would have been entirely ineffective because it would take at least two weeks to have any impact. To give him the injection and then admit him to the neonatal ward within two minutes was completely ineffective treatment.
The real point is that no-one really wants to necessarily even argue negligence in these matters. It has been commented on time and time again that, in a mass immunisation scheme, there are people who will have to take one for the team. There is absolutely no dispute that the science tells us that there are rare cases where there will be a severe adverse reaction. There is more and more evidence suggesting that might be linked to particular genetic factors, but obviously there is no doubt there will be rare cases.
In the immunisation community here in Australia, people like Clare Looker and Heath Kelly have had a variety of functions in public health, including when they prepared a very important paper on this issue. They were at the Victorian Infectious Diseases Reference Laboratory. Esteemed people within the immunology community, including the most eminent Western Australian, Fiona Stanley, and Dr Peter Richmond, the immunologist who wears many different hats in Western Australia, believe that we need to have a compensation scheme. They have looked around the world. Contrary to what the Department of Health unfortunately tell the Minister for Health and other people—that these schemes are only introduced where they have mandated vaccination—is simply not correct. In addition to that, one might argue that, given the latest provisions that we have introduced through the No Jab, No Pay provisions, there is indeed an element of economic compulsion. Most of the schemes that have been introduced in 19 countries around the world have not been mandatory but on the active promotion of immunisation. Doctors Looker and Kelly in their report went through the 19 schemes and found them very effective and found that they have had a very significant role in helping to build trust. We know that a great deal of vaccine resistance and vaccine hesitance arises out of a failing of trust. Around the world is a preparedness to introduce a no-fault compensation scheme so that individuals who are disproportionately asked to bear the burden of a mass vaccination scheme and the development of herd immunity are not left carrying the burden alone.
We would certainly argue for a scheme, particularly the one that Heath Kelly tells me he believes is perhaps most suited for Australia, which involves a levy on the pharmaceutical companies. In the United States, this scheme has been in place since 1987. The levy per vaccine is less than US$1, and that has been able to entirely fund the scheme. We must look seriously at introducing this. It is a question of fairness. We talk about fairness with our No Jab, No Pay scheme—that you cannot take from the community unless you are prepared to get your child immunised. We know that has a particularly strong impact on people on low to modest incomes who are reliant on government subsidies. Vaccines have been a great benefit for this community, but we need to ensure that there is trust and there is fairness by ensuring that a person who is unintentionally harmed by a vaccination is not left to walk alone and that there is an expression of solidarity from the community for the introduction of access to a no-fault compensation scheme. I think this is entirely in accordance with the principles of the NDIS.
Vaccine injury is viewed as a special circumstance, different from other injuries. This is a case where individuals bear a burden for the benefit to the rest of the community of a recommended medical procedure designed to enhance public health. It is something that needs to be addressed conclusively and not simply left to the long-term rollout of the NDIS. I do hope that the minister is prepared to listen to the views of the immunology community. This is something that can be done in a way that is cost neutral. It would certainly save a lot of heartache and prevent a lot of the unnecessary and, at times, very difficult medical negligence cases that are currently undertaken. This really is not a situation of negligence. We are trying to shoehorn circumstances into negligence in order to get just compensation for people who have been injured by these vaccines.
I think the NDIS is a fantastic program. I hope we stick with it and ensure that it is introduced across this country, including in my state of Western Australia, in a way that will deliver real quality of life for people with disability.
I call the member for Corangamite, whose electorate I was in during the storm yesterday morning. What an amazing electorate it is too—beautiful.
It is a wonderful electorate, thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker Broadbent. You should have come and visited. It is my great pleasure to speak on the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment Bill. I am going to speak only for a couple of minutes, but I just wanted to reiterate my support for this bill. We know that the bill is going to vary the number of board members and change some quorum requirements. In terms of the changes that have been made—and we are very pleased it has bipartisan support—the bill reiterates the full commitment of the government to rolling out the NDIS.
As the member for Corangamite I am so incredibly proud of the Barwon trial rollout of the NDIS. Some 5,000 participants are now being supported under the National Disability Insurance Scheme. We are also incredibly proud to be the home of the National Disability Insurance Agency. The headquarters are very much up and running, and a tender is underway at the moment to build a brand-new building to house the NDIS headquarters. There will also be some 400 employees from the Department of Human Services in that same building. So we are seeing an incredible change in our landscape in the Geelong and Corangamite regions as such an important agency as the NDIA establishes itself and grows there.
As we have heard in this debate, the full rollout is now underway in a number of states—New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, South Australia and Tasmania. Bilateral agreements have been signed. Across Victoria, 105,000 people will now receive the individual support they need, including the people of Golden Plains, who, regrettably, were excluded from the Barwon trial, under the previous government. I am very pleased that the people of Golden Plains will now be coming into the full rollout as of 1 July 2017.
The NDIS is an incredible creator of jobs and opportunity, as well as transforming the lives of those with a disability and the lives of their families. The NDIS headquarters in Geelong alone is employing over 270 people, with the number of jobs rising to well over 350 by July 2017. Three hundred and thirty of these employees will be based in Geelong. There are also 160 people currently working in the Geelong Barwon trial site office and the Colac Barwon trial office. So we are seeing an incredible commitment from our government for the NDIS, with a lot of bipartisan support of course, across the Geelong and Corangamite regions.
I was at the great football match on Saturday night, when Geelong absolutely smashed the Gold Coast. It was a great game. One of the guest speakers at that game was an incredibly impressive man by the name of Richard Colman, a Paralympian. Richard is in a wheelchair. He was such an inspiration. He talked about the importance of Geelong as a centre of excellence for disability, saying, 'I don't want to be known as someone with a disability who can do ordinary things; I want to be known as someone with a disability who can do extraordinary things.' And he certainly is doing extraordinary things. It is wonderful to see that level of passion and energy and to see people like Richard Colman achieving so magnificently on the world stage.
A couple of weeks ago I attended the opening of the Eastern Hub. It is a $6.5 million facility funded in part by Karingal and by the previous state Liberal government, with a lot of philanthropic support as well. It is a magnificent building. It is a community hub. It is also a hub for disability services. The level of commitment, excitement and investment that we are seeing from the likes of Karingal and St Laurence and the other disability service providers across our region is wonderful.
That is not to say that there are not still some challenges. For example, Pathways provide services for those with a mental illness, and they have told me that they have concerns about the funding model in relation to whether payment for clinicians and those who work with people with a mental illness, who are people with a permanent disability as defined under the NDIS, falls under the funding model. I have absolutely committed to assisting Pathways navigate some of the complexities involved in the current costings of the NDIS. That said, the NDIS is a wonderful scheme. It will be $22 billion commitment when it is fully rolled out.
I fully support and commend this legislation to the House. As I said, I am incredibly proud to represent the region which is the home of the National Disability Insurance Agency—a fine government agency making an incredible difference to our region, to those with a disability and to their families.
It is a post-valedictory contribution that I hope does not cause too much grief. I am very conscious of the shot clock.
You are very welcome on the floor of the parliament.
You are very kind, sir. This could be my last utterance on this floor, so I hope it is a worthwhile contribution. I want to begin by thanking Bruce Bonyhady, all of the board, the executive and all of the staff at the National Disability Insurance Agency. Rolling out the NDIS is an extraordinary challenge of grand proportions that represents one of the great social ambitions of our generation. It is not straightforward, the moving parts are immense and this is a very extraordinary enterprise we are all a part of to see that it is done well. I have characterised it as a bit like building an aircraft while we fly it: things are going okay; there is a need to refine, adjust, extend the range and be able to bring further people on board on this journey, but it is a challenge.
I admire the way in which successive ministers—very much so, including our current minister, Christian Porter—have navigated the policy framework and the way in which the parliament has embraced this very important initiative. I also want to thank my friend and colleague the member for Fisher. He is my predecessor, and I have large shoes to fill in his wake as I take on my role as the committee chairman of the joint parliamentary oversight committee of the NDIS. I want to thank the member for Fisher for his great insights and the great policy perspicacity that he has brought to that task and in the earlier reports of the oversight committee.
This bill is another instalment in that journey. It reflects a very heartfelt and genuine commitment of the government to fully implement the NDIS, and I am pleased to say that that long-term and enduring commitment carries over from similar ambitions held by the previous Labor government. This recognises that we need to get this right for people who have needs for lifelong support that are reasonable and necessary supports for them to achieve a full life—a fulfilling life—a life where ambition and potential, that is a part of everybody's journey on this planet, is also a part of the journey for people with disabilities.
Whilst we are very successfully managing the rollout of the NDIS, we always need to make sure we have a close eye on what we are learning along the way. I was pleased to hear colleagues talk about the Barkly trial, and I know, again, my friend the member for Fisher has been amongst the Barkly community, talking about their experiences and the insights that can be drawn from that early stage of the rollout. From my recent visit to Palm Island—an Indigenous community; quite remote and off the coast from Townsville—I am pleased to say that a lot of the learnings out of the Barkly trial are now being picked up and embedded as business as usual on Palm Island. One of the great insights—particularly if you are wanting to engage with Indigenous community—is to have one of the community elders actively involved in raising awareness and giving people confidence and competence to navigate the support that is available. There is a direct insight and learning from the Barkly trial, and this is what we are seeing throughout the trial sites: new insights on how to make sure we do this incredibly significant challenge for our generation—that we do it well and we learn from our experiences.
The Commonwealth has now signed bilateral agreements for the full transition of the scheme in New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, South Australia and Tasmania. In the capital, here in the ACT, it has been agreed that eligible populations will be fully covered by September this year. Together, these agreements provide for around 85 per cent of the anticipated 460,000 Australians expected to be eligible for support under the NDIS. We know we have a parallel comparative trial operating in Western Australia, and that is being extended and expanded as well to ensure that the little under 11,000 current and future participants know of the ongoing support available to them and their families through the NDIS. The Commonwealth and the Western Australian government have agreed to finalise a state-wide rollout of the NDIS by October, this year, and a full rollout in Western Australia will continue on from 1 July. There is lots going on, and we are working to finalise arrangements in the Northern Territory as soon as possible.
Let us look at the Northern Territory. We know the Northern Territory has one of the challenges that we face—what is known as thin markets. We have a dispersed population and nowhere near the dozens and dozens of service providers you might find in a capital city, but we have this ambition to ensure that, regardless of your place of residence across this vast continent, you will get the support that you need. That is one of the insights. That is why working through and mapping out how to successfully make the NDIS available for Northern Territorians is very important.
It is one of a range of issues that our second report from the joint standing committee touched on: how we tackle thin markets. These are communities where the idea of empowering participants is to select from a range of service choices and providers available to them—to make sure a full life and full ambition is given full opportunity through the NDIS. That is a difficult proposition in more-remote locations. Other insights were: how do we build the workforce? This is an extraordinary ramp up. That is $22 billion annually, when it is fully operationalised, for just under half a million of our citizens. How do we make sure we have the workforce that can provide top-quality care at an efficient price and enable participants and their carers to exercise the choice that is at the heart of this scheme?
Another area we have been looking at is participant engagement. I touched on the Barkly trial insights and our learnings that are being applied in Palm Island but, for those living with a disability, how do we make sure that they are aware of the opportunity and support that is available for them as the scheme is rolled out? And then, being informed of those choices and opportunities, how do we make sure that the capacity is there to choose, access and analyse the array of options available—whether it is directly by the participant or through their families and carer network? These are important challenges.
For the NDIA itself, we need to get its systems right. You can imagine there are all these moving parts. It is an immense assignment to have quality embedded in well-priced services that are being delivered in the way in which they were intended, representing good outcomes for the participants and good value for the taxpayer. This is a challenge that is also being faced.
But also in building capacity we need to understand that the service providers themselves are on quite a journey. If you are used to block funding through whatever level of government to provide an identified level of care or service for an identified group of consumers, clients and participants and that money is paid up-front and then you make sure that you are doing what is asked of you to the standard that is expected, that is a very different concept to being a service provider needing to enchant and delight customers who have no obligation to draw the service from you. This is a real transformation in those businesses.
I was pleased to be part of the Australian Institute of Company Directors' briefing workshop in Melbourne just last week where it was all about social enterprises. Social enterprises are inspired by a purpose and community vision, but they cannot run at a loss. Just because you are a not-for-profit that does not make it okay to lose money. You are not for loss and not for profit.
Many of the agencies, organisations and service providers in the NDIS enterprise and endeavour are facing their own challenge. For a business to be told, 'Here's a chunk of money. Here's what's required of you. Do the right thing with the client group we've identified. Everything is sweet, and we'll do it again next year,' is different from them saying, 'Here's what I think I as a service can do for you within your eligibility funding envelope that has been assessed. Here's how this will help pursue the ambitions and goals you have for fulfilling your life and here's where we think we can make a difference and use that allocation of resources wisely.' That is a different proposition. What if the service provider is not meeting their clients' needs? What if there was an experience in an earlier year where someone was not quite at the top of their game and the participant is looking for another person to be their provider? This whole idea of being customer driven is quite a cultural transformation that is not easily navigated. These are some of the challenges we are facing.
This complexity is in part why this bill is before the chamber today. What was understood and recognised quite early by governments, not just this government but all governments in the Federation, was that there was a need to make sure the board that oversaw this great enterprise had the skill set, insight and wisdom to navigate these charges that I have described. And there are a whole bunch of others, such as transitioning organisations, strategy, risk, insurance, governance and implementation. It is not a small challenge.
That is why there was an independent review of the skills, competencies and experiences required on the board to support this post initial transition phase into a full rollout and then embed good systems and good value, meeting the ambitions of governments, participants, service providers and the broader community in the longer term. That is what triggered this bill. That review identified that there was a need for a broader range of experience on the board to talk about change management. This is a transformation of very substantial proportions. Navigating that requires skill sets that might not ordinarily be the first that come to mind when you are putting together the governance structure and board of an organisation like this, such as financial management and deep embedded expertise in management of insurance based schemes. This is why there was a need to revise the board, specifically its membership but also its configuration. That is why we have this bill before us today.
This is a sensible move. This is part of what we are learning on this journey that we are seeing with the rollout, understanding what government and policymakers need to do to give the scheme the very best chance of success. As I mentioned earlier, 460,000 people are counting on us getting this right.
I want to go back to where I started. There is a group in our community of carers and parents who have selflessly given up their lives to care for their loved ones. We know of the stories about mature-age parents who have spent 50 or 60 years caring for a loved one with a profound intellectual disability. We know that the care and support available and the impact that has had on the metabolic rate of such participants sees those parents being called to do things well into what should be retirement age. I have spoken with such parents. We all have in this place. They want to know that they can look forward with confidence to a scheme that will provide all of the support that is reasonable and necessary for their loved ones. Why? It is because they have done that selflessly right throughout their lives.
That is what inspires and animates the NDIS. That is why getting it right is important. That is why this bill is in this House—to make sure that the skill set, talents and competencies on the NDIA board support that very virtuous ambition and recognises that families and carers have given all you could ever ask of them in the love, care and support of family members living with a disability. That is why I commend this bill tonight.
I am pleased to tonight to rise to speak on the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment Bill 2016. This bill makes a small administrative change. It changes section 126 of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 by amending the number of members from eight up to 11 and giving the minister the flexibility to decrease the size of the board at some point in the future when it is considered appropriate and prudent to do so. It is important to have board members on the National Disability Insurance Authority board who have wide experience from all different walks of life and management of finances and involvement with the disability sector in this economy. To go from eight to 11 is an important change.
I would like to take this opportunity to comment on the National Disability Insurance Scheme with a little bit of a wider scope. I do so as someone who has an intimate relationship with what is required. I have a son who was born with Down Syndrome and who was diagnosed with autism at the age of three. He is now 21 years old. I have seen with my own eyes the need we have in our society for greater care of people with disabilities. Most of all, I have seen that we really need to put our resources into assisting carers. I have found that many of the people who are afflicted with some sort of disability, which they have inherited through birth or which has come about by accident, are generally happy people at heart. The greatest lesson I have learnt from my relationship with the disability sector is that their lives are valuable; that teaches us about the importance and preciousness of everyone's life and the importance of not prejudging people.
We really need the resources to go to help those carers—those people who have sacrificed the greater part of their lives to look after a loved one, whether it is a son or a daughter or a relative. They are the ones to whom we need to give greater resources, but we have to do this in a sustainable way. I know the member for Jagajaga comes to this debate with a good heart and wants to do as much as she can for people with disabilities, but when she says that the National Disability Insurance Scheme was funded by Labor, we need to tell the truth. The levy for the National Disability Insurance Scheme is half of one per cent and it raises $3.3 billion a year. It is estimated that, when we finally get the scheme rolled out to 460,000 participants, the cost will be $22 billion.
The truth is that at the moment with all the other burdens on government expenditure—with the ageing of the population, greater demands on health care and on the educational sector—we do not have a way at the moment of funding and annual expenditure of $22 billion in a sustainable way. We cannot fund it from continuing government debt and borrowings. Over the past 8½ years, this nation has borrowed money at the rate of $100 million every single day and it will most likely continue with that borrowing next year as well. If we are going to fund the National Disability Insurance Scheme, it cannot be done from borrowed money; it has to come from a balanced budget. The only way we can do that is not to increase taxes and tie people up in red tape; rather, we have to do the opposite. We have to release the wealth creators of this nation and tell those people, 'If you want to get out there to start a business and create wealth, we in this parliament will back you.' We cannot do it if we are lock up developments or if we mandate higher energy costs. We cannot do it if we are attacking small business people, as we saw recently with the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal. It is things like that that undermine our ability to finance or afford the National Disability Insurance Scheme.
If we are worried about governments undermining the future, we have to release the wealth creators of this nation. Let them get out there and build businesses. Let our farmers get out and farm their land without stopping them from clearing that land. Let's get the mines of this country into full operation; let's get off the backs of entrepreneurs and let them have a go. That is what we need to do if we are going to get this economy moving and fund the NDIS. We must fund it in the years to come in a sustainable way; otherwise we are holding out on the people who need the greatest assistance in our community. No matter which side of parliament we sit on, I hope that when we consider legislation we ask: how it will affect the wealth creators of our society? How will it determine our ability to finance the National Disability Insurance Scheme in the long term. That is our challenge as we go ahead. It is a huge change for this nation, but I believe the people of this nation are up to it. We have shown in the past that we are rich and wealthy nation, but our wealth does not come from the coal seams that run down the eastern seaboard or the iron ore in the outback or the gold. It comes from the entrepreneurial skills of individual citizens, and that is what we need to release to ensure that we have the wealth to give those carers and those suffering from a disability everything they need and they deserve. With that, I commend this bill to the House.
I am a bit like the member for Dunkley in that this is a post-valedictory speech, but this is such an important subject—the National Disability Insurance Scheme. I was a previous minister in this portfolio, and I recall quite vividly a meeting in Brisbane of all Commonwealth ministers where, as the Howard government minister, I had a blank cheque. This will sound incredible to some members, given the financial situation that the Commonwealth finds itself in today, as the previous member said, of borrowing $100 million a day. I was given the authority to approach all Labor ministers—as they all then were in the states—and say, 'For every new dollar that you put on the table, the Commonwealth will match it dollar for dollar to help improve the lives of the families who live with and support a person with a disability.' Sadly, that meeting was closed down in a flash because the states were not ready to step up the plate at that point.
I commend the Labor Party for bringing on the NDIS and making it a reality. Again, as the previous member said, unfortunately it has not been fully funded and this has created a great deal of unnecessary angst amongst the public. They have watched the coalition here dealing with the reality of a 22 thousand million dollar-a-year program, of which we all see the need—both the economic and the social need—but recognising that someone has to pay the piper at the end of the day. The Medicare payment that we are all obliged to pay does not go close to addressing that financial need.
Unless you have lived with someone with a disability, unless you are very close to families that have dealt with that struggle or unless you have had the privilege—and I call it a privilege—to sit as the chairman of the Joint Committee on the National Disability Insurance Scheme, as the member for Dunkley, who succeeded me, has and to hear firsthand the stories of families dealing sometimes with multiple cases of severe disability over many, many years, you cannot appreciate just how lucky you are. I want to bring to the House's attention just one woman who, in closed session, came to us. Obviously, I will not identify her. She only wanted to say one thing—and it was in the member for Corangamite's electorate; she just wanted to say thank you. The woman had severe disabilities, which she had had since birth, and one of those was incontinence. Not being able to afford incontinence pads or aids as an adult woman and having to deal with the challenges—I cannot even come up with the words—the indignity of not being able to have the appropriate aids to meet her needs spoke such volumes to this all-party committee. She wanted to say thank you for such a simple thing, which was: 'Today I now have that dignity that comes with having appropriate aids, and that is because of the NDIS.'
The member for Dunkley pointed out, and rightly so—and I want to support and echo his words—that the challenges that lie before us with the NDIS are massive. The sector is not ready. This does not mean we should not go ahead. What it says is that the boards—who are often comprised of people whose own families have had a child, generally, or even an adult with a disability—have formed groups to support those families over sometimes many decades and now many are growing old, but the market is changing. It is changing from one where governments, state and federal, provided block funding and people gave what support they could and gave as much care as they could to one of a market force—and that market force being that the power is for once being put into the hands of the individual. These people are the least empowered people in our nation, who, through no fault of their own, do not have the same 'abilities' as the rest of us. Many have extraordinary abilities, so I do not wish that comment to be seen as being disparaging in any way, shape or form. These people who need assistance beyond what the rest of us consider normal levels of support need to know that those supports are going to be there for them. If we cannot do that as a nation then we have to have a long, hard look at ourselves.
The organisations that will ultimately deliver those services, which are generally the not-for-profit sector, need to be able to change. This is a call from me tonight to capable people throughout the business community to get on board with the national disability scheme by supporting your local, your state and your national disability organisations. They are going to need your expertise in financial management, in service delivery and in being able to operate in a competitive market. They have to be able to find staff, to train staff, to make sure that those staff obtain the sorts of standards that we would all demand of someone looking after a vulnerable person in our community. Then they have to maintain those standards moving forward and do it in a cost-efficient manner. These are big tasks, massive tasks, but they are tasks that this nation is up for, if we all pull together and make it work.
As I said, I compliment the member for Jagajaga, who came into this place 20 years ago, with me, and who I think has been in that same portfolio for 20 years—but the work is not done. The work is only just beginning. We have got over the threshold. We have had the Every Australian Counts campaign, but now we have to make this scheme deliver on the ground. Let us have a look at the figures. Today, there are roughly 30,000 people in the system. The last time I looked, about 20 per cent of the services that they were entitled to avail themselves of they had not used. The funding has been there but they have not used the services. The questions have not been answered: why is that the case? Is it because there are inefficient people delivering the services? Is it because their information to connect with the services in an area is not satisfactory? What is it? We need to know that if we are going to fulfil those lives. Most importantly, we are going to need a disability sector—which is going to control and expend on behalf of the Commonwealth and the state governments 22 thousand million dollars a year—capable of stepping up to the plate, training the people who will deliver those services and making sure that they do not hurt people along the way.
Given that this will be my last contribution to the parliament, I did not really want to bring to the parliament's attention what I am about to say, but, because these people are so often so vulnerable, the parliament needs to be alerted to what can happen to them. I saw firsthand on Bribie Island, in my former electorate of Longman, a particular organisation who have gone to court. They came with all the best intentions, so it seemed, to help people with disabilities, but because of poor governance, because of no oversight by those who were given an authority to look after people with the greatest of disabilities, we saw, as a form of punishment, young people put in cages, those cages hoisted off the ground and the sides of the cages hit. There was sexual abuse of males and females. I reiterate to the parliament: people have been convicted. These things were not allegations. They happened. I recall to this day looking into the eyes of an adult male whose elderly parents had finally built up some trust whereby they felt there was somewhere where their son could live in peace and have a quality of life only to have it torn from him because others had taken that trust away. These are the real tests of the NDIS. Yes, we can deliver the services and we must, but we must also protect those who cannot protect themselves. The governance needs to be in place—the checks and balances, the quality of the people, what they are doing and how they are doing it—to make sure that not only the money is well spent but also that the services are delivered in such a way as to protect those who we seek to protect.
None of us, in this place, who have been part of big projects underestimate the challenges that lie ahead for everyone from the CEO and the board of NDIA through to the service providers, the parents, the siblings, the careers and the wider community. But if we all pull together we can show what passion this nation has for compassion—compassion for those who have drawn the short straw in some respects. Some of the previous speakers said there are many talents amongst the people who we will be seeking to help. What we need to do is draw out that talent. We need to give every individual the capability and the capacity to live life to its full and to be a contributor to the nation's future, because it is only when we realise what people are capable of and when we see past what can be the visual nature of a disability that we will recognise how much more people can offer.
Let me finish by talking about the person I know best with a disability—that is, my father. My dad, at four years of age, went into hospital in 1931 and contracted polio while he was there. He spent the next four years of his life in and out of hospitals. They actually built his coffin. They ripped open his chest and broke every rib to give him what was then called heart massage. He is a tough old bugger. He is now 89. In fact, he was in palliative care 18 months ago and the doctors were trying to kill him, but they failed. He is now playing chess again.
The organisation that he recounted to me only last week was the great Queensland charity then known as Montrose Home for Crippled Children, today known as MontroseAccess. He recalled the story of a man who then owned a business called Metropolitan Motors, in Brisbane. He gave my dad a toy on his seventh birthday: a little car with a light on it. He never forgot it. This same man also donated the house that became Montrose House that my dad spent 12 months in, allowing him to recuperate from this dreadful disease, polio.
When dad was a young adult with a family and struggling because of his polio—they did not have the services we have today—that same man gave him a job. It is that same passion that brings people to MontroseAccess today. It is our duty to work with MontroseAccess and all of those organisations around this country to support them, to encourage them and, in our professional roles outside of this parliament, to give our skills and expertise to ensure that they flourish, that they have the governance and that they have the skill set to make sure that we continue to deliver for people with disabilities. They are equal Australians and they deserve the same rights, to enjoy the same possibilities that this great nation has delivered for me and for every single person in this chamber. I commend this bill to the House.
I rise to speak on the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment Bill 2016. Before I address the bill, I have to say how disappointed I was in the comments made by the member for Jagajaga. I always understood that this was a bipartisan approach to helping the most vulnerable in our community, and yet the member for Jagajaga sought to be political. She echoed the comments of her leader, that:
…the National Disability Insurance Scheme was properly funded when Labor left office and what we did is we increased the Medicare levy.
As you know, that is far from the truth. The truth is that the NDIS was not properly funded when Labor left office in 2013. Labor claims any savings were to be directed to the NDIS, but they were simply returned to consolidated revenue. They were not set aside to fund the NDIS. It is for this reason that the coalition government is required to find an additional $5 billion, which it is doing. Whatever Labor might choose to believe and whatever smoke and mirrors they use, you cannot spend the same dollar twice.
Australia is on the threshold of one of the most significant changes in social policy that this nation has seen in many years. The Productivity Commission report Disability care and support, released in July 2011, found that most families and individuals cannot adequately prepare for the risk and financial impact of significant disability. Indeed, it found that the disability support system across Australia was underfunded, unfair, fragmented and inefficient. It also found that the stresses on the system were growing, with rising costs for all governments. Consequently, the coalition government has embraced the national disability insurance scheme as a means of providing support to eligible participants over their lifetime. This approach is expected to assist people with disabilities, their families and carers to increase their independence and improve their social and economic participation.
Importantly, this is not a welfare measure. On the contrary, it takes an insurance approach to supporting and investing in people early to maximise capacity and minimise long term costs. There can be no doubt that the scope and extent of the scheme is unprecedented. It is a major undertaking that must succeed not only in meeting its objective of assisting those with a disability but also in maximising the broader social and economic dividends that will flow from this type of investment.
Since taking on responsibilities as Assistant Minister for Disability Services I have met with more than 250 significant stakeholders. They have conveyed to me their experiences of the NDIS and the way in which they would like to see it administered over the next three years before full roll-out and into the distant future. These meetings have been productive, and I have learnt much from those at the coalface as they meet the challenges and grasp the opportunities that this new system provides.
I was also privileged to visit the national headquarters of the NDIA, the scheme's administrative agency in Geelong. The enthusiasm and dedication of the board, executive and staff was inspiring, and I was impressed by the professionalism that I encountered. On the same day, I visited the Barwon trial site, also located in Geelong, and I met representatives of disability agencies, NDIS participants and, with the member for Corangamite, Sarah Henderson, the site staff and their families. Again, the commitment of these staff members to the success of the NDIS was inspiring.
The fact that the enthusiasm that I encountered on this occasion is being replicated throughout the country makes the success of the NDIS even more critical. The scheme is a shared venture between the Commonwealth and the states and territories. Its success depends on a close relationship between the Commonwealth states and territories, and it depends on mutual respect and utmost good faith. It is a matter of personal regret to me that the Queensland government chose to play politics with the NDIS before it, ultimately, agreed to sign a bilateral agreement with the Commonwealth government. As the Minister for Social Services pointed out, the Commonwealth had reached agreements with New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Tasmania and the ACT. It is beyond comprehension why Queensland decided to indulge in juvenile behaviour before agreeing to sign the document and join the NDIS. The minister indicated that, in each of these cases, an orderly and cooperative process was followed that would best benefit people living with disability. Any independent observer would be entitled to ask why Queensland, of all the states and territories, had such difficulty in behaving in a responsible manner. I can only assume the pressures of minority government are imposing such a burden on the Premier that standards of decent behaviour have flown out of the window with Labor's wafer-thin majority.
The second important element in the governance of the scheme is the independent board, which was established under the NDIS Act. It is the board's responsibility to ensure the proper, efficient and effective performance of the NDIS functions. The board is responsible for determining the NDIA's objectives, strategies and policies. The NDIS is a major undertaking. It is a multimillion-dollar scheme. It is entitled to the most qualified and competent leadership as possible at board level. The board must be composed of the broadest possible cross-section of the community. Board members must bring skills and experience which will contribute to the leadership of this crucial scheme.
The current size of the board does not allow for the diversity and strength required for the management of the NDIS. The Council of Australian Governments agreed in April last year that there was a need to strengthen governance arrangements. This is particularly critical in administering the challenges associated with managing the transition of the NDIS to the full scheme. Indeed, an independent review of the skills and experience required on the board for the transition stage found that the board should have strong ASX 50 or large government-business enterprise level experience in operation and financial systems, and controls. Accordingly, this bill seeks to increase the maximum number of board members from nine to 12, including the chairman. At the same time, the bill changes the quorum arrangements to make it clear that a quorum is a majority of board members
I believe these changes will make an important contribution to the effectiveness of the entire NDIS apparatus. Residents of every electorate in Australia, including the division of Ryan, are looking forward to the successful implementation of the NDIS. They are acutely aware that the needs of people with disability, some of the most vulnerable people in our community, must be met. However, they are equally conscious that the scheme must have effective leadership to ensure that its objectives are met. The measures in this bill will go some of the way to doing that.
I commend the bill to the House and look forward to the improvements in governance arrangements that this bill will bring.
I thank all the members for their contributions to this, the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment Bill 2016. The bill amends the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 to essentially increase the maximum number of members of the board of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Launch Transition Agency, known generally as the NDIA, and also to make a number of minor consequential changes to quorum provisions for board meetings.
Under the amendments, the minister would have the capacity to appoint up to 11 members, aside from the chair. This change ensures that the government, in consultation with the states and territories, has the ability to provide the NDIA with a board that has the required range of skills, experience and abilities to manage the National Disability Insurance Scheme as it proceeds to full nationwide coverage. The government is, self-evidently, committed to the full implementation of the NDIS. This government is committed to the benefits that the NDIS brings for people with a disability, their families, their carers and the broader Australian community. Indeed, it is the coalition government that is successfully managing the rollout of the NDIS—and no small feat is that. We are doing that to ensure that it is going to be delivered on time and on budget—which is certainly the case do date. It is the coalition government that has concluded agreements to ensure that the NDIS will be rolled out across the country. The Commonwealth has now signed bilateral agreements for the transition to the full NDIS scheme, with New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, South Australia and Tasmania. Of course, in the ACT, the agreed eligible population will be fully covered by September 2016. So, together, these agreements provide certainty to date for around 85 per cent of the 460,000 Australians who are expected to be eligible for the NDIS.
Further, the comparative trial in Western Australia is also being extended and expanded until 30 June 2017 to give further certainly to around 10,900 current and future participants of ongoing support from the NDIS. The Commonwealth and the WA governments have also agreed to finalise arrangements for the state-wide roll-out of the NDIS by October 2016, with the full roll-out in WA to continue from 1 July 2017. Essentially, we are on the verge of finalising arrangements for the roll-out with the NDIS also across the Northern Territory.
This week, another very important bill will come before the parliament—that is, the bill to establish the NDIS savings fund to ensure that the NDIS is fully funded into the future. For those opposite who now claim the NDIS was fully funded, that is nothing short of a very clumsy attempt to rewrite history. The claim now that there were adequate, specific, clearly-identified savings set aside to fully fund the NDIS is simply incorrect. Indeed, that is a topic upon which there will be much more to say, no doubt, in the context of the NDIS savings account that will be debated later this week and which I might say here is a major test for the opposition in terms of their support and realistic and rational commitment to the full rollout of the NDIS.
But for present purposes, the measures in this bill simply increase the maximum size of the board and that is part of a limited number of measures, but important measures, that the government is working on constructively with the states and territories through COAG and its Disability Reform Council. We are discussing, through COAG and its Disability Reform Council, a number of limited measures designed to ensure that the NDIA governance structures are agile and are responsive as we commence the very critical steps in transition to full scheme and to ensure that the NDIS can continue to be delivered sustainably on time and on budget, as is presently the case.
I might add, with respect to the COAG and Disability Reform Council process, that contrary to some of the contributions from members opposite in this second reading debate, absolutely none of the governance changes that are being constructively discussed through COAG and the Disability Reform Council would provide the Commonwealth with the ability to limit eligibility to the scheme. Any assertion to that effect is simply incorrect. Nor do any of those discussed changes change anything with respect to the level of reasonable and necessary support that a participant requires. That is neither now nor will it ever be the government's intention. The NDIS Act clearly defines eligibility. It clearly defines what is referred to as 'reasonable and necessary support' and this government does not propose to change those matters at all.
The present measure is part of a range of matters being discussed through COAG and the Disability Reform Council as part of trying to make the governance of the NDIA best suited to protect and advance the interest of those who will be served by the NDIS. The present measure is simply to do with determining the size and constitution of the board. This bill, which would increase the board's size, has been informed by an independent review of the skills and experience required on the NDIA board for the transition to full scheme. That review concluded that the next iteration of the board would need to have stronger experience in ASX 50 or large government business enterprise level organisations, with particular experience in change and financial management, financial systems and controls, and considerable expertise in the operation and management of insurance based schemes. That is perhaps not unsurprising given that the board has oversighted what was the very early stage of the NDIS, but now will need to oversight the growth of the NDIS from around 30,000 participants right up to the figure of 460,000 in what will be a relatively short time frame.
Implementation of this measure has been agreed with the members of the Council of Australian Government's Disability Reform Council, with a staged approach being adopted that ensures that there will be continuity while also producing the best possible governance outcomes during transition to NDIS full scheme. It is for this reason that the government has reappointed the current chair and members of the NDIA board for periods of either six or 12 months as part of this continuity and reform process. The government does not consider the current NDIA board to be expendable, which is quite contrary to some of the comments made by members opposite. That is precisely why we have agreed to extend the current tenures of members of the members of the board and have made it clear that they will be fully considered in any future merit-based appointment process. The amendments before the House today ensure that the NDIA board, which is charged with the oversight of this significant social policy reform, continues to have the appropriate selection of skills, capabilities and leadership qualities to bring the NDIS to full scheme within the allocated budget and time frame.
I thank the members opposite for agreeing to support this bill. I also encourage them to continue their support for other measures that the government is taking to ensure that the NDIS is fully funded, properly governed and sustainable into the future. I commend the bill to the House.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
It is rare to be able to speak twice in your first term in the address-in-reply debate. The last time I spoke during the address-in-reply debate was actually my first speech, and that was the result of an election. We all came back into this place and, when it was our turn, we spoke during the address-in-reply debate. It is very rare to speak twice in a term to the address-in-reply debate: it is very rare because what the government did, in asking the Governor-General to recall and open the parliament again, is rare. The last time it happened in federal parliament was when Queen Elizabeth was in town and it was a special occasion. It may never happen again. It is definitely rare that within one term of parliament we have had two openings of the same parliament.
You would think that it would have to be a pretty serious reason as to why we would need to reopen our parliament; it would have to be something pretty serious or something that urgently needed to be dealt with. The rationale that we were given by the Governor-General, because he was asked by the Prime Minister to reopen the parliament for the second session, was:
The cause for which I have recalled the parliament is to enable it and, in particular, the Senate to give full and timely consideration to two important parcels of industrial legislation—the bills to provide for the re-establishment of the Australian Building and Construction Commission, and the bill to improve the governance and transparency of registered organisations.
That was the justification that was given for why we reopened this parliament and why we were all recalled. Yet, the second reason—the registered organisations bill—does not appear to be on the government's agenda anymore. It is not listed for debate. It was listed for debate and then taken off. It has been completely dropped. This government has decided that it is no longer important to talk about registered organisations. It has dropped the matter entirely. It is no longer on the government's Notice Paper, yet it was relevant enough for the Governor-General to be asked to reopen parliament for this issue—another example of how this government is playing politics and using this parliament to pursue its own agenda. It is too clever and too tricky by half. Sometimes it feels like you are at a National Union of Students debating conference rather than the Australian parliament, because of the way this side is trying to use procedure to push its agenda through.
It is not the first time that we have seen this government try to play games to push its agenda. Since coming to power, it has put forward multiple pieces of legislation that are not about ensuring safer workplaces and that are not about ensuring that we protect your rights at work. In fact, as I will say later in my speech, what is going on in our workplaces is the worst that it has been for decades. Wages are down, workplace health and safety incidents are up, people cannot find full-time work and workers are being exploited. All of this is going on on this government's watch.
Rather than tackling those serious issues in our workplaces, this government has instead gone after a movement—a Labor movement—because of this government's blind hatred for the movement, whether it be the trade unions and the workers or whether it be the Labor Party. If you step through what this government has done and how it has used our justice system, how it has misused this parliament, how it has used question time to ask questions, and how it has portrayed people here in this place and in the media, it is all about one thing and one thing only—to try and destroy its opponents. It is a cynical attempt by this government to set up a narrative and a case to destroy its opponents.
No, the royal commission did that. It was the royal commission that did that.
Those on the other side are a bunch of bad sports. Somebody just interjected about the royal commission—an $80 million witch-hunt that had no recommendations that would be enacted with ABCC legislation or with the registered organisations legislation. That expensive witch-hunt and waste of time was a show trial, which pulled up previous Labor leaders, which pulled up current Labor leaders, and which did not recommend one criminal charge, because it did not have the capacity to do so. I acknowledge that there have been people in the union movement who have done the wrong thing—one or two bad people. Those people have faced the Fair Work Act and they have faced criminal charges.
Mr Nikolic interjecting—
This is also a Liberal Party that will deny the fact that they have a few bad eggs in their movement. They are everywhere. Just as you throw at us the issues with Craig Thomson, we throw at you the issues with the Victorian Liberal Party and the fact that this week one of their own is pleading guilty to embezzling $1.5 million of Liberal Party funds.
There are bad people in every movement. They should face the full force of the law. But what this government has tried to do, through this parliament, through a royal commission and through the court system, is blame an entire movement. What we are seeing now, in quite possibly the last days of this government—
Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I refer you to page 518 of the Practice, where it is not in order to be reflecting in that way on the judiciary. I would invite the member to be very careful about the way that she reflects on our courts and the members of our judiciary, which is clearly inconsistent with the standing orders.
The member for Bendigo will please continue.
As I was saying in my statement about the way in which this government has tried to portray the 'evil' deeds of the union movement, it is just wrong in the way in which it has manipulated the system. The royal commission was a show trial. It was there to name and to shame individuals within—
Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I again refer the member to page 518 of Practice and standing order 100(c), where she is clearly—
Mr Speaker—
I would invite the member for Parramatta to be seated while I am speaking. It is out of order to be standing while I am speaking.
Yes. The member for Parramatta will please resume her seat.
It is inconsistent with standing 100(c) to reflect and be critical on the character of our judiciary. In saying it is a show trial, the member is imputing motives against the royal commissioner and the judiciary of this country. That reflects poorly on her and poorly on her party. I invite her to withdraw those comments immediately.
I will continue my statement, Mr Deputy Speaker.
To assist the House, would you mind withdrawing that comment?
I will not withdraw, because I do not accept that ruling.
Mr Deputy Speaker, in that case she is defying the chair.
Mr Speaker, you ruled on the first point of order and then you allowed the member for Bass to make it again. I suggest that once you had ruled on your first point of order, the speaker with the call should have been allowed to continue without interruption on the same point again.
Mr Deputy Speaker, in relation to the point of order, it is open under the standing orders for a member to call a point of order at any time. A previous ruling does not stop me from raising a point of order. I would invite the honourable member not to reflect in the way she has on the judiciary or the royal commissioner, imputing the most improper motives to a senior and respected member of the judiciary of this country.
The question has been raised as to whether the royal commissioner is a member of the judiciary, but it is improper to impugn—
I did not impugn the commissioner at all; I was talking about the process. I will continue my remarks.
Yes, please continue.
I will move to the Fair Work Building and Construction Commission and what is going on with the Fair Work Building and Construction Commission. We have seen time and time again in this place and the other place members of this government use the fair work building commission to name and shame individuals involved in the union movement. In fact, this government has used 195 questions without notice in question time to ask about the conduct and the behaviour of the fair work building commission.
We have to question how independent the fair work building commissioner is, with this statement by the Federal Court slamming the fair work building watchdog for abuse of power. On 7 April 2016 an article that appeared in the paper said that fair work was 'unjustifiably vexatious'. These are not my words; this is what was reported in a local paper—the director of fair work has unjustifiably vexatiously used his power. This is what the paper was saying. This was a report on what the Federal Court said, slamming the fair work watchdog. It went on to say in this particular case that the justice presiding over the matter 'on Thursday morning ruled the director of Fair Work was being "unjustifiably vexatious"'. These are pretty strong words that were used to describe the fair work building commission.
How does it come about that the Federal Court is saying this? I think we have to step through what is actually happening in some of our workplaces. In my electorate there is a worksite where construction work had gone on. It was a project that was partly funded by the previous government through Stronger Regions, which back then was known as the Regional Development Fund that was funded through the state government. There were issues in that case. The first thing that happened was, unfortunately and quite tragically, a worker fell into the orchestra pit and almost lost his life. Then we had a case where some subcontractors in that workplace went into receivership because they were not being paid by the principal contractor. Those people were sent letters of demand—somebody threatening to sue somebody else. That is what happened on this workplace.
This project was not without complications. A worker almost lost his life. Workers were not paid and subcontractors were not paid. Clearly there were issues, yet the fair work building commissioner did not go after those issues. Instead, he pulled up the organiser for the CFMEU and said, 'You didn't show your permit when you were asked.' Are these the most pressing issues on that worksite? The answer is no. It is not the first case and it is not the last case. As the Federal Court said a few weeks ago:
There is an established pattern of the FWBC pursuing the union at every opportunity, dragging union officials through courts …
This is what was reported in the media about what the fair work building commission has become.
How close is this government to the fair work building commission? This is now out in the public jurisdiction. You step through what happened in these workplaces—workers almost lost their lives and workers were being exploited and not being paid. Rather than investigating that—small businesses being threatened to be sued for speaking out about the fact that they had not been paid—they tried to slap the union official and it goes up in the local paper. It is a name and shame game.
The other example in relation to this is the Bendigo Hospital redevelopment project and Lendlease. I acknowledge Lendlease because they have now paid those workers. Some $600,000 in wages were owed to those workers. The Prime Minister sat down with Lendlease and said, 'We need to stop the lawlessness going on in Lendlease workplaces,' yet the Prime Minister was not asking Lendlease to pay the workers who had not been paid—migrant Chinese workers who lived in Melbourne and were driving up to Bendigo. They lost thousands and thousands of dollars because their company went into receivership. It took the CFMEU and a protest to get Lendlease to go: 'Okay, we have got a problem. We need to fix this.' Yet this government would say that it is not the contractor that is the problem; it is the union for being the whistleblower and exposing what is going on.
Unions are speaking out day in and day out about what is happening in our workplaces and this government has turned a blind eye to it. Whether it be the exploitation of temporary workers—and we found out again today that this government has said nothing to support the people who were working for 7-Eleven who were not paid properly—guest workers and migrant workers in this country, or whether it be temporary workers working in the cleaning industry, this government again is turning its back on them. This government cut the wages of the cleaners working in Parliament House. This government is failing Australian workers. Australian workers are being sacked and replaced for being Australian. We see it happening in our shipping industry. We see it happening in our construction industry. We see it happening in our health industry.
The number of 457 visas under this government has increased. People are being signed up for jobs and being paid less than Australian workers. That is what is happening under this government's watch. Yet the reason why this parliament had to be reopened was not that workers were being treated badly; it was that the people who try to help them are apparently the people who are behaving badly.
The crisis going on in Australian workplaces is all to do with the fact that we do not have a regime or support system strong enough for those workers, and this government is now trying to convince the Australian people that it is all the fault of a few union officials. That could not be further from the truth. It has recalled parliament, brought us back here. It has used every trick in the book in parliament to try to get the legislation through. It uses friends in the media to try and push forward cases about individuals, cases which have now been thrown out of court, as I tried to demonstrate earlier. Where is the apology for all those union officials who have been named and shamed in this place and in the other place only to be proven innocent? Where is the apology for those union officials? This government claims to be the great advocate of truth and justice, yet it has not apologised. It has not once said, 'Sorry, we got that wrong.' There have been almost 200 questions in question time naming and shaming not just an organisation but individuals.
This is the reason why this parliament had to be recalled, yet those opposite will not talk about what is going on in our workplaces. Temporary workers, people who have come here, are being exploited, but the government has failed to act. It said it would set up a committee. It has not done anything. This is a government that wants to cut the pay of low-paid workers. It is going after penalty rates. It wants to do is set up tougher rules for registered organisations because they are the organisations speaking out about the impact that cutting penalty rates will have.
This is a government that wants to go to an election on a real con, on a sham. It wants to go after its opposition. This is a government that has no respect for our democracy. It has no respect for this institution. It has no respect at all for the rule of law, even though it invokes it all the time. It has used the last three years to try to create a narrative to get to the point where they can try and con the Australian people that the biggest problem, the most urgent problem, we have to deal with and the reason we need to go to a double dissolution is a few union officials. That could not be further from the truth. If only the government went after the people who are ripping off temporary workers with the same vigour. If only the government went after the employers who are not ensuring safe workplaces with the same vigour. Instead, it has have brought us back here today, and here I am for the second time in my first parliament doing an address-in-reply after the Governor-General has reopened parliament. It is not because of an urgent matter but because of a lie. (Time expired)
There we have it, the most compelling thing the member for Bendigo has to talk about in her address-in-reply is protecting militant unions and those whom the royal commission has said have cases to answer for quite serious criminal offences. She talks about the rule of law and in the process slanders one of our most esteemed High Court judges. This is the most compelling thing that the member for Bendigo had to come into this House this evening and talk about to the Australian people. I am staggered and I am sure that the Australian people—her electorate—will be staggered when she returns for the election campaign and says to them that the No. 1 thing on her mind is protecting the CFMEU and the militant unions and some of the appalling acts that they have perpetrated on this very important industry over the years.
Deputy Speaker Goodenough, you will be pleased to know that what I am here to talk about this evening is reflective in nature. On 13 November 2013 I had the great honour of leading this side of the House in the address-in-reply. As we approach the beginning of the 2016 election campaign I thought it appropriate to reflect on the priorities that I identified for my electorate of Bass almost three years ago. I spoke about beautiful north-east Tasmania and how the people of Bass are rich in character and aspiration. I said that my early priorities in Bass included helping to deliver a healthier Tamar River, transforming Launceston's North Bank, new mountain bike trails in the north-east, the refurbishment of Invermay Park, where our famous cricketer Ricky Ponting—the boy from Mowbray—first made his mark, and enhancing the Tasmanian Freight Equalisation Scheme, creating the irrigation infrastructure we needed to grow and export more fresh, clean, green, quality Tasmanian products into growing middle-class markets in the Indo-Asia region and exploring the exciting possibilities to develop the DSTO facility at Scottsdale.
Three years on, I am proud to report to the House that those promises and more have been fulfilled. I have secured over $150 million in federal funds for Bass since the 2013 election, including to help restore our rivers' health. These resources have been used in a collaborative effort with Launceston City Council, the Launceston Flood Authority, NRM North, TasWater and the federal government's National Landcare Program. $10 million has been won for silt removal, rejuvenating North Bank and Riverbank Erosion Grants and Green Army riverbank projects on the Tamar and South Esk rivers. Recently I had the privilege of hosting the Minister for the Environment, Greg Hunt, at Launceston, where I pitched the benefits of extending the Tamar River Recovery Plan for another three years.
Since the 2013 election I have ensured that the federal government plays its part in addressing the Tamar River's many issues, caused by 16 years of inaction by state Labor and Greens politicians. We have applied $500,000 for TasWater to investigate Launceston's inefficient combined drainage system. That study is just about complete and will identify how best to address longstanding sewerage infrastructure issues in coming years. Federal funds have also been applied to upgrade the gritter at the St John Street pump station and there have been other quick wins relating to sewerage infrastructure. The gritter upgrade in particular provided immediate benefits in reducing the amount of pollution entering the Tamar River. The strategic importance of upgrading our sewerage infrastructure has also been acknowledged as one of only 93 Australia-wide projects in Infrastructure Australia's 15-year plan. Despite the criticism of certain Greens politicians from the sidelines, I cannot recall them standing next to me when I was fighting for that outcome here in Canberra.
A solution to the health problems of the Tamar is not going to be found in one single element. There is decades of pollution and the catchments will continue to deliver pollution and silt into the estuary until a suite of remedial measures start to make a difference. That work is underway, and even though it is not a federal government lead, I have secured federal resources to help fund it. All of my efforts have been directed towards a healthier Tamar River, and you only have to look at the work done so far on riverbank clean up, riverbank stabilisation and the relocation of industry. The First Basin area in Launceston would look much worse after the relatively rain-free years of the last two years if the Launceston Flood Authority had not shifted 450,000 cubic metres of silt with funding I had secured.
A lot of that has been done through an innovative raking program. There is a cray fisherman called Karl Krause. When he is not catching the most beautiful crayfish off Flinders Island, he is raking the Yacht Basin area and the upper reaches of the Tamar River. Three years ago, when there were 20 days of flow over Trevallyn Dam during heavy rain events, he managed to shift 250,000 cubic metres of silt. In the last two years he has done much less than that. The silt has built up once again, but we are going to stay on top of that problem, and we are certainly going to do a lot better job than the state Labor Party promised at the 2010 election.
At that time state environment minister, Michelle O'Byrne, said that the Bartlett government would devote $6.65 million to remove silt from the Tamar River. They spent $1 million on Environmental Protection Authority permits and other administrative expenses; they did not shift one bit of silt. In contrast, we stayed on top of that silt problem. When we can get even more water down the gorge, which I am working on with TasWater and the state government authorities, then I know that those three key things—silt removal through raking, heavy tidal action and water down Cataract Gorge—are going to make an even more impressive dent in that silt problem in the future.
All of these things that I have talked about contribute to a healthier Tamar, as will my consistent advocacy for stronger, reliable flows down the Cataract Gorge. We did a three-day trial last August where TasWater let more flow down the gorge at times when we were undertaking our raking program and during heavy tidal events. That additional input of water down the gorge improved our raking efforts tenfold, by 1,000 per cent. So it has been proven that water down the gorge is the missing link and we are working on that into the future.
I want to also report to the House that $6 million has been secured for the North Bank project, turning something that is currently a dirty, dusty industrial site where Boral run a concrete business into something that is much more family friendly, extending the use of our riverfront and giving the City of Launceston even more reasons to turn back towards our river.
I talked about new mountain bike trails. They are completed—the Blue Derby mountain bike trails. This is part of our strategy to make Northern Tasmania more of an entry point for our state. We now have mountain bike trails at Trevallyn reserve, at Hollybank and at Blue Derby. In the last budget I got some funding to make sure we could build a rail trail for cyclists between Launceston and Scottsdale. That is absolutely vital infrastructure. I will give you some grassroots examples of why it has been so successful. Mary and Murray Partridge run Cottage Bakery in Scottsdale. They have just had their best few months on record because every weekend mountain bike riders from all over Tasmania and all over Australia come to ride these trails. They are Olympic standard trails. Max Rainsford has opened up Red Dirt Cycle Company in the centre of Scottsdale. One of the restaurant owners there told me that he had 160 covers last weekend—meals sold in his restaurant. There are people who are opening new accommodation for that area, and it just goes to show that when you establish that infrastructure, then good things happen around it.
My view is we are going to make those Blue Derby mountain bike trails like Fruita in Colorado. Fruita used to be a small agricultural town in the middle of nowhere and, by virtue of investment in mountain bike trails, it is now mountain biking central in the United States. That is my plan for Scottsdale and, as the patron of cycling in Tasmania, I am thrilled at the amount of cycling tourism we are getting into our state. It is making a fundamental difference at the grassroots of my community. It shows you that when you invest in infrastructure of that sort, it is not a short-term political sugar hit for tomorrow; it is about delivering year-on-year benefits for these communities and I am excited about it.
All of these things, as I said, help make Northern Tasmania more of an entry point for our state: food, wine, adventure, recreation, arts, heritage—so many opportunities. There was a lady in the centre of Launceston the other day who had come all the way from Germany to take photos of beautiful heritage architecture and art deco buildings like Holyman House in the centre of Launceston, on the corner of Brisbane and George Streets. It goes to show what opportunities we have in Northern Tasmania to make it more of an entry point. When people think of Tasmania I do not want them to just think of MONA and Salamanca and Port Arthur, beautiful though those attraction are; I want them to think about Northern Tasmania and the Blue Derby mountain bike trails; Bridestowe Lavender Estate, the home of Bobbie the bear; Barnbougle Dunes, the 11th best golf course in the world. I want them to think about Pipers River wineries and Jansz and Josef Chromy's new food experience at the vineyards at Relbia. I want them to think about all of those new features that are opening up on the riverfront and throughout the north-east that will have more and more people coming to my community.
The refurbishment I promised of Invermay Park, where former Australian cricket captain Ricky Ponting first showed his talents, is now complete. Great work was done by the Baker brothers to ensure that new lighting and ground drainage now allows year-round use of this excellent facility. It is used by the North Launceston Football Club, Old Launcestonians, the Mowbray Cricket Club, umpires, soccer players and too many groups to mention. I also promised to help enhance the Tasmanian Freight Equalisation Scheme. Indeed, former Prime Minister Tony Abbott promised that on 15 August 2013 as part of the economic recovery plan for Tasmania. And we did not just talk the talk; $203 million has been delivered to make sure that we equalise the cost of getting those clean, fresh, quality goods from Tasmania into those growing international markets.
We promised to do more about irrigation schemes, to grow and export goods into those growing markets overseas; and what have we delivered? We have delivered $60 million for phase 2 irrigation schemes. Just a couple of weeks ago I was at upper Ringarooma opening a new $28 million dam. There is $20 million of federal money in that dam development—at the time, the largest dam development in Australia. Now, that is going to provide year-on-year benefits. With 95 per cent water certainty for water rights holders adjacent to that river, they are going to be able to turn marginal farmland into something more productive—greater farm efficiency.
I married that with a small $100,000 project to look at where it was best to locate phase 3 power in those regions, because, when you have reliable water and you have reliable phase 3 power, magic happens in agricultural terms. I am really excited that we have found those optimal locations to leverage the water infrastructure schemes where power is needed.
In my maiden speech, I said I would explore the exciting possibilities of developing the Defence Science and Technology Group facility at Scottsdale, and I am pleased to report that just a couple of months ago we approved a $7.2 million microwave assisted thermal sterilisation machine for Scottsdale. By virtue of the fact that it heats and cools food so rapidly, it sterilises the food so it does not need refrigeration, and the food's taste, texture and nutritional value is such that it will be excellent for our troops, it is going to enable us to have a food response option for humanitarian assistance and disaster relief contingencies, and it is going to have commercial potential. That is why we are going to locate that MATS machine at the Defence Science and Technology Group at Scottsdale but also have a production facility at Launceston so people can do small production runs to determine the commercial potential of this technology.
This is the first time this technology has been located in the Southern Hemisphere. It was developed by Washington State University and the US Army. I first got a sniff of it when I was the international fellow at the US Army War College in Pennsylvania. Now we have it here in Australia, at Scottsdale. It is going to be wonderful for my community.
As well as the things I have mentioned, there are so many others that have been achieved for my community, including $34 million for north-east freight roads to ensure the efficient and safe movement of freight, $19 million in grants to the Launceston campus of the University of Tasmania and $17 million in financial assistance grants to local government. I got $10 million to save the John L Grove centre in Launceston, a brand-new 20-bed rehabilitation facility opened by the Labor Party with much fanfare just before the 2013 election. The problem is that the deal Julia Gillard made with then Premier Lara Giddings was that the feds would build it and the state Labor Party would put the money in the budget to run it. Unfortunately, they did not do that, and so health minister Michael Ferguson came to me and said, 'This brand-new facility looks like closing,' a couple of years after it was opened because Labor did not put the money in the budget in accordance with the National Partnership Agreement. We managed to get two years of funding to enable the state government and the health minister, my good friend Michael Ferguson, to work out how to integrate the operations of the John L Grove rehabilitation centre into the state system. I am very pleased we were able to deliver that.
We also have $9 million from the Tasmanian Jobs and Growth Package, $5.7 million in Roads to Recovery funding, $3 million in innovation and investment grants, and $3 million for the Dorset Renewable Industries project. We have $2.7 million to establish the Major Projects Approval Agency in Launceston, co-located with the state government Office of the Coordinator-General. The agency are looking at hundreds of millions of dollars of projects for Tasmania, and they might be able to assist them in overcoming regulatory obstacles to optimise their investment. There is $1.15 million for Flinders Island Airport upgrade, $850,000 in capital grants for non-government schools, $790,000 to save StGiles speech pathology services and $500,000 to fix an accident black spot on Westbury Road. I could go on—Centenary of Anzac grants, support for the Ravenswood Neighbourhood House, the upgrade of the Launceston Police and Community Youth Club, grants under the Local Sporting Champions Program and money for Men's Sheds in Norwood, Rocherlea and Flinders Island.
The forthcoming election will be about jobs and growth. Around the time of the 2013 election, things were looking pretty grim. Then Prime Minister Kevin Rudd was pictured on the front page of TheExaminer, rushing to Launceston to meet with the then Labor Premier because the unemployment rate was 8.6 per cent. I am pleased to tell you, Mr Deputy Speaker Goodenough, the unemployment rate today is under seven per cent. There is still a lot to do; let us not get too excited about that big drop from 8.6 to under seven per cent—but it is moving in the right direction. All of the things that I have talked about just now will assist us in creating more local jobs and are enablers of our future prosperity in northern Tasmania.
I can also say that today's CommSec report confirms that Tasmania's economy is heading in the right direction. It states that Tasmania is currently experiencing a 'lift in momentum'. The report notes that Tasmania has 'moved up the rankings' and caught up with South Australia. When we came to government, sadly—and this was in my maiden speech as well—Tasmania was last on every single CommSec measure. In this latest report, we have improved on all of those measures bar one. The report highlights the strength of Tasmania's tourism and hospitality sector, building activity and population growth as positives for my state. Importantly, it rates jobs as our main positive. The efforts of this government over the last three years have made a real difference. That will continue, and I hope to have the great honour of continuing that work as the member for Bass.
In the future, we have to make the most of those free trade agreements that Andrew Robb, our trade minister has organised. Why? Because at the moment there are 500 million people in the middle classes from India to Asia, and that is projected to triple to 1.7 billion in the next 15 to 20 years. The eyes of the world have shifted from the north Atlantic to the Indo-Pacific as the engine room of global economic prosperity for the next 50 years. Australia is astride the Indian and Pacific oceans, ready, willing and able to take advantage of that unfolding economic miracle on our doorstep, and the policies of this government will make sure that we can tap into those markets through our irrigation schemes, through the Freight Equalisation Scheme and through many of the other projects that I have mentioned.
I will mention that my wife, Christine, and daughter Julia are sitting in the gallery. It does not happen very often. My daughter Julia finished the Port Macquarie IRONMAN yesterday. It was 180 kays on the bike, a four kay swim and a marathon. I am very proud of her, and I know that they will be standing next to me as we deliver for the constituents of Bass and the constituents of Tasmania. Thank you.
After the recent proroguing of parliament, I rise to respond to the Governor-General's opening speech about the resumption of debate on the proposed address-in-reply. We are reliably informed that this might be the last Canberra week of the 44th Parliament. It is an opportunity for some to bow out. I acknowledge all of those MPs who are leaving—some by their own choice, some by colleagues in their own parties suggesting it is time to move on, and some moving on at the election through no fault of their own and some through fault of their own. I wish them all the best. It is a tough job being in Canberra, away from our families and loved ones—ACT MPs and senators aside—and it is tough on families. I thank all of those many people who turn up to support this job of democracy, from the clerks right on through.
I would like to particularly acknowledge the good staff at Hansard. I note the Hansard reporter did smile there, whilst doing his job. Just for those listening, Hansard write up the words of MPs for posterity and, eventually, we even receive a bound copy of these very words that my children or grandchildren can have a look at. It is frozen in time for posterity. I know that if we stumble over certain words Hansard are so kind and attentive that they will fix them up. They will turn slang into standard English and if the word 'pronunciation' is mispronounced, they will turn it into standard English. Sadly, Hansard reporters only record what politicians say in this chamber or up in the Federation Chamber. They do not, actually, record what politicians do. They do not record if politicians are true to their word. So as this is only the third day of this new session of parliament, I thought it timely to explore, in my reply to the Governor-General, that yawning gap between what some politicians have said in the 44th Parliament and what they have done.
This is budget week—I remember that first budget week from 2014, after the 2013 election. Before that, I remember that Joe Hockey had said the LNP would return the budget to surplus in its first year. Instead, the deficit has been at least doubled by the LNP, and Mr Hockey, after that disastrous budget of 2014, has been punished for his incompetence. He earned the title of 'the worst treasurer in Australian history' and has been punished. They did that by sending him to a diplomatic posting in Washington.
Since then, we have had a few changes in those opposite. We have had a change of Prime Minister, a change of Treasurer and a change of a few others of the old guard. We had that strange situation where the Prime Minister—now the member for Wentworth; not the member for Warringah—wrote on 21 March 2016 to His Excellency General the Hon. Sir Peter Cosgrove AK MC (Retired). And I have a copy of that letter. It is available. He said:
Your Excellency—
Et cetera, et cetera—a little-used section 5 of the Constitution. And he said:
The reason for recalling the Parliament is to enable it to give full and timely consideration to two important parcels of industrial legislation—
The second one he mentioned was the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Bill 2014 (Registered Organisations Bill); that is in the letter by the Prime Minister to the Governor-General. He said a few other things. I will skip on. He said:
Although the grounds for a double dissolution under s. 57 of the Constitution exist in respect of the Registered Organisations Bill, it is the Government's preference to have it … passed by the Parliament rather than invoke the s. 57 procedure.
And, in fact, the Governor-General has written 'Noted' right next to that point.
The Governor-General—a man of honour; devoted his life to serving the Australian people; I have a lot of respect for him—made the point of saying that he had noted what the government intends to do. The Governor-General responds. Reading to the joint session of parliament—after the proroguing—the Governor-General's speech, which is available from Hansardsays:
…the House of Representatives—
The Governor-General is working on the instructions from the executive, from the Prime Minister—we, obviously, do not want adventurous Governor-Generals. We saw that back in '75. That did not go so well for Australian democracy. The Governor-General, repeating what the government has asked of him—what the executive have asked of him—said:
… the House of Representatives has three times passed legislation to give effect to the commitment on registered organisations. This legislation has been three times rejected by the Senate.
I have, on the advice of my ministers, recalled you so that these bills can be considered again, and their fate decided without further delay.
My government regards these measures as essential for the rule of law in our workplaces.
My government also regards these measures as crucial to its economic plan for promoting jobs and growth, and managing the transition of our economy from one reliant on the mining construction boom to a more diversified economy.
I will skip a paragraph. And this is Hansard recording the Governor-General's comments in the Senate chamber:
Honourable senators and members, as I declare open this new session of the parliament, you are called together to conclude your consideration of the Australian Building and Construction Commission and registered organisations bills.
That was a clear statement from the Governor-General expressing the views that the executive had made clear in the letter signed by the Prime Minister of the day.
In fact, we saw in the draft legislation program for the House of Representatives for the 2016 winter sittings of parliament—it was an indicative program that was subject to change; I admit that—that it said that the resumption of debate on the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Bill was to take place from 9.30 am on Monday 18 April and, if time required, also to take place after question time. Then even on Tuesday 19 April it listed a resumption of debate on the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Bill.
So the Prime Minister wrote to the Governor-General and said, 'This is what we are going to do.' The Governor-General responded. But when you look at the actual draft daily program for Tuesday 19 April you see there is no mention of the registered organisations amendment bill. Parliament was prorogued. Then we had all the politicians flown back to Canberra. All the MPs, all their staff and all the support staff were brought in here so that the government could do what it said in writing it would do. Instead, in the actual program there was no mention of the registered organisations amendment bill. I wonder if the Governor-General is aware that he was told one thing by the executive and then the executive decided to go back on its word. As I said, it is incredible that we would have the Prime Minister saying one thing and then doing another.
As I mentioned, the former Treasurer said that their government would be back in surplus within the first year of government. They have been a million miles from that. This week, government debt is at $424 billion. It is on track to hit $550 billion by 2020. Surely a government of Australia asking the people of Australia to live within their means would not contemplate, when debt is blown out like that, a tax break at this time. We have had the press reporting that it is only going to be a $5-a-week tax break. And it will not be everyone. It will not be for 75 per cent of workers. They will miss out. The government are suggesting a $5-a-week tax break, which, by any traditional budget measuring standard, is not even enough for a sandwich and a milkshake. You could not buy a milkshake for $5 in many cafes in my electorate.
We have the situation where those opposite are the highest ever taxing government as a percentage of GDP, higher than any preceding Labor governments. We have the high-taxing and high-spending government opposite coming in here to suggest to Australians that they need to live within their means. The lifestyle of most Australians that we take for granted took a hammering in the 2014 budget. That budget attacked many of the things that we take for granted.
I will particularly mention the trade union movement May Day holiday in Queensland where people have gone out to celebrate the people who came 125 years before. I note that Premier Palaszczuk was up in Barcaldine, the birthplace of the Labor Party and much of the labour movement. It worked on the eight-hour day, safer workplaces, striving for equal pay for women, superannuation, Medicare—all those great things that the labour movement has delivered for all Australians. Sadly, those achievements were attacked by Treasurer Hockey in the 2014 budget, and I fear that those attacks will continue tomorrow.
We saw in the legislative agenda of those opposite that the Governor-General was informed about and spoke about that the government said they would bring in legislation to establish a registered organisations commissioner who would have powers greater than the general manager of the Fair Work Commission. The thing that separates the Labor side of the chamber and those opposite is that we will always serve the national interest. We believe in doing the right thing all the time. We are not just about economic statements that are about grabbing power. We will always take the right steps to stamp out unlawful behaviour, particularly criminal behaviour, whether it be by a banker or a union official. In fact, I would suggest that Labor people hate corrupt union officials more than those opposite ever will because the idea of stealing from poor workers and union members is something we find particularly abhorrent. Whether by a banker or a union official, the full force of the law should be applied to any unlawful activity—but in an appropriate manner.
We already have agencies empowered to investigate and prosecute unlawful activity in all industries. The Australian Federal Police and the state and territory police forces do a great job. They have the power to investigate criminal activities. Where there is serious organised crime, the Australian Crime Commission has coercive powers that can be applied to investigations as well when appropriate.
Sadly we have seen from those opposite that the best evidence of their motives is in the millions of taxpayers' dollars that they have spent so that former and current Labor leaders could be questioned before the government's politically motivated trade union royal commission. What did that royal commission actually achieve? The government have not introduced any legislation as a result of that commission. The registered organisations legislation and the ABCC legislation that the Governor-General referred to in his opening speech are not a result of that royal commission. Both of those pieces of legislation were before the parliament already when the royal commission handed down its findings, and neither of those bills have been amended by the government since the royal commission concluded.
The government, at great expense to the taxpayer, recalled parliament so that those bills could be debated. Then, as I said, the registered organisations bill just dropped off the Notice Paper, despite that public letter from the Prime Minister to the Governor-General. This was an extraordinary thing for a government to do. It is an extraordinary case of a Prime Minister saying and writing one thing and then doing another.
You would think that with such a lot of money spent on the royal commission and all that money spent on recalling parliament that somehow the bills parliament are debating right now would be the result of urgent recommendations from the royal commission. Sadly, those two pieces of legislation have been kicking around this parliament for years. The registered organisations bill was rejected not once, not twice but three times by the democratically elected Senate. In fact, this bill was no longer even before the parliament when parliament was prorogued. As for the other bill, the ABCC legislation, the government in the Senate voted to reject debating just a few weeks ago.
Prime Minister Turnbull complains that the democratically elected Senate is unmanageable. It is interesting: I have said in Queensland that there is a bit of a campaign by the Liberal and National Party about the change from optional preferential voting to compulsory preferential voting. I did not hear Lawrence Springborg talking about Malcolm Turnbull's card trick in the Senate a few weeks ago. No, suddenly they got hoodwinked by Yvette D'Ath, the Attorney-General and the Premier through changing the voting arrangements. Admittedly, there could have been more consultation. But it was bizarre to see the way Lawrence Springborg and some of those people have been completely silent on Senate reform, but are up in arms because they were outsmarted by the Labor state government.
I think those opposite need to remember that the Senate is a house of review. The job of the Senate is to review legislation. If the Senate just rubber-stamped all the legislation that those opposite put before us, we would now have a GP co-payment.
Mr Husic interjecting—
Do you remember that, member for Chifley? The GP co-payment? When all the 20 leaders of the world gathered in Brisbane to hear the great challenges of the Asian Century, what did our Prime Minister say? A GP co-payment. I have never been more embarrassed. It is unbelievable. But if the Senate just rubber-stamped these bits of legislation, we would have a GP co-payment, we would have cuts to paid parental leave and we would have $100,000 degrees—and I could go on.
Labor supports tough penalties for those who do break the law, but I also say that we should do the right thing by people. We should carry out our word, for too often we see politicians say one thing and do another. We see that personified in this Prime Minister when it came to marriage equality: he said one thing beforehand and then change after. I can give you countless examples of this Prime Minister doing this. In 2010, he said:
… I have for many years taken the view that … marriage was or is a union between a man and a woman. That is the traditional view.
That was in 2010. Fast forward to 2012, he says:
If we had a free vote on the matter and, subject always to the wording of the Bill, I would vote to recognise same sex couples’ unions as a marriage.
Then there was a flip again. In September 2015, the Prime Minister said:
I certainly think we should have a free vote and I've been very public about that.
It is unbelievable the way he would say one thing and then change.
We saw it in terms of acting on climate change. He said that direct action was 'fiscal recklessness on a grand scale'. Now, that is his policy. Under that policy, we have seen the carbon emissions go up. We have seen his views on the republic. I remember that referendum on 6 November 1999, where Malcolm Turnbull led the campaign to have a republic. Now, he is totally silent on it. I remember the comments from those opposite saying there would be no unexpected adverse changes to superannuation. We have already seen more changes flagged in the budget. The LNP also said that every $100-million-plus infrastructure project would have a cost-benefit analysis. That has been thrown out the window.
They said that there would be no tax increases. That was changed in the first budget and we are about see more of that tomorrow night. They said they would cut the company tax rate by 1.5 per cent. That has not happened. They said they would provide mothers with 26 weeks of paid parental leave. They said it and did nothing. They said there would be no cuts to the ABC and no cuts to the SBS. They have broken both of those promises. They said they would publish a draft amendment for constitutional recognition of Aboriginal people within 12 months. It has not happened under Prime Minister Abbott or under Prime Minister Turnbull. They said there would be one million additional solar energy roofs over 10 years. They said one thing before the election and broke that promise after. They said that they would send a Customs vessel to the Southern Ocean to monitor whaling—nothing. They said that there would be no Medicare Local closures. Well, we have seen the complete breaking of that.
They said that there would be a great investment in innovation, and we have seen an investment. I have got to say—the member for Chifley would attest to this—there has been a $28 million investment in innovation. Unfortunately, it is only in advertising innovation, when at the same time they have made cuts: they have doubled the NBN rollout and doubled the cost and they have cut back on the number of scientists. I think they have sacked about one-in-six scientists. This is unbelievable. They say one thing but do another. Unbelievable. For too long in politics in this country—three years—people have said one thing and done another. It is time to change. (Time expired)
I am very pleased to have the opportunity to participate in this debate, giving me as it does the opportunity to highlight a number of very important community organisations in my electorate of Banks that are doing great work across our area. I certainly would like to take the opportunity to thank them for their efforts.
Just this past Saturday afternoon, I attended the Beverly Hills Eagles Cricket Club's presentation at Olds Park Sports Club. The Beverly Hills Eagles Cricket Club have a long-standing tradition of playing cricket in the area. I want to thank their president, Gary Crowder, and secretary, Elizabeth Chipman, for all their efforts. Congratulations also to Ilyaan Raza of Under 12A, Anthony Rock from the Under 12B and Damien Ha from Under 16B, all of whom won the Banks Outstanding Sporting Achievement Awards. To everyone at Beverly Hills Eagles Cricket Club, congratulations on another successful season.
Also on Sunday I attended the Bankstown Sports Little Athletics' presentation day. Bankstown Sports Little Athletics are sponsored by Bankstown Sports Club, who do a great job sponsoring many sporting clubs and other clubs in our community. They had the good fortune to train and compete at a great facility at Bass Hill. It was actually built as a training facility for the Sydney Olympics in 2000. It was great to get down there on Sunday to present awards. There were kids from the ages of five or six right up to 17. It is a very active and successful club. I would like to congratulate all of the winners. To the club president, Steven Jones, and Leanne McDonald, the secretary, I very much enjoyed my visit and look forward to visiting again soon.
Earlier in April, I attended the Advanced Diversity Services Table Tennis Championship held in Hurstville. A little known fact is that Hurstville is arguably the table tennis capital of Australia. We have many, many people who play table tennis in Hurstville. We hosted the national championships a couple of years ago. Advanced Diversity Services did a great job in putting together this event, alongside the St George and Sutherland Shire Table Tennis Association, who look after table tennis in the southern regions of Sydney. There were players from high schools across St George and Sutherland. I would like to thank Antoinette Chow, CEO of Advanced Diversity Services, and also my friend Connie Chan from the St George and Sutherland Shire Table Tennis Association. Table tennis is a fantastic sport. Australia, as a nation, gets stronger every year in our international events. One of the really strong centres for table tennis in Australia is Hurstville, in the heart of the St George district.
One of the privileges in our role as a member of parliament is the opportunity to attend Anzac Day services. I have a very active range of RSL sub-branches across the Banks electorate. Our community has an immense respect for those RSL sub-branches, because the reality is that many of the members of those sub-branches literally risked their lives in defence of Australia in different conflicts. I have not done that. Most of us have not done that—but they have, and, because they did, we are here. So, we should never miss an opportunity to thank them and acknowledge the depth of their service. On 17 April, Mortdale RSL Sub-Branch held a service at the Memorial Gardens on Boundary Road. It was attended by many ex-service personnel sub-branch members. I would like to thank Royce Lockhart, who did a lot of the work in putting it together, and John Delaney, the sub-branch president. It was also good to see the Riverwood Hornets from the Australian Air League there, as they do so often in helping out at important community events in our area.
Also in relation to Anzac Day, I attended Lugarno Public School for its Anzac Day ceremony. Every year, Lugarno Public School puts on a very respectful and well-organised Anzac Day commemoration. They invite along the gentlemen from the Riverwood Legion Club who served in World War II in Korea and in other aspects of our military defence. It is nice to see the Riverwood Legion gentlemen there as representatives of that generation who fought on our behalf and little kids as young as five or six at Lugarno Public School really reflecting on the importance of Anzac Day. They do a great job. There are always a number of songs which can become quite emotional. It was a beautiful occasion. I would like to thank the relieving Principal Allyson Bartley, who did a great job with this year's event.
Also in Lugarno, which is in the heart of my electorate, I want to thank my friends at the Lugarno Progress Association. The LPA is one of the longest standing organisations anywhere in Banks. It has been around for many, many decades. For no goal other than the advancement of Lugarno, the progress association regularly gets together in a local hall to discuss important issues to the suburb and then, frankly, does something about them. It is no debating society. It is a group of very practical and action-oriented people. One of the projects that we have been able to complete in the green army area in recent months was initially suggested to me by the Lugarno Progress Association. We had a situation down there at Murdoch Crescent where, over the years, an old walking track had fallen into disrepair because trees had fallen over it in storms and there was various debris on the track and so on. For years, probably decades in fact, that trail has been unusable. You could not walk on it. So the Lugarno Progress Association said, 'We should clean this up and make it useable again.' Through the auspices of the green army and the cooperation of the New South Wales Parks and Wildlife Service, we have achieved that. That trail is open again. It is a great walk between Murdoch Crescent right through to Evatt Park, along the Georges River. It has beautiful views; it is a very relaxing spot. I want to thank the Lugarno Progress Association for bringing that my attention. They put that issue on the map, and I am pleased we were able to get that done.
Also in my electorate of Banks, we have a strong community in the Salvation Army. The Salvation Army at Hurstville, which, until the recent redistribution, was in my electorate, and also the one at Panania are very active in providing a wide range of services in their areas. They include things like financial counselling for people that have fallen on difficult times, child care and fellowship for older residents who are looking for companionship. They run a number of outings and so on for them. At Hurstville, they have a Chinese-speaking congregation. Hurstville is the largest centre of the Chinese Australian community in New South Wales, and the Salvation Army is working closely with the local Chinese Australian community on a whole range of matters. I would like to congratulate Majors Peter and Gail White, who were recently inducted as the new corps officers at Hurstville Salvation Army. I would also like to thank Diane Cameron, the welfare manager, for all of her hard work at Hurstville.
Another great organisation in the south-eastern corner of my electorate is the Connells Point Progress Association. The Connells Point Progress Association meets down at Connells Point Sailing Club. They focus on the issues that are of most relevance to the Connells Point community. The environment is an extremely important issue in the Connells Point area. It was very pleasing that through the Green Army we were able to do some clean-up work at the Poulton Park area in Connells Point. It is a beautiful location, but it had run into some environmental issues over the years. It was pleasing to be able to address those issues.
Another issue that the Connells Point Progress Association raised with me was speeding on Kyle Parade, which runs through Connells Point and Kyle Bay. This was a real problem for the local community. Over a number of years there have been a number of accidents. Frankly, the configuration of the road somewhat contributes to the problem, because it is a long, winding road. Unfortunately, it tends to attract some people who want to drive along it at speed. One of the things we worked on with the association was to get were some traffic-calming devices. I want to thank Kogarah City Council for the sensible attitude they took to that issue. It was pleasing that we were able to put those speed humps in place on Kyle Parade through Kogarah City Council. Whilst the speeding problem is not completely solved, it has certainly been reduced. I am pleased about that, and I want to thank the Connells Point Progress Association.
Another really important community organisation in my local electorate is the Southern Region Chinese Business Association. As I said earlier, I am very fortunate to have one of the largest populations of Australians of Chinese background of anywhere in our nation. Many of the members of the local Chinese community are very active in small business. Hurstville is a great economic centre, in the region, with hundreds of small businesses and very large numbers of people employed.
Five years ago the New South Wales Southern Region Chinese Business Association was founded. The focus of that association is to work on issues of interest to the local Chinese-Australian business community. The association is very active and plays quite a significant role in raising various matters of concern. I would like to congratulate the Southern Region Chinese Business Association on its fifth anniversary. In particular, I would like to pay tribute to Nancy Liu and Benjamin Jiang, who are real driving forces within that association, and I would also like to pay tribute to all the other members of the executive.
One of the issues that the executive has raised with me on a number of occasions is the issue of safety in Hurstville. People in Hurstville just want to go about their business. They want to go to work, do their shopping, go out to dinner or whatever the case may be. The unfortunate reality is that there have been incidents of crime in recent years: petty theft, break-and-enter and so on. The Southern Region Chinese Business Association has been very forceful in advocating the need for those issues to be addressed. The St George local area command has taken note of those concerns and, in recent months, has increased the level of patrols and activity in the Hurstville CBD. I was very pleased to raise that issue with the police on behalf of the Southern Region Chinese Business Association, and I am pleased progress has been made on that most important of issues.
On 5 April I hosted a veterans' affairs forum at Panania Diggers with the Minister for Veterans' Affairs and Minister for Defence Materiel. I want to thank the Panania Diggers for hosting that event, and, in particular, its president Gary Murray. Panania Diggers plays a very important role in the Panania area, and, indeed, the broader Georges River region of Bankstown. It sponsors many of our local sporting clubs: East Hills Baseball Club, Panania East Hills RSL Cricket Club, Panania RSL Soccer Club, St Christopher's Junior Rugby League and St Christopher's Cricket Club.
This is a club that is both a hub for the local community where people come to visit, but it is also a hub that contributes back out to the community. If you drive along past Kelso Park on a Saturday morning or a Thursday night you will see hundreds of people playing various sports. Many, if not most, of those clubs will have been supported in some way by Panania Diggers, so I do thank them for all of their efforts in the community. One of the really good things about the club is the family-friendly environment. The club did show great foresight, some years ago, in creating an area that is very appropriate for young families, with play equipment and so on. I do want to thank Panania Diggers, and, in particular, president Gary Murray, for all of their efforts.
Also in Panania I recently visited St Christopher's Soccer Club. St Christopher's Church in Panania, and Saint Christopher's school are very important institutions in our local community. St Christopher has also lent its name to a number of sporting clubs that participate in the broader community competitions. Recently, at Panania Diggers, I met with the committee of the St Christopher's football club. I had a very frank and interesting conversation with the executive. I want to thank Steve Michael, the president and all of the executive members who were there that night. This club has a great community spirit. It celebrated its 40th anniversary in 2014. As part of its fundraising activities it organises golfing days, fundraising barbecues, coaching expos and a number of other activities. The play, of cause, down at Marco Reserve. There are a number of issues down there. Frankly, some of the facilities could be better. I certainly look forward to progress on those matters.
I also want to acknowledge and thank ROAR, the residents organisation at Riverwood. I recently visited ROAR in early April. I had a great chat with the residents, as I always do. Neale Owen is Chair of ROAR. He does a great job in bringing together local residents in the Riverwood area. A number of issues are important to residents. Congestion on local roads is one. There are various phone reception issues in the Riverwood area and various other issues in relation to housing that are particularly important. It is a very dynamic group. I would like to thank Clare Baillieu for all of her contributions to both ROAR and to the broader Riverwood community, and all of the other residents who are so active in that region.
Another very strong community in my electorate is the Toastmasters community. We have wide range of very active Toastmasters clubs. I went down to Oatley RSL early in the month and participated in one of the meetings of the Oatley Toastmasters. It was a lot of fun. Their various activities are designed to test people's speaking capacity and improve it, because, of course, that is ultimately what it is all about. It is a very good thing for people to be engaged in learning more about public speaking and their capacity to speak in public. In a sense, regardless of what your field is, being able to speak publicly is really important. It was good that everyone got feedback on their speeches on the night, including myself. It really was a lot of fun. So I do thank the Oatley Toastmasters for having me on that evening.
I would also like to thank Maso's at Mortdale for their recent Anzac service. Each year, Maso's holds an event traditionally on the Sunday before Anzac Day. It was, again, a particularly well-attended event. I would like to thank the club for hosting that important function. Maso's is a very central club in the Mortdale area in my electorate. At the Anzac Day commemoration, we were entertained by bagpipe players. There was Scottish dancing and various other activities. I would like to thank Ian Manley, the club president, and everyone else who was involved in what was a traffic commemoration of Anzac Day—so, another tremendous community organisation in my electorate.
The Liberal Party has decided to endorse the Liberal branch stackers' and powerbrokers' candidate for Tangney. This demonstrates the moral and ethical bankruptcy that are now fundamental to the major parties.
It is certainly interesting that the Liberal Party believes that Tangney belongs to them, not to the constituents. The branch stackers' and Liberal Party machine candidate for Tangney stated in his email announcing his candidacy for preselection for Tangney to Liberal branch presidents and the state executive: 'It is coming up 12 years since Dennis Jensen was first elected as member for Tangney. I believe that after a decade of doing the same job, it is the right time for both the employer and employee to take stock, make an assessment about the effectiveness and to consider the prospects for the future.' So the Liberal apparatchik candidate clearly believes that his bosses are the Liberal Party, not the constituents. Indeed, he believes he has a right to the seat, as did some Liberal Party powerbrokers. He believes he is entitled to a safe seat. It was about him and about the Liberal Party only. The constituents to him were irrelevant. What they thought of my performance representing them and their issues was irrelevant. It was never about the constituents; only about him and the Liberal Party.
This arrogant attitude clearly runs through the party. Michael Kroger, the Victorian Liberal President—indeed, he is the longest serving Liberal president in history in Victoria—and powerbroker stated of me on Sky News that:
He may have been popular in the electorate ... but inside the party he wasn't popular.
So I have been an excellent servant to both my constituents and the Liberal Party. But, to Michael Kroger, that does not make any difference. I was not popular with the Liberal Party. Ultimately, however, my constituents come first. I did a lot for the Liberal cause, as many here know—for instance, on the issue of the ETS, which I opposed while most of the party supported it. It was, ultimately, by getting rid of the emissions trading scheme as policy that we became a significant force opposing Labor in the 2010 and 2013 elections—indeed, winning in 2013. I have never simply been an apparatchik or 'yes man'. There is now a Liberal branch stackers' and Liberal machine candidate for Tangney.
If I stand as an independent, there will be a clear choice—a candidate who has deep Liberal values, but who will fight for constituents first and foremost; a free thinker who will be their voice in parliament without fear or favour. I thank the people of Tangney for supporting me so strongly over the years. Thanks to them, I improved my margin by almost seven per cent. I obtained a record margin for the seat in 2010, and then increased that record in 2013. Just in case it is not clear: I also closed the gap between Tangney and the member for Curtin's seat by over three per cent in my time, despite the member for Curtin having a huge profile.
To me, it is my constituents that matter most. If I run as an independent, that will be the case more than ever. The people of Tangney would have a member that put their interests first and with a definite Liberal flavour, as those are my core values. Unlike some, I do not sell out on my core values. In Robert Menzies' speech to the 'forgotten people', he said of being a member of parliament:
The true function of a member of Parliament is to serve his electors not only with his vote but with his intelligence. If some problem arises in Parliament about which he has knowledge and to which he has devoted his best thought, how absurd it would be - indeed how dangerous it would be - if he should allow his considered conclusion to be upset by a temporary clamour by thousands of people, most of whom in the nature of things could not have his sources of information, and have probably in any event not thought the problem out at all.
Nothing can be worse for democracy than to adopt the practice of permitting knowledge to be overthrown by ignorance. If I have honestly and thoughtfully arrived at a certain conclusion on a public question and my electors disagree with me, my first duty is to endeavour to persuade them that my view is right. If I fail in this, my second duty will be to accept the electoral consequences and not to run away from them. Fear can never be a proper or useful ingredient in those mutual relations of respect and goodwill which ought to exist between the elector and the elected.
I believe that I clearly fit Menzies' view on what constitutes a good member of parliament.
Ultimately, however, it is not Menzies' view on what constitutes a good MP, or even the faceless men and women who make up 64 people on a preselection panel who decide what constitutes a good member. It is the aggregate view of the entire electorate, expressed at the ballot box, that determines what makes a good member for that electorate, and these will be different for different electorates. In my electorate of Tangney, the aggregate view is that I have done an outstanding job, as is evidenced by my electoral performance. That is an objective measure of how effective or not an MP is in their electorate. Unfortunately, as can be seen by the quote of the branch stackers and the Liberal Party machine candidate, in addition to the view of a Liberal state president on the other side of the continent, that is not what matters to the Liberal Party. What matters to the Liberal Party is conformity, fundraising and branch stacking. Doing a good job as an MP, objectively measured by election results, is irrelevant.
Our democracy has lost its way, and we now see small thinking, and no vision on either side. We have parties that will act in a bipartisan manner on what is in the national interest, unless there is political advantage to be made by opposing it, despite it being in the national interest. There is too much timidity with regard to genuine policy reform. We see fiddles around tax policy, but nothing of critical importance. We have about half of Australia paying no net tax, meaning that the other half of Australia has to fund things for all Australians, including welfare. This is unsustainable and there is nothing fundamental or structural being done about it. These issues need to be addressed.
There is no Paul Keating in the Labor Party to do what is necessary on their side. The coalition are the worst economic managers, apart from all others! This is a travesty. We need to deal with the very real issues facing Australia, and do what is necessary. I believe in doing things in the spirit of President John F Kennedy, who said:
We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept …
Let us do the things that are hard because ultimately my constituents in Tangney and the people of Australia will thank us for it.
Good government needs members like me to check and assist governments through honest feedback, not through forelock tugging of a party hack looking for his next pay rise. Winston Churchill said, 'Honest criticism is essential to good government'. It acts like pain, signalling where there is a problem needing correction. Our political system has been swamped with carpetbaggers looking for ministerial positions rather than voicing the concerns of their electors squarely and without favour.
One of the issues of concern for me is banks and the behaviour of banks, especially in the wake of the GFC. They received significant benefit from government guarantees, and didn't they use it! They gobbled up a lot of smaller institutions that lacked that guarantee. Remember how they passed on every single increase in interest rates immediately when rates went up in the middle of the last decade? Remember how slow they were to follow the Reserve Bank's reductions when the interest rates went down, and, indeed, often did not pass on the full, or any, interest rate reduction? Now it is being proposed to get the banks, or really the customer, to fund ASIC to look into them. Why would ASIC's performance be any better than it is now? We really need to have a thorough review of the banks; in my view, a royal commission into the behaviour of the banks is needed. The banks have a massive impact on our economy. Healthy banks are critical. Systems that are transparent with banks, and ensuring that they operate in a manner that constitutes fair competition is critical. Public confidence in the banks and their behaviour is critical. So let us do what is necessary with regard to banks. In general, let us do what is right for Australia; let us do the hard things and let us do it in a bipartisan way for the benefit of all Australians.
Debate interrupted.
I want to reflect on a remarkable event that occurred yesterday, played out in front of 50,000-plus fans in Adelaide. I refer, of course, to the A-League grand final featuring Adelaide United versus a team that both the member for Mitchell and I are proud to support, the Western Sydney Wanderers.
A great team!
A great team indeed, the member for Mitchell. Congratulations to Adelaide United on their victory. Their fans have had to wait 13 long years for their day in the sun. But I do want to use this opportunity to salute the Wanderers. It is my absolutely firm belief that the team, backed by their passionate legion of phenomenally supportive fans, have singularly transformed the A-League in four short years. Many of us know how far the team have come in a short time and how warmly they have been embraced by a region that they not only represent but that many have grown up in—a team described by The Sydney Morning Herald's Michael Cockerill in the following way:
… the Wanderers are made of steel …
This was a tough loss, but it is too easy to forget where they have come from and who supported them to get there, many behind the scenes at the Wanderers—the management, the staff, the trainers—everyone who has contributed in their own way, to combine with the players themselves to forge one of the A-League's most formidable teams. So many of us are proud that the team is based at Rooty Hill in the Chifley electorate and in the heart of Western Sydney but that they spend so much time across the region. They are there at the footy clinics and they are there in the shopping centres; they are there in the community doing everything they can not only to promote the game of football but, importantly, to strengthen the pride of the Western Sydney region. They do a fantastic job at that.
I also want to pick up on the powerful words of football giant Craig Foster, who wrote in The Sun-Herald yesterday:
So much of life is about the average, just getting along, doing enough, waiting for the bus home, but sometimes people come along who can sell a vision, who can create the platform, rules and environment to bring it to life and have the authority, drive and energy to enforce high performance. Popovic is one. Otherwise, a new club does not win a league title, an Asian Champions League and make three season deciders in four years.
So true. The team have had a remarkable run for just four years of existence, in an environment where many would have thought that they would not be able to achieve in a short space of time with the budget that they had, against well-seasoned rivals who had been there, done that and built their own management structure. A lot of that, as I said, is credit that can be shared across a number of people, but Coach Popovic deserves singular praise. As he said yesterday:
It's never nice losing a final but you've got to get into a final to win one.
Again, so true. This team has much to offer. We are proud of what they have achieved and what they will achieve. When Western Sydney residents are asked who we sing for, we will always reply, 'We sing for Wanderers.'
In the short time remaining tonight, I would also like to offer congratulations to a newly formed community group that will cover parts of the electorate of Chifley—the Blacktown Nepalese Community. They held their first AGM on Saturday at the Marayong Community Centre and welcomed their newly elected executive members as well as office bearers—President Krishna Niraula and Chairman of the Advisory Board Mr Nirmal KC.
The Nepalese community in New South Wales is quickly becoming established. According to data by the Nepalese consulate office, about 10,000 Nepalese people are currently living in the city of Sydney, and this will grow. I want to congratulate the group on their initiative and hard work to create this network and encourage the support of the wonderful Nepalese community we have in Western Sydney. I was enormously pleased to attend the Marayong Community Centre and see so many families there so proud to join together to make sure that the next generation is well served and looked after and to promote the heritage of this great group. Congratulations.
As a proud member of the Fremantle Football Club, I know far too much about losing at the moment, so I certainly have quite a bit in common with the Wanderers at the moment. But well done to Adelaide, in any event.
I am pleased to talk about some of my major achievements since being elected at the 2013 election. Before I was elected, I promised to be a strong voice for Durack and for regional Western Australia and I believe I have delivered. Some 470 kilometres north of Geraldton, is the beautiful town of Carnarvon. It is a beautiful tropical town and a great tourist destination for the thousands of tourists who visit there every year. Known for its banana plantations, Carnarvon is so much more with its divine seafood, tropical fruits and wonderful weather—not to mention being close to the Ningaloo Reef; Shark Bay, which is world heritage listed; and the Kennedy Ranges.
Unfortunately, owing to the town's geographical location, Carnarvon is prone to cyclones and flooding. In mid-2014 I announced the federal government would provide $15 million towards the Carnarvon flood mitigation stage 2 project, which would reduce future flood damage to the town. This project constructed a series of four integrated earth and rock levees, which give Carnarvon the security it needs to expand the town's important horticultural industry. It also involves irrigation to protect community assets from water damage. The Carnarvon flood mitigation stage 2 project is a vital project, and I am very glad indeed that the federal government has made a significant contribution to this important project.
In December last year I was very happy to announce that the Turnbull government would contribute $10 million to the Karratha Arts and Community Precinct. Make no bones about it: this is a very important community project in the Pilbara. The precinct consists of a state of the art library, multifunctional theatre, modern outdoor amphitheatre and a war memorial. The library includes a professional research and education development zone, office space and personalised visitor centre services within the amenity. The precinct also features a stunning rooftop terrace for cinema and outdoor door events. You might say, 'Well that all sounds very fancy,' but let me tell you that this is a community where little girls would struggle to find a hall in which to perform a ballet class on Saturday morning. So it is actually incredibly significant for this community.
This project is a magnificent boon for the Pilbara. I am very proud to be contributing to this. It will be a game changer for not just Karratha but the Pilbara more generally. Whilst we are in the region of Karratha, the Turnbull government has also provided a $2 million grant for the restoration of the Victoria Hotel in Roebourne.
In June last year I announced a massive boost to Durack's mobile telecommunications reception, through round 1 of the Mobile Black Spot Program. A massive 123 of the 183 black spots nominated by local Durack residents will be addressed, with 45 new or upgraded base stations in Durack, courtesy of the $41 million package—a $10 million package from the Turnbull government. As you can imagine, this is fantastic news for Durack, which has over 300 towns and communities. For many people it is on a scale that is very difficult to put into words.
The Royal Flying Doctor Service is another very valuable organisation. I was very honoured to secure a $2.7 million grant for their Broome base, which I shall be opening very shortly I am very proud to say. This government is keeping the Anzac Day spirit alive in Durack, with over $130,000 worth of projects through the Anzac Centenary Local Grants Program.
As a Liberal who does care about the environment, I look at the over $1.5 million in funding in the 20 Million Trees Program, which I have delivered in Durack, and the 20 or so Green Army projects which play a role in beautifying our environment, preserving and restoring natural habitats in the many towns throughout Durack as well as, more importantly, providing young people an opportunity to learn conservation and preservation environmental skills.
Just a few weeks ago I announced over $3.3 million worth of black spot funding to fix dangerous roads, and eight black spots will be fixed as a result. This includes the Hamersley Street and Napier Terrace intersection in Broome and the stretch of the Indian Ocean Drive from the Lakes Road to north of Coorow-Green Head Road. Of course, this announcement is on top of the other seven black spots I announced that will be fixed under the black spot program earlier this year.
This is just a small snapshot of some of my major achievements since being elected. Some may say it is a solid start, but I emphasise that this is a start only and I have plenty more I still want to achieve in the largest electorate in Australia.
Mr Deputy Speaker Scott, it is good to see you better. Ever since they measured the halfway point between Sydney and Melbourne wrongly to make the nation's capital closer to New South Wales than Victoria, Melbournians have felt they are getting raw deals from the Commonwealth. Our Sydney Prime Minister, the member for Wentworth, just like the last Sydney Prime Minister, the Sydney Treasurers and their Sydney major projects ministers are doing an exceptionally good job in disadvantaging Melbourne. Never mind that Melbourne is the fastest growing city in the country, projected to overtake Sydney by 2050, and never mind that we take 35 per cent of all new immigrants to Australia, which we absolutely support and welcome because Melbourne is the most multicultural city in the country. The member for Wentworth still wants to rip off Melbourne in partisan politics, similar to the previous Prime Minister, against the popular Victorian Premier, Daniel Andrews. Prime Minister Turnbull's games, just like the previous Prime Minister's games, with Victorian infrastructure spending have got to stop. I will continue to argue that Melbourne is being cheated as long as I have to, because that is exactly how most Melburnians feel.
The Victorian electorate voted for public transport in 2014 and the Andrews government has been waiting since for the federal government to fund its preferred infrastructure model, the Melbourne Metro Rail Project. This is not Victoria's arbitrary priority; it is the project that Infrastructure Australia has twice assessed, with two separate business cases, as being a top-level priority for Victoria.
Melbourne's public transport system is full. It is over capacity, in fact. The city loop is full. Trains in peak hour are well and truly full—1,200 people cramming into 800-capacity trains Tokyo-style. Train usage in Melbourne has risen 40 per cent in five years and 70 per cent in a decade. We cannot add any more trains to the city loop. We need the Metro to link the northern suburbs to the hospital and university district around Victoria Parade to the inner south and east via the Domain Interchange, which links trams and trains in my electorate of Melbourne Ports.
The Victorian government has been asking for $4.5 billion for the $10.9 billion Melbourne Metro costs since it came to office. It took almost two years for the government to offer an insulting $10 million. You did not mishear me—they offered $10 million, while they kept $3 billion locked away in the cancelled East-West Link. They offered $500 million for the Monash Freeway, when the state government had only asked for part of its $400 million price tag.
The Victorian government handed down its budget last week and committed the full $11 billion to public transport, to Melbourne Metro, while running a healthier than expected surplus. Now, before the federal budget has been handed down, without even consulting the state government, we hear from News Limited there has been leaked information that the Commonwealth will give it not just $10 million but still less than $900 million—still well below the $4.5 billion needed for the project. As Victorian Treasurer, Tim Pallas, said today, this is a 'ridiculous trick' aimed at self-promotion as Victoria was going to get that money anyway under the asset recycling program, under which the Commonwealth refunds a state 15 per cent of the value of any state asset that is leased. The Victorian Treasurer said:
This money is money the Commonwealth owes the state for the lease of the Port of Melbourne. This is not new funding.
It's just a broken promise from the Coalition Government more intent on self-promotion than on integrity.
Victoria is receiving but nine per cent of infrastructure funding, compared to 36 per cent in New South Wales. Victorians have had enough. Even the Assistant Treasurer, my neighbour the member for Higgins, is apparently sick of it. She started a petition to ask the state government to expand the Melbourne Metro to South Yarra in her electorate, which is minutes away by tram from the Domain. You can be forgiven for laughing at the idea of the Assistant Treasurer of Australia starting a local petition to expand a major project her government refuses to fund. If only there was something the Assistant Treasurer could do about that.
We should not be surprised that the Prime Minister does not understand Melbourne. He told Melbourne radio 3AW that he was expanding the Western Ring Road to connect Port Melbourne to the airport. I will give the Prime Minister a geography lesson—the Western Ring Road leads to the west of Victoria and Port Melbourne is in the inner south on the eastern side of the bay. The member for Wentworth's face is up on billboards in Port Melbourne, overlapping with the Liberal candidate's face. How sad that he cannot even find Port Melbourne on a map. It is not really that far from the Melbourne Club, where the Prime Minister likes to take selfies outside before he gets on a tram for a one-off journey.
One Sydney man who knows his way to Melbourne Ports is Anthony Albanese, the member for Grayndler, the shadow minister for infrastructure, who joined me at the Domain Interchange a couple of months ago before addressing hundreds of people in the middle of a work day to discuss Labor's plans to make Melbourne public transport infrastructure and the Melbourne Metro specifically the top priority of a Labor government. The message to Melbournians is clear: if you want a government that will fund your public transport infrastructure, let alone one that can understand a map of Melbourne, you need to vote for a Labor government.
I rise tonight to inform the House about progress in Whyalla to establish a headspace or headspace-like unit to assist the younger people in the community with issues with their mental health. Headspace was established in Australia under the Howard government. It was expanded under Labor and grown again under the coalition, when this government committed to creating 100 units around the nation. A unit was established in Port Augusta in 2013, and it was hoped at that stage that the Port Augusta headspace unit might become a bit of a hub in a hub-and-spoke model and be able to stretch out its services in some form to Port Pirie and Whyalla, which are both within 100 kilometres of Port Augusta.
It has been pretty successful: 638 young people have accessed direct services at Port Augusta, with a number coming from Whyalla. Whyalla of course has been in the news a lot lately. I will not go into all the issues with the steel industry tonight, but suffice to say that there is an extreme lack of confidence in the community. Retail is shrinking because people are unsure of their future, and that probably affects our younger people more than the older, more established people in our community, given that they may live in households where finances are tight, mum and dad are concerned about their future, perhaps it might be that they are looking for jobs and those jobs are not available. They might be contemplating travel. All those issues compound and contribute to people's peace of mind in the first place.
In an effort to make some ground in this area, given that the government had committed to 100 units and those places are established around Australia, I think I can make a very good argument that communities like Port Lincoln, with 14,000 people, Port Pirie, with 14,000 people, and certainly Whyalla, with 22,000 people would be very appropriate places for headspace units or at least smaller versions of them. I asked Mr Chris Tanti, the headspace CEO to come to Whyalla. We had a meeting there with council representatives, people from the education system and people from various counselling services to discuss the possibility of getting this type of facility off the ground in Whyalla. He was pretty encouraging, but gave the indication that it was unlikely that we would be able to stretch the Port Augusta unit down to Whyalla. Following that meeting I approached the Primary Health Network CEO, Mr Kim Hosking. He too committed to come to Whyalla. We had a very fruitful meeting about three weeks ago, where he indicated that the Primary Health Network had the ability to make some financial contribution to at least establishing a part-time unit in Whyalla. The representatives from the Whyalla council indicated that they were very keen to assist with that establishment, as have been the people from the University of South Australia. I thank Lee Martinez and Clare McLaughlin for their contributions in bringing those organisations to the table. I was speaking to Lee Martinez this afternoon, and the university is open to the idea of perhaps establishing on-site. The council is open to the idea finding a facility within Whyalla that would be appropriate for such a unit. The issue we are grappling with at the moment is where is the most appropriate place in Whyalla to place the facility, but we will move forward on this.
I thank those people who have thrown their shoulder to the wheel and are prepared to assist me and others in getting this type of unit off the ground in Whyalla, because it is a very pressing issue. We have a number of people who are already travelling the 85 kilometres up to Port Augusta to access the unit. That can be okay if you have a car and you have money to fuel in the car or your parents have money to take you to Port Augusta. Of course if you don't—if your parents don't have a job or they have a car not good enough to drive that far or there is no fuel for it or whatever—that means you miss out entirely. They really is just not good enough. We have to bring this service closer to where the demand is. I will be working very hard over the coming months to try to bring about that occurrence
Whilst mankind continues to make tremendous progress and achieves scientific breakthroughs that we never thought were possible, it seems extraordinary that we live in a world that is as barbaric today as it was in every area that has preceded us. It seems that science and humanity do not advance together. Nor is the brutality restricted to one particular global region or race. I have spoken previously in this place about the Armenian genocide, the Bosnian genocide and the persecution of the Baha'i people. Hardly a day passes when there is not another news report of a mass killing of innocent people or acts of violence and brutality perpetrated against minority groups. Suicide bombings, random shootings and even the targeted military bombings of hospitals and other civilian buildings have become a common occurrence in the world today.
A notable but very concerning trend in recent years has been the persecution of Christians in non-Christian countries. I note the motion from the member for McMahon and his contribution today on the Assyrian people and their struggles and the destruction of their holy sites. Christians appear to be the most persecuted people on earth. The International Society for Human Rights, a secular NGO based in Frankfurt, estimated that Christians are the victims of 80 per cent of all religious discrimination in the world. The US based Pew Research Centre in a 2014 report also found that between June 2006 and December 2012 Christians faced harassment and intimidation in 151 countries—more than any other religious group. Yet, ironically, it is Christian countries that are the most accepting of non-Christians and that allow freedom of religion within their own countries.
The Middle East has in recent times become increasingly unsafe for Christian families. Many have already fled their homes and now find themselves homeless. They form part of the estimated 50 million people worldwide who are considered to be displaced or the 15 million who are considered to be refugees. The actual figures of how many Christians are now refugees or displaced are sketchy, because in many of the regions Christians are fleeing from identifying themselves as Christians brings additional risks. Nor are the Christians safe in refugee camps, where they continue to be persecuted by non-Christian refugees. It is claimed that Christian refugees will no longer seek shelter in refugee camps because of the ongoing risks they face within them. That in turn makes it more difficult to collate information about them or their whereabouts, to provide them with assistance or to seek them out for the purpose of offering them refuge in another country.
Their plea for help is often channelled to the outside world through Christian connections they have made in other countries. In turn, the people whom they contact and who are willing to help them are unable to do so without government intervention. One organisation that is endeavouring to assist persecuted Christians with relocation to a safe country is the Barnabas Fund Australia Ltd.
I am told that Barnabas Fund supporters have offered to sponsor Christian refugees and help them with accommodation, shelter and resettlement in Australia. Their most difficult challenge is getting refugees into Australia, and for that they seek government intervention. Barnarbas Fund have drawn up a petition calling on this House:
1. To work with governments in the Middle East to provide and support secure areas for displaced Christian communities that have fled from violence and persecution.
2. To increase the humanitarian intake, especially for the displaced vulnerable minorities (Christians) from the Middle East.
3. To consider granting humanitarian visas for Internally Displaced People from Iraq and Syria who will never be able to return/resettle in their own villages.
4. To allow Churches and faith based communities to sponsor/ propose vulnerable families for humanitarian visas in order to be resettled in Regional Australia.
The petitioners are grateful for the government's intent to resettle 12,000 Syrian refugees in Australia. They are, however, pleading with the government to increase the refugee intake and allow an increased number of Christian refugees to come here. They also ask for the government to ensure that the refugee intake process does not unintentionally exclude Christian refugees who are in hiding and have not sought refuge in UNHCR recognised refugee camps or are not listed or nominated by the UNHCR. This is a humanitarian issue that democratic countries that subscribe to and uphold the Universal Declaration of Human Rights cannot and should not ignore. It is about helping vulnerable people who have been persecuted, tortured or killed and who have no-one else left to turn to. By leave—I present all seven volumes of the Barnabas Fund petition signed by 6,698 people and I ask for it to be referred to the Petitions Committee for consideration.
This document will now be referred to the Standing Committee on Petitions for consideration.
The time has come for our region of Western Sydney to be reimagined, for our potential is truly unlimited. In fact, the concept of innovation is by no means a new one for our region. Many great innovators have called Western Sydney home—innovators like John Macarthur and his famous merino, or Sir Henry Parkes of Werrington. Governor Macquarie saw the opportunity of our fertile river plains. Later a Saint Mary's school teacher, Peter Dodds McCormick, wrote about it, and those words are now our national anthem.
Today, Western Sydney is our nation's third largest economy. Employment figures released in the Small Area Labour Markets publication a fortnight ago for the December 2015 quarter demonstrate that the jobless rate for the City of Penrith was 4.36 per cent, well below the Sydney, New South Wales and national unemployment rates of 5.09, 5.3 and 5.9 per cent respectively. In fact in just over a year, our local unemployment rate has fallen by 2.37 per cent, equating to some 2,500 jobs.
These are truly remarkable results, and much of this growth can be attributed to the housing and infrastructure boom that grips our region. However, Penrith council estimates 70 per cent of our local workforce commute on a daily basis. Many of these people commute in excess of 2½ hours every single day. Our local employment zones are scatted across the region in small disconnected hubs, which are not easily connected to public transport or to where people actually live. In fact, it is as if Sydney was designed on an east-west continuum with little to no regard of the north-south migrations. Research conducted by id.com estimates 74.2 per cent of Western Sydney workers commute by car, resulting in chronic congestion of local roads and motorways. This can all be squarely attributed to the ad hoc planning of former state governments, where dormitory suburbs were built with little to no regard for the proximity of where people live and where they work. Furthermore, in the next 20 years, two out of three of every new Sydneysider will make our region in Western Sydney their home.
It is critical now more than ever that wise, considered and thoughtful planning by the three tiers of government occur so that we can avoid the planning mistakes of the past. It is to this I applauded the Prime Minister's address on Friday at the National Cities Summit in Melbourne, where he said:
Liveable cities … are enormous economic assets. They are vitally important to our strong economy and we have some of the best cities, the most liveable cities in the world.
Furthermore:
We are at our most productive, our most creative, our most innovative when we are together, when we get together and that is why an efficient city, a liveable city, is absolutely critical to the development, to the growth of our economy.
As it stands, Western Sydney is not an efficient city. There is nothing efficient about long commute times, huge job deficits and chronic road congestion. Therefore, I call on the Prime Minister to ensure a city deal comes to the outer Western Sydney region. I call on him to enable the collaboration between the three tiers of government to ensure the future prosperity of our region is secured; to enable the much needed public transport options, including rail, that will link the north-west to the south-west growth sectors, not just more east-west; to support the innovation corridor, whereby our region is transformed by new and exciting developments like the Sydney Science Park at Luddenham that will be home to 12,000 jobs, 10,000 research positions and the first STEM or STEAM school in the country, together with the housing to support this development.
I call on the Prime Minister to enable us to innovate our city into the global city we know we can be. I am proud to part of a government that believes in the future of our region as we believe in ourselves. However, the time has come for our region to reimagine our future, reawaken as the powerhouse we truly are, and for us as a region to forge our own destiny. And in this I do believe our potential is unlimited.
Before I adjourn the House, can I say that while this is not my valedictory tonight, I am closing the House, which is a privilege that I have as the Deputy Speaker—normally the Speaker does that. I want to say that it is going to be an enormous privilege, as I enter my last week in this parliament, to be in this position to see the mace return the Speaker's office this evening.
House adjourned at 21:30
The Turnbull government has really let our community down when it comes to the delivery of health services and, in particular, Medicare. In the first Abbott budget, we saw $50 billion in cuts made to the hospital's budget for the nation. Those cuts have been kept by the Turnbull government and, over the course of this year, you are going to see those cuts hit hospitals; particularly, in our community, the Prince of Wales Hospital—where already 30 beds have been closed, staff are not being replaced, and the hospital is under enormous pressure.
Also in the electorate of Kingsford Smith, in our community, we are facing a number of challenges associated with the closure of our local Medicare office at Eastgardens. In 2014, the government closed that Medicare office, and we warned that there would be cuts to services, and that customers would face increasing delays. But the government said: 'No; no problem—it will be all right: we are relocating to the Centrelink office at Maroubra, there will be the same staff, it will be a separate line, and there will be no cuts to services.' Well, the outcome has been anything but what the government promised. There has been a reduction in the level of services. And I am now inundated with emails, particularly from elderly constituents who are facing difficulties in accessing Medicare services in our local community. Many now go into the Centrelink office in Maroubra, and face 20-deep lines, and queues for services associated with Medicare. Many of them just give up. And they go home and try and get on the phone, but they cannot get through on the phone—sometimes it does not even work; you can't even get through and get any sort of message about what is going on. I asked local representatives if they could come to a seniors morning tea and sign up people for the online service and the call-back service. They said they could not do that—because the system was not operating! The system had closed down.
This is the sort of service delivery that we getting from this Turnbull government when it comes to the delivery of health services. Now they say that they want to privatise the delivery of Medicare services. So they are going to ask the private sector to run the payments processing and the ancillary services associated with Medicare. Well, we all know that the private sector are out for one thing—that is, to make a dollar for their business. So again we are going to see further cuts to services associated with Medicare, and we are going to see the cost of delivering the services increase for taxpayers. Top this off with the cuts to the rebate for diagnostic imaging—which will see those organisations simply pass on the cost to consumers—and the end result is that people in my community and across Australia are suffering. We know this government is not committed to Medicare.
Recently the Assistant Minister for Innovation, the Hon. Wyatt Roy, visited Dobell, where the agenda of innovation was well and truly on the table. During the assistant minister's visit I was able to showcase The Entrance Public School, one of the local Dobell schools, which is moving forward in leaps and bounds in regard to STEM education opportunities. Our visit to The Entrance Public School showcased their STEM program. We witnessed firsthand students learning the background and the art of coding and interacting with new technology. It is extraordinary to think that the jobs most of these young people will build their career on have not been invented yet. The Entrance Public School's STEM program provides a creative and innovative environment for student learning. By employing a STEM teacher to deliver robotics, coding, app development and makerspace, an environment is produced where students can create, invent, learn and share their ideas. In particular, to promote the girls' interest in STEM, a girls mentoring program in the areas of science and technology has been introduced. To date, 100 per cent of students are coding and engaged in the robotics program. In addition, Aboriginal students have shown a significant improvement in literacy and numeracy in 2015 NAPLAN results.
The introduction of STEM programs throughout our schools is just the first step in providing the basis for education and employment opportunities in the future. Recently the Central Coast Express Advocate reported that the construction, retail and health sectors are driving employment growth on the Central Coast, with employment growth in the region increasing by 19.7 per cent over the past 12 months. With the increase in technology, it is likely that we will see further growth in areas that relate directly to innovation and the STEM line of education. The need to embrace the concept of innovation is one that has been wholeheartedly accepted on the Central Coast, no more so than through the annual innovation summit, held locally every year. This year's theme is 'Get Comfortable with being Uncomfortable.'
It is imperative to be aware that jobs of today may not exist tomorrow and the businesses of today need to transform to survive. This has been evident already in the way that robotics has transformed the manufacturing industry and how environmental ecologists are looking at transforming traditional waste management towards better processes. What we are doing in business today will require reform and innovation to adapt to the needs of an evolving business environment. This is also relevant in regard to the personal situation of innovation and change and how we as a society and as individuals need to embrace what the future holds. Dobell is known for many things—the great beaches, the wonderful lakes and the beautiful green valleys. In the future I am sure it will be known for its new and innovative businesses and the way in which schools and businesses have embraced STEM programs.
Today I wish to speak on two issues that constituents have requested I raise. The first relates to the live export trade. World Animal Protection has collected over 200,000 signatures over the past few years from Australian people voicing their opposition to the trade, and today I will present to the House another 8,822 new signatures.
Over the past more than eight years I have spoken here in parliament, in my electorate of Fremantle and in the wider community about the cruelty of the live export trade. We have seen expose after expose detailing the immense suffering of Australian animals used in this trade and we have seen public opposition and outrage grow after each new revelation. Unfortunately, the present government continues to expand the live export trade with no regard for the proper enforcement of animal welfare in existing markets or for the economic and welfare benefits of local processing.
World Animal Protection has commissioned independent research to analyse the costs and benefits of expanding the frozen meat trade rather than continuing to export animals live. The research demonstrates that farmers and local industry would benefit financially in the long term from an expanded frozen meat trade, the increase in domestic processing would create local jobs and the welfare of Australian animals would be significantly improved. Labor stands with the millions of Australians who believe that improving animal welfare should be a priority for government. I thank World Animal Protection for the independent research and for organising the petition, which I seek leave to present, pending consideration by the Petitions Committee.
Leave granted.
The second matter relates to the persecution of Falun Gong practitioners in China. Falun Dafa or Falun Gong is the peaceful spiritual practice that is traditional to the Chinese culture. In 1999, a survey undertaken by the Chinese government found there were almost 100 million Chinese citizens practising Falun Gong, outnumbering the 62 million members of the Communist Party. Since that time, the practice has been illegal and there has been brutal suppression of the Falun Gong.
In 2006, UN special rapporteur Dr Manfred Nowak found that two-thirds of all torture victims in China were Falun Gong practitioners. In March 2006, it was revealed for the first time that Falun Gong practitioners had been killed for their organs. Nobel Peace Prize nominees David Matas, a human rights lawyer, and David Kilgour, a former Canadian minister, in their report Bloody harvest:revised report into allegations of organ harvesting ofFalun Gong practitioners in China concluded:
… the government of China and its agencies in numerous parts of the country, in particular hospitals but also detention centres and 'people's courts', since 1999 have put to death a large but unknown number of Falun Gong prisoners of conscience.
The suppression of democracy and rights within China is well documented. It is important that parliaments and governments around the world advocate for the human rights of all within China, including Falun Gong practitioners.
I seek leave to present a petition pending consideration by the Petitions Committee, with 13,471 signatures, urging the Australian government to call for an immediate end to the persecution of Falun Gong practitioners in China.
Leave granted.
On Saturday night many people from the Penrith community came together to celebrate 65 years of the Llandilo volunteer rural fire brigade. Sixty-five years of the Llandilo volunteer rural fire brigade is a wonderful achievement for the men and women that have so loyally served the community. The event was attended by the Assistant Commissioner, Jason Heffernan, and Richard Petch from the local district command.
What many people may or may not realise about the Lindsay electorate is that we do sit nestled next to—in fact, in the foothills of—the Blue Mountains. When we have a fire disaster on our doorstep in the Blue Mountains, it is on the backs of many of our rural fire brigades in the Penrith region, which rally together to support our brothers and sisters under threat in the Blue Mountains. We saw that only a few years ago when volunteer firefighters came from right around the country and camped at Panthers to be able to go up and take shifts to fight the fires. Our local fire brigades are often the first to be on the scene and able to go up the mountains to help the fire brigades up there.
These 65 years are a phenomenal achievement, and I would really like to thank the men and women who have been working in our rural fire brigades. I would also like to echo the statements made on the night by the Assistant Commissioner, Jason Heffernan, when he called for more gender diversity within our rural fire service. Our rural fire service needs to reflect the communities that they defend and protect.
I would also like to acknowledge the work of people like Kevin Crameri. Kevin, a Llandilo man who has been on council for what seems like an eternity, has also spent the majority of his life working and supporting the Rural Fire Service at Llandilo. On the night, I also met Percy Denton. Percy won a number of awards for his support of the Rural Fire Service, including a life membership to the Rural Fire Service of New South Wales, which is a wonderful achievement.
I would like to thank all of the men and women who attended. I would like to thank the Rural Fire Service at Llandilo for the support that they do provide our community and, of course, all the rural fire services right across the Lindsay electorate. Although the summer months are coming to a close—and, thankfully, our community was kept safe over these summer months—as we go into the winter, some back-burning will occur. But I would just like to say to all of our rural fire services, 'Thank you for the work you do, and I look forward to working with you well into the future.'
On Monday 25 April, CSL Behring celebrated 100 years of operations. I was very fortunate to attend a commemorative tour of the CSL Behring's facility in my electorate of Calwell, and later a formal dinner to celebrate the CSL's centenary on 14 April.
CSL originally was known as the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories. It was established in 1916 by the Australian government as a small branch of the quarantine department. The impetus for establishing CSL was to ensure that Australia, as an isolated nation, had reliable access to life-saving biological products during times of war. Since its creation 100 years ago, CSL has expanded well beyond its initial remit to become Australia's largest and most successful biotechnology company. Some of CSL's remarkable milestones over the last 100 years include, in 1920, the production of three million vaccine doses to battle the Spanish flu pandemic. In 1923, CSL was one of the first laboratories in the world to offer insulin and within months was able to service all Australians with diabetes. In 1944, CSL began the production of penicillin and became the first country in the world to provide penicillin to its civilians. In 1952, CSL began plasma fractionation in Australia, while in 1953 CSL began producing the polio vaccine and, within a decade, they had produced more than 25 million doses, virtually eliminating the disease in Australia. These examples illustrate CSL's commitment and contribution to saving lives and helping people with life-threatening medical conditions here in Australia.
CSL is also a commercial success story today. It is a $45 billion dollar global company that operates in more than 30 countries, manufactures across three continents and employs more than 16,000 people. At the centenary dinner last month, CSL chairman, John Shine, outlined how the company has developed in the last 100 years. I want to quote from John Shine. He said:
One hundred years ago it really started out bringing international medicine and new developments in health care into Australia to protect the Australian population. One hundred years later it is now exporting Australian ideas and Australian developments and innovation to the world.
CSL is a success story for my electorate. In 1990, CSL took control of a Commonwealth Department of Health plasma plant in Broadmeadows. This site has seen extraordinary development, the most recent of which was announced in 2014: a $210 million expansion of its manufacturing site in Broadmeadows to help meet growing demand for its global critical care therapy, known as albumin. Albumin is the most abundant protein in human plasma. It is also used to restore blood volume in people following trauma or major surgery and to support patients with extensive burns or serious infections. (Time expired)
In recent weeks, I have been able to visit many wonderful aged-care centres and retirement villages across my electorate on the Central Coast. Every facility demonstrated a fantastic commitment to quality aged care, offering elderly members of our aged-care community the respect and support they deserve. BlueWave Living at Woy Woy is one such example of this. Last year I had the honour of officially opening the renovations and extensions there, including a new wing of single ensuite rooms. To return to the facility recently and see the residents enjoying these new spaces was fantastic, and today I am thrilled to be able to announce up to $15,000 in funding to BlueWave under this government's Stronger Communities Program.
The grant will mean that BlueWave Living can purchase a generator for disaster management—absolutely essential, particularly given the experiences of so many aged-care places across the Central Coast during the April storms last year. The generator will be activated when power to the facility is lost, delivering emergency power to essential lighting, electric lift beds, oxygen concentrators, nurse call systems and emergency warning systems. This means residents and staff will have confidence knowing that the centre will be able to continue operating in the events of blackouts or during emergencies. During my recent visit I was impressed not only with the quality of the facility but with the sense of community among the residents. I really want to thank Jennifer Eddy, the CEO of BlueWave Living and all of her staff for all of their work for our senior residents on the Peninsula.
The positive experience I had at BlueWave Living is certainly not an isolated one. I also went to Aurrum recently to announce a substantial increase in funding for aged-care services, as part of the Turnbull government's Aged Care Approvals Round. More than 150 places have been created locally, including at Aurrum's new Terrigal Drive development at Erina. There is a strong demand for aged care on the Central Coast and these additional places are essential in ensuring our elderly residents receive the quality care they deserve. The boost will help expand existing services and create new places in priority areas of need, including at Aurrum where the $18 million facility will deliver beds and train local staff. Other aged-care services to benefit include Bupa Care Services at Kincumber, with more than 100 new residential care places, and upgrades to Home Services Central Coast, based at Mt Penang Parklands in Kariong, and Sue Mann's Nursing and Community Care in Erina.
Every facility and retirement village that I have visited as part of my village visits over the past several weeks has been incredibly uplifting. The stories that I share with local residents and the stories that they share with me give me a great sense of honour at being able to represent their concerns to the Turnbull government down in Canberra. I look forward to meeting with many more of our senior residents on the Central Coast.
When the Turnbull Liberal government cuts funding to Australia's peak science and research body, the CSIRO, at a time when we are in a so-called ideas boom, questions need to be answered. Every day the CSIRO is undertaking invaluable research and making inroads into discoveries and inventions which shape our nation and, indeed, the world in which we live.
Earlier this year, as the world was desperately trying to stop the spread of the Zika virus, CSIRO scientists in Geelong were leading in this field and making groundbreaking discoveries. In pursuit of stopping the spread of the virus, scientists at the Australian Animal Health Laboratory were cloning mosquitoes that were immune to the deadly virus. Similar groundbreaking and life-saving work has been done by the Animal Health Laboratory in relation to the Hendra virus and many of the bird flu viruses. Carbon Nexus, the fibre and textile research facility at Deakin University—again, an inheritor of the legacy of the CSIRO—was established by the former Labor government and is a critical research facility in Geelong which is leading the way in building a carbon fibre industry for our country.
I am proud that such world-leading research is being undertaken in Geelong. There are 250 people employed at the Australian Animal Health Laboratory and 150 jobs are supported by Carbon Nexus. All of these are examples of innovation and the research which leads to answers. It is the sort of innovation we need to be fully funded and see continuing success within our economy. But this Liberal government is a government which is opposed to science.
The Geelong Centre for Emerging Infectious Diseases, a collaboration between the Animal Health Laboratory, Barwon Health and Deakin University, was also established by the former Labor government. But, on being elected, this government put GCEID into limbo and put a cloud over its future, and it was not until months later that it eventually reversed cuts that it had planned for it. In the meantime, there was uncertainty at that facility, and it was an early warning for us about the lack of commitment that the Abbott and Turnbull governments have had to science. We have seen two prime ministers turn their backs on science and, in doing so, turn away from innovation—a concept which, in terms of their rhetoric, they boast so proudly about.
While I am pleased about the remarkable work that the CSIRO has done—and will continue to do with proper funding—we on the Labor side were all disappointed to hear about 275 jobs that will be slashed from the CSIRO. This happening in a so-called ideas boom, an age of innovation, is simply not good enough. Now is the time to be funding research, not cutting it. After the government's failure to protect jobs at Ford, Alcoa and, in recent weeks, Target, it owes the Geelong region a commitment to protect our CSIRO jobs in Geelong and to stop further losses. We need a commitment that none of these losses will occur in Geelong. It is time for Geelong to be given a fair go from this rotten Turnbull Liberal— (Time expired)
I rise today to speak about the Stronger Communities Program in the electorate of Lyons. Lyons is a large electorate, at least by Tasmanian standards. There are no really large towns, but there are many smaller communities and villages as well. This program has been an ideal way for them to attract money from the Commonwealth on a dollar-for-dollar basis, often matched with in-kind contributions rather than cash. As we know, many small community groups often find it hard to put their hands on hard cash when they are supported only by their membership. This program, with its in-kind contribution, has been very welcome.
I also thank the committee. In round 1 of the program, the committee was chaired by Lyn Mason, with committee members Viv Cardwell, Melissa Ferguson, Kevin Faulkener and Natalie Geard. In the second round, the chair was Jill Taylor, with Jessica Whelan, Viv Cardwell and Melissa Ferguson. I thank them for the work that they did in identifying projects from the very large range of projects that were put forward, and in making recommendations to me which were then submitted to the department.
Can I congratulate the St Helens Neighbourhood House, and particularly Patricia Duffy, on funding of $13,600 that will enable an extension of the op shop and the purchase of giant games that they will use for community events. I met recently with Rachel Hodge and Rick of Saint Marys Hub4Health to see the project that they are undertaking to incorporate lighting and carpets into a gym in St Marys—a small community—in the old historic Exhibition Hall, and this was most valued by the community. For the Longford Show Society—to Bill Williams, the president and also Sally Cauchi: congratulations on funding of $5,000 for 30 stackable bench seats that will be made by Studentworks in Launceston. I congratulate Rick Churchill and Kath Clark of the Bicheno Golf Club on funding of $15,000 to upgrade the irrigation infrastructure on the golf course. Also to the Sheffield Golf Course—to Lyn Thomas, Judy Laing, Diane Smith, Neville Pulford, Nigel Quinn and Denise Morgan: congratulations on putting a boundary fence there to remove the risk of vermin coming on and damaging the golf course and creating other problems. Sheffield's Mural Park is a new entrant; Des Brown and his committee are to be congratulated on the great work that they do. The Deviot Community Association at the Deviot Hall—with Greg Ellick—received funding of $5,000 to establish heat pumps and underfloor insulation. The Tasman Council received funding for the Nubeena Foreshore Walkway: congratulations to the council and to Kelly Spaulding, Deputy Mayor. I also congratulate Lorraine Green and the Northern Midlands Council on funding of $5,236 for the marquees project in the Northern Midlands.
Like many of my colleagues in this place, I have been sharing the national Youth Action online survey as they seek the views of young people aged 15 to 24 on what they see as important issues for us in the upcoming election. I have also had the opportunity to talk to lots of local young people. One young woman, Katrina Nethery, has done some research and written a speech for me on important issues for the young people of the Illawarra. I would like to share it with the chamber, and say thank you to Katrina for her work. She says:
There are many important issues faced by the young people of the Illawarra today, including an array of mental health issues, homelessness, and a high unemployment rate, and whilst these issues are not unique to the Illawarra, they still do play a significant role in the lives of many youths who live there.
Mental illness can be found in one in five adolescents, and is most prevalent in 18-24 year-olds, however only one in four young people with mental illness receive professional care. These statistics are Australia-wide, however can be applied to the Illawarra. In 2013, there were 59,910 youths living in the region aged between 5-24 years old, and 11,982 of these young people were suffering from a mental illness. Of those, approximately 2,995 would have received professional care. Major obstacles for parents trying to acquire professional care for their child can include the cost of attending services after those covered by the Medicare rebate, not knowing where to find help and support, and long waiting lists to see a professional. Youths affected by mental illness can also sometimes be forced out of home when their family doesn't recognise or understand their disorder, contributing to the large number of homeless youths living in the region.
Homelessness affects approximately 1,205 people living in the Illawarra, and a large proportion of these people are youths. Mental illness, domestic violence, family breakdowns and housing crises are large contributors to homelessness; however there can also be a number of other causative factors. Unemployment can also be a significant factor in youth homelessness, as the lack of financial stability and affordable rent makes finding a stable home difficult.
Katrina goes on to outline in particular how, as those three issues interact—mental illness, homelessness and youth unemployment—they can have many and lasting impacts on the lives of young people, and particularly in our region of the Illawarra. She acknowledges there are programs, initiatives and funding, but makes the point that the problems are still prevalent in the community and a lot more remains to be done. These issues will remain, but by aiming to minimise the number of people affected, the situation can be greatly improved. Thank you, Katrina, for your research and speech.
The budget will be delivered tomorrow. I am sure it will be a budget about the economy, growth and jobs, and I am sure the Treasurer will deliver a fine budget that will put the economy on the right direction.
We already have had some great news for Western Australia and for my electorate of Swan. If anyone knows anyone from Western Australia, they would know that we always talk about the imbalance of the GST return that comes through to Western Australia. The federal government has already announced that in the budget it will allocate a special payment of $490 million to Western Australia to compensate our state for its low GST share. It has also decided that that $490 million will be a payment that will be allocated to the Forrestfield-Airport Link in my electorate of Swan. This is fantastic news not only for Western Australia but also for my constituents, particularly those living in Belmont, Redcliffe and High Wycombe, which are low-SES areas.
The Forrestfield-Airport Link is a new rail line. It is an underground rail line that will connect Forrestfield with the CBD. It will see three new train stations created at Redcliffe, at the airport and at Forrestfield, all of which are in the electorate of Swan. I have been fighting for this fair share of the GST for Western Australia and for this major investment in public transport in my electorate of Swan, particularly for the residents of High Wycombe and Belmont. There has been much talk about the benefits of this rail line to airport passengers, but the new rail link will be a major public transport asset for my constituents. It will connect the people of High Wycombe to the CBD in 20 minutes and achieve many of the objectives the Prime Minister has been talking about in relation to public transport and cities.
Following a redistribution, High Wycombe became a new part of the electorate of Swan. I met some of the locals at a meet and greet I organised at Casa Mia Coffee Lounge on Foxton Boulevard last Tuesday—and thanks to Joe for hosting that. Some of the issues raised included a new incinerator at Hazelmere, which could affect some of the constituents in High Wycombe; public transport, particularly timetables and availability for the local area, something that I will be raising with the Premier in Western Australia; and local infrastructure—footpaths and things like that—so people can access public transport and the new train line that will be coming in.
I thank everyone who attended that meet and greet last Tuesday. I also look forward to the budget being announced tomorrow. I am sure that many on this side of the chamber will greet it with enthusiasm. We will also greet the relevance that it will have for the rest of Australia.
In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded.
I move:
That this House:
(1) notes the Government's multiple attacks on the pay, rights and conditions of workers, including but not limited to:
(a) advocating for a reduction in penalty rates;
(b) issuing temporary licences, which resulted in Australian seafarers being sacked;
(c) abolishing the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal;
(d) pursuing legislation that would ensure workers on construction sites have less rights than 'ice' dealers;
(e) the attempted reintroduction of unfair individual contracts;
(f) the failure to address widespread and system exploitation of workers; and
(g) the unfair, ideological bargaining policy which forces agencies to strip rights and conditions from enterprise agreements and offer cuts to pay in real terms;
(2) condemns the Government for its employment and workplace relations agenda; and
(3) calls on the Government to abandon its attacks on the pay, rights and conditions of workers in Australia.
This government's attack on workers is unprecedented. Around the country today and over the weekend tens of thousands of workers stopped to acknowledge May Day. I say 'acknowledge' and not 'celebrate', because Australian workers have very little to celebrate at the moment, and that is largely the result of this government and the attacks that it has made on the pay and conditions of Australian workers. This includes its advocacy for cutting penalty rates and, in particular, Sunday penalty rates.
Numerous members and ministers on the government side have stood up and said that penalty rates should be cut for people working in the hospitality and retail sectors. This would devastate some of our lowest paid workers, who quite often speak up about how penalty rates, particularly the Sunday penalty rates, are paying their bills. Somebody who I was chatting to on the weekend at one of my listening posts said that her Sunday penalty rate is how she pays not just for her internet bill and her children's swimming lessons but for those things that others would not consider a luxury: the household items. Most of her weekly wage goes on paying rent and paying electricity bills, but her Sunday penalties pay for the extras.
This government has introduced legislation attacking working conditions that continues to get rejected by the Senate, and for good reason. Its bills and its agendas seek to weaken Australian workplace relations. One particular bill—which was the reason why this parliament was reopened—that related to registered organisations sought to impose more red tape on our industrial relations sector, not less. This government has tried to introduce individual flexibility agreements—which would see basic wages and conditions being negotiated away—that are enforced by an employer, that are not checked by the Fair Work Commission and that would be put into the bottom drawer and forgotten about, leaving the worker with few grounds on which to appeal them.
This government has issued temporary licences which have resulted in thousands of seafarers—many of whom are on the lawn again today—being sacked for being Australian. Their wages and conditions have been undermined. This is an island nation, yet we have seen thousands of Australian seafarers lose their jobs as a result of this government's inaction.
We have also seen this government try again and again to pursue legislation that would see our workers on construction sites have less rights than many others in our community. What we are saying is quite simple: the rule of law already exists in every Australian workplace in every facet of Australian life; it should be the same rule for all; there should be one rule for all. Yet this government, because of its vendetta and hatred of a particular union, is now taking us to an election based upon a small part of industrial relations law which would see construction workers discriminated against and treated differently.
There is also the treatment of this government's own workforce. Not only has this government sacked over 16,000 public servants—and they are foreshadowing to sack more in tomorrow's budget—they have failed to genuinely bargain with their workforce. They have set an appalling example for corporate Australian by not bargaining in good faith. Their bargaining framework effectively said to their workforce, 'You find your own pay rise. Cut your conditions to fund your pay rise.' Today we have seen a leak from inside Centrelink that shows that, because of staffing cuts, thousands upon thousands of students applying for Newstart have had their claims automatically rejected. This is a fault of this government's making. It is because of their failure to listen to their own workforce, their failure to bargain in good faith and their failure to resource properly.
In this motion, we condemn the government for its lack of a workplace relations agenda that is fair. We call on the government to abandon its attacks on the pay, rights and conditions of all Australian workers. It is time for this government to listen to Australian workers instead of attack them.
I thank the member for Bendigo. Is there a seconder for this motion?
I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
There is nothing surprising in the member for Bendigo moving this motion. She talks about the workers, but I wonder who in the member's electorate of Bendigo speaks and has a voice for the small business employers in the electorate? I do not understand. She is always talking about standing up for the workers' rights. But without somebody who can open a business and can actually pay those employees they do not have a job. She seems to miss that and takes great pleasure in characterising and demonising the employers in her electorate.
We will just see what the member for Bendigo supports—or should be supporting. The things that she talks about in respect of pay rates are, of course, not determined by government. She seems to miss this point that they are determined by an independent organisation known as the Fair Work Commission that was set up by whom? It was set up by those opposite. We play by the rules which they determine. She also mentions the registered organisations. How can it be wrong that unions, for example, have the same requirements that a publicly listed company has in terms of governance? How can that be a bad thing? I really struggle to understand it. She can only be advocating for—one would think—dodgy union officials. I have no problems with unions, because I work with many unions in my electorate all time. Unions do good things for workers all over the world. I support that, but I think most Australians condemn dodgy union officials taking advantage of those members that are paying their union dues—many of whom are obliged to because they do not get a choice. Of course we know that every member of those opposite has to be a member of a union. How is it so? You cannot be a member of the Labor Party unless you are a member of a union. What sort of party advocates for that? How is that so?
I was very pleased to see that the member for Bendigo, that landlocked seat in central Victoria, raised coastal shipping. I am a member for a seat in Tasmania—the island state in the island nation. In 2012, the changes that were made by those opposite absolutely devastated coastal shipping in my state of Tasmania. We lost our only international shipping service, by virtue of exactly the changes that were made by those opposite. It was a disgrace. What happened then was that the volumes there that had previously gone, I think, via Brisbane on the AAA service that used to go to Port Adelaide, Bell Bay, Brisbane and then off to Singapore and then to different parts of the world fell off the perch. When that happened, thanks to the decisions made by those opposite, all of that volume then went onto Bass Strait—and guess what? The prices went up. We should be bringing competition back into the vital lifeline. She talks about jobs for seafarers in our country. I note also that the other day the last fuel tanker—the coastal Australian flagged vessel—left our country, so you have driven it into the ground. The volume has fallen off the perch. You have killed an industry and we are trying to revitalise that. This is something that desperately hurt my state.
She brings up the ABCC. There was an ABC fact check done on that one—I will leave my words there. Finally, it would be remiss of me not to mention—and I do not think she actually got to it, although it is on the motion that she has put forward—the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal. What an absolute shocker! I had people contacting my office. There were independent contractors, people that are employing independent contractors, and mums and dads that own one or two trucks. There was one chap there from Sorell, Michael Emerton. He runs a truck service and he travels up to Sydney. He rang me in absolute desperation. Under the ruse of this being a road safety measure, this was a union membership drive for the Transport Workers Union—no more, no less—and we have knocked it on the head, but they will bring it back—make no mistake.
I would like to congratulate the member for Bendigo for bringing this very important motion to the chamber for discussion. I do so because I have an electorate that is very much a place where the people who live there are of lower socioeconomic backgrounds and would probably be classified as some of the more disempowered people. Nevertheless, they are people who work for a living and rely very much on a work market or a workplace that is protected—that is, their pay and conditions and their work environment are protected. For that reason I am very pleased to stand here and support the member for Bendigo's motion and also to speak about some of the difficulties that my own constituents have faced, especially those in the liquor and hospitality industry and people who have been grievously exploited by small business operators. Small business operators carry on about the need to be allowed to create more jobs and they complain about penalty rates being a burden to them and that they cannot open on Sundays. But the reality is that small business has been a great beneficiary of an enormous exploitation of people as a result of paying cash and of using international students to undercut the minimum wage, creating a situation where people in my electorate cannot get a job because they are competing with what is obviously known to all of us—the black market. I appreciate that small business needs all the incentives it can get to create jobs, but the reality is it is not remiss of small business to exploit working people. That is something that it does. It needs to be reined in. That is why this motion is very important.
When I first became the member for Calwell, one of the groups that I worked with and met with was an organisation that provided support for families not in my electorate but in the northern suburbs of Melbourne. They provided support for those families who had lost loved ones in the building industry. I had the opportunity to meet a lot of families who had lost their sons, their fathers, their husbands in the building industry. The building industry is a place that can be terribly unsafe, especially for young tradespeople. The union movement, particularly the CFMEU and the building unions, rates and puts the protection of the workers and their pay conditions as the No. 1 priority. Often, that rubs up the nose of employers—of course it does. But the reality is that we need to protect those rights and those conditions. You do not demonise a union whose No. 1 job is, always, the protection of its workforce. The registered organisations bill seeks to isolate a particular organisation and to possibly try to weaken its existence. Therefore, I think that would lead to the lessening of the protections of the people in my electorate who work on building sites.
I also recall the great Work Choices election of a couple of elections ago. The people in my lecture came together, with members of the union, in order to campaign against the then Howard government's attempt to introduce Work Choices. Work Choices was about disempowering workers. It was about taking away protections for pay and conditions. That era, that we thought might have been behind us, is well and truly alive at this election. This election will be about not only jobs growth but the protection of pay and conditions for people such as those in my electorate. Penalty rates, in particular, are important to the people I represent. As the member for Bendigo has said, and as many others have said, it is the only opportunity that my constituents have to continue to meet the payments of their daily life and their commitments.
We have seen a massive deregularisation of the job market. Casualisation has brought about a huge underemployment. My constituents have been affected incredibly by this. Therefore, any attempt to do away with penalty rates will be defended proudly by us and by me as the member for Calwell because it goes to the core variability to meet their daily life— (Time expired)
I seek leave to make an additional contribution.
As the government can only find one person that has any concern about this motion, I will grant him leave. He can speak for the 90 members of the government who cannot get themselves up here to oppose this motion. We can only assume that they are giving tacit support—
Leave is granted. I call the member for Lyons.
I thank the member for Shortland for her generosity. It just gives me an opportunity—
Opposition members interjecting—
because the member for Bendigo did not actually outline the motion. I will go through the motion that is before the House today. It notes that the government is attacking on the pay, rights and conditions of workers. These things, as I mentioned in my first contribution, are not matters for the government. These are matters for the independent Fair Work Commission, set up by those opposite. It was very interesting to hear the Leader of the Opposition on, I think, 3AW—I do not listen to 3AW very often. There he was, proudly saying: 'What if the Fair Work Commission says there is a case to make to see that penalty rates are changed? Oh yes, we'll abide by those decisions.' They will abide by those decisions! Those opposite say one thing but they do another thing.
What is this attack on employers? I pose the question: who is standing for the employers in the electorate of Bendigo? Thanks to the foreign minister, who brought 80 heads of mission to Tasmania for three days last week to have a look at our educational institutions, our businesses, the tourism sector and our shipbuilding capacity, we had great pleasure on Saturday to have lunch at Josef Chromy's winery, which is right on the boundary between the electorates of Bass and Lyons. You can see the vineyards, quite appropriately, located in the electorate of Lyons, but we were in the venue itself, which happens to be located in the member for Bass's electorate.
Ms Hall interjecting—
Order! The member for Shortland will resume her seat. The member for Lyons, please resume your seat. I call the member for Shortland.
Sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker, for being so exuberant in my need to raise a point of order. The point of order is that this is not about vineyards. This is about workplace relations and the government's attack on workers.
The motion is a very broad-ranging motion. There is no point of order. I call the member for Lyons.
Thank you, Deputy Speaker. I was just going to reference Mr Josef Chromy. Mr Josef Chromy was born in the former Czechoslovakia, which at the time was occupied by Nazi Germany and then he had Soviet Russia—celebrated, no doubt, by the member for Bendigo—coming in to occupy his country after the Second World War. Josef Chromy managed to escape what was Czechoslovakia and made his way to the UK. He came to Tasmania and he has been an absolute success story. At one stage, when he owned Blue Ribbon Meat Products in Tasmania, he was the largest private employer in Tasmania. He was a migrant from troubled central Europe, and he is somebody who I look up to. Why would I not? This is the Australian story and we should celebrate these people, these entrepreneurs who have taken risks. He came to Australia with not a cent in his pocket and he is a very wealthy man now. He has employed thousands and thousands of Tasmanians. We enjoyed the wonderful food and hospitality and the great service that was provided at Josef Chromy's restaurant.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have looked at the motion very carefully. None of the information that the member is putting before the House can be remotely related to this. Broad-ranging? No, it is not. This is about workers and industrial relations.
Who employs the workers?
Order!
No, it is not about condemning employers. It is not about anything like that. It is about workplace relations.
Order! The member for Shortland has made her point. The member for Shortland will resume her seat. Member for Lyons, I would ask you to return to the substance of the motion.
I return to point (1) on the motion before us today and say that we should celebrate people like Josef Chromy, who, through endeavour and initiative, has been able to employ hundreds and thousands of Tasmanians. He started with nothing. Work rates are set by an independent authority, the Fair Work Commission, which was set up by those opposite. This is a ruse. They have no case. I have no case to answer. (Time expired)
I am disappointed but not surprised that there is only one member of the coalition backbench who is willing to come here today and defend the government's record on industrial relations. I am disappointed but not surprised because, if Malcolm Turnbull is the Prime Minister of Australia on 3 July, there are four things that we can be very certain about. Firstly, weekend workers will earn less money. Secondly, our roads will be less safe. There will be more tragedies that could have been avoided. Thirdly, Australian seafarers will no longer work on Australian ships; they will be replaced by foreign crews.
Mr Hutchinson interjecting—
And the member for Lyons thinks that this is a good thing. He is cheering it on. Fourthly, ordinary Australians will have less superannuation.
Can I talk about penalty rates, because Labor supports penalty rates. We understand that for millions of Australians penalty rates mean take-home pay. Millions of Australians rely on penalty rates and, if we rip them away, low-income earners will have less money to make ends meet. We have made our position clear when it comes to the Fair Work Commission, and when it comes to penalty rates Australian workers know who they can trust.
Can I talk about seafarers. It surprises many Australians to know that right now the Australian government—the government of this party over here—is encouraging Australian shipowners to pull down the Australian flag off their vessels and replace it with the flag of a foreign country so they can replace their Australian crew with a foreign crew and pay them a pittance. I do not blame the shipowners; I blame your government, which has made it possible. I spoke to Zac from Shellharbour in my electorate. He was dragged off the back of the MV Portland in the middle of the night. He was sacked—his entire crew was sacked—to be replaced by a foreign crew. He is not alone. Joanne from Kanahooka is in a similar position; all of her 36 workmates were replaced by a foreign crew. They cannot understand why they do not have the right to work on an Australian ship in an Australian country, and neither do I. There is more of this under your government.
In relation to superannuation, the coalition have been very generous in giving superannuation tax breaks to the wealthy, but they are not willing to help out low- and middle-income earners. It has been low- and middle-income earners who have been hit hardest when it comes to superannuation by the coalition. The freezing of the superannuation contributions until 2021 is going to hurt millions of Australians in their retirement. As a result of the government's changes, a person who works from the age of 22 to 69 on $35,000 a year will retire with 16.7 per cent less than they otherwise would have. That makes a real difference to ordinary Australians.
I want to talk about truck drivers, because on the weekend I spoke to Pat Armstrong from Wollongong. He has been driving trucks for 42 years. Every year, around 80 drivers are killed working on trucks. When the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal was abolished, he said, 'If you're not getting the right money, then you're gonna cut corners.' He knows—42 years experience. Professor Michael Quinlan, the Director of the University of New South Wales Industrial Relations Research Centre, agrees. But, if you are Malcolm Turnbull, you are always the smartest guy in the room. You do not have to listen to experts and you do not have to listen to employees—you are always the smartest guy in the room. You listen to your own advice and nobody else's. You abolish the tribunal and, as a result of this, there will be needless deaths on our roads.
There is a stark choice at the next election. You can vote for a government that is going to cut penalty rates, and millions of Australians will have less take-home pay. You can vote for a government that backs the wealthy when it comes to superannuation but freezes the superannuation contributions of ordinary Australians. That will be the government of Malcolm Turnbull. You can vote for a government that thinks it is a great idea that we pull down the Australian flag, the red ensign, from the back of Australian ships so that we can replace Australian workers with foreign workers. That will be Malcolm Turnbull's government. You can vote for a government that is led by a guy who is always the smartest guy in the room and has no need for experts or advice. That is the government that has abolished the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal and, needlessly, there will be more deaths on the road as a result of it. That is the choice that Australians face at the next election, and I think Australian workers know who they can trust.
Does the member for Lyons wish to seek leave?
I think I have every right to seek leave. They have granted it to me once; they should grant it to me again.
You have nothing to say.
I would say that I have won this debate, then, Jill.
Is leave granted?
Don't give him leave.
Will we give it to him?
No. I do not think we will.
We will grant him leave, because he is just putting more nails in the coffin and showing that those on the other side are just not up to the job of governing.
Leave granted.
Mr Champion interjecting—
The member for Lyons, resume your seat. I wish to address the chamber for a moment. This is a debate that is of great rigour and substance. I understand that, but I do ask that members be a little bit less rowdy and allow the member for Lyons to make his additional contribution.
I am eternally grateful to the member for Shortland. If we cannot stand up in this place and have a debate, this is the sort of world that we want to see. This is about control. This is the way that those opposite like to approach these matters. They like to have control, they know what is best, they hate free enterprise and they hate independent contractors. I get to the point under item (1) (c) on the motion before the house: the abolishment of the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal.
I put it to you this way, Deputy Speaker. When the department came down to Tasmania—I do not meant to pat myself on the back, but they were not coming. They were not coming to Tasmania, because their assessment was that there was no impact on owner-drivers and subcontractors in Tasmania. Unfortunately, they were dead wrong, because a 500 km round trip—it may surprise some of those on the other side that come from some of the bigger states, but anybody carting goods, for example, from Hobart up to a port in Burnie—certainly, taking milk, for example, up to the member for Braddon's electorate in Smithton or places like that—would have been subject to these intimidations and extraordinary measures that were being proposed under the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal. Fortunately, we were able to hold a hearing in Campbell Town, and I suspect you will not be surprised to know, Deputy Speaker, that we had a very good turn-up of owner-drivers, small businesses and mums and dads that often have mortgaged their homes to purchase a heavy loader—what are they called?
Mr Ewen Jones interjecting—
A prime mover—thank you, member for Herbert—so that they can run their businesses. We also had larger companies coming along, many of whom employ these subcontractors, mums and dads and people that have mortgaged their homes. But guess who did not turn up? We did not have anybody there that said the tribunal was a good thing. Not one person turned up. This was the opportunity; the officials from the Department of Employment were there, and not one person—not one union representative—turned up to put a counterargument to that that we were putting on behalf of these owner operators: that this was a bad thing for their businesses, their communities and their families. Not one turned up.
I do not know what that says, Deputy Speaker; you might have a view. Those opposite might have a view about what it says. I say that I think they know they were on the wrong side of this argument. The ruse that was put forward—that this was about road safety—is an absolute slur on these people that take road safety very seriously. If those opposite were fair dinkum about this and it was something other than a union membership drive, they would know very well that a very small proportion of accidents that occur on our roads are put down as a responsibility of the truck drivers. This is a slur. We know; it has been called out. We have seen it. This was a union membership drive. This was about driving private enterprise out of the trucking industry. It very much affected Tasmanian drivers—owners-operators, mums and dads—as it did drivers all around Australia, and didn't they turn up in force and put their case very, very clearly?
Honourable members interjecting—
Were you there, member for Herbert? Of course you were, because it impacts on people and businesses in your electorate, like it does in mine—and like it does in the electorate of the member for Bendigo, who moved this motion. What does she have against employers—people who are trying to make a dollar, people who are enterprising, taking a risk, risking their home? What is it that she has against those people? Fair Work Commission, not government, is the one who sets the rates—Fair Work Commission. Who set it up? They set it up. Not us.
I could not wait to get out of the starting blocks on this one. This is complete and arrant nonsense. The people campaigning for the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal were, in fact, the owner-drivers—they were private enterprise. I know this extremely well because when I had responsibility for transport in Western Australia this was a major issue. I had meetings where 100 owner-drivers would turn up and express their support and their demand for a remuneration tribunal at a state level, and we gave it to them. We gave it to them for this reason: because we absolutely understood that every report that has been issued over the last 20 years has come to exactly the same conclusion—that the inequality in bargaining power in this industry is forcing these owner-drivers to do things that are unsafe, including pushing fatigue boundaries in order to do exactly as the member for Lyons said. There are situations where people have mortgaged their home to buy their rig, but they are at the mercy of Coles and Woolworths driving prices down, down, down. As they drive prices down, down, down, the prices being offered to these contractors are being driven down, down, down. They have to make a living and they accept those jobs. They know it is wrong. They know they are putting their lives at risk. They know they have to take the mixed grill to keep them going, comprising their long-term health. They are all aware for this. Their wives, their partners, who are often in the business, understand this and they want to be protected. These are people in private enterprise. A very significant proportion of the Transport Workers Union's membership has been owner-drivers.
You guys hate these discussions about safety because you know you are fundamentally weak on this point. I want to point out the whole zeitgeist of what is going on under the Abbott/Turnbull government and its attitude towards trade unions. Its vilification of trade unions, its incredible obsession with trade unions, is having a big impact. It is creating a culture where employers feel that they can make these cutbacks and that they can prevent unions from attending worksites.
In my electorate, a couple of months ago, two young men, both backpackers, died on a building site. They had been on this building site for a week. One in particular, Gerry, had been a barista or a barman up until six days before. He got his little white card, we think he probably got it online after a couple of hours, then went to this workplace. This workplace was one that the union movement—the CFMEU—had attempted to enter on many occasions because of their concerns about safely, and they were denied. The Fair Work Commission—under this government, with direction from the government—were focusing on this union. Was this union breaching its rights of entry? They were not concerned, apparently, by what many people argue were manifestly unsafe working conditions and a lack of compliance with a whole set of regulations that are designed to protect workers.
This is not about being anti-employer. In fact, decent employers get angry when we do not do things about those employers who cut corners and are prepared to put people's lives at risk. It makes it harder for those people who want to do the right thing: people who enjoy their enterprise and believe that they are creating good within the community. They are the ones who are being punished by your absolute obsession and your refusal to acknowledge that we need the trade union movement to ensure that there is proper balance within our society and that there is equality of bargaining. (Time expired)
Mr Hutchinson interjecting—
This is how interested your side is, isn't it? You are the only one that could pop up on this issue.
I was going to take the opportunity to compliment the member for Perth, but on that note I will sit down.
As a member who has not spoken in this debate, I want to express my support for the motion that has been raised by the member for Bendigo and highlight the actual issues that are involved in this motion. The member talks about the attacks on the pay, the rights and conditions of workers. This Turnbull government, and the Abbott government as well—all of whom these members are part of—have waged an ideological war on the workers and union members of Australia simply because they do not believe in fairness or in any sort of justice but in a one-sided system where the winner takes all. They do not care in the least about those workers who put their lives on the line each day when they turn up at work. They do not care about those truck drivers—the owner-drivers—that were covered on by the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal. The biggest issue about that legislation was that it was a safety issue. It was about safety not only for the drivers but for all Australians. But those on the other side of this House were driven by their ideology and they introduced legislation that will have long-term ramifications, not only for those owner-drivers but for all Australians, that will lead to an increase in the loss of lives.
I want to touch very quickly on part (d), where it talks about ensuring 'workers on construction sites have less rights than "ice" dealers'. Construction workers suffer some of the largest numbers of fatalities and losses of life of any industry. I think it goes construction, farming and mining. It is vitally important that there are occupational health and safety regulations on worksites and that unions are able to represent those workers that are exploited. I have visited many worksites. I have seen the situations and the conditions that workers are working in. I have seen the unsafe work practices that take place. All the union royal commission did was look at the unions. It did not look at those unsafe practices that were constantly employed on worksites.
Those on the other side of this House are taking away the rights of construction workers. They are taking away their rights to be adequately represented by their unions. Those on our side of this House are about exploitation of workers. They do not care about work safety. They want to make sure that workers receive less money. They want to see the penalty rates go. I have never heard a member of the other side stand up in this parliament for the rights of workers. Has anyone here heard them stand up for workers rights?
Opposition members interjecting—
No, they do not. Do you know what? They do not care about workers. What they forget is that the majority of Australians are workers. Be they working on a construction site, be they working in a mine, be they working in industry, be they working in shops, be they working in hospitality, they are all workers, and they all need to earn a decent living so that they can keep our economy rolling along. We need to make sure that they earn that living in a safe environment.
Those on the other side of this House do not care about safety. Every occupational health and safety piece of legislation that has been introduced into this parliament in the entire time I have been here has been about eroding occupational health and safety. Every piece of legislation that those on the other side of this House has introduced in relation to industrial relations has been about eroding the rights of workers.
So I think that this parliament should unite in its condemnation of the Abbott-Turnbull government and its attack on workers.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this House:
(1) notes with concern that one of Australia's major steel manufacturers, Arrium, has recently been placed into administration, highlighting the risk to Whyalla's economy and our national steelmaking capabilities;
(2) recognises the multiple pressures currently being experienced by the Australian steel industry, including the impact of a global over supply of steel;
(3) further notes the worrying evidence presented to the Senate Economics References Committee's inquiry into the future of Australia's steel industry, on the widespread importation and use of structural steel that does not meet Australian standards and presents a threat to public safety;
(4) notes the plan announced by Labor to support Australia's strategically significant metals manufacturing industries, particularly the steel industry, by:
(a) ensuring Australian standards are upheld in Government funded projects and supporting local steel producers in meeting certification standards;
(b) seeking to maximise the use of locally produced steel in Australian Government funded projects and put in place regular reporting of usage levels;
(c) halving the thresholds for projects required to have an Australian Industry Participation Plan from $500 million down to $250 million for private projects, and from $20 million to $10 million for public projects;
(d) doubling funding for the Australian Industry Participation (AIP) Authority and appointing an AIP Board;
(e) ensuring Australia's anti-dumping system has the right powers and penalties in place;
(f) creating a national Steel Supplier Advocate; and
(g) establishing a tripartite Metals Manufacturing Investment Council to work closely with the Government to deliver these measures;
(5) condemns the Government's failure to take a comprehensive approach to securing the future of Australia's steel industry; and
(6) calls on the Government to take serious action to support Australia's strategically significant metals manufacturing industries, particularly the steel industry.
It is a great pleasure to address the Federation Chamber on this very important issue related to the steel industry. We know that this is not just about Arrium or BlueScope; it is about the national interest and our capacity to make steel in this country.
There has been a great deal of agitation about this issue. We cannot say that it has just come out of the blue. This has been an issue for over a year now. Bill Shorten wrote to the Prime Minister in October last year seeking bipartisanship to support the steel industry, offering our support for the government to come out with a policy. What we have seen from those opposite has been absolutely zip—zero. We have seen lacklustre attempts to deal with the crisis affecting our steel industry. We have the member for Grey here as the lone government speaker on this motion. Of course, he is a bit like Robinson Crusoe on this government. He is shipwrecked up there and marooned in a sea of free traders and in a sea of flat-earthers in this government.
We know that on the Labor side we have had very spirited representation from the Weatherill Labor government, in particular, my good friend Tom Koutsantonis, who has introduced a policy on standards and procurement for the South Australian government to lead the way amongst state governments. We have seen the Victorians do something similar. We also had Eddie Hughes, the state member for Whyalla, lead a delegation of steelworkers to Canberra to make sure that they were represented in this building. The delegation included Steve McMillian, from AMWU, Andrew Maine, an AMWU delegate at the Whyalla steelworks, Scott Martin, from the AWU, Stuart Munro, the AWU delegate on the site, Greg Warner, from the CFMEU, Brad Prince, a CFMEU delegate at the steelworks, Bill Metropolis, my friend from the electricians union, and Leigh Fewster, a electrician and delegate at the steelworks.
Those men had to come to this place to secure adequate representation and attention for their issues. I guess that does reflect on this government's interests and on the member for Grey and his capacity to bring their interests to the attention of both this House and the government. That is a great pity. Steelmaking at Whyalla is an essential thing for that town. We know of the catastrophic consequences if the steelworks was to close in Whyalla. As catastrophic as the car industry closures have been, we know that if the steelworks was to close in Whyalla it would be like that with the dial turned up. We know that this is a government of flat earthers, a government that has been completely disinterested in industrial policy, and I have seen the consequences of that with the deliberate shutdown of the car industry in this country by Mr Abbott and Mr Hockey. We have seen the consequences of that in South Australia.
Labor has a six-point policy. We have come out and put our cards on the table in the run-up to the next election. We have put this issue front and centre. We have been promoting the interests of the steel industry in this House for some time. I know my colleagues from Wollongong have had a great interest in this area of public policy making. We are committed to providing in government some relief and security for these workers.
They have been desperate to get the House's attention. They have been desperate to get the government's attention. What have we had? We had the Prime Minister rock up in Whyalla and they hid him down there at the park. The member for Grey shuffled him into a park for a press conference, trying to hide from the local community, trying to hide from local workers. They only met with the council. They did not go and meet with the unions. They did not go and meet with the workforce at all because they might have got a contrary opinion or might not have got the golfers claps they were looking for. Then the Prime Minister got ambushed by Raylene. That is what happens when you try and wrap a Prime Minster up in cotton wool, when you try and do fly-in fly-out press conferences in towns like Whyalla.
It is important that the steel industry remains in South Australia. It is important that the steel industry remains in Australia overall. Thousands of jobs are caught up in it. The very future of Whyalla as a functional town is caught up with it. This motion is about getting this issue debated in this House, making sure it is front and centre at the next election and making sure that workers in Whyalla and elsewhere know Labor is on their side.
Is there a seconder for this motion?
I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
There are things that I would concur with the member for Wakefield on. Certainly, my faith in the steel industry in Whyalla is still strong and the need for the steel industry to survive for Whyalla, for South Australia, for Australia and for the people that live in Whyalla is exceedingly strong. A very good case can be made. Over the course of some time, I hope to be able to bring to this House the reason that I believe that there will be a future for the steel industry.
Of course, the member for Wakefield did visit Whyalla. He and his friend Senator Carr addressed a union organised rally there. I attended that quite happily. I spoke to the rally. But let me tell you about Senator Carr's contribution. I was reminded of Frank Blevins. You might remember Frank Blevins, Member for Wakefield.
He was a good man.
He once stood in front of a farmers rally outside Festival Theatre in Adelaide. He said, 'You are just basking in the politics of the warm inner glow.' That is what Senator Carr did. He just played to the union crowd, offered nothing constructive but inflamed anger for no good reason.
Mr Champion interjecting—
Let me go on.
Order! The member for Grey will resume his seat. Does the member for Wakefield have a point of order?
Frank Blevins was a great man. Sadly, he has passed. We should not speak ill of the dead.
Order! There is no point of order. The member for Wakefield will resume his seat.
If the member had been listening, he would know I did not speak ill of the dead. I just reported what Frank Blevins told that congregation. That is what Senator Carr was doing in Whyalla. Let me come to the response the Labor Party is putting up, because they are here to 'rescue' the Australian steel industry. It is worth remembering that they inflicted the carbon tax on the Australian steel industry. But don't worry about that! They put an extra $100 million into the Steel Transformation Plan. We were told at the time by Julia Gillard and others that this had nothing to do with the carbon tax, that it was about building a new Australian industry, a transformed industry.
Mr Champion interjecting—
The member for Wakefield would do better to listen with his ears than his mouth, let me tell you. The $100 million was supposed to give us a modern, competitive Australian steel industry. What did it do? It went to pay your carbon tax. That is the problem here. And now the latest raft of remedies they have for the steel industry is to establish not one, not two but three new government bodies to have a look at the situation. They will appoint a board—
An honourable member interjecting—
I will tell you what I have done in minute, mate. It is to appoint a board to the Australian Industry Participation Authority to provide a new national steel supplier advocate and establish another body—a tripartite Metals Manufacturing Investment Council. Really? That is three new government committees—none of them with any clout—but the member just wants to waste the Australian taxpayers' money and their time. The member for Wakefield had a go at Malcolm Turnbull. Malcolm Turnbull came to Whyalla and he dropped off an 80,000 tonne order for Australian rail.
Mr Champion interjecting—
Madam Deputy Speaker, I ask that you pull the member for Wakefield into gear.
Member for Wakefield, I ask that you allow the member for Grey to finish his contribution.
It is an appalling piece of behaviour. What he did on that day was drop off an order for 80,000 tonnes of rail—one of the most important things. The Whyalla steel smelter is capable of producing 1.2 million tonnes of steel. At the moment it is doing 950,000. This is a very important order. It is like a motel. If the motel is running at 50 per cent, the motel owner is losing money. If it is running at 100 per cent, he is making money. That was a very important order—and it was not a fit-up and it was not mickey mouse—because it brought forward rail work that had to occur within the next six years, and it increases the capacity of the line by going from 47 kilograms per metre to 60 kilograms per metre, enabling an extra eight tonne of truck. In addition to this—and I hope to continue on this in a little while—we have made enormous changes with the Anti-Dumping Commissioner. The Anti-Dumping Commissioner— (Time expired)
It is a very important matter before us, and I appreciate the member for Wakefield bringing it before the House, although it is not the first time I have had the opportunity to talk to the House about the steel industry. I and the member for Throsby, like many of our colleagues in South Australia, have been through some significantly difficult times with the steel industry. Indeed, in 2010 at BlueScope, we had a significant restructure of the sector. If you include those down the supply chains, that ended up with over 1,000 jobs lost. At that point there was a really important, direct and immediate intervention by the then Gillard government. In fact, the Prime Minister visited the region twice. There was a response to support for the steel industry that others have referred to—the Steel Transformation Plan. There was support for our region: a joint investment in diversifying the economy of $30 million contributed by the federal government, the state government and BlueScope themselves, and a package of support for the dislocated workers. It was a time at which the region saw what a good and effective federal government actually does for a region going through tough times such as this.
Let us play that forward to the end of last year, when BlueScope again announced, as an impact of the international circumstances, that they needed to take some fairly difficult decisions, and we were looking at more workers being retrenched from the plant. Realistically, as BlueScope was clear, we were looking at the potential of the plant shutting down. So who stepped up? Who stepped up at the end of last year for the steel industry and for the Illawarra region? First of all, the trade union movement and the workers stepped up, and we had an unprecedented outcome where there was a negotiated agreement that meant all of those workers ended up with less money and fewer conditions, but their commitment was demonstrated, very clearly, to keep those jobs operating in our region. They stepped up. The state government sort of stepped up, with a bit of tax relief—deferred tax payments—to assist BlueScope.
We had a really significant roundtable where all the local players came together—the business chambers, the unions, the local members, community organisations, the local government mayors and so forth. They were called together to a peak roundtable, convened by the minister at the time, Minister Macfarlane, to talk about what needed to happen in the region—that is, firstly, to support the steel industry, and, secondly, to allow diversification of the local economy.
What was the outcome of that? Minister Macfarlane stood outside afterwards and did his press conference with his coalition colleagues and said that there would be a nice big announcement for the region. That got us excited—that there was something big that was going to make a real difference to the local region. We have not heard sight nor sound of it since that announcement, which was very quickly walked away from.
What then happened, as we went through this process, is that there was a change of minister and Minister Pyne became the minister for the sector. Minister Pyne thought he needed to hear all of this again, so he called all of the same players together. Unfortunately, he could not make it to Wollongong so we all had to traipse up to Sydney. Up we went and laid out all of our case again, hoping for some outcome. And there was absolutely nothing.
This government has not made a clear, announced policy and plan for the steel industry. I do not envy the member for Grey his position. It is a tough policy area—we all understand that; we have been through it for many years now—but you need to have a commitment to industry policy and you have to have a clearly articulated policy for the steel sector. It is a strategically important sector, and it is also significantly important to the regions where it operates. We have not seen that from the government. We have seen sound bites and half announcements, but there is no coordinated strategic approach.
By comparison, Bill Shorten and Kim Carr attended the BlueScope site with me and the member for Throsby and our candidate for Gilmore, Fiona Phillips, and announced a plan—a full plan of six significant initiatives to give a future to our steel industry. That is what is required. That is what we need—not a minister who thinks the Port Kembla Steelworks is in the electorate of Gilmore, or a minister who thinks he can make a simple announcement and get away with it. It is simply not enough. (Time expired)
I rise today to speak on this motion in support of my colleague the member for Grey and the positive initiatives the government has undertaken to help the steel industry and, in particular, the people of Whyalla. As the member for Grey said, the initiative to build 1,200 kilometres of rail from Adelaide to Tarcoola and to bring forward a contract to help Whyalla and, in particular, the people working at Arrium is a massive announcement. Everyone has people connected with Arrium and people working in Whyalla. We know they are going through some difficult times and we know there are challenges there, but they also recognise the work that we are doing. When I am at shopping centres or throughout my electorate, I have people from the member for Grey's electorate who come up to me and say: 'I don't live in your electorate. I live in the Yorke Peninsula or the Eyre Peninsula and Rowan Ramsey, the member for Grey, is doing a great job. He is fighting hard for our jobs, he is fighting hard for our future and he is fighting hard for Arrium.' They say that with sincerity. They know he is doing the best he can and they also know that this government is taking specific steps to help the people of Arrium and Whyalla.
The member for Grey was going to talk, in particular, about the Anti-Dumping Commission, so I will continue on another point that the government has made. Local steel manufacturers will now have a better opportunity to compete on a level playing field after the government accepted two Anti-Dumping Commission recommendations to impose dumping duties on Chinese-made steel reinforcing bar and rod core imported into Australia. These anti-dumping decisions have ensured that Australian steel manufacturers can compete on even ground in the local market with imports from other countries like China, South Korea and Taiwan. The Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science, Christopher Pyne, said that these decisions are another step that we have taken to help local producers, whether in Wollongong at BlueScope or at Arrium in Whyalla. In amongst this, there have been a whole lot of initiatives over the last year or so that we have taken to help Australian industries compete in global markets: the $50 million Manufacturing Transition Program, the $225 million Industry Growth Centres Initiative, the Industry Skills Fund that helps companies upskill their employees—$664 million over five years—and scrapping the carbon tax, which is so important to reduce costs for businesses.
The matters raised by Arrium creditors are not ones that any government—be it local, state or federal—can address through drastic intervention. We know from the international steel market—and the member for Wakefield, being the learned man that he is, would realise this that Port Talbot in the United Kingdom, in Wales, is suffering the exact same challenges that Arrium does in Whyalla—that the UK steel industry, among others right around the world, have the same challenges in terms of lower prices and an oversupply of steel. So Arrium has challenges, as others have. The federal government will also work with the South Australian government.
Mr Champion interjecting—
Order! I warn the member for Wakefield.
In that respect, all of us together want to get the right outcome for the people of Whyalla.
I just want to finish on a massive decision that was announced last week and that the member for Wakefield should be very proud of, and also the member for Throsby—I mentioned it to him last week when we ran into each other—about using Australian steel in shipbuilding projects. We have $90 billion of shipbuilding projects in Australia over the decades to come, whether it be patrol vessels, frigates or submarines. Last week, the government and Malcolm Turnbull made it clear that we will look at using Australian steel in these projects. This is a welcome initiative and something that I have raised with the industry minister and the defence minister. I know that it is an area that my colleague Rowan Ramsey, the member for Grey, like many South Australian members of parliament, has fought hard on—to get the best result for Australia and the best outcome for South Australia on defence shipbuilding. I can see the member for Wakefield smiling and saying, 'Well done, South Australian Liberal MPs!' You knew that we fought hard and got a great result for that, and so do the people of South Australia. Now, whether it is submarines or frigates, Australian products will be used and Australian suppliers will be beneficiaries. In terms of the amount, it is like a Royal Adelaide Hospital being built every year for the next 45 years. That is how big these defence shipbuilding announcements are for Australia. The Royal Adelaide Hospital was a massive project in South Australia. It is like one of them being built in the next 45 years. Just imagine that. And the South Australian people, quite rightly, are rejoicing in this great announcement, where there will be more Australian steel, more Australian suppliers and more work for Australians. It is another great federal government initiative.
Before I call the member for Throsby, I do wish to indicate to the member for Wakefield that you have been warned. On the next occasion, I will need to use standing order 187.
The workers of the Illawarra do not need to be lectured about the importance of trade and trade agreements. We know all about the importance of trade in the Illawarra. We have been trading with the world since the harbour at Port Kembla was first built—from wool to steel to grain to coal, cars and containers. They all pass through the port, creating jobs and opportunities for local businesses. We know about that. But the steelworks remains an anchor business for the region.
The steel industry has changed. There is a bigger market and the supply has doubled over the last decade. Over 800 million tonnes a year is now being produced by China—over half the world's supply. We have gone through the changes in the Illawarra. We have gone through them most recently when we saw up to 1,000 workers lose their jobs as a result of the restructuring. If it were not for the hard work put in by the workers at BlueScope, and their unions, the business would not be there today. But we know that something more needs to be done. If the biggest supplier in the market is not responding to obvious market signals then Australia must act to protect its industry from businesses that do not play by the normal rules. This is exactly what is happening.
Labor has a plan. We need a plan, but the Turnbull government, seemingly, only has a plan to save the seat of the Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science, who has no real plan for steel. He has a plan to get beyond the next election, but he has not got a plan for the future of the steel industry. By contrast, Labor has a plan that is both tough and legal, and it is proven. We will mandate Australian standards in federal government funded projects. We will do that. We will ensure that it is Australian standards and Australian steel that are going in to those Australian funded projects. We will maximise the use of locally produced steel in government funded projects, and we will make businesses planning large projects put in place Australian Industry Participation Plans. Currently, if it is less than $500 million it does not have to put in such a plan, but under Labor's proposal the threshold will be lowered to $250 million for such projects. They will be required to put in place a plan which shows how local businesses can get a slice of the action and are not excluded because of the operation of global supply chains.
Labor will double the funding for the Australian Industry Participation Authority. This is an authority that was put in place as part of the Australian Jobs Act. These guys voted against it. They have never supported the Australian Jobs Act, just like they do not support Australian jobs. They gutted the staffing for it. Is it any wonder it is floundering today? Labor will also help small and medium-sized steel fabricators become more competitive through a steel supplier advocate.
But we all know that you need a cop on the beat, and you need to ensure that the cop is funded. So we will toughen our antidumping laws and we will ensure that the regulator has resources to act quickly and to stamp out job-killing dumping of overseas steel into Australian markets. Minister Pyne has not acted on the Anti-Dumping Commission report. We will use it to tighten our antidumping rules. The plan is tough. It is legal and it is proven. This model has been road-tested in South Australia. When similar measures were put in place, local content shifted from 40 per cent to 91 per cent. It is tough on illegal and unfair practices, and it is also legal. And that is important. There is a lot of populism in this area. But it is important because we know that the measures that we put in place will not result in our exports being hit by retaliatory actions against our products in other countries.
My colleagues have been talking about the naval shipbuilding exercise. That is very important; $90 billion worth of new projects are going to be built over the next two decades. The member for Hindmarsh let the cat out of the bag. He let the cat out of the bag because we are getting all sorts of mixed messages from the Prime Minister and the defence minister about what is going to happen with Australian steel in this project. One day we are told by the Minister for Defence that it cannot possibly be Australian steel because we do not make it. I would invite the minister to visit BlueScope Steel and Bisalloy where we made the same steel previously, and where our steel is a preferred supplier for defence industries overseas. What an absurd situation we are going to have under this government, where defence industries in other countries are using our steel because it is a preferred product, but these guys over here say, 'Maybe we will and maybe we won't.' We deserve something a bit better than that. Labor's got a real plan for the industry, and if we are backed in at the next election we will ensure that we continue to have a steel industry in this country.
Has the time allotted for this debate expired?
I hope not.
No. I call the member for Grey.
An opposition member: Point of order.
An honourable member interjecting—
I seek leave to speak—
An opposition member: The member has already spoken in this debate. The call should go to the member for—
In that case, the member for Grey has won the debate.
Leave is not granted.
If you will not let him speak, he has won the debate.
My understanding is that there has already been a precedent today.
Order! Is the member for Grey seeking leave?
Yes, Deputy Speaker. I spoke earlier on this issue and I understand there has already been a precedent in this chamber today where a member has spoken twice, and I seek the same privilege.
Is leave granted? Leave is not granted. I call the member for Newcastle.
Mr Champion interjecting—
Order! The member for Wakefield has already been warned.
It gives me great pleasure to speak to the member for Wakefield's motion that is before the House this morning. As the member for Newcastle, I have lived through a period of tremendous steel manufacturing in our city of more than 100 years. It was with great sadness that BHP closed its doors to steel manufacturing in Newcastle some 17 years ago now. We have had to make enormous transitions in our community, so I know full well the anxieties currently being experienced by the people of South Australia and Port Kembla. I know just how tough it is to look at your local community and see the heartbreak of massive job losses when a whole industry that generations of families in your community have worked at closes its doors.
Speaking for the people of Newcastle, you can be assured that we, like other steelmaking cities around Australia, feel your pain enormously, and I stand alongside the workers of those industries today to say that Labor will always put you and your jobs first and foremost in our plans. Labor is the party of jobs. It always has been and it always will be. We need to ensure that these communities get the absolute benefits. That is why Labor's six-point steel industry plan was recently released. It reaches out to ensure that Australia continues to make steel in this country and that we are a nation that continues to manufacture.
Members opposite have sung the praises of the submarine contract going to South Australia. I am acutely aware of South Australia's experience, in terms of this government having had no plan for Australian jobs and Australian industry for years and years and now suddenly trying to play catch-up by making sure these submarines are built in South Australia. I did write to the minister last week, after she made the announcement around the submarines, and said, 'Terrific news.' We very much welcome submarines being manufactured in Australia, although we are yet to see the detail around those contracts: whether or not all 12 submarines will be built here in Australia, whether or not there will be a mandated local content component of those contracts and whether communities and shipbuilding industries in my city of Newcastle will benefit from any of the component work. I see the member for Gellibrand here. His shipbuilders down in Williamstown would also be very anxious to see if there are any kinds of flow-on benefits to shipbuilding communities around Australia that have seen massive job losses under this government's watch.
I have two shipyards at Tomago and Carrington in my electorate of Newcastle that have shed more than 1,000 jobs. That is 1,000 highly skilled men and women who have long worked on defence naval projects in the past and who are without a job, and there are another 1,400 at Williamstown in Victoria. That is the shame of this government. You think that we might have forgotten. You may stupidly think that the Australian people do not remember what has happened under your watch and think that it will be forgotten. There is no way that the people of my community or the people of Williamtown will forget about those jobs.
The lack of commitment to Australian manufacturing and to shipbuilding in particular has been astonishing. Let us hope that the contracts for those subs brings some relief to those communities and that it is not too late to shore up the capacity of our nation for naval shipbuilding. Let us make sure that the steel industry in Australia has a strong and prosperous future too. This government has an appalling track record when it comes to Australian jobs and Australian industry. Members opposite have a lot of work to do. The Australian people will not be fooled by these shenanigans. (Time expired)
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) the Government has:
(i) implemented the biggest ever cut to Australian schools, ripping $30 billion out of our classrooms over the next decade; and
(ii) failed to fund the vital fifth and sixth years of the Gonski reforms, locking Australian students into inequality and an uncertain future; and
(b) Labor’s Your Child. Our Future plan:
(i) for Australian schools will ensure that every student in every school has the resources they need to achieve their best; and
(ii) will reverse the Government’s cuts and fund the needs based Gonski reforms on time and in full—a $4.5 billion commitment in 2018 and 2019 alone;
(2) acknowledges the hard work and dedication of educators and teaching staff around the country, and the need to support them to meet their students’ needs; and
(3) calls on the Government to use the budget to reverse their school cuts, fund the Gonski reforms on time and in full, and adopt Labor’s Your Child. Our Future plan, so that every student can reach their potential.
I rise today on what is an incredibly disappointing day for everyone who works in education and every parent in this country, who were giving this government an opportunity to fulfil the promise they made before the 2013 election. I know where I was when I heard the member for Warringah, who was then the Leader of the Opposition, make the promise that there would be no cuts to education. I remember distinctly where I was when he and then shadow minister Pyne made the promise that no matter what school your child went to, they would get the same money under a Liberal government. They promised that they were on a unity ticket. I know where I was. I remember the exact moment. I also remember exactly what I thought. What I thought was, 'That's a lie.' I still know that that was a lie, because in 2½ years they have done nothing but make excuses for not fulfilling that promise.
They have done nothing, and then, at the death knell, in the last sitting week of the 44th Parliament, they make an announcement of $1.2 billion, which is far from year 5 and 6 of Gonski, far from what they promised at the 2013 election and far from what a Shorten-led Labor government will deliver to this country after the next election.
On this side of the House, we understand the transformative nature of education. We understand that there is no innovation without education. We understand that education needs to be resourced appropriately. We understand the difference that a national focus, backed up by the resources that classroom teachers need, will make to our children's lives, to our children's futures and to the future prosperity of this country. Labor understand this. We understand that we will be a prosperous nation if we have equity in our education system, and that is what Labor will deliver—unlike those opposite.
This morning we have had the Prime Minister say that this is more than a usual budget and that the end of this term of government is setting out a new agenda. What a joke! It is not a new agenda; it is a very old agenda. It enshrines privilege where it already exists and denies all Australian children access to the kind of education that they need to build a strong economy for the future. This government is true to its ideology. Its ideology says that those who already have will have more and those who have less will have less. That is what this government is about. Their announcement in education today confirmed it.
Unlike those opposite, a Labor government has made a commitment for years 5 and 6 of Gonski funding. That is the sector-blind needs based funding that we know this country needs. There is no question about the broad based review that was done, led by David Gonski. There is no question about the findings of that review and what they would deliver to this country. No-one questions it except those opposite, who have slammed shut funding for schools in this country and stand behind a Prime Minister who most recently suggested that we would just pull away—walk away—from state school funding and revert to the Howard-era funding, where private schools see Commonwealth dollars but state schools do not.
This government cannot be taken seriously on education; this government is a joke when it comes to education. We have heard the Minister for Education out doing television all morning, telling us how wonderful this is and—the best part for me—how Labor were going to just let the states do whatever they liked with the funding. That is a misrepresentation of the facts. There was only one minister who cut the strings on the states while he changed the funding arrangements.
Who was that?
That was the member for Sturt—the man who says he fixed education—who cut the strings and allowed the cost-shifting to occur.
Labor will deliver on its promise. Labor will deliver on its legacy for education. We have fully costed $37 billion to go into education across the next decade. The choice is clear for the Australian people: for every parent, for every teacher and for every member of our community. The choice is clear. Labor will deliver on education.
This government has failed the test at every step for two and a half years since it came to government.
Is the motion seconded?
A government member: I'll bet it is!
I second the motion.
I thank the member for Lalor for bringing forward this motion. But I would ask her and I would ask her colleagues to deal in facts. If we could just go back a little bit: when it came to government, it was this government that put back the $1.2 billion that the now Leader of the Opposition had taken out of the funding package, the funding envelope, as it was in '13-'14, for the subsequent four years, I believe, in Queensland and also South Australia.
We are seeing, though, from those opposite, unfunded and unaffordable promises. What is most disappointing is the posturing that continues after the cat has been belled around these cuts to education and health—this posturing on pie-in-the-sky funding. It was Colin Barnett last week, or the week before last, at COAG, who belled the cat. He was the only person, as he said, in the COAG meeting when Prime Minister Gillard—remember Prime Minister Gillard?
Opposition members interjecting—
Order! The member for Lyons has the call.
It was described by the Premier of Western Australia as 'panicked and disjointed'. Nobody sitting in that room at the time actually believed that these were funded commitments. They were unfunded promises by those opposite. The reality of the situation, of course, is that we have record amounts of funding going into education.
The other point that I would make is that the Commonwealth's responsibility for funding schools amounts to 15 per cent or thereabouts of the total funding that goes to schools; 85 per cent of the responsibility lies with the states. I just feel that those opposite there are looking at the trees—albeit the seedlings, I might add—and not the forest. Over the last 10 years, the Commonwealth's contribution to funding education has increased by 66 per cent. The states' contribution, on the other hand, has increased by seven per cent.
In Australia, it is very interesting. We have seen enrolments in Australian schools increase by 18 per cent between 1987-88 and 2011-12 and Australia's funding increase by 100 per cent, and yet our international rankings on reading, literacy, mathematics and science have fallen between eight and 10 places in comparative jurisdictions. This is like the definition of madness.
Ms Ryan interjecting—
The member for Lalor will cease interjecting.
It is like keeping on banging your head against a brick wall. It is not delivering. Of course the quantum of funding is important, but what is more important is what you do with that funding. That is the critical point here.
We have focused, since coming to government, on a couple of key themes—particularly around the major driver. Not only is funding at absolutely record levels and not only has the Commonwealth's contribution increased substantially, but we know—and the data shows—that if students are the focus of our deliberations on education then teacher quality is by far the single biggest driver of educational outcomes for our young people.
As well, we have focused very much on improving parental engagement, because we know that, in those preschool years and in the early years of school, that time spent by mums and dads in reading to their children, in engaging with them and developing a culture of valuing education as something that can keep being a dividend for them through their lives, is a good thing.
The other point that has been shown in other jurisdictions, not least of all Western Australia, is the ability for principals to have greater autonomy away from a centralised structure within the department. It has been demonstrated in Western Australia. It is the only state in Australia where you are seeing an increase in students going into the public system as opposed to the independent system. It speaks volumes.
I am delighted to second this motion today for the member for Lalor—a champion of education in Melbourne's west and throughout our country.
The parliament meets today in the shadow of a federal election. The Prime Minister is fond of arguing that this election will be a question of trust. Well, I could not agree more. This election will be about trust. It will be about who the Australian people will trust to put them first. Nowhere is this question of trust more acute than on the future of our education system. At the ballot box on July 2, every Australian will have to ask themselves this question of who they trust to build an education system that enables every child to reach their full potential damage no matter who their parents are, no matter where they live, no matter how much money their family has. Who do you trust to build an education system that will sustain Australia's prosperity over the coming decades? Who do you trust with your child's future?
The previous Labor government fundamentally changed the way education is funded in Australia by following the recommendations of the Gonski inquiry and putting needs-based funding at the heart of education funding decisions. In opposition, Bill Shorten's Labor Party has continued this significant legacy through our Your Child, Our Future education plan. It is a fully funded plan of $37.3 billion over the next 10 years, allocated on the basis of need to ensure that every child is able to get the best education possible. This investment will mean a strong focus on every single child's needs, more individual attention for students, better trained teachers, more targeted resources and better equipped classrooms, and more support for students with special learning needs. Needs-based school funding is important for areas like Melbourne west, represented by myself and the member for Lalor, with a large number of kids from non-English-speaking backgrounds or from financially disadvantaged backgrounds. It will benefit every child no matter what background they are from, no matter what suburb or city they live in, no matter whether they go to a public, a private or an independent school.
The contrast with the coalition's record could not be more stark. In opposition, the Liberals promised 'no cuts to health, no cuts to education'. But, after the election, Malcolm Turnbull, the member for Wentworth, decided to dump the Gonski reforms and rip over $80 billion from our schools and hospitals. In opposition, the Liberals produced advertising banners to greet voters at polling booths promising that they would 'match Labor's education funding dollar for dollar', only to slash $30 billion of those dollars from Australian schools in their first budget. Schools in the electorate that I represent lost $160 million in funding as a result of these cuts. These cuts are the equivalent to: sacking one in seven teachers; a cut to the average school of $3.2 million; about $1,000 less support per student per year.
This is the context of the government's announcement yesterday that it would put back $1.2 billion of the $30 billion that it cut from schools funding. A previous prime minister warned governments about the electoral risks of fattening the pig on market day. We see those opposite desperately trying to stuff the pigs before the election coming up on July 2. This is the same government, remember, that, only a few weeks ago, wanted to vacate the field and abandon funding public schools at the federal level. It wanted to abandon public schools but, of course, wanted to continue to fund independent and private schools. There are certain moments in the Australian political debate that cut through the chatter and that cut through right to the consciousness of Australians in their homes and around their dinner tables, and this was one of those moments. The response was not even anger from my constituents; it was absolute bafflement. People could not understand how we could have a Prime Minister that could so flagrantly discuss offhand abandoning the public schools of our nation. It was an extraordinary moment.
So these families well might ask, 'Who do you trust?' Indeed, this question should be on every voter's mind as they enter the ballot box on July 2. The question should be: do you trust Malcolm Turnbull and the Liberals to give your school the funding it needs? Do you trust Malcolm Turnbull to increase the funding of schools like Albion Primary, Altona North Primary, Altona Primary, Ardeer Primary, Corpus Christi Primary, Footscray Primary, Sunshine Heights Primary, Sunshine Harvester Primary? Do you trust Malcolm Turnbull to look out for schools like Footscray City Primary, Glengala Primary, Kingsville Primary, Newport Gardens Primary, Seaholme Primary, Spotswood Primary and the many other schools in our community across Melbourne's west?
Labor's position, and our record both in government and in opposition, is clear. We will put schools first. We will put people first. You can trust a Labor government to deliver for your school. You can trust your Labor MP to deliver for your child.
We just need to cut to the chase, no pun intended. To the average person in Australia, who has a big dose of common sense, a cut usually means you are getting less next year than what you are getting this year. To put it in simple terms, there are no cuts, because education spending by the Commonwealth over the term of this government has gone up by 27.4 per cent. That is a massive increase. All the money that was committed in the forward estimates, when this government was given responsibility for the Treasury bench, has been delivered. It has not been reduced, which is what a cut means—it has been increased by 27 per cent. That is a massive increase. What the opposition is going on about is not a cut. The projected increases were blue sky figures that they pulled out of the air, that were totally unbudgeted for beyond the forward estimates—they were signing up for things that no other government has ever done. They were promising people things that were not in the forward estimates.
That was one of the many land mines that they left behind. They could see they were heading for the exit door, so they thought, 'How are we going to have something to argue about for the next couple of years?' They dreamt up these ridiculous blue sky figures that they knew in their heart of hearts they were never going to be able to deliver, and now they accuse us of reducing them. The increases that will happen in the latest forward estimates involve a 3.65 per cent increase. The quantum of funding that is there under the Gonski model will remain. That is what people need to remember. An increase of 3.65 per cent over the forward estimates—a total of $4.1 billion between government and non-government schools—is not a cut. So all this nonsense about Turnbull's cutting is absolute rubbish. It is just a play on words. That is all it is—it is a play on words.
Let us just get down to what actually is important in education. As investment bankers are wont to say, 'Let us monetise something.' They equate quality with the spend. The PISA results have shown us that money is not everything in education. We have all had great teachers. Teacher quality and parental engagement are two of the biggest predictors of student outcomes. You cannot buy parental engagement. Parents either engage or they do not. You should be reading to your kids when they are little, be involved in their homework, check up on them and go to parent-teacher meetings. Being involved in the school is very important, and dollars do not prevent or make parents get involved. They do it because they are good parents. Teacher quality is also important. We have all had teachers that we remember even from kindergarten, through to high school. You have had teachers that have inspired you, or that you remember. You ask your kids, 'Who are your good teachers?' and they will say, 'Mr X or Mrs Y, she is really good,' or the opposite for teachers that do not engage them, encourage them and inspire them. So, teacher quality and parental engagement are important.
Ms Ryan interjecting—
The member for Lalor will cease interjecting.
Also, having a really strong curriculum is what will deliver runs, in the educational sense, to Australian students. We want our PISA results to be going up. We want to catch up with our Asian neighbours to the north, who seem to be going ahead in leaps and bounds. There has been a rejuvenation and an interest in the evidence base on the benefits of phonics for reading, simple arithmetic skills and a narrative in history and social sciences—all those things that build knowledge in young people. They are all so important. But let us just remind everyone of one thing. There are no cuts. It is just a play on words. Figures announced show that there is going to be an extra $1½ billion. Over the forward estimates that will be a 3.65 per cent increase. There has already been a 27 per cent increase in Commonwealth spending over the term of this government. We have honoured what we said we would spend under Gonski, and we are committed to getting better educational outcomes.
I rise to speak on the motion by the member the Lalor, noting the staggering different visions for the future of education in Australia, with significant implications for the 50 or so schools in Moreton or close by.
I was a school teacher for 11 years before becoming a lawyer. I note the 27 years service of the member for Lalor, who went on to be a principal before coming to parliament. I taught children in both regional Queensland and inner city areas at Catholic and public schools. I have two children at school now: one at a state school and one at a Catholic school. I have got a firsthand appreciation of the importance of education for every child. It was with every child in mind that the banker, Gonski, set out the reforms that needed to be undertaken in education so that every young Australian would receive a top quality education. It was not because Gonski was a bleeding heart teacher—with respect to the member for Lalor—but because he saw the economic advantages of so doing, so you can imagine my disappointment last week when I read a report titled Australian schoolingthe price of failure and reward for success commissioned by the Australian Education Union.
I am sorry I am not at Labour Day today, where I would be able to discuss this with my former union colleagues. Sadly, we are here in parliament. The Australian Education Union is an organisation standing up for Australian teachers, fighting for them and the resources they need to give our children the launch pad into life—a launch pad that our future prosperity obviously requires. This report highlights the inequitable learning outcomes being achieved by Australian students. In comparison to other countries, we have a much longer tail of weaker performing students. 'The price of failure' is part of the name of the report. What a fitting title for a report highlighting the shortcomings and narrow-mindedness of the Abbott-Turnbull governments when it comes to education funding!
Despite their pre-election promises, under this government we have seen the biggest cut ever to Australian schools, ripping $30 billion from a sector that actually needs it now more than ever. In Moreton, this Liberal-National government has cut $175 million from local schools. For the more than 32,000 students in Moreton—both public and independent—every single student will be worse off under Prime Minister Turnbull. Additionally, the failure of the government commit to the Gonski school funding model for years 5 and 6 will seek to entrench inequality in our school system, even though I have personally seen at the schools in my electorate that the Gonski funding is achieving outcomes.
In the report I referred to earlier, year 9 NAPLAN results indicate children of unemployed parents are 10 times more likely not to meet minimum numeracy and reading standards. This is not normal or inevitable. Without a needs based funding system, resources are denied to the members of society who need it most, and we need our smartest students to be given every opportunity. The Turnbull government is locking in mediocre outcomes, systemic inequality and an uncertain future for our children, and that is un-Australian. Only Labor will treat education as an investment and not as an expense. Labor's 'Your Child. Our Future'plan will ensure the Gonski reforms are implemented in full and inject an additional $37.3 billion into education over the decade.
A world-leading and visionary education system is required to create our future nurses, our teachers, our doctors, our engineers, our social workers and so on. Yesterday, Prime Minister Turnbull confirmed that he would not match Labor's fully costed, fully funded commitment to Australian schools. In 2018 and 2019, under a Turnbull government, Australian schools would be $3.5 billion worse off. That means fewer resources for the children who need them most. This pathetic promise from Prime Minister Turnbull yesterday is a drop in the bucket compared to the $30 billion in cuts made by the Liberals.
Labor's 'Your Child. Our Future'plan will ensure that every student in every school has the resources needed to achieve their absolute best. It will ensure that schools have a strong focus on individual student needs, greater individual attention, better trained teachers, better equipped classrooms and more targeted resources, and more support for students with special learning needs. This is particularly important in a decentralised state like Queensland. Labor's positive plan for education aims to bring Australia into the top five countries in the world in reading, maths and science. Obviously, we will be saying more about our commitment to the STEM subjects later.
The benefits extend beyond education. Investing and knowledge provides Australia's economy with the vital human capital it needs to remain innovative and capable of tackling the challenges of the future. It is much better than a $28 million advertising campaign. The OECD calculated that the Australian economy will forgo a GDP boost of 2.8 per cent unless all children finish high school with the foundational skills for the global economy by 2030. The jury is in; there is nothing left to debate. A return to the Gonski funding model for Australian schools is essential for Australia's children, for our human capital, for our economy and to ensure our future prosperity.
Listening to those opposite, I am reminded of the truism that strategy without resources is illusion. I can remember when then Labor Treasurer Wayne Swan stood up in the chamber and falsely claimed to deliver surpluses. We all remember those famous words, 'the four surpluses I deliver tonight.' What he actually delivered were record deficits, deficit after deficit, and debt on a trajectory to two-thirds of a billion dollars. That is $667 billion.
Ms Claydon interjecting—
Members opposite interject, but obviously they forget that when Prime Minister Howard left office our debt was zero in this country and they took it to a trajectory of $667 billion. The awful and appalling deception they perpetrate on our schools with these sorts of motions should be a cause of shame for those opposite, because as they are talking about more and more billions of dollars we are paying over $1 billion each month just to service the interest on our debt—over $15 billion in debt repayments every year. Imagine the opportunity cost and extra policy outcomes that we could deliver for our community if we were not paying $15,000 million every year to service the debt that the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd governments created from 2008 to 2013? Since the 2007 election Australia's debt repayments have climbed 266 per cent as a result of the profligate spending of those opposite. So they sit here today talking about not only the promises they have made and the debts they have incurred but also another $100 billion of expenditure—$1 billion here, $1 billion there and pretty soon you are talking about serious money.
You cannot trust Labor to put the national interest, to put the school interest or to put the hospital interest above the interests of their union mates because, as they have demonstrated, they will put the CFMEU's interests over the national interest when it comes to the ABCC, they will put the TWU's interests over owner-driver truckies when it comes to the RSRT and they will put the MUA's interests over an efficient coastal shipping fleet when the crunch comes. That is what those opposite do.
On schools: state and territory governments, as the member for Lyons quite rightly pointed out, are the majority funders of government schools, providing around 87 per cent of total public funding. They decide what funding goes to each school and how it is spent. But let us look at what some people have said about the year 5 and 6 Gonski promises that those opposite are falsely claiming that they will deliver. Former Labor minister Gary Johns said this about the Commonwealth's decision not to adopt the Gillard government's extravagant promises beyond the forward estimates:
These are not cuts; these are a correction to false promises.
More recently, South Australian Labor Premier Jay Weatherill said on ABC radio on 29 January 2016:
… the federal Labor Party is saying some very good things … about maintaining its commitment to Gonski and providing support for the healthcare system, but we haven't seen any coherent or sustainable way in which that is going to be funded.
The ABC's Fact Check program confirmed in the last fortnight:
… it is far from certain that the Gillard promises would have ever been fulfilled: they were looking far into the future and the increases were never budgeted for. History shows that budgets can change dramatically from year to year and something cannot be taken away if it was never given in the first place.
And they never gave it in the first place. Swannie was wrong; there were no four surpluses! Swannie lied to the Australian people in claiming he was delivering surpluses. What he delivered was the most profligate period of spending in Australia's economic history. How do we trust Labor on schools when they ripped $1.2 billion out of the Gonski education funding in the 2013 economic statement? Yet they stand here and lecture us about funding schools. In Tasmania, Commonwealth school funding is increasing by $62 million, or 16.8 per cent, from 2014-15 to 2018-19. As my amigo from Lyons said, it is rising every year from record levels. So spare us your lectures. Spare us your lectures about Gonski funding. Start thinking about putting the national interest—
Opposition members interjecting—
ahead of the union interest—Deputy Speaker, I would invite the member to sit while I am speaking, thank you—and start telling the Australian people the truth about education funding.
Debate adjourned.
I move that:
This House condemns the Government for its repeated attempts to undermine universal healthcare and drive up costs for patients, as evidenced by:
(1) its repeated attempts to introduce an upfront payment for visits to a general practitioner, including:
(a) a $7 co-payment;
(b) a $5 co-payment;
(c) a $20 co-payment; and
(d) the four year freeze on Medicare rebates;
(2) tearing up of the long term hospital funding deal agreed by all states and territories and endorsed by the Coalition in the 2013 election;
(3) the $650 million in cuts to Medicare rebates for pathology and diagnostic imaging which will force up the cost of scans and tests for patients;
(4) the $800 million in cuts to the health flexible funds which will force the closure of health organisation, including those providing support for drug and alcohol addiction, mental health and cancer support;
(5) abandoning the National Partnership Agreement on Preventive Health and abolishing the Australian National Preventive Health Agency;
(6) abolishing the Health and Hospitals Fund, cutting $1 billion reserved for essential health infrastructure;
(7) cutting more than $500 million in public dental programs and moving to scrap the Child Dental Benefits Scheme used by one million Australian children; and
(8) the Government's continuing plans to:
(a) raise the price of prescriptions by $5 for general patients and 80 cents for health care card holders; and
(b) cut the Medicare Safety Net.
As outlined in the terms of today's motion, this government—this Turnbull Liberal government—has been unrelenting in its efforts to undermine universal health care and drive up costs for patients across the nation. This is a government that has only ever seen health as a source of savings in the budget. Seemingly unable to imagine the long-term benefits of investing in the health and wellbeing of its citizens, health policy for this government is always about cuts and how best to disguise them. This government's relentless undermining of Medicare and universal health care in Australia has been widely criticised as bad policy, resulting in poor health, social and economic outcomes. Before members opposite launch into confected outrage, it is not just Labor that is concerned about this government's attempts to undermine Medicare; the Australian people are rightly incensed, as are the health experts, the doctors and the pathologists across the country, including those in my electorate of Newcastle.
It has been one health policy disaster after another for this government. Who can forget the multiple proposals for a GP tax imposing up-front co-payments ranging from $5 to $20 before the current four-year freeze on Medicare rebates that the AMA has aptly described as the GP tax by stealth. And it was this Liberal government that tore up the long-term hospital funding deal that was agreed to by all states and territories and which, indeed, they themselves endorsed in 2013. The resulting cuts have seen tens of billions wiped from the hospital budgets, including more than $150 million from hospitals that deliver vital patient care in the Newcastle and Hunter regions. Eight hundred million dollars has been cut from the Health flexible funds, which will force the closure of health organisations, including those providing support for drug and alcohol addiction, mental health and cancer patients. Last year a stay of execution of sorts was given to the highly valued GP Access after-hours service, which delivers care for people in the Newcastle and Hunter regions. Funding for the service was left out of last year's budget, but a strong community campaign forced the government to back down at least for the time being. I hope this year's budget is more considered and does not make the same mistake. This government has also abandoned the National Partnership Agreement on Preventive Health and abolished the Australian National Preventative Health Agency. Preventative health cuts stretch into Indigenous health, with funding cuts from the Deadly Choices program, which delivered health programs through the Awabakal Medical Service to Indigenous Australians in my electorate and the surrounding region.
The hypocrisy of this government was on full show yesterday as they announced funds for an Indigenous quit smoking program, having already stripped $130 million out of the Tackling Indigenous Smoking program back in 2014. Did they think that those earlier cuts would be forgotten? The Liberals have also abolished the Health and Hospitals Fund, cutting $1 billion reserved for essential health infrastructure and cutting another billion dollars from public dental health programs, and they have moved to scrap the child dental health benefits scheme. One of the cruellest cuts, of course, was the $650 million in cuts to Medicare rebates for pathology and diagnostic imaging, which will force up the costs of tests, X-rays and scans for patients everywhere.
The cuts to Medicare will force patients being treated for cancer and other serious and chronic health conditions to fork out thousands of dollars up-front for crucial tests. The Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia have said that pap smear tests could cost women at least $30 up-front if these cuts go ahead. Decades of work to improve women's health will be put at risk because of these cuts. The financial burden on patients is significant. It is estimated that patients will have to pay up-front costs of $93 for an X-ray, nearly $400 for a CAT scan and up to $185 for an ultrasound. Then it multiplies—if you have a serious condition you require multiple, regular scans.
In just eight weeks, more than 500,000 Australians have signed a petition opposing these cuts. Last month, hundreds of Novocastrians came together with the shadow minister and me at a Save Medicare rally to tell Malcolm Turnbull: 'Hands off our Medicare'. Mr Turnbull's cuts to Medicare will hurt every family every day. We know that no matter what this government says you cannot trust them with Medicare and the health of our nation. The only way to save Medicare is to elect a Labor government.
Is the motion seconded?
I second the motion and reserve my right to speak later.
The element of the motion before the House today that I would like to focus on specifically is, as the member for Newcastle just referred to, pathology bulk-billing and the extraordinary claims that have been made. I will be tabling the Sonic Healthcare Limited half-year annual report in a minute—the member for Franklin can take her time to read that. Those on the opposite side, the Labor Party, have made a choice here and clearly they have chosen a multinational with an $8 billion turnover. I note today that shares in Sonic Healthcare are up 1.08 per cent to $19.63. They have had a successful run, most recently, I suspect, since those from the other side have been making extraordinary claims about incentives. No doubt this incentive was put in place by those opposite with good intentions. But here we are with $650 million in the pockets of multinational, profitable, publicly listed companies who's first priority is to their shareholders, not to the consumers of the services that they provide, which begs the question: what might be the alternatives if that is the way that they want to play cricket?
It is extraordinary to see the Labor Party standing up for big profitable multinationals in favour of consumers. This scare campaign is being run in my electorate and across the state of Tasmania. People coming in to have their pathology tests are being asked to sign a petition to say that an incentive that was put in place of between $1.40 and $3.40, depending on the respective schedule number, is going to require payments after 1 July of $50, $60, $70, $80, $100. This is extraordinary. They could cut their interim dividend for six months that is going to their shareholders—which has gone up by 3.8 per cent I note, and I will be tabling this report—by 0.1 per cent, and they could pay for this incentive payment that was made by those opposite.
My view of the world is that I try to be pragmatic about these things. I do not dispute that what those opposite put in place had good intentions. It was intended to increase the rate of bulk-billing. Guess what has happened? In four years, $650 million later, the rate of bulk-billing for pathology services has gone from 83 per cent to 84 per cent. If that is money well spent, I will give it away. Rather, we could have put the $650 million to the side and said, 'When you show us how you will increase your bulk-billing proportions, we will pay you a bonus.' I reckon I could have lived with that. I reckon the taxpayers of Australia could have lived with that. I think this could have been something that would have been considered. But the fact is that we have paid over $650 million over four years and we have not seen a demonstrable improvement in the rate of bulk-billing.
In my state of Tasmania, I asked this question—and again, I have put consumers first, not profitable multinationals. As a government, and as organisations that are providing these very important pathology services, maybe we should put the whole damn lot out to tender. Maybe we should go to these profitable, publicly listed companies, and maybe we should ask them to put their best foot forward on what they are prepared to provide services for—on the basis of, say, a 95 per cent bulk-billing rate. Maybe that would be an alternative. So I ask the question again of those opposite: do they support consumers, or do they support a scare campaign that is being run by profitable multinational companies whose first priority is to their shareholders, not to the consumers of their services?
I take this opportunity to seek leave to table the Sonic Healthcare LimitedASX Appendix 4Dand Half Year Report dated 31 December 2015.
Leave granted.
What an extraordinary display! To quote Shakespeare, he 'doth protest too much,' quite frankly. Obviously, the member for Lyons is concerned about these cuts in his own electorate and in Tasmania. And so he should be because, with a federal election due in coming weeks, we all recall the current government's promise on the eve of the last federal election of 'no cuts to health.' It is a very definitive statement, I would have thought. Of course, since that time we have seen them tear up the health funding agreement that committed 50 per cent of growth funding for the efficient price of our hospitals. This is already starting to impact in Tasmania, as the additional funding of $300 million for Tasmania's health system that we secured when we were in office—actually when the member for Sydney, who is right here beside me, was the health minister—starts to run out at the end of this June. We have the state government already making significant cuts to the Tasmanian health system in preparation for this. Indeed, the Parliamentary Budget Office has suggested the health funding cuts over the forward estimates to be $1.15 billion, just in Tasmania. For the Royal Hobart Hospital and the southern health services, that means a cut of $600 million—to one hospital in southern Tasmania and its services.
We have even had our state Premier and our state health minister stand up and say that these cuts are disgraceful. They have at least said that. They have not actually argued for much of the money back. I was very disappointed when our Premier came back from his meeting with the Prime Minister and said that he had an additional $54 million from 2017 to 2020—when he has had $1.1 billion taken away. It does not take much to do the maths to say that we are more than just a little bit short. What it has meant in Tasmania is that at the moment we have more than 27,000 Tasmanians currently waiting on outpatients' lists to see a specialist. So they have not yet even progressed to the waiting list for elective surgery; they are still just waiting to see a specialist. There are 27,000 Tasmanians sitting on those lists, and some of them are waiting for a very long time indeed. To see a gastroenterologist, the wait at the moment is 850 days in my home state of Tasmania—to get in to see a specialist in the public health system there is a wait of 850 days. It is not good enough. Those opposite should be ashamed of these cuts. They should be ashamed of the impact they are having right across the country, but particularly in my home state of Tasmania. We all know that the way you keep people out of hospital and off these lists is with preventative and primary health care. That brings us to the important role that GPs play in the health system.
This motion specifically talks about the two attempts by those opposite to introduce a GP tax—a co-payment for people to pay when they go to visit a GP. They finally saw sense after a very long campaign indeed, particularly by GPs and other health professionals around the country, when it became very obvious that this would mean that people would not seek the health support that they need. They would then, further down the system, get sicker and cost all of us more. They decided that they would not do that. But what they have done is freeze the Medicare rebate for seeing a GP. What that will mean is a GP tax by stealth. We are already seeing an impact, in local communities, with people trying to get into GPs. We have already had GP clinics—last time they talked about their GP tax—saying that people rang up and cancelled their appointments because they could not afford to go to the doctor. What we do not want to see in this country is a situation where the health care of Australians is determined by somebody's credit card, not by their Medicare card. We need to make sure that all Australians, no matter where they live, no matter their illnesses, can seek the health care that they need, right across the country.
This motion also goes to the issues that you talked about, in terms of pathology and bulk-billing, and what the member for Lyons got so upset about that I referred to at the beginning. I attend pathology on a regular basis. Every time I go in there, they talk to me about the concerns they have with bulk-billing, the bulk-billing incentive and their patients. The concern is that people will not get—
Government members interjecting—
the blood tests they need or the X-rays they need or the other scans they need, because of this cut.
This topic is very sensitive to everyone in Australia because health is so important to everyone. At some stage, everyone needs to end up in a hospital or at a doctor's surgery, so there is so much emotion attached to an argument about health. We will try and restrict it to the facts. I just want to point out some of the hypocrisy coming towards us from the other side.
First of all, the member for Lyons so elegantly outlined the bulk-billing rebate. At the time that pathologists are running a scare campaign, saying that we are cutting bulk-billing, it is really quite misleading. Bulk-billing itself is not being cut, but the incentive to the pathology company that does not go to the patient is being cut because it did not achieve what it was meant to. It was meant to increase bulk-billing but, over five years, it has hardly budged. That is a figure of $1.40 to $3.40. As was recently tabled, some documents for a publically listed company show a healthy profit margin and an increase in the last six months.
The ability to cherry pick knows no bounds from the other side. They miss the big picture. In a health budget, it is not just a pathology bulk-billing incentive that counts, it is things like drugs. Look at all of the new hepatitis C drugs that are available for patients, courtesy of sound financial management. Look at all of the new cancer drugs, look at all of the biologicals that are coming on-stream. People forget about the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. That has to be paid by something. Everyone on the other side seems to cherry pick any remote linguistic twist to put the word 'cut' on the table—whereas health funding has gone up to record levels under this coalition government.
State funding agreements for hospitals have gone up over the forward estimates, in the next couple years, to the tune of several more billion. That is not a reduction. That is also part of the health budget. Look at what we have been doing with the Primary Health Networks. Primary Health Networks were very dysfunctional. There was the odd one that was really delivering some runs, but it has been restructured and they have clear KPIs, and they have a clear target of what to do. They are not going to just duplicate existing general practice services or providers—whether they are public hospitals or private practitioners—they have to meet targets.
There are our initiatives in chronic disease management. Chronic disease costs so much to the health budget. It is the old adage that 15 per cent of the patients cause 85 per cent of the costs. That is the nature of it. Most of the health spending that all we Australians receive comes at the tail end of our life. If most of us remain healthy, that is the logical conclusion. The chronic diseases—those recurrent spending ones such as kidney failure, diabetes, heart disease, vascular disease or chronic lung disease—are a real burden on an individual's life, but economically they are the best areas to target for savings and efficiencies. By having a healthcare home, rather than having patients shop around to wherever it is convenient at the time, you will get all your chronic disease cases focused into one practice. That will mean that 65,000 patients, in a trial across 200 medical practices, will get a system in place that works for the patient and also for the economic bottom line.
This criticism about so-called rebates was really meant to be about incentive payments. I notice that the member for Sydney is here to debate this topic, but when she was the Minister for Health she introduced an MBS freeze. The member for Ballarat actually belled the cat on Sky News on 22 February 2015. She said: 'The Opposition would be kidding itself if it didn't recognise there are challenges. There is no area in the budget that is going to be exempt.' We are already on the front foot in addressing this. That is why the Medicare Benefits Schedule Review is under way. Look at what we have announced in the Health portfolio with the Child and Adult Public Dental Scheme. That is an increase—up to $2.1 billion to provide infrastructure in public hospitals in regional and remote Australia, and to deliver what the previous schemes have not delivered.
Whilst a rather animated attack by the member for Lyne—in a very selective way—on one multinational corporation was made in this place rather than in the House, when word drifts back to the Free Enterprise Foundation and Senator Sinodinos, I have a feeling he will be getting a phone call about that outburst. It was against one corporation alone, for reasons that we can see in this debate. Yes, indeed, the attack by the current government on universal health care in this country is manifest and is broad. It has ranged through co-payments and across the $650 million in cuts to Medicare rebates for pathology and diagnostic imaging. It has involved the abandonment of the National Partnership Agreement on Preventive Health and abolishing the Australian National Preventive Health Agency. Another aspect has been the abolition of the Health and Hospitals Fund, cutting $1 billion. If it has been manifest and broad, then the results have already been manifest and broad as well.
The degree of opposition to this is, indeed, across the spectrum. We have seen a situation where, already, with regard to patients, more than one in seven healthcare fund members used their cover to pay a medical gap last year, which was up from almost one in 10 at the same time last year. A Sydney University analysis has estimated that the Medicare rebate freeze will cost the average full-time GP $9,600 a year from July, rising to $29,500 by 2017. As I say, this is a credible Sydney University analysis. This equates to a 7.1 per cent cut in real terms. Assuming this cut is passed onto non-concessional patients, each visit would cost around $8 more. We have seen a need for doctors to charge patients an extra $2.74 to cover costs from this year, rising to $8 per visit by 2017-18.
Whilst those opposite are making a rather novel attack on pathologists, we note that they are campaigning against government cuts to bulk billing incentives that could see a blood test cost $20 from 1 July. Nearly half a million patients in this country have so far signed a petition. Last week, the industry released a report which showed how it saved the government $2.4 billion last year by providing free tests. The Ernst & Young report shows Australian pathology costs $381 million less than in the USA and $45 million less than in Canada.
Radiologists have produced an analysis that shows cancer patients face gap payments of up to $800 a year for scans when Medicare rebates are slashed from July. The ADIA figures suggest general bulk-billed patients could face up-front costs of up to $101 for an X-ray and $532 for an MRI, and there would still be out-of-pocket expenses of $62 to $172 for MRI patients. Dentists are fighting cuts to the child dental scheme that will see three million Australian children denied access to $1,000 worth of government funded dental care from their family dentist. Instead they will be thrust into the public dental care scheme, where they will queue for up to three years to get treated. The Oral Health Alliance—once again, those opposite will say they are interested parties, that doctors and dentists are all self-interested bludgers on the system; that is the kind of line those opposite are coming out with about the Australian medical fraternity—has calculated that the cuts mean people will get one dental treatment every 17 years or else receive $40 per year for their care. They have publicly labelled the government's new Child and Adult Public Dental Scheme as nothing but smoke and mirrors.
In an article in The Sydney Morning Herald on 17 February, two organisations hit by the pathology cuts said that the publicity around the costs alone had already begun to discourage patients from getting tests. The article said:
This trend, and the effect of cuts to fees for Vitamin D tests, which were implemented in 2014, were a drag of interim profits, announced by both companies on Wednesday.
But those opposite will say: 'They're multinationals. It's all lies. It's all false. It's all fabricated.' That is despite the fact that this is supported by disinterested medical research units.
Other federal cuts in last year's MYEFO are also specifically hitting people who otherwise would not access health care. The ABC reported in March this year that the Haymarket Foundation Clinic, a health clinic for Sydney's homeless, has lost annual federal funding of $900,000 and will be closing after more than 40 years of operation. They are not too wealthy, they are not pathologists and radiologists; they are people doing this out of a commitment to the patients. The clinic is staffed by doctors, nurses, welfare workers and a psychologist. The clinic is expected to close its doors shortly.
What an interesting motion from the member for Newcastle! It was laid on very thick—so thick that if you put on your garden you could watch the veggies grow by the minute. The motion is full of Labor headquarters messaging. We understand that in this business there is a relative amount of spin—I accept that—but this is not spin; this is pure deceit. We are talking about a range of activities. There are eight or 10 points to this motion. Let us begin where the previous speaker left off: the MBS rebate pause. Who introduced the pause? It was the Labor Party.
Ms Plibersek interjecting—
The member for Sydney over there tries to interject, but let me read what you said—
Member for Braddon, I will ask you to direct your comments to me in the chair.
I acknowledge that. Thank you. When Labor introduced this measure that they are now arguing against, the then health minister, the member for Sydney—listen carefully—said this: 'Doctors earn enough money to bear the Federal Government's controversial freeze on MBS rebates.' The previous speaker said that we are the ones who have something against doctors, dentists and specialists because they earn too much.
Let me remind you, this is what she also said: 'I understand that GPs have all sorts of expenses running their surgeries and employing staff and so on, but the average billing from Medicare is more than $350,000 a year.' In other words—
Excuse me, member for Braddon, there is a point of order.
I would like to make an intervention and ask the member a question, if I may.
Will you take a question?
No.
He is running scared!
The reality here is that the MBS rebate pause was put in place by the previous government under the direction of the member that sits in this chamber now, the member for Sydney. Do not come in here with your crocodile tears today, because it is just not going to wash.
Let's talk about pathology and radiation. What a tremendous contribution by my fellow Tasmanian the member for Lyons! He got it spot on. What happened? The previous Rudd government said, 'We'd like to increase the number of people who are being bulk-billed'—which was about 86 per cent at the time. They committed, rounded up, $600 million for an incentive of between $1.40 and $3.40 to try to encourage everyone in that space, but we know that about 80 per cent of the business in that space was taken up by two major companies.
So we go from talking about removing an incentive that has only increased by one per cent to these companies now saying, 'Whoa! We'll have to charge $30, $40, $50, $60, $100.' What the hell is that all about? $1.40 to $3.40 is being proposed to be taken away because the incentive that you put in did not work, and we have multinational companies actually saying, 'That's going to cost us $30, $40, $50 to $100.' How does that work? I do not know where that works. I am going to leave that. You can run the 'don't kill bulk-bill' campaign all you like, but the reality is you are supporting a strategy that basically puts very good profits into the hands of very big companies. Do they do a good job? I am sure they do. I agree with the member for Lyons; maybe it is time that we put this service out to tender. Maybe that is what we should be doing. I think the member for Lyons is spot on.
Let us talk about another one of these areas in the member for Newcastle's motion: the child dental and adult dental health scheme. What is really interesting here is that we heard a lot a minute ago about health and about how everyone should be treated equally—that it should not be about your postcode and your credit card. What did the previous government do? One: they put in place a scheme in which only a third of the eligible children have been treated. What an absolute joke.
Opposition members interjecting—
It is like everything you do—it is never project managed and it never delivers. What did you say? You said that the child dental benefits schedule was just like Medicare except that it was means tested. Does this mean that Labor has a secret plan to means test Medicare? Well, we know that they love a good means test. Just look at the private health industry rebates.
At the end of the day, this motion that is before us today is just full of error, it is full of incomplete ideology, it is full of deceit. It is a deceitful motion. Everything that is going on around this is full of deceit, and the people are much smarter than that.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this House recognises:
(1) the importance of effective political and diplomatic relationships and economic exchange between Australia and our region; and
(2) a responsible and internationally engaged Australian Government is required to meet the challenges and seize the opportunities of a changing world.
Through much of our history Australia has grappled with the tyranny of distance—the fact that we were very far away from the centres of global power. But now, of course, the world's centres of economic, political and strategic gravity are shifting towards Asia, creating unparalleled opportunities and unprecedented challenges for Australian policy makers. China's GDP approaches, and is likely to overtake, that of the US. Indeed, on some measures, it already has. India is the world's third largest economy in terms of purchasing power parity, and it is forecast to be the fastest growing major economy in the world from 2016. Indonesia is now the eighth largest economy in the world on purchasing power measurements, having risen from 14th place in 1990. All three are seeking a position in the world commensurate with their economic power. Japan remains the fourth largest economy according to PPP, and its importance to regional strategic consideration continues to grow.
Our economic relationships with our neighbours are becoming ever more important to our national prosperity. At the same time, rising tensions, particularly in the South China Sea, present a challenge for regional economic and strategic stability, with significant ramifications for Australia. Labor continues to argue that disagreements in the South China Sea should be peacefully resolved in accordance with international laws and norms. But if we want to insist that other nations play by the rules, we also need to adhere to them. That is why Labor has, for example, announced that, through bilateral negotiation, or, if necessary, with the assistance of the International Court of Justice or a binding international arbitration, we want to fairly and finally settle a maritime border between Australia and Timor-Leste. Support for a rules based order is also an expression of our values—a sign of our willingness to act as a good global citizen.
Just today, we saw a real example of the cost to Australia of not doing so. The former President of Timor-Leste Xanana Gusmao says the Liberal government's approach to the maritime border issue is jeopardising Australia's bid for a seat on the UN Human Rights Council. Labor welcomes the conclusion of a number of free trade agreements in recent years, agreements that were progressed by several successive governments. But to seize the opportunities and to mitigate any challenges of the Asian century, our engagement with our regional partners has to be deeper and richer than just bilateral trade agreements.
The Hawke and Keating Labor governments enhanced regional multilateral structures, leaving us with APEC and the ASEAN Regional Forum. The Rudd government worked to have the United States included in the East Asia Summit, a key regional institution with an open political, security and economic agenda. The Gillard government secured a strategic partnership with China—the establishment of a new bilateral architecture to guide the future of our relationship. And we produced the Australia in the Asian century white paper. We made sure that the changing dynamics and emerging opportunities of the region were included in every aspect of government decision making.
One of the first things this government did was to erase that white paper—an act of electronic book burning without explanation. No long-term strategic approach replaced it. Instead, a reflexive, transactional attitude has characterised this government's approach to our region. Its approach to the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank was a prime example. The government's resistance made Australia's eventual participation seem begrudging and half-hearted to our neighbours. It undermined our ability to influence the direction of the bank from the ground up. We should have gotten in early, and we could have had much more influence on setting the rules if we had done so.
The changes to our region should be considered in all our policy decisions—domestic as well as international. The government cites the New Colombo Plan as its signature foreign policy. Of course, we support students gaining experience in Asia, but a student study program as foreign policy falls well short of the mark. Under this government, Australia is missing economic and political opportunities in our region and is being left behind as our neighbours shape the Indo-Pacific and the world of the 21st century.
Unknown member: I second the motion.
I welcome this opportunity to reflect on how the diplomatic element of our national power helps to ensure our economic and security interests resonate on the regional and global stage. Our economic diplomacy is vital as the eyes of the world shift from the North Atlantic to the Indo-Pacific as the engine room of global economic prosperity for the next 30 to 50 years. There are some 500 million people in the middle class from India to Asia, and some projections have that growing in the next 20 years or so to 1.7 billion people—people who are increasingly educated, socially engaged and internationally connected. How lucky are we to sit astride the Indian and Pacific Oceans, beautifully positioned to provide quality goods and services into that growing middle-class market—that unfolding economic miracle on our doorstep?
Just consider what has been achieved by our government since the 2013 election to establish the conditions for Australia to benefit from that increased demand. Outstanding trade diplomacy, led by Minister Andrew Robb, has resulted in a trifecta of free trade agreements with China, Japan and South Korea. Andrew Robb has also secured our place in the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a grouping of 12 countries that represent some 40 per cent of global GDP.
But our diplomacy has also been skilfully applied to ensure that Australia's security interests are prominent, particularly in responding to resurgent terrorism. As a 31-year veteran of the Australian Army and as a former first assistant secretary of International Policy Division, I have seen firsthand how effective international engagement enables effective policy responses, particularly when it comes to things like humanitarian assistance and disaster relief, where Australia is often called upon to be a first responder, and, as I said, to respond to resurgent terrorism.
We have worked hard to ensure that our interagency responses in Australia are well connected, resourced and very well linked in to our key friends and allies. We have appropriately funded the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, the Department of Immigration and Border Protection, and our police and security agencies. This has enabled them to play a crucial international role in restoring the integrity of Australia's border protection system. That enhanced cooperation has allowed us to beat the people smugglers' model, to cancel 140 passports and stop misguided Australians fighting alongside terrorists in Iraq and Syria. We have applied financial sanctions on Australians engaged in terrorism and made it an offence for Australians to enter declared terrorist controlled areas in Iraq and Syria.
We are punching above our weight in the international coalition against terrorism. People like the member for Canning, seated here, who have helped our international reputation as the second largest contributor on the ground in Iraq and the air campaign in Iraq and Syria. The government has provided $1.3 billion in extra funding to Australia's security and intelligence agencies to better track and disrupt those seeking to do us harm, so when it comes to the economic and security dimensions of our national power the government has strengthened our bilateral relationships with important economic and security partners.
We also play a prominent role in multilateral forums. The East Asia Summit, the United Nations, ASEAN and others. Importantly, we have refocused Australia's foreign development and trade efforts on our immediate region, working with partner countries and organisations like the Pacific Islands Forum, to enhance our collective security and prosperity. At a people-to-people level, I heard the slur against the Colombo Plan from those opposite, but that plan has given more than 10,000 Australian undergraduate students an opportunity to study and network in over 35 countries in our region. Just last week, foreign minister Bishop had 80 members of the diplomatic corps and some of their spouses, in Tasmania, looking at the trade and investment opportunities available in my great state.
We have achieved a lot: we have rebuilt Australia's relationship with Fiji following years of stagnation under Labor; we have established the Pacific Leadership And Governance Precinct in PNG; we have lead international recovery and reconstruction efforts in Vanuatu and Fiji; we have got widespread praise for our membership of the UN Security Council; we have played a lead role in the aftermath of the downing of Malaysian Airlines flight MH17; we have contributed to a range of UN Security Council resolutions, effective diplomacy—strong relations in our region that produce a vital and stronger Australia, and those laudable objectives remain a key focus for the Turnbull-Liberal team.
Debate adjourned.
I rise to talk about tomorrow's federal budget and the concerns that locals in my area on the north coast of New South Wales have about the budget. Locals are demanding that the government—indeed, the National Party—reverse their ongoing cruel cuts and attacks on health, education, age pensions, families, veterans and penalty rates. The greatest concern across our region remains health and hospital funding. Everyone is very worried about our universal healthcare system, Medicare, being under attack by this government. In this budget, we would like to see that $57 billion in cuts to our hospitals reversed. We also want to see the government reverse the $650 million cuts to those vital bulk-billing medical services, which mean that locals have to pay for services like blood tests, pap smears, X-rays and ultrasounds. My community has been extremely worried about this.
In education, we want to see the $30 billion in cuts reversed, and we also want to see their plans for $100,000 university degrees cancelled. With cuts to hospitals, cuts to education and plans to privatise Medicare, my community is very worried about all those issues across the board. While all these cuts have been happening, Labor has been setting a very strong policy agenda which my community has responded to well, but when people ask about our wish list for the budget, we say that we want all those cuts to stop and we want those attacks on local families to stop, particularly the cuts to hospitals and education.
It is exciting to share with the House that growth and development on the Central Coast are well and truly on the rise. I would like to warmly welcome Tip Top Bakeries to the electorate of Dobell. Tip Top Bakeries have announced their purchase of an existing manufacturing site based in Charmhaven in my electorate. This site is expected to bring up to 100 new jobs to the community, which are certainly welcome. Tip Top Bakeries are quoted as being delighted to be adding to their bakery network, and I wish them all the best in fulfilling their ambition to become the leading bakery in Australia and New Zealand.
That is in my electorate!
It is in Dobell. The member for Shortland needs to check that. It demonstrates once again that Wyong shire and the Central Coast are in a strategically perfect position for companies to produce and distribute products nationally and take advantage of export markets where there are now more opportunities thanks to the new free trade agreements. I commend Wyong Shire Council on their efforts in focusing on pursuing new jobs for the Wyong shire, particularly the economic development team who worked tirelessly with Tip Top's parent company, George Weston Foods, to manage planning matters for the site in facilitating the deal. This is just another example of growth and expansion on the Central Coast, making the region an even better place to live and work and, more importantly, for the coalition government to represent. Over the last 12 months, we have seen 19 per cent economic growth on the coast, which is wonderful news, with 2,000 new businesses starting up. (Time expired)
On Wednesday last week I had a group of young people come to the office and receive their Young Sporting Champions grants. This is a fantastic program that sees young people assisted when they compete at state and national level. Those that received Young Sporting Champion grants were: Christine Connell from Warners Bay, for swimming; Dylan Gisby from Eleebana, also for swimming; Elisa Gisby, for swimming; Amelia Gellatly from Valentine, for swimming; Jye Pastourmoglou for lifesaving; Jesse Smith for lifesaving also; Mitchell Meares for tenpin bowling in the Special Olympics; Jack Curran from Caves Beach, for swimming; Isabelle Field from Belmont, for swimming; Piper Lovett from Marks Point, for netball; Sarah Pickering from Belmont North, for athletics; and Jessica Potts from Valentine, for touch football.
The swimmers are all from the swimming club at Warners Bay. Unfortunately, at the same time as this presentation was taking place, one of the other young swimmers from the club was hit by a car and lost her life crossing the road near Warners Bay Public School. I would like to put on the record my support for putting in place lights to make that crossing safer for young people. (Time expired)
Stronger Communit y Partnership Grants
The government's Stronger Community Partnership Grants have provided $300,000 over two years to every electorate in the country. In Bennelong, I assembled a local infrastructure committee to ensure these grants go where they can do the most good for our community. Perhaps no grant has exemplified this more than the $20,000 we have provided for the installation of a wheelchair ramp at the excellent Karonga School in Epping.
Karonga offers education programs for students with special needs, from the early years through to the end of high school, caring for every part of the students' development. Physical activity is a very important part of this. They have a fully equipped playground for people with disabilities, but the sports fields and the tennis courts were out of bounds for many because of the lack of a wheelchair ramp. This prevented many students from accessing the sporting facilities, which I believe are essential to young minds and bodies.
As a result of the Stronger Community Partnership Grant and some great leaders at the school, this ramp will now be provided, and these students will have full access to the sports facilities of the school. I would like to thank the principal, Mark Gosbell, and everyone involved for making this ramp a reality.
Colleagues, let me tell you about a school in my electorate, Broken Creek Primary School. On Saturday, it celebrated 150 years of continuous education to the people of this fantastic community, just west of Benalla. It was an amazing day. We had 79 past students present, we had 19 current students present and, during the 150 years, over 460 students have been continuously enrolled. It was a fantastic day. Warm congratulations to everybody.
Thank you very much to principal Raye Down for the warm welcome; to president of the council, Erin Lawrence; to vice president, Kate O'Douglas, you make a fantastic cup of tea; to the treasurer, Fiona Stow; to the secretary, Anita Sanson; to Brendan Lewis; Hayley Humphries; Darrel Humphries; Michele Button; and to the school business manager, Christine Werner, who did so much of the work.
I have to say, it was a real highlight on this glorious day. The rain had come, the crops were growing and the community was thriving. This school has survived by dint of courage, hard work and persistence, and it is a tribute to the strength of the community, the staff and the vision of the community. It was so lovely, when I arrived, to meet Max Wright. Max was at school in the 1930s and he tells me he is the only student who has gone to school by four transport modes: horse, pushbike, car and finally, on his scooter. Well done, Broken Creek.
It was just over a week ago that the Minister for Defence, the Hon. Marise Payne, came to Townsville and visited Defence facilities and had discussions with our corporate sector. The Air Force turned on a first-class briefing for us, and then a great mingle and meet with the staff at the RAAF Base Townsville. Thank you to all involved.
We got to meet with the people from 5 Aviation Regiment and the people involved in Army aviation in Townsville: the Chinooks and the MRH90s—truly great facilities—and explain the money that will be spent over the next 10 years, over $500 million in RAAF Base Townsville, refurbishing that base which has very much come to order.
We then moved on to Lavarack Barracks. We had a great tour with Brigadier Chris Field and a great briefing of the Abrams tank by Captain Grant Gubbins. Mark that name down, because he will be someone who is very important in the years to come.
Townsville's corporate sector also stepped forward, especially the Townsville port, where porting of the LHDs—the landing helicopter dock ships—has become so important to Townsville, and such a magnificent figure on our horizon. The ability to broaden our channel and bring more stuff in through the state development area cannot be undermined. Anything we do to our port in Townsville is hugely important to our overall economy. It is the way we were founded 150 years ago, and I thank the House.
I rise to express my deepest condolences to the family of Mohamud Mohmud Muketar. He was a constituent of the Melbourne electorate, living in Fitzroy. Two weeks ago he was returning home from work at night and he was murdered within sight of his home, just outside the Fitzroy police station. He was 31. My Victorian colleagues may have read about this attack in the paper.
Mohamud was much loved, and many people around the Melbourne Somalia communities are devastated by his loss. I was deeply moved to join Somali-Australians at a community meeting in the wake of this devastating news. Many questions were asked by people attending. Why was Mohamud's family not informed? Indeed, why was his father left to stumble across the crime scene as he was going to meet his son to change over shifts? Could his body not have been released for a traditional burial?
His death has come at a time when many in the Somali community are feeling strained. Somali community members have told me of their concerns about the ways police and media have treated young people in their community. And within a few days of his death, community members were dealt the blow of learning of the sinking of a boat in the Mediterranean that was carrying many hundreds of people, most of who had been forced to leave Somalia. To the Somali community I say today that we stand with you in the wake of this devastating news. The community is already coming together to support the family of Mohamud. Online fundraising has already raised over $6,000 to support the family. I will post a link to this fundraising effort on my Facebook page and I encourage Melburnians to offer their support.
Since being elected I have been working hard for Capricornia. I have helped to secure over $550 million in infrastructure funding that will help to grow jobs. This includes $2.34 million for a new Capricornia rescue chopper hanger, $7 million for redeveloping Rockhampton's riverbank, $10 million for Yeppoon's beach foreshore upgrade, $3 million to deliver better mobile phone coverage and $9.9 million in joint federal-state funding to aid in the continued recovery from Cyclone Marcia. This breaks down to more money for the $12 million rebuild of Yeppoon's Scenic Highway, $3 million more to rebuild Kershaw Gardens in Rocky and $5.2 million more towards fixing stormwater problems in Frenchville.
Further, we have $190 million for future Capricornia Defence infrastructure. And we are investing in roads to create more jobs: $166 million to fix up the Eton Range and Peak Downs Highway, $38 million to replace seven old bridges in Isaac and Rockhampton shires, $22 million for more overtaking lanes on the Bruce Highway near Sarina and Rocky, nearly $13 million for dangerous traffic blackspots on council roads in Rockhampton, Livingstone, Isaac, Mackay and Whitsunday shires and $136 million for the Bruce Highway's stage 2 Yeppen South floodplain in Rockhampton.
My constituents are paying iiNet for a standard of telecommunication services that they are not receiving. Businesses have experienced on-again off-again service that is quite frankly embarrassing. Some have seen their security systems go offline without explanation, while others have faced days of lost income thanks to persistent interruptions to phone lines and EFTPOS terminals. They have been left without the means to process electronic payments and they are watching customers literally walk out the door. You can imagine the reputational damage that it is caused by having your businesses phone number listed as 'out of service' for 15 consecutive working days. How does that look to customers? What does that say about the business? This is a harm forced on Canberra small businesses through no fault of their own and it should not have come to this.
If the government was true to its word, its second-rate copper NBN rollout would have been at scale by mid-2014. But now the Turnbull government's NBN rollout map has failed even to mention Canberra's south. We are not even on the map; we are invisible in large parts of my electorate. So Canberra is stuck in limbo: no NBN, no alternative and no EFTPOS for 15 days straight. It is a complete and utter mess. As the minister formerly responsible for the NBN, the Prime Minister has failed Canberra's people— (Time expired)
On 3 February I spoke in the main chamber on the bushfires that had ravaged Tasmania this summer. In that speech I informed the House that more than 107,000 hectares had been burnt and, at the time, 1.16 per cent of the Tasmanian World Heritage area had been destroyed. The firefighting effort involved hundreds of firefighters from interstate as well as the Tasmania Fire Service, the SES, Forestry Tasmania and, of course, Parks &Wildlife officers.
To thank everyone who contributed to the firefighting effort, a family fun day was held over the weekend with lots of live music, fire trucks and a barbeque. I was really disappointed that my diary did not allow me to attend at the weekend, but I hear they had a great afternoon, with tremendous community spirit, to thank the fireys for the great work they had done. For the rural fire service, it was the biggest remote area firefighting deployment they had ever done but, despite the challenge, all of the emergency personnel came together as a strong team and worked tirelessly for many, many weeks to extinguish the fires. As firefighter Gordon Morrison put it:
Out of all of the devastation the seeds of friendship sprouted.
I want to add my own personal and sincere thanks to those who helped in some way this summer. I know I speak on behalf of everyone in Braddon—they are incredibly grateful for your service in our time of need. May God continue to keep you safe.
I take this opportunity to speak about the Australian wine sector, and particularly about the beautiful wines from Western Australia. Wine is a unique high-quality product created in 65 wine regions around the country, including in the nine distinct wine regions of Western Australia. From the north-east to the south-west they are: Swan District, Perth Hills, Peel, Geographe, Margaret River, Blackwood Valley, Pemberton, Manjimup and Great Southern.
At a recent tutored tasting in Parliament House, held by Wine Australia, my colleagues and I heard about the wine sector's contribution to the Australian economy and the history, evolution and revolution of Australian wine to create the unique, distinctly Australian, fine wines we enjoy today. Each year, grape growing, wine making and wine-related tourism contribute $40.2 billion to the value of gross output and create 172,736 full- and part-time jobs. Importantly, many of these jobs are in regional Australia.
In 2015, exports of Australian wine grew 14 per cent in value to $2.1 billion. Research, development and extension are helping winemakers to sustainably manage vineyards and wineries to grow grapes that speak of their region and to craft better quality wines that reflect what consumers want. For instance, research is being done into how grapegrowers and winemakers can increase the presence and potency of rotundone, a compound found in grape skins that provides a distinctive black pepper flavour, discovered by the Australian Wine Research Institute in 2007. I thank Wine Australia for bringing this event to Canberra, and I acknowledge the important work of winemakers, distributors and researchers in this important market.
I am very pleased today to talk about our government's economic record and negative gearing. I start by reminding all here in the chamber today of the Turnbull government's economic record of some 26,100 new jobs created in March, adding to the tally of 235,000 jobs in the past year. Unemployment dropped to 5.7 per cent in March, the lowest rate in 2½ years, business confidence jumped three points in March to be plus six points and business conditions jumped by four points to be plus 12 points. These are all signs of good economic management by the Turnbull government. These stats are no coincidence. This government understands economics and growth.
As I have said on numerous occasions in this place, good financial management is part of the Liberal Party's DNA. That is why we will not abolish negative gearing, which will hurt the mum and dad investors the most. The Labor Party's negative gearing policy rips away a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for families to invest so that they can get ahead. Labor's policy will affect the over 14,000 hardworking Australians in Durack who are using negative gearing to create a better financial future for themselves and for their families. Hardworking Australians will be worse off under the Labor Party, who, despite being emphatically thrown out of office three years ago, are still the same party of waste and poor financial management and they cannot be trusted.
Recently, I had the great honour to attend a couple of our local primary schools to talk with the years 5 and 6 students about parliament and about what my role is. I asked the students what they would do if they were the federal member for Bendigo or the Prime Minister of this country. The students always have the best ideas about what they want our government to focus on. The students at St Kilian's listed climate change as needing urgent action. They said that we need to do more to help people who are homeless, including ensuring that they have a place to stay. They want to see more investment in homelessness services. The students at Golden Square, who recently opened their primary school, want every school to be a good school and to have new buildings like they have. The students at Axedale said that water was a critical issue and that they are very worried that farmers are not getting the water that they need. Equally, they are concerned about the environment and want to see water in the Murray for the future. The students at Eppalock are also very concerned about climate change, and they believe that this government is not doing enough to support their local environment. Finally, there are the students at Girton Grammar School. Girton is a great school and they want to see every school, regardless of postcode, be a great school. The students there spoke passionately about the need for needs based funding.
Last week I met with a local business owner Angelo Cusumano. Angelo has experienced immense tragedy in his life. His father, a local business owner, was tragically murdered in December 1995, while Angelo was still a child. Angelo and his family are raising funds to build a trauma centre for children affected by homicide. This trauma centre will be called Grace's Place. Grace's Place is a world-first residential trauma recovery centre which will provide support, therapeutic programs and coping skills to assist with the deep trauma experienced by children who are affected by homicide. The centre will provide dedicated support to children and young people who have lost a relative or another loved one.
Angelo is working hard to raise funds for this project. Since March 2016, $13,000 has been raised on the mycause website. An event has been organised to raise funds for Grace's Place. The event, Angels with Grace, will be a fundraising dinner held at Conca D'oro, in Riverwood, on 18 June. All funds raised will go towards funding the trauma centre. I certainly encourage our local community in Banks to support this cause by attending the fundraising dinner. Angelo and his family hope to raise $100,000 on the night to go towards funding the centre and they acknowledge the extensive support they have received from the Homicide Victims Support Group. It is difficult to think of a more worthy cause than Grace's Place, and I would like to thank Angelo Cusumano and his family for their immense courage in taking on this project to help children affected by homicide.
I rise today to talk about a wonderful initiative in my electorate, which is the Mullumbimby Community Gardens. Of course, it is based in the fantastic town on the North Coast of New South Wales—Mullumbimby, a very vibrant and exciting town. I think the community garden really reflects the great diversity and enthusiasm of the town. I was pleased to announce recently that the Mullumbimby Sustainability Education and Enterprise Development, known as Mullum SEED, which is located at the Mullumbimby Community Gardens, will receive $12,000 in federal funding out of the Stronger Communities Program. This funding will contribute to the installation of a worm farm greywater system, plumbing fixtures, sinks and benches, enabling them to operate a compliant kitchen. Mullum SEED will be matching this funding with cash and in-kind contributions.
It is going to make huge difference having this in place. The project will operate a cafe and catering service using produce grown in its gardens and they will prepare cost price lunches for volunteers and also for homeless people. The facility will be available for community hire whilst also being used for training and the certifying of hospitality students with work experience in their kitchen. This community garden is absolutely fantastic and has grown so much in recent years. They have a variety of community plots where people can come along and take whatever they want from the gardens by giving whatever donations they are able to. They have people that pay for private plots as well. They have a fantastic kids area as well. It just draws the community together whilst at the same time producing some wonderful produce grown in the gardens.
The Tasmanian Heritage Festival is taking place in May. It is run by the National Trust. I certainly would encourage everyone to get along to an event. There are events all around the state. In my electorate there are events from Adamsfield to Avoca, from Oatlands to Bicheno and there is also an event at Clarendon House. It gave me great pleasure last week to officially open—or close, as the case might be—a new roof on the property, which was originally built in 1838.
The project cost a total of $323,000, it created 12 jobs and also included training of a number of apprentices in heritage and restoration work. The new roof project protects the Clarendon building and the collections that it contains therein. It was well documented that the restoration is the first roof that has been put on Clarendon House since 1880, so there have been three roofs put in place since 1838. This government contributed $261,000.
The opening also gave me an opportunity to discuss the idea for a national heritage and arts lottery. It is something I am very passionate about. I think it could benefit our nation enormously, and through the Parliamentary Friends of History and Heritage and my co-chair, Laurie Ferguson, the member for Werriwa, I look forward to seeing that achieved in the fullness of time.
I rise today to pay tribute and bid farewell to a hardworking local member of the Labor Party, Alen Wale. Sadly, Alen passed away on 24 March this year following a very long battle with illness.
Alen was a very active member of the Cabramatta branch of the Labor Party. Obviously, he was a regular meeting attender but he also played a significant role in federal, state and local government election campaigns, and also worked for our campaign centre in Sussex Street. Most notably, Alen personally contacted 2,000 people through phone calls in the last federal election. He was a person who actually put a huge amount of effort in to ensure our Labor candidates did well.
Alen was also a very talented sportsperson; he played cricket for Cabra-Vale Diggers Club. He went to school and graduated from Cabramatta High School and he worked at the State Rail Authority. But one of the things he did in our community was that he was a cricket coach of extraordinary talent. He brought many young players on, and many turned up to his funeral and spoke about Alen's tuition.
I was one of the many MPs who benefited from Alen's dedication, commitment and unshakable belief in the Labor cause. Alen will be sorely missed. My condolences to his family, particularly to his father, Ted, who is 105 years old and who is also a member— (Time expired)
I rise today to speak on the results for community groups in O'Connor in round 2 of the Stronger Communities Program. Last Thursday my Stronger Communities Program committee, comprised of former Australian and WA cricketer Ian Brayshaw, acting as chairman; Albany PCYC Manager, Terry Eaton; and Kalgoorlie policeman, Kyran O'Donnell, advised me of their preferred projects.
In the Great Southern, the Mount Barker Rotary Club grant application for interpretive signage at the Mount Barker Hill Lookout was endorsed. The Cranbrook Men's Shed will reclad their building, which is showing some wear and tear, and upgrade other features to improve the amenity for all users. The Goldfields Equestrian Centre will improve safety for riders and raise welfare standards for horses and ponies at the centre and the Goldfields Brass Band will purchase a trailer to transport their equipment to the many community events at which they perform.
On the south coast, the Esperance Bay Yacht Club will remove asbestos roofing from one of their buildings and harvest rainwater for wash-down of the dinghies used by junior members. The Cannery Art Centre in Esperance has been recommended for a kitchen fit-out. In the Wheatbelt, Williams Bowling Club will benefit from a contribution to replace a grass rink with a synthetic green one that will reduce ongoing maintenance costs and the burden on volunteers. Also in Williams, the tennis and hockey clubs will enjoy a grant to upgrade their shed facilities with cafe blinds, gas heaters and a new fence for the children's playground.
In the Northern Goldfields, the Shire of Laverton will receive some funding toward the purchase of a fully-equipped barbecue trailer that can be used to cater for community events, and which will also be available to other groups in the shire. And on the south coast the Shire of Denmark will enjoy a contribution towards a playground at McLean Park, the main sporting and recreational facility in the shire.
U3A—the University of the Third Age—is a fantastic organisation which provides learning experiences for people who have retired and older Australians. They are very active organisations, and I am sure that most members of this House have a U3A in their electorate.
Last week, on Wednesday, Thursday and Friday, the U3A state conference was held in Shortland electorate at the Belmont 16-foot sailing club. It was an outstanding success. As well as delegates from throughout the state, there were delegates from interstate.
There were numerous guest speakers. There were working groups. There was fun had by all. There was the networking that takes place at these conferences. I encourage every member to make contact with their U3A organisation to work with them to promote the courses and the events that they hold. I would like to particularly pay credit to Nielsine Oxenford, who is the President of Eastlakes U3A, and Barbara Thomson, who is—(Time expired)
I rise today to congratulate many local sporting organisations in the Lindsay electorate that have been successful recipients in the latest round of the Stronger Communities Program. Firstly, there was money to the Nepean District Cricket Association for the upgrade to their trophy cabinets at Dukes Oval. There was $20,000 to the Luke Priddis Foundation to provide support for their sensory gym and play space that is in construction on High Street, Penrith. There was money for floodlighting to the Myrtle Street Fields, which will provide four new floodlight poles with 100 lux lighting. Cranebrook Little Athletics will also see lighting upgrades to their facilities. Penrith Cricket Club will see a new amenity in their building at Rance Oval. The Penrith Giants JAFC will have electricity connected to their first aid room, which is a very good initiative. Penrith RSL Soccer Club will see shade and weather protection to the existing structure, which will be great for those hot summer days. Emu Plains Junior Rugby League Football Club will see concreting around their barbeque area, which I am sure will be very helpful for fundraising going into the rugby league season. There will be a playground and bike track at Cambridge Gardens, which will be great for so many young children. And of course, Penrith RSL Junior Rugby will have safety training equipment.
I congratulate all of the recipients and I hope they enjoy the grants that will provide so much support for our junior sport.
Colleagues, on Saturday I had the delight of participating in the centenary celebrations of Eildon Primary School, No. 3931. The highlight of the day had to be meeting Vi (McKay) Weeks, who was a student at the school in 1927. She was the oldest student present. Together with the youngest student, Ava Carr, a foundation student in 2016, they planted the centenary tree, which was a California redwood, symbolising the connection between the United States of America and the builders of the weir wall.
Eildon Primary School is a beautiful school. It has 42 students, seven staff and superb gardens. It is wonderful to see the kindergarten on the grounds. Eildon is situated in the upper Goulburn Valley. It is adjacent to the Cathedral Ranges, on a site right next to the Eildon Weir. It is renowned for everything from its education right through to its outdoor education, holidays, adventure sports, fishing, fine food, bushwalking and, in particular, the weir and all that goes with the weir.
I would particularly like to acknowledge my colleagues who were there on the day: the MP for Eildon, Cindy Mcleish; Margaret Rae, the mayor of Murrindindi; Eileen, Wendy and the new principal, Jai, for the terrific work that they did; and Mark and Jill Howard for the invitation. In closing, I thank the community of Eildon. It was a fantastic job. Well done! You have a beautiful school.
I rise today to talk about our recent visit to Alzheimer's Australia NT, where I met with the chief executive, Ray Norman, and his team. We talked about the great work that they do. During the meeting, they rightly pointed out that dementia is everyone's business. It is not just a disease of the elderly. The impact is huge. In my communities of Darwin and Palmerston there are people as young as 38 who living with dementia.
During the meeting, Alzheimer's Australia NT were very happy to hear about the $3.84 million that it was recently announced will be spent on 24 dementia-specific beds at Terrace Gardens, which is a great aged-care facility in my electorate.
I realise that the timer for this speech did not start, so in fairness to the others I will finish my remarks. I look forward to continuing the work with Alzheimer's Australia NT and I am very grateful for the $3.84 million that is going to help with 24 dementia-specific beds in my electorate.
We have had a win in my community of Melbourne, which I want to share with the parliament. Melbourne is home to the country's only community pharmacy. It services low-income earners in the area of Melbourne, in particular in the housing commission flats that you see in the Yarra area. That pharmacy has been operating for decades. It operates at the moment on a subscription model where low-income earners can pay a small amount and as a result get back cheap medicine. One of the beauties of it is that it is co-located with doctors and other allied health professionals, so the pharmacist in prescribing can actually go in and talk to the others working with them.
The last Abbott government cut funding for it in the budget. The community came together and mounted a huge campaign. Residents and everyone who uses the pharmacy got together, rang the minister, wrote letters and got themselves on social media—which was a first, for many of them. Headed by Lyn Morgain, their chief, they mounted a huge effort to bring to the attention of the government and the community the necessity of continuing this community pharmacy. The best thing is that in the last few weeks we have had word from the minister that they will be allowed to continue. I want to place on record my thanks to the health minister, who behaved as a minister should. When confronted with this unique but very good situation, we found a solution which will enable cohealth community pharmacy to continue, this time as part of the PBS. It is a win-win for everyone, so congratulations to everyone in Melbourne for fighting, standing up and keeping it alive.
Across the Wimmera, Mallee and Mildura regions, renewed focus on regional areas has allowed the expansion of social services. The oncology wing at the Horsham Base Hospital, the St Arnaud Street Museum and the Grampians Peaks Trail are some projects that have been undertaken to strengthen the community. The region has also benefited from a number of Landcare grants. We have seen $2 million from the federal government for education and training facilities at Longerenong College to drive innovation in our agricultural sector. We have also seen better education and early childhood facilities.
The cooperation of the state Labor government, oddly, and the federal government has delivered the Wimmera weather radar, a very good project for our community, ending a 10-year campaign by local farmers. The radar will give more precise, real-time weather data, allowing farmers to make informed on-farm decisions and to significantly increase our agricultural productivity.
Further funding of $240 million has been announced, again to partner with the government, to deliver the Murray Basin Rail Project, which is going to drive productivity as we put trucks off roads and put more stuff on rail to get it to the export market and to the world.
The people of the Wimmera and Mallee region are innovative, tenacious and proud of where they live and what they have achieved. I am determined to continue pursuing their interests and seeing many more advancements into the future. I only made one promise at the last election—to do my best—and I have honoured that promise.
Last week, after six long years of advocating, I was absolutely delighted to attend the official ceremony to acknowledge the contribution of the Jennings Germans to the Canberra community and their inclusion in the ACT's Honour Walk.
In 1951 the AV Jennings construction company—everyone knows AV Jennings—had a government contract to build 1,850 houses here in Canberra. They had the contract but, unfortunately, no builders. The construction company was forced to look for workers overseas. Five different ships arrived between 1951 and 1952, each well-stocked with carpenters, joiners and bricklayers fleeing war-torn Germany. Fifteen of them spoke English; the rest spoke only German. In the two years that followed their arrival the group, who became affectionately known as the Jennings Germans, built more than the contracted allotment of homes; they also built a reputation for hard work, for technical excellence, and for their enduring bond of friendship, which remains to this day. Some returned to Germany, but most of them stayed here. They fell in love, got married, had children and continued to make a significant contribution to our community. I pressed for this honour for six years. It was a great day to celebrate their achievements. Congratulations, Jennings Germans.
What a great day, yesterday, for football in Adelaide—or soccer as some of us call it—with Adelaide United winning the national A-League championships with a three-one victory over Western Sydney. Yesterday, over 50,000 South Australians were present at Adelaide Oval and thousands more in pubs and hotels around the state. Each year I attend a few games of Adelaide United and, in recent years, I have taken my children who have also enjoyed the Reds. Yesterday, they were as excited as me in cheering them on.
Congratulations to the whole team—Captain Eugene Galekovic, the coaching staff, Chairman Greg Griffin and all the board, and all those who have been involved in the journey of Adelaide United throughout their time in the A-League.
There are many great stories from yesterday's game, but none better than that of Bruce Kamau, who was born on the dusty streets of Kenya in the city Nairobi. He moved to Australia with his family in 1999 and began playing soccer here. Yesterday, in the A-League grand final, he scored a memorable first goal that was the crucial goal of the match to get the ball rolling. I also want to pay tribute to the Adelaide United striker Bruce Djite. Bruce is the key reason why the Reds turned their season around, scoring 11 goals in the last 14 games, including a memorable double in the semi-final victory over Melbourne City. Bruce is not only a successful sportsmen but also a great ambassador and has inspired Australia's future sporting stars who received funding from the federal government's Local Sporting Champions. Well done to everybody else associated with the club and it was a great day, yesterday, for all in Adelaide.
On Wednesday 20th, in Eaglehawk, I had the great privilege of hosting, with Ewan Grant who is a 3BO presenter, this Saltworks' community dinner, a fundraiser to raise vital funds for this organisation that takes care of the most vulnerable in Eaglehawk.
Saltworks is an organisation that pulls together the community for a free nutritious meal on a Friday night and it also provides food relief to over 30 families in the Eaglehawk area. The purpose of the fundraiser was to raise money to help continue the program, going forward. Saltworks, like many organisations in the Bendigo area that have provided food relief to the most vulnerable in our community, has been hit hard by this government's cruel cuts to this space. Saltworks, like Uniting Care, St Vincent de Paul and the Salvation Army, in the area, were all attacked by this government in their first budget when they handed down some of the cruellest cuts to the community sector. That hurt a lot of people and the organisations that helped them.
Congratulations to the community of Eaglehawk. Over 100 people came together and before we had sat down for the meal we had already raised $5,000. The donations are still coming in, and we look set to save the meal and to save the program for another 12 months. Congratulations and keep up the good work!
Recently, I was very pleased to have the opportunity to join with the mayor of Maroondah, councillor Natalie Thomas, to launch Ringwood's Man with a Pram initiative, an event that aimed to break the record for the most dads with a pram to walk a mile. The event ran, on a very sunny Saturday morning, with a final total of 104 dads taking their kids in a pram on a 20-minute stroll between Ringwood's Newtown Square at Eastland and the recently opened Aquanation leisure and aquatics centre. The day included a range of really exciting activities and breakfast beforehand, and there were AFL guests there as well to keep everybody entertained.
More importantly, the Man with a Pram initiative is one driven by Dads Group Inc., one of the really outstanding new community organisations to have flourished in the electorate of Deakin. Dads Group, led by a good friend of mine, Tom Docking, aims to build and strengthen support networks in our community for new fathers. They are achieving this important aim through the establishment of a range of programs. As Tom often says to me, the support network for new mothers is pretty strong but for new dads, often, there are not the opportunities for new fathers to come together. I want to commend Dads Group for the Man with a Pram initiative. It was a great morning and I look forward to many more to come.
Victoria is facing a housing crisis and, right now, over 25,000 people are homeless and 32,000 people are on the waiting list for public housing. According to Anglicare, fewer than one per cent of the homes for rent are affordable for people on a low income, and people experiencing homelessness often face years waiting for public housing. Housing activists in my electorate have taken it into their own hands to push for action. The Homeless Persons' Union of Victoria and its supporters have, for over a month now, been occupying homes in Bendigo Street, Collingwood that are owned by the government after being acquired for the defeated East West toll road. Six homes on this street have been left empty for over a year, while 32,000 people wait for public housing. Instead of filling these homes, the roads minister said he wanted to send in the police to evict the protesters. The occupiers—to them, I say, 'Good on you.' The neighbours there say, 'Good on you,' as well.
These people are leading the way in putting the government under pressure for action on housing. The Victorian budget last week was a test for Labor on housing, and they failed. The federal budget here will be a test for the coalition, and they will fail too. Governments have managed to find billions for toll roads, yet they have done nothing to respond to the massive need for new public housing in Victoria, and indeed, the federal government wants to make housing even more expensive. It is well past time for serious investment in public housing, for an end to negative gearing on new properties and capital gains tax that push housing out of the reach for too many. I congratulate the Homeless Persons' Union for their drawing attention to this issue. (Time expired)
2016 marks 120th anniversary of the commissioning of Australia's first publicly owned hydro-electric power station in my electorate of Bass. In 1896, the Duck Reach power scheme started generating electricity for street lighting and commercial and domestic use in Launceston. Built in the steep and rocky Cataract Gorge, only five kilometres from the centre of Launceston, it was commissioned in the same year as the Niagara Falls power company in the US. For 60 years, it provided nearly all of Launceston's electricity needs. Even by today's standards, its construction was a major engineering achievement. The Duck Reach power scheme was built by Launceston's municipal council, and in the 1920s it drove unprecedented industrial development in Northern Tasmania, with three large textile mills and other industries providing thousands of jobs. The station was almost totally destroyed in Northern Tasmania's great flood of 1929, but was rebuilt and enlarged. Duck Reach was decommissioned in 1955, when the much larger Trevallyn Power Station came online. The buildings at Duck Reach were allowed to fall into disrepair until the 1980s, when work started on saving what remained at the site. Today, the Duck Reach Historical Group continues that preservation work. On 23 April, I attended the launch of the book Duck Reach and Launceston's Electric Light, by renowned author Julian Burgess. I congratulate Mr Burgess and the publisher, Mr Gus Green, on this excellent publication, which will be an ornament to our city's historical record for years to come.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This debate was to finish at 4.45pm, and we have had one speaker after 4.45pm. It is listed in the standing orders and it is highly inappropriate—not only that he spoke, but the fact that he spoke over time.
I am sorry if he did. However, in accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded.
It is with great pleasure, and a little bit of sadness as well, that I speak on this motion of condolence for the late Rex Patterson, the former member for Dawson. He was a member for the Labor Party, but he was a member who was respected by many Country Party voters in the seat of Dawson who have gone on to become National Party then LNP people. Certainly respect has been bestowed upon Rex by people like his successor, Ray Braithwaite, and by people who actually ran against Rex. They have talked to me in recent weeks about what a formidable opponent Rex Patterson was politically and what a great citizen of Mackay he was—a great citizen of North Queensland and a great Australian. Before becoming involved in the parliamentary scene, Rex was a senior public servant in the Menzies government. In fact, he headed what was then pretty much the office for northern Australia, very much having a key influence in the development of northern Australia with a strong advocacy for agricultural development in northern Australia. I understand he became somewhat frustrated with what he saw as a lack of focus or delivery from the then government for northern Australia.
Apparently, I am told, there was a strong belief that Rex Patterson was a Country Party man, that his family was Country Party, but, because of that frustration, he stood for the Labor Party in the 1966 by-election that was held in Dawson due to George Shaw vacating the seat. Dr Patterson surprised everyone by winning the seat. He won it with support from right across the board, whether it was from traditional Labor voters or even farmers in that area—he had a great rapport with local farmers and the sugar industry. The seat was, back then, primarily a sugar industry seat.
There is a myth—I am not sure if it is a myth or a truism—that that by-election was what made Gough Whitlam. The leader of the Labor Party at the time did not go and do any campaigning in the seat; they sent Gough to do it. Gough's on-the-ground campaigning in the seat of Dawson, bringing what was a safe Country Party seat into the Labor Party fold, paved the way for him. Like it or not, we in Dawson may have been responsible for the Whitlam government. Luckily they have seen their senses since Rex's time and have gone on to elect conservative members. As I said, Rex was a great northern Australian—as such, he was promoted very quickly to the front bench in the Whitlam government, as the Minister for Northern Australia. He went on to be the Minister for Agriculture.
During his time as Minister for Northern Australia and Minister for the Northern Territory, as the Leader of the Opposition outlined in parliament earlier today, Cyclone Tracy hit Darwin and devastated that city. There were mass evacuations and basically the whole place was flattened. It was a scene of destruction that you would see in a war zone. It was Rex who took control of that situation and helped rebuild Darwin. I think one of the enduring legacies of his time in parliament as a minister has been the rebuilding of Darwin.
I understand there were some things that Rex was able to do for the development of northern Australia but it was not as much as he would have liked to achieve. Given that he joined the Labor Party because of his frustration at what he saw under the Menzies government and the non-delivery of certain things, in his mind, for northern Australia, we can share his frustration, certainly in North Queensland, with the ongoing lack of focus in the north from state and federal governments. I probably put it down as a great regret that I never went and spoke to Rex in the few years since we brought down our northern development policy. I wonder what he would have had to say about it. I think that Rex would have appreciated that finally a government had started talking about northern development in modern times when the last one that talked about it in any great depth was back in the seventies. I think that he would have seen that as a great boon for the nation. I did not know Rex personally but I did bump into him once at a local event and we had a bit of a chinwag. It was before I was the member for Dawson—I was a local government councillor at the time. He predicted the future by telling me that I was going to be the next member for Dawson. That was a very good omen, getting that from a previous member who was of a different political colour.
Rex, in his life post-politics, was not a person who went out and stuck his nose into political affairs. He really retired into private life and completely from public life, apart from one incident when I was on the Mackay Regional Council. We were fighting for rock walls to be established in areas where it was erosion prone and for council to do some of the funding to actually get those rock walls erected, whereas state government bureaucrats and a bunch of these extreme greenies were saying, 'Just let nature take its course and have the houses wash into the sea.' Rex came to us. And it just showed what a practical and forthright person Rex was. He foresaw the erosion situation and, before all of the governmental rules and regulations and the environmental types came and mucked it all up, he made sure that his property was going to be sacrosanct. He got a whole heap of rocks and he buried them in a rock wall formation right around his house. I have got to tell you: in that patch of coastline, Rex's house is the last one standing. And it is still standing. All of the others have been washed out into the ocean, including one he used to point out—apparently, there is an old outhouse that you can see still sitting in the water: 'There's the dunny in the sea.' So Rex's house was still standing. And, you know, in the minds of many, Rex's memory will still stand, and will continue to for a long time to come, as a great northern Australian, a great citizen of Mackay—as a great Australian. I pay my respects to him as a former member for Dawson.
I thank the member for Dawson. I understand it is the wish of honourable members to signify at this stage their respect and sympathy by rising in their places. I ask all present to do so.
Honourable members having stood in their places—
I thank the Federation Chamber.
I move:
That further proceedings be conducted in the House.
Question agreed to.
It is that time of the electoral season—a time where, as we seem to understand, in a few weeks we will face the people with our parties and our respective policies. I feel it is my duty, though, to give this government a report card when it comes to education. Unfortunately, there is no choice but to give this government an F—a big fail for their education. They have had 2½ years to innovate, be agile and come up with ideas, when it comes to education, about how we can improve our education system, all the way from early childhood education right through to tertiary study. We have seen either complete inaction from this government in many of these areas or, unfortunately, in the areas where they have tried to take action, it has actually been to the detriment of many students and to the future of this country.
We hear the Prime Minister talking a lot about education—well, we do not hear him talking much about education when it comes to the future of this country. What we do hear from this Prime Minister are some thought bubbles—thought bubbles that are incredibly damaging. Not only has he absolutely stayed committed to the previous incarnation of the Liberal government and the Abbott government's cuts to our schools, but also he has gone further than the former Prime Minister by saying that there is no role for the Commonwealth in funding our public schools. This is a very, very concerning statement. For those people out there for whom education is a really important issue, we must recognise that funding for all of our schools, whether they are in the public system or the independent system, is vitally important. It is important because every child in this country deserves to get a good education.
Therefore, it was very damaging of the Prime Minister to reinvigorate the debates of the past—debates which the Gonski funding agreements put an end to—on the independent system versus the public system and on who should get funded and who should not. We have moved on from those debates through the Gonski agreements. With the Gonski model, we had looked at implementing a needs based funding model. Not content with not funding that model, the Prime Minister recently went one step further and actually said, 'No, there is no role for the Commonwealth government in public schools.' That is very disappointing. Certainly the feedback I have had from a lot of constituents was anger and disbelief but not surprise, because this government absolutely has a record of not wanting to invest in education.
I am very pleased that at this election there is going to be a debate on education. Education will be front and centre. I am very pleased that Labor has put up a very strong policy. 'Your Child. Our Future' is a very strong policy that invests in the future. Only Labor knows just how important the future of education is in this country. We often hear people talk down what our teachers are doing in the classroom, saying that resources and money do not matter. I honestly feel that those on the other side are being set up with the talking points that are given to them. If they went out and actually visited their schools and spoke to teachers on the ground, like I have, it might be different. I have visited many, many electorates. In fact, recently I have been to Moreton, Longman, Petrie, Oxley, Capricornia, Flynn, the seat of Perth, Swan and Cowan. I have visited and spoken with teachers and parents on the ground, and they are quite offended by the comments that come from those opposite, that resources do not make a difference and it is not about money. In fact, they get quite upset, because those teachers, those governing councils and those parents and friends committees work hard to deliver the best possible education. But they need support and they need support from their federal government.
I am very pleased that our policy does commit to years five and six of the Gonski agreement. Importantly, what that means is that there will be an injection of $4.5 billion over the 2018-19 school years. This is a really important investment. Of course it is not just about throwing money at schools, and that is why our plan has been very clear about what we want to see that money invested in. What that money will invest in is a stronger focus on every single child's needs. It means more individual attention for students and it of course means better trained teachers. In this debate, teacher quality is incredibly important. But you cannot improve teacher quality if teachers are not able to be released from the classrooms, if you cannot have mentoring for new teachers coming through and if you do not have resources to ensure evidence based practice is being introduced into the classrooms. This all requires resources. You cannot separate teacher quality from resources; they go hand in hand. So it is a false debate when the government says, 'Teacher quality is the most important thing, but we do not want to allocate any resources to it. We do not want to ensure that classes and schools have the money they need to actually release teachers from the classroom so that they can learn and get up to speed with best practice and they can be mentored or be mentors.' That is so critically important, and, of course, more targeted resources and better equipped classrooms are also critically important.
I have visited a number of schools. In fact, I visited a school in the seat of Bendigo where I asked them, 'What programs would you bring in if you had more resources?' They said, 'We would like to start a drama program, because that really engages students. That improves year 12 retention because you can get students passionate and interested.' They wanted to introduce things like a music program or a media program into the school. They knew that it would engage students, but, at that point, students were having to buy their own equipment and bring their own resources to schools. That is what they said would make a big difference in ensuring there was great, exciting learning happening at school but, importantly, would motivate students to stay in school until year 12. That is critically important.
Our plan also gives more support to students with special learning needs. It is really important to look at previous models of school funding. Certainly the school funding model that dates back to the 1970s has absolutely failed students with a disability. I talk to parents and students who want education to be undertaken in mainstream schools, but they know that their schools do not have the resources to ensure that kids reach their potential and learn in different ways with different supports—not treating them as separate and different and moving them out of the classroom and putting them in the corner, but saying to parents 'With the right resources, with the right support, your child is equally valued and can reach their potential'.
These are the focuses that our education policy will focus on. This is money well spent because it is money that has shown evidence that it will improve school outcomes. Allowing school communities to work out what is best for them is really important. This is not school autonomy that leads to cutting budgets and then saying to schools, 'Deal with it as best you can'. It is about investing more resources and allowing schools to work out what works for them. School communities do know what actually works for them, and this is really important. At this election there is going to be a big debate about education. I welcome that debate because at any point I am happy to put forward Labor's policy—a policy that has been supported by all school sectors. It is a very difficult challenge but we see in school communities right around the country that parents and students are measuring our policy up against the Liberal Party's policy, which really leaves students behind, which does not invest in education and which, indeed, breaks a fundamental promise that was made at the last election that the Liberal Party would match dollar for dollar Labor's funding plan.
I am very pleased to have the opportunity this afternoon to speak on a number of community organisations that are so important in my electorate of Banks. Yesterday afternoon, I attended the Padstow RSL swim school award presentation down at Padstow RSL. It was a great event, recognising the achievements over the past year of the kids who are in the Padstow RSL swim school. There were a couple of hundred people there and it was great to see the environment celebrating the achievements of the kids. I presented the Banks outstanding sporting achievement award to the brother of Emily Halloran. Emily could not be there on the day, but it was great to acknowledge her commitment to the swim school over many years. I would also like to thank Phil Kennedy, the president of the Padstow RSL swim school, for his hard work, and indeed the entire committee. Thank you again to everyone at Padstow swim school for all of the great work that you do.
One of the good things about being a member of parliament is that you get to attend a number of commemorations each year on Anzac Day. One of the most moving commemorations that I have attended was the commemoration on 8 April at Picnic Point High School. This was a very special ceremony which was very highly produced by the students and staff of the school. It featured serving military and veterans; there were representatives from local RSL sub-branches including Gary Murray of Panania Diggers and a number of representatives of the education sector as well. It was a solemn service. It included various speeches and poems and a number of other quite moving elements. It was an immense credit to everyone at Picnic Point High School. I would like to congratulate the school and its principal, Wolly Negroh, and I also thank the Sydney University Regiment for their support of that very important event.
I also recently attended Panania Scouts. Panania Scouts is one of the most active Scout troops in the electorate of Banks, and I visited the 2nd Panania Scout Group meeting. They have Cubs, Joeys and Scouts there, and the day that I visited was the first day back in term 2. There was a lot of enthusiasm and there were a lot of happy sounds from the kids, who were pleased to be back. There were lots of games, and they were learning about skills such as with ropes, first aid and various other skills that were practised on the night. It was a very nice evening, and I want to thank Lionel Pascoe, the group leader, who has been involved with the Cubs for more than 25 years, and also Mehru Roshan, the group Cub leader, who I had also met with on Clean Up Australia Day. They are a terrific group of Scouts at Panania, and it was a tremendous visit.
I would also like to acknowledge and thank the Hurstville Ladies Probus Club, who meet at Penshurst RSL. On 13 April, I visited the Probus club. The Probus community in my electorate of Banks is extremely strong, and I estimate that up to 1,000 people visit a Probus club at least once a month. At the Hurstville Ladies Probus Club there are a large group who meet there and enjoy the social aspect and a range of other activities that take place at the Probus club down there. Thank you to Lynette Jones, the president, and also to Yvonne Hankin, the secretary, for having me along to meet the members. I very much enjoyed it and appreciated the invitation.
As I mentioned before, Anzac Day is a particularly important time of the year. I also attended a church service at St Mark's Anglican Church in South Hurstville to commemorate this most important occasion, Anzac Day. That service was conducted in conjunction with South Hurstville RSL Sub-Branch. Importantly, the commemoration featured a reflection not only on the Australian and New Zealand experience at Gallipoli but also that of the Turkish soldiers and the Turkish people. Wreaths were laid on the day by representatives not only of Australia and New Zealand but also of Turkey, and it was nice to see that on the day. I would like to thank John Busuttil from South Hurstville RSL Sub-Branch and also the Reverend Peter Greenwood of St Mark's Anglican Church for this very solemn and thoughtful service.
Also in relation to Anzac Day, on 28 April, late last week, I attended Panania Public School's Anzac service. This was a very impressive service, conducted entirely by the kids. Panania Public School is a primary school, so these were kids no older than 12, and they conducted the entire ceremony with a number of readings; various songs, hymns and so on; and a wreath-laying service. It was a great credit to the kids, who behaved with great reverence during the commemoration, and it was a very positive reflection on the school. I would like to thank Principal Sandra Palmer and everybody who was involved in making that event come together.
My electorate is a very diverse community, with people from all walks of life and cultural backgrounds, and one of the important communities in our area is the Sikh community. Earlier in the month, on 10 April, I visited the Sikh temple, Gurudwara Sri Guru Singh Sabha, at Revesby. I have been to the temple on a number of occasions in recent years, and I find that it is always a great experience to go along, say hello and discuss various matters with the local Sikh community. On the day, one of the things that I learned a little bit more about was the involvement of Sikhs in World War I in various British regiments. It was an interesting reflection on that historical period to understand more about the contribution of Indian Sikhs in World War I. I would like to thank Terry Sidhu, the President of the Temple, for his hospitality and the ongoing relationship that we have built in recent years.
There is no more important community group for young girls in my community than the Girl Guides, and one of our strongest girl guide groups is at Mortdale. On 5 April I attended the Mortdale Girl Guides AGM. Mortdale Girl Guides has been going for more than 90 years, so it has a very long and proud tradition, and it features Gumnuts, Brownies and Guides. Every time I go along to the Mortdale Girl Guides I am always very impressed by the nature of the group and by the professionalism of the volunteers, and by the good manners and hard work of the Guides who do a lot of good work in our local communities and support charitable organisations and do many good things for the community, whilst also growing as kids and as individuals. Thank you to Jenny McRitchie, who is the leader at Mortdale Girl Guides, and all the other leaders who are involved there.
The Stronger Communities Program is a really important program that allows for modest financial support for important capital projects. One of the important projects in our local community has been the Kids in the Kitchen project at Padstow Park Public School. Organised by the P&C, the goal of this project is to give kids greater skills in cooking and for kids at the primary school to learn more about cooking and various culinary techniques and so on. We were able to provide a grant of $5,000 through the Stronger Communities Program. I would like to thank Wendy Lindsay, the P&C President, and Jane Mollica, the Principal, for all the work they do. The kitchen facility will be of broad benefit to the Padstow community and I am very pleased that we were able to assist with this important grant for this very worthy project.
I would like to address my comments this evening to the National Disability Insurance Scheme and its rollout in Indi. I strongly support the introduction of the National Disability Insurance Scheme; it is a groundbreaking change to the way disability services are funded and delivered. However, as I move around the electorate, many constituents ask me questions about the NDIS, and they are keen to find out much more about the rollout and its impact on them as carers, families or users.
The NDIS will become available in the Ovens-Murray area from 1 October 2017 and it will cover the local government areas of Alpine, Benalla, Indigo, Mansfield, Towong, Wangaratta and Wodonga. It will join the Goulburn area and cover off Murrindindi from 1 January 2019, including parts of Moira as well as Murrindindi.
On 5 April I held three forums in Wodonga, meeting with staff and organisations who were on the frontline in delivering disability services. I met with key staff who have a particular interest in how the introduction of the NDIS will affect their services and clients. These service providers covered Aware Industries, employment services groups, the personnel group Central Victorian Group Training Company and the Disability Advocacy and Information Service. Tonight, I would like to address my remarks to the findings of those forums and some of the recommendations that came out of them.
Aware Industries has being working for over 30 years, covering New South Wales—Albury—and Wodonga. It operates as a community based social enterprise. It is directed by a volunteer board of management and operates two large industrial sites at Wodonga. The experienced management team understand the needs of the up-to-115-strong workforce, and has 20 separate business units. Aware is a member of the Australian Disability Enterprises group. On the day, I had particular delight in working with the CEO, Sharon Muggivan, and also Tom Drum, the chair, and Vin O'Neill. They asked me to bring a number of issues to the attention of the parliament. They are particularly interested in how employment agencies such as Aware fit into the NDIS. What are the arrangements for the NDIS for particular organisations that work with disability? What processes will be in place to manage outcomes for clients who are in disability employment services? And how will the NDIS funding expenditure of service providers be reviewed to ensure outcomes occur that are measurable for clients, rather than activity by the providers?
Will AWARE Industries' and other providers' funding change once the NDIS is introduced in 2017? AWARE Industries request a government services and product procurement policy that will enable them to provide services, particularly stationery or health-related services, back to the government.
The second group that I had the pleasure of meeting was The Personnel Group and representatives from Central Victorian Group Training, CVGT. These two services work in the Disability Employment Services program and are designed to give support to workers with a disability or mental health condition in finding and maintaining employment. Participants are given assistance to prepare for work by addressing barriers such as education, licences, ticketing, interview preparation and general work preparedness, and they can be assisted with referrals to appropriate service providers. I was particularly pleased to meet with staff from these organisations and would like to thank Tracey Fraser, Acting CEO for The Personnel Group, and Mark and Craig from CVGT.
One of the issues that came out of that meeting was that funding levels 1 and 2 for disability employment services are significantly different—$3,000 and $10,000 per client at these respective levels. The providers note that midway during the current five-year service contract the previously consistent 50 per cent breakdown of clients falling into these two funding levels has now slipped, such that only one-third of clients are now funded at level 2, which is the $10,000 level, creating financial difficulty for providers. Providers request clarification of how the Job Seeker Classification Index is now being applied, causing this unexpected change in funding outcomes. Providers expressed concern and confusion on how Star Ratings are implemented and said that wage subsidies for disability service clients have been stagnant since 2005 and need to be increased to be a relevant and effective incentive.
The third group that I met with was the Disability Advocacy and Information Service, DAIS. DAIS is a non-profit organisation governed by a board of management. DAIS provides free advocacy support and information to anyone with a disability to ensure equity of rights and increased integration into the community. Thank you to the many people who participated in this meeting, but particularly to Martin Butcher, the Executive Officer; Jenny Tait, Chair of the Board; and the other participants in that roundtable. I would particularly like to call attention to Toni Reeves from Gateway Health.
The issues that they raised include the cross-border anomalies that exist in regard to how NDIS funding is applied by states. New South Wales has placed the majority of existing disability funding into supporting NDIS, which results in less money now being available for advocacy. DAIS received $180,000 to provide advocacy services in New South Wales. What will happen as a result of these changes? How do clients find out about NDIS and how it works? This organisation is able to provide all this information—how will they be funded? What special grants may be available to support DAIS in its ongoing service provision? They also mentioned some of the problems they are having with myGov, particularly for clients. They also talked about a holistic approach to disability service provision and how useful it will be in bringing the housing and education sectors into the whole discussion. DAIS have 30 percent, and increasing, of their clients with mental health concerns. That increasingly overlays on their ability to provide advocacy service. They particularly ask that a workshop be funded to bring these players together with government representatives to look at how we can deliver these services in our community in creative, innovative and much more effective ways. Gateway Health in particular agreed to take a role in facilitating that.
I want to bring to the House the words of Jenny Tait. Jenny is a mother and a member of the board of DAIS. She has since written to me, and I would like to put her words into the Hansard. Jenny writes:
As a parent of a child with a significant disability, and as a person actively involved in pursuing innovation and community inclusion based on true person-centred practice, this is what I want for people on the Autism Spectrum, other neurological and complex conditions, and with cognitive impairments:
She also hoped that:
Segregation in all of its forms, including the hidden forms, is eradicated for good.
She has other comments around those but I do not have time to read them tonight.
I would like to focus on some of the other points she makes. She hopes:
That people with disabilities are assisted and encouraged to live in a home of their own where supports come and go when appropriate or required. This will be far more cost effective and will foster true interdependence, choice and control.
She hoped that the NDIS would facilitate that. She also hopes:
That services and organisations are not allowed to frighten families into staying in a cradle to grave model in order to ensure the survival of the organisation. Families and individuals need advocates and supports that empower, encourage and teach them to advocate for themselves …
That employment for people with a disability becomes a community responsibility and that everyone understands the benefits for people, for employers, co-workers, and community of having people with a disability included in the workforce in a meaningful way.
That people with disability are respected and valued, and not derided, abused, or disregarded because they were born with or have acquired a disability. This seems pretty basic, but it is yet to be a reality, even in this country. It's pretty sad that Australia is not one of the better countries in the world for protecting the rights of the most vulnerable in society.
She continues:
And most importantly of all, that people have the opportunity to choose and create a good life in community free of control by services and organisations, able to live interdependently, with quality links in community where they are known, seen, valued, and have meaningful relationships with people outside of the service system.
She says that she is hopeful that with the NDIS and people like me and also Minister Jane Prentice 'who are in a position to champion and create an uplifting social environment for people with disabilities, that the future will be brighter, and that people with disabilities can achieve a good life for themselves in the same way that non-disabled people work to achieve a good life.'
In closing, I bring the grievances of this community to this House. I look forward to working with the Minister and the department to host a forum in Wodonga where these people can speak with their own words, have their own voices heard so that, together with government, we can make sure that in the future we have the innovation and the creativity that we know the NDIS can bring to our border area.
I take this opportunity to share with the House an outstanding imitative by this government to deliver social benefits to communities across Australia, the Stronger Communities Program. Not only is this funding targeted for the community but applications are considered by the community with the establishment of a community assessment committee, which is a key component of the Stronger Communities Program. Each year in my local community, over 16,000 men and women give their time through volunteering. Volunteers provide countless hours to improve social, environmental and economic outcomes for our communities. They achieve this through the many voluntary clubs and organisations in our community. Whether it is a sporting organisation or a youth outreach program, they all bring together community members and facilitate social inclusion and participation.
Dobell has an extremely strong sense of community, and I always welcome the opportunity to support projects, to further assist groups and organisations to do what they do best, which is enhance the community with vibrancy, fun and cohesiveness. The Stronger Communities Program is an outstanding example of how the government provides avenues to assist community groups. As a member of parliament, it is richly rewarding to have the opportunity to be involved in projects that directly benefit the Dobell community, with the provision of $150,000 each year for two years, allocated directly to Dobell and the numerous groups within Dobell. I must say that the number of applications from our local community organisations is unprecedented. Each successful application represents an opportunity to assist our outstanding community organisations deliver their programs and services and further enhance their social impact through the provision of assisting with the funding of small capital projects.
In Dobell, the calibre of projects requesting funding, which matches their own contribution dollar for dollar, is outstanding. I will highlight just a few of the successful projects that have received grants. Firstly, the Wyong District Tennis Association was successful in receiving a grant of $8,000 for security and safety fencing, landscaping and pathway construction. The fencing will provide a physical barrier between the car park and spectator seating at the rear of the courts, which is an important safety improvement. Additionally, the club's new fencing will provide a greater safeguard against graffiti and vandalism. These are opportunities to assist sporting clubs to upgrade and improve their facilities. It is very rewarding knowing that the benefit will be appreciated by many in the community.
In July last year, the Ourimbah Razorbacks Rugby clubhouse was destroyed by a senseless arson attack. The fire was absolutely shattering for many of the club members and also the broader Ourimbah community, as many items of necessity were destroyed, including whitegoods, a lawnmower, a line marking machine as well as merchandise and their canteen stock. But through the Stronger Communities Program the Ourimbah Razorbacks were successful in obtaining $20,000 in matched funding to assist them rebuild their clubhouse after this cowardly attack. I was also happy to provide a personal donation to the club to assist in replenishing their canteen stock.
Another Dobell organisation to benefit from the Stronger Communities Program is the Glen drug and alcohol rehabilitation facility. I have shared with the House on numerous occasions the outstanding work undertaken by the Glen and the impact of their work within the Central Coast community as the Coast's only male-specific drug and alcohol rehabilitation centre. Through the Stronger Communities Program, the Glen will be able to undertake some upgrades to their facilities, including an extension to their existing gravel road, plumbing, footpaths, sewage and resurfacing of sporting facilities. The Glen does tremendous work in our local community and I am always proud to be able to assist and support them in my capacity as the member for Dobell
A longstanding organisation that will benefit from the Stronger Communities Program is the Central Coast Volunteer Rescue Squad. Last year the squad celebrated their 40th birthday. Since 1975, they have faithfully served the Central Coast community by working in conjunction with other emergency services and providing assistance in whatever way they can. Travellers on the M1 may well have encountered the outstanding volunteers of the rescue squad as they operate the Driver Reviver station at Ourimbah interchange. This is an outstanding initiative, demonstrating the squad's commitment to the safety and wellbeing of the community by encouraging drivers to 'stop, revive, survive' throughout the holiday season in recognition of the dangerous consequences of driving when fatigued. The squad relies solely on community donations and government assistance to continue to do what they do best: preserving the quality of life for all residents on the Central Coast. So it is satisfying that through this funding they will be able to replace their heavy vehicle as part of their rescue squad.
These are just a few of the outstanding projects that will benefit from the first round of Stronger Communities Program funding and the positive impact it will have on social inclusion throughout Dobell. Some of the other projects that have received grants are Toowoon Bay Surf Life Saving Club, who will receive a new IRB for water safety; Norah Head Marine Rescue; 1st Berkeley Vale Scouts; Central Coast Women's Health Centre at Wyoming; PCYC; the Central Coast Sporting Association; and Killarney Vale Soccer. It is always a privilege to be able to support these amazing groups and volunteers who give so much of their time towards our community. I am pleased that this government continues to demonstrate in tangible ways their commitment to the development and enhancement of communities across Australia.
It was great to see on Anzac Day the Central Coast community come together to pay tribute to those who gave their tomorrow for our today. I was extremely busy and I started very early, as we all did as members of parliament, at the dawn services. I had the privilege to attend the Toukley RSL Sub-branch's dawn service, where it was great to see Bob Wilson, who is President of Toukley RSL Sub-branch, and his amazing team of volunteers. I would also like to acknowledge the school captain from Gorokan High, who spoke outstandingly. It was wonderful to see young people there paying their tributes to those who have fallen in active service.
I then had the privilege of attending the early morning service at the Wyong Town Centre Cenotaph, which was followed by a march down to the Wyong RSL. Once again, we saw the local schools participating. It was great to see so many young people out there on Anzac Day acknowledging and paying tribute to those who had lost their lives, especially those from the Wyong area. I would also like to say congratulations to Pat Frewin, president of the Wyong RSL sub-branch, for outstanding service.
Later in the morning I attended the late morning service at The Entrance, where there would probably have been in excess of 4,000 people paying their tributes. Once again, congratulations to Alan Fletcher, president of The Entrance/Long Jetty sub-branch, for the outstanding work that the sub-branch does for the veterans community in The Entrance and Long Jetty. I finished the day at Ourimbah. It was late in the afternoon. It was great to see the RSL guys there. The local community marched down the Pacific Highway to Ourimbah Public School. Congratulations to Dave Pankhurst, president of the Ourimbah-Lisarow RSL sub-branch, and to his executive for outstanding Anzac Day services.
Talking about Ourimbah Public School, it was great that last Wednesday I had the opportunity to visit the school. They have a Lone Pine tree all the way from Gallipoli that was planted there many, many years ago. Ourimbah Public School is a hidden gem. It is a beautiful little school there on the hill in Ourimbah, and it has beautiful grounds that are very well maintained. It was wonderful to catch up with the principal, Linda Trigg, who is doing some outstanding work with the young people at Ourimbah Public School. As I said, it is a little hidden gem, because it is a beautiful, nurturing environment. The physical environment is outstanding and provides a great learning opportunity for the primary public school students there at Ourimbah. I look forward to going back to Ourimbah to talk to the kindergarten children and read them a story and to visit the year 5s and 6s before their visit to Canberra.
Australia has long exhibited an admirable level of religious tolerance and provided for freedom of religious expression. People of all faiths—and none—are free to express their views. Long may it remain so. Regrettably, this is not true for many countries around the world, and I believe that we need to do more to secure freedom of religious expression everywhere. Most certainly, we should not turn a blind eye to breaches of this fundamental human right and meekly accept that 'they do things differently there'.
The 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights contains 30 articles. Article 18 states:
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
The great Eleanor Roosevelt, who chaired the drafting committee, argued that freedom of religion was one of the four essential freedoms. But Article 18 is frequently disregarded. A report by Aid to the Church in Need concluded that, of 196 countries around the world, 81 of them, or 41 per cent, are places where religious freedom is impaired or is in decline. Of the others, 18 per cent were 'of concern', while the remaining 41 per cent were not of concern.
I commend Prince Charles for speaking out, as he has done, against what he describes as the 'horrendous and heartbreaking' persecution of religious minorities around the world. He says:
We have learnt with mounting despair of the expulsion of Christians, Muslims and Yazidis from towns and cities that their ancestors have occupied for centuries.
Describing religion as central to our future as a free society, he says the events in Iraq and Syria have been horrendous, and he says:
Sadly, incidents of violence in Iraq and Syria are not isolated. They are found throughout some—though not all—of the Middle East, in some African nations and in many countries across Asia.
He has called on governments to do everything they can to promote the upholding of article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. He also said:
… rather than remaining silent, faith leaders have, it seems to me, a responsibility to ensure that people within their own tradition respect people from other faith traditions.
I also endorse the comments by Pope Francis on this topic:
Today we are dismayed to see how in the Middle East and elsewhere in the world many of our brothers and sisters are persecuted, tortured and killed for their faith in Jesus. In this third world war, waged piecemeal, which we are now experiencing, a form of genocide is taking place, and it must end.
The Archbishop of Canterbury has stated that the most common feature of Anglicanism worldwide is that of being persecuted. In Libya, ISIS has beheaded Eritrean Christians and Egyptian Copts. In 1914, Christians made up a quarter of the Middle East population. A century later, they are less than five per cent.
Prince Charles describes Christians as the most persecuted religious minority, but, as he recognises, there are many others. In Burma mosques have been set on fire and Muslim villagers driven from villages where they have lived for generations alongside Buddhist neighbours. Burma has been considering restrictions on interfaith marriage and religious conversions. The Baha'is are persecuted in Iran. In territory controlled by Islamic State the Yazidis have experienced mass murder. Three thousand Yazidi girls in Islamic State hands have suffered rape and abuse. Five hundred young children have been captured and are being trained as killing machines to fight their own people.
There is also persecution of people of no belief, again in flagrant breach of Article 18. The Saudi Arabian blogger Raif Badawi was sentenced to 1,000 public lashes for daring to publicly express his atheism. Alexander Aan was imprisoned in Indonesia for two years after saying he did not believe in God.
I am indebted to Middle East Concern for providing me with information about current cases of the persecution of Christians which I want to share with the House. Two cases relate to the detention of two Sudanese men by the Sudanese National Intelligence and Security Services. Mr Telahoon Nogosi Kassa Rata and the Reverend Hassan Abduraheem Kodi Taour have been detained solely for the peaceful exercise of their religious beliefs, which is their right under international law. Sudan should release these men, and it should put an end to the harassment and abuse of Christians in Sudan.
The other current cases I want to mention are in Turkey. In 2011 the Foundation of Protestant Churches in Istanbul made an official application to the Istanbul government for the use of an old church building in Pendik in Istanbul. But the Istanbul authorities have given them the run-around for the past five years, thereby stopping the Protestants from making use of a public place of worship.
Also in Turkey, in 2007, at Malatya, three employees of the Zirve Christian publishing house were attacked, tortured and murdered by five Muslim assailants armed with knives. The suspected perpetrators were caught at the scene and their trial commenced in 2007. But nine years later it continues to go around in circles and there is no justice for the victims' families. Even worse, the five have been released, making the small Christian community in Turkey feel highly vulnerable. If the Turkish administration were genuine about protecting religious minorities, this trial would have concluded long ago.
I also want to make particular mention of the situation in Pakistan. Pakistan's blasphemy law states that anyone found to have defiled the name of Mohammed in writing or speech, including by innuendo or insinuation, directly or indirectly, should be punished with death. It dates back to colonial times, but it was rarely used until about 20 years ago. According to a report in Fairfax Media in March, at least 65 people, including lawyers, defendants and judges, have been murdered over blasphemy allegations since 1990. These laws are often used to settle personal scores or to target minorities. Last year a Christian couple were beaten to death and burned in a brick kiln in Pakistan for allegedly desecrating the Koran. In 2011 two politicians who questioned the blasphemy laws were shot dead.
Successive governments of Pakistan have made an appalling job of protecting religious freedom and minorities and combating religious violence. Indeed, as Christina Lamb pointed out in The Australian on 4 April, they have promoted it, backing the Afghan Taliban for years. When Taliban gunmen stormed a school in Peshawar in December 2014 and massacred over 140 people, including 132 schoolchildren, the Pakistan authorities vowed they would put a stop to it. But did they tackle the root causes of extremism, like religiously bigoted school textbooks and Saudi funded madrasahs? No, they did not. So it is that a suicide bomber in Pakistan recently blew up dozens of children in a Pakistani park, most of them Muslim. What perverted teaching is this? What arrogance, what religious conceit, made this man think his life worth those of dozens of others? Christina Lamb says the percentage of Pakistan's population made up of religious minorities has fallen from 15 per cent to less than four per cent. There are now about 2.5 million Christians, about 1.6 per cent of the population.
In July last year, there was a first-class discussion of freedom of religion in Britain's House of Lords, on a motion moved by Lord Alton of Liverpool. He said the international community needs to have a more consistent approach to defending article 18. He said:
We denounce some countries while appeasing others who directly enable jihad through financial support or the sale of arms. Western powers are seen as hypocrites when our business interests determine how offended we are by gross human rights abuses.
He noted Saudi Arabia as an example of this. He also took to task a UK foreign office representative who had told him his role was to represent Britain's commercial and security interests and that religious freedom was a domestic matter in which he did not want to get involved. Lord Alton disagreed vehemently, saying there is a direct connection with Britain's security interests, not least with millions of displaced refugees and migrants now fleeing religious persecution. He said the empirical research on the crossover between freedom of religion and belief and a nation's stability and security is that, where article 18 is trampled on, economic performance is poor also. Just think about North Korea or Eritrea.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer, the Christian theologian who was executed by the Nazis, said:
We have been silent witnesses of evil deeds … We have learnt the arts of equivocation and pretence.
The world was able to get rid of the detested apartheid regime by imposing sanctions on South Africa. We should not continue on with 'business as usual' with countries which trample all over article 18 and turn a blind eye to, or actively engage in, the persecution of Christians and other religious minorities.
Tonight, I take the opportunity to speak about an issue of great importance to the people who live in my electorate of Deakin, and that is the ever-growing problem posed by traffic congestion, which is crippling our state and the eastern suburbs of Melbourne. In particular, I raise the failure, by cancelling the East West Link contract, of the current Victorian Labor government to take vital steps to reduce the impacts of this congestion—a city-transforming project which would go a long way to easing traffic congestion in our eastern suburbs.
For many years now, residents and businesses, including the Ringwood Chamber of Commerce and Industry, in the heart of my electorate, have spoken about the great need for the eastern suburbs to have increased investment in infrastructure. Our city is growing by 100,000 people per annum, and now the Eastern Freeway, which is one of the main corridors of transport for people who live in my electorate, is at a standstill for at least 2½ hours in the morning and the same in the evening. Just a short time, a decade or so, ago we can remember what it was like to be able to travel freely around our own city.
The truth of the matter is that successive governments have not been able or willing to make the infrastructure investments necessary to ensure that people can get around our city easily. That was obviously exacerbated by the absolutely reckless decision of Daniel Andrews and the state Labor Party—supported 100 per cent by Bill Shorten; let's not forget that—to spend $1.1 billion to cancel the East West Link contract. The equipment was on the ports; people were employed; all of the planning and preparatory work was done; shovels were about to hit the ground. In a city growing by 100,000 people per annum, this will be remembered as one of the most reckless decisions that any government has ever made in this country at any level, and it will be remembered for a long time. I know lots of good people in the Labour Party who, like me, shake their heads and think that it was an absolutely disastrous decision. I can assure them that the people who live in my electorate wholly concur that this was a disastrous decision, and we in the eastern suburbs of Melbourne are the people who are suffering because of it.
The East West Link project fundamentally seeks to do two things for my electorate: ease the bottleneck at the end of the Eastern Freeway, whether that be at Hoddle Street or Alexandra Parade; and ensure that there is easy connectivity to the western suburbs and the northern suburbs and access to our airport. As residents tell me, even on a Sunday afternoon there is crippling traffic. I get the frustrated emails all the time—and I am one of those people who travel on the Eastern Freeway on a Sunday afternoon, particularly when I am coming up here for a sitting week of parliament. You would think you were in peak hour. The reality is that we have a freeway which ends at a T-intersection when it hits Alexandra Parade. It was never intended to be that way. It was always expected that that freeway would continue and that finally, when a government had committed the money, we were going to get stage 1 of the East West Link built. In our case, federally, we had committed $3 billion on top of the $2 billion committed by the former Victorian state government.
Let us not forget the history of this project. In 2008, Sir Rod Eddington was commissioned by a former Labor Premier, John Brumby, to undertake an assessment of Victoria's infrastructure needs. The East West Link, or an equivalent, was the No. 1 priority identified by Sir Rod Eddington. Perversely, going into the 2010 election, which the Liberal Party subsequently won, Labor promised to build the East West Link. We see that Labor were late converts against the East West Link. It is pretty clear to all that that was based on a pretty crude and cruel political assessment that, in order to hold their seats that were under risk from the Greens in the inner city, they would sacrifice those who live in the outer suburbs, particularly in the eastern suburbs, and who just happen to live in my electorate.
Never before has a government so cruelly disregarded one group of its constituents for another. Daniel Andrews said—again, supported 100 per cent by Bill Shorten—that the contracts that they cancelled were not worth the paper they were written on and would not cost one dollar to cancel. That was the commitment that he made. Had Victorians known before that election that, in fact, it would cost $1.1 billion of their money to cancel a project that we all know is so badly needed, I question whether they would ever have been elected. Being elected on a falsehood and then absolutely disregarding taxpayers' dollars to cancel this project is something that we will never forget in the eastern suburbs of Melbourne, because we feel it every single day.
What my constituents know, and have known for many years, the experts are now confirming. The experts have said that traffic congestion will cost the Victorian economy $9 billion per annum. The single worst area of cost is the area between the Eastern Freeway and the CityLink, which includes, most notably, Alexandra Parade, which I mentioned earlier, as well as Hoddle Street. The experts are confirming what we know on the ground—that is, that traffic congestion gets worse and worse every single day. It does not matter how much Labor say, 'Don't worry about it. Just suck it up and deal with it'—and that is effectively what Labor are saying to all of my constituents. They are very, very angry that a state government, supported by Bill Shorten, would wantonly waste $1.1 billion in a city that is growing by 100,000 people per annum.
We need investments in absolutely every form of infrastructure. To cruelly do that to the eastern suburbs of Melbourne on a very faulty political assessment about the danger of the Greens in the inner city was short-sighted. It went against long-held Labor Party policy and, of course, went against this government, which most recently committed $3 billion to any state government that will build the East West Link. That $3 billion remains on the table for the East West Link. Nothing will ever get back the $1.1 billion that Labor wasted. We will never get that money back—it is gone—but that is not any reason to ignore one of the most crucial infrastructure projects that exists for our state.
I will continue to fight for this project, because I am ultimately guided by what is in the best interests of our constituents. If Labor had an about-face on this, which I know lots of good people on the Labor Party would like to see happen, we would welcome them with open arms. That is why we have got to keep the pressure on and that is why the campaign in Deakin will ensure that this remains front and centre. The only way that we will get this road built is by keeping the pressure up. So that is $3 billion for a much needed piece of infrastructure for the eastern suburbs.
But we are doing more than that, and in the meantime we understand that the Labor Party are digging their heels in. They are ignoring the people who live in the eastern suburbs of Melbourne, so let us get on and build some other stuff. We have committed half-a-billion dollars to be matched with a matching grant from the state Labor Party for a $1 billion upgrade of the Monash Freeway—that, again, is absolutely necessary. Anyone who drives the Monash knows that we just need to make that investment to keep up with the growth in traffic—and that growth in traffic is not more people using the roads. We are growing by 100,000 people per annum. We need to make these investments.
We are also making investments for urban road infrastructure projects. There are significant investments for a number of projects in regional Victoria as well. We have a Victorian transport plan that extends through the length and breadth of our state. The East West Link is the centrepiece of that and the East West Link will remain the centrepiece of that because we know that it will be built. We absolutely know that the East West Link will be built. As I said earlier, the $1.1 billion wasted by Labor will go down in history as being the most destructive waste of taxpayers' money that we have ever seen, but that is no reason to give up the fight and we certainly will not give up the fight.
I applaud the Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, who has staked himself to this project as well. I was very proud to stand shoulder to shoulder with him when we outlined our very, very strong commitment of providing $3 billion to build the East West Link. I can assure my constituents that I will continue to fight for this until it is built.
It is always good to listen to the Liberal Party cry about road funding. Let us not forget that they are now announcing a project for the M80 that they actually cut in 2014. They are actually going to put money back in to the project that Labor supported—which Labor invested in—and now they are going to put that back here on election eve as the panic sets in for the member for Deakin and his colleagues because they know, just like everyone else knows, that this government has been nothing but an absolute chaotic failure for the last few years.
But tonight, I want to speak on a number of issues affecting families across the community of McEwen. I want to reassure them that a Labor government is a government for all Australians and not just for the rich. The Prime Minister talks about the ideas boom; but I do not think his government has had an idea yet, which is why the boom went bust. The Turnbull government's strategy has been to follow Labor's policies and ideas—and let us take a look at that. We were the ones who put forward the idea to crack down on multinational tax avoidance, but it was voted down by the Liberals and the Greens in the Senate. Then look at what has happened recently: the Turnbull government has adopted the idea as their own.
We talked about changing tax concession arrangements for wealthy superannuants: guess who is talking about it now? We wanted a serious discussion about tax reform and floated the policy on changes to negative gearing. We are not quite sure where the Turnbull government has settled on this issue yet, but you can expect that it will flip-flop its away all the way over the line to Labor's view. Our idea to increase the tobacco tax to help fund the health budget suddenly seems like a great idea to the industry minister. As for the education portfolio, the Turnbull government has never seen a 2016 Labor policy it did not like. The Turnbull government cut $30 billion from Australian schools. For families in McEwen, this means that school funding could be cut annually by $21 million. That means that we will see one-in-seven teachers sacked, cuts to the average school budget by $3.2 million and reduced support by about $1,000 per student.
After looking at these cuts in more detail, this is how schools across my electorate fare. Schools in the Yuroke region are hardest hit, with annual cuts of $4.6 million. These are people who struggle with the cost of living, day to day, and are going to be forced to dip more into their pockets or face cuts to programs that help kids. Schools across Sunbury will have cuts of $4.1 million. Euroa schools will be cut by at least $3.2 million each year, and schools in the Macedon region face annual cuts of $2.3 million. Our most disadvantaged students at the Sunbury and Macedon Ranges Specialist School will face annual cuts of $700,000. You have to ask: where are the priorities of this government if they want to cut special school funding? It is an absolute disgrace.
With its education announcements, the Turnbull government wants families to believe that it supports teachers, it supports students and it supports families. To try and regain families' trust, the education minister announced the funding of $1.2 billion to help funding certainty until 2020. We know it is a token gesture, and it is a lot less than the Labor Party is offering the broader electorate. This announcement is a partial reversal of the education cuts, while the government continues to play politics in schools. Of course, as per normal, there are strings attached.
The Turnbull government treats our kids' education like a banking transaction. It wants to see value for money and return on its investment in the form of tangible facts and statistics. The government does not consider the individual needs of students. It does not recognise that each kid has a different learning behaviour and developmental needs. Never mind the experimental forms of learning, including performing arts and sports. According to the education minister, the money the Turnbull government invests cannot be used for these types of pursuits. It must be used to demonstrate compliance with mandated testing standards. You cannot run a cookie cutter approach to education.
The Turnbull government does not want to see its money invested into school infrastructure but in the schooling system—that is, for assessment of literacy and numeracy skills of year 1 students and providing annual progress reports. I am not sure, but wouldn't these things be done as report cards that the parents get every year? Students are not clones, and we cannot expect them to blink in unison. The Turnbull government will tell you that its concern is about increasing the amount of funding going to the education portfolio and declining results being the outcome. As I said, a cookie cutter approach to education will not address this.
The next thing they will tell you is that schools need to be more accountable for how they spend allocated funding. Again, each school is different, with different needs. Labor's approach, using the Gonski reforms, recognises that if there has been a decline in results, over what time period? Are there any variables at play? Is it the fact that we have an increased number of assessments placed on students and there are different ways that those results can be interpreted?
The Turnbull government needs to stop playing politics with our schools. Let us have a serious discussion about education policy. Set out your concerns and let us debate and address them. Do not just attach money to them and expect kids to be able to, suddenly, perform the way you want them to. Do not use our kids' education as a campaign tool for buying off the communities. Our kids' education is too important for you, the government, to risk on a token funding gesture.
Let us go to one of my favourite hobby horses, and that is the National Broadband Network. Speaking of buying off communities, let us have a look at NBN or, as the government now calls it, the NTN—or, as the community calls it, Malcolm Turnbull's mess. Let us see what is going on there. They promised before the last election that all Australians would get NBN sooner, by 2016: promise broken. Twenty-five to 100 megs per second by the end of 2016: promise broken. Fifty to 100 megs per second for fixed line by 2019—we have not got to the first two stages, so the third stage is not going to happen, particularly if you are using second-hand copper.
Under Labor's NBN, the rollout in Sunbury would have been completed 11 months ago. We now learn the best that Sunbury can expect is 2017, and other towns will be even longer. They recently announced that two areas of Sunbury would receive the mess, and building has commenced with the expectation it will be completed by next year. But there is no word about the rest of Sunbury and the areas that are desperate—like Jacksons Hill, which has now been forgotten by this government.
Any further announcements before the election should be seen for what they are: empty promises in an attempt to buy off an electorate. What we do know is that, for the majority of areas across McEwen waiting for a fixed wireless service, these services take longer to deploy and will not be in operation until at least 2017.
Access to the NBN was supposed to be prioritised for those regional and remote areas that were not able to access similar broadband services to their metropolitan and suburban counterparts. That has been the experience that we have had in McEwen. The experience is that it is hard to talk with the government about the NBN or about internet quality and speed.
Many people at the moment are just desperate to get access to broadband. It is not uncommon for me to talk to locals who spend a lot of time having to go to McDonald's and other cafes with their children just so their kids can do their homework. I hear from parents telling me that their kids have left home before they are ready because they cannot study while living in regions like ours. I know of people who have lost jobs or have had to change jobs or move out of the area because they cannot access the internet for work. Some of these people are self-employed contractors and small business owners.
What a mess! It is Turnbull's mess, and he walked away from it when he became Prime Minister; he handed it over. He sees no problem with regional areas not being able to contribute to the knowledge economy or with limiting the digital literacy of kids in these areas compared to kids in metropolitan areas.
As much as McEwen needs broadband, we also need mobile phone reception. There are mobile phone blackspots in areas prone to bushfires and other natural disasters that need to be addressed. There are real communications needs in these communities that cannot be ignored. Buying off communities with token gestures seems to be in the Liberals' DNA. The Turnbull government says it supports the rollout of blackspot programs, but that has been shown to be nothing short of pork-barrelling at its finest. Perhaps they were disappointed with the former Liberal member for Indi's telling statement about the Liberals' campaign standard operating procedure. The secret is out. If you vote for a Liberal government they will still cut funding to health and education, but you might get a phone tower.
These are the things that we can talk about, and we can go through a lot of things—like road infrastructure, which was brought up by the previous member. Of course, our communities are well aware that this government, the Turnbull-Abbott government, has not invested any funds into roads in our region, and that has been compounded by the four years that we had to suffer under the Baillieu-Napthine governments when not one cent of road funding was invested in our community. People are a lot sharper than this mob opposite think they are, and they will not forget this at election time.
The karaoke cup fundraiser for the Crackin' Cancer Compassionate Fund was held at the Workers Club recently and was a great success. Over $23,000 was raised to financially help cancer in-patients at Lismore Base Hospital. There were over 800 people in attendance and it was a very good, fun night.
Well done to the contestants who included: Josh Dardengo and Corey Byrnes from Wal Murray at Alstonville; Elicia Mokodompt from the CBA; Chris Hayward from George and Fuhrmann, Bangalow; Kath Dower and David Sampson from Lismore base radiotherapy; Lisa Waugh from the Professionals in Lismore; Lyn Banks and Brittany Noble, from the Lismore hospital social workers; Josh Oliver from Ongmac Trading; Kris Liebke from the Lismore hospital chemo unit; Nancy Casson from Workforce Skills and Training; Janelle Pitman from Westpac Lismore; Georgia Mathews from Somerville Laundry Lomax; Tony Bazzana from WCA Chartered Accountants; Liam Bach and David Glendinning from Lismore hospital oncology; Jim Smith from Lismore Toyota; Aveley McCann and Crystal Suter from Thomas Noble & Russell; Natalie Van Der Klei from the Lismore hospital pharmacy; Eva Johnson and Phil Crick from Legal Aid New South Wales; Scout Symons and Kylie Baker from Summerland Credit Union; and Paul Rose from QBE Insurance. The night's winners were Eva and Phil, who put in a great rendition of Love ShackI think it was a Johnny Cash song, from memory—for the first one. There was the bravery and fun of two registered nurses from Lismore base, Kayla Firkin and Liz Parrington, who volunteered to be auctioned, and Summerland Credit Union was the successful bidder for these wonderful nurses. Very well done to the night's organisers—Patrick Fitz-Bugden, Mark Nash, Marshall Fittler and all of their team—for putting that event together.
Jack Leeson turns 10 in May. He is already an accomplished swimmer from Ulmarra Public School. He trains four mornings and two afternoons a week with coaches Jo Clare and Allan Patterson at the Grafton Pool. Earlier this year he was named Junior Boy Champion for the Ulmarra and Friends Carnival, the Small Schools Swimming Carnival in Grafton and the District PSSA Swimming Carnival. At the district event he broke records in the 200-metre individual medley, the 50-metre freestyle and the 50-metre backstroke. He then competed at the Mid North Coast PSSA Swimming Carnival in Coffs Harbour and the North Coast PSSA Swimming Carnival in Kempsey. Jack has also been competing in the New South Wales Speedo Sprint Series. At the Kempsey event he qualified to travel to Sydney, where he competed in all events, swimming a personal best in all disciplines that he competed in. He has broken nearly all his club's records this year. In his age category he now holds the records for the 50-metre freestyle, the 50-metre backstroke, the 50-metre butterfly, the 100-metre breaststroke, the 100-metre backstroke, the 100-metre butterfly and the 200-metre individual medley. Two of the records were previously held by the 1996-97 World Iron Man Champion, Nathan Meyer, and the 50-metre butterfly record was held by current club President David Moon. This record has stood for 43 years. Jack is certainly a star on the horizon, and I wish him every success.
I recently had the pleasure to hand out sporting champion awards in my local community. I would like to acknowledge Samuel Young for hockey. Sam for the first time represented Australia in a tour and test series against South Africa. Sam competed at the New South Wales under-18 boys state hockey championships in Sydney in May, and from that they picked a New South Wales schoolboys training squad. That squad then went into a week-long camp in June 2015 in Sydney. The New South Wales schoolboys team then travelled to Western Australia to compete in the School Sports Australia National Hockey Championships in August 2015.
Hugh Cameron represented Grafton in division 1 at the New South Wales State Open Men's Hockey Championships at Moorebank in June last year. He was selected as a shadow player for the New South Wales country team. After the national championships he was selected to play for the Australian men's under-21 country team.
Cody Ensby competed in campdrafting. This event is extremely prestigious. The ABCRA has thousands of members, but they take only the top 25 for the national titles. It is the Olympics of the campdrafting world. Congratulations, Cody.
James Bertalli currently holds a couple of Australian athletics records, in shotput and discus, for his classification. He hopes to one day represent Australia at the Olympics.
Elliott Speed successfully made the New South Wales under-13 indoor hockey team for the past two years. Selection for the New South Wales indoor team involved travelling to the Central Coast of New South Wales for three days to compete against other teams across New South Wales. There he attended training, once in December and once in January, prior to competing.
Jorden Elabbasi is in surf life saving. Jorden has competed in three competitions: the Country New South Wales Championships at South West Rocks, the Senior Branch Championships at Brunswick Heads and the New South Wales State Championships at Umina. Congratulations to Jorden.
Stephanie Hutton competed in the New South Wales rowing state championships. In an exciting progression, the team competed for the first time in the state championships, and Stephanie was entered in the individual, double and quad formats in the regatta. This regatta provides an outstanding opportunity for this crew from a small regional town to compete at the highest level within Australia. It is also very exciting for the coaches to see this young team ready to enter the higher standard of competition. Congratulations to Stephanie.
Alex Dahl, who is a third-year playing rep in netball, attended local carnivals in the lead-up to state age championships, which is a huge event where a lot of districts compete.
Jessica Roche is from the Evans Head Little Athletics Club and was selected to compete in the New South Wales state track and field championships in Sydney this year in the discus event. Jessica also competes in the shot put and has her eyes set on becoming a future Olympian.
James McPaul represented New South Wales athletics at the Australian Junior Youth Championships in Perth in March this year and has aspirations of gaining a place in the Australian under-20 relay team to compete overseas.
Ethan Mumford is a very talented 14-year-old rugby player who was chosen to represent the under-15 junior gold squad at the New South Wales junior gold competition in March this year in Armidale. He was selected previously for the Far North Coast and New South Wales Country rugby teams.
Jakira Tonielo was chosen to represent the North Coast Combined High Schools cricket team at the New South Wales Combined High Schools girls cricket championships in February this year in Bathurst. This is the third year Jakira has been selected in the team, and the championships are a stepping stone for future state selection.
Ella Cooke was selected to represent North East Tennis at the 2015 Queensland junior teams carnival in December last year in Brisbane. This was an invitation carnival and it was a great opportunity for Ella to compete against players she would not normally come up against in other tournaments.
Tom Brown, who has won this award before, has been selected to represent Hockey New South Wales at the Australian under-18 nationals in Tasmania in July this year. He was also selected this year in the Australian under-16 schoolboys hockey team to tour South Africa but has chosen to focus on the Australian nationals competition, with hopes of making the junior Australian team. Good luck, Tom!
Braden Nelson plays touch football and was selected to represent the Ballina Bull Sharks at the junior state cup in Port Macquarie this year. He plays in representative teams in rugby league and rugby union.
Mackenzie-Rose Cumming, with her pony, Moondancer, was selected to represent the New South Wales Pony Club at the Pony Club Queensland state equitation and showjumping championships, in the dressage section of the competition. Mackenzie has been in partnership with Moondancer since they were both five years old, and this was their first completion at state level.
Courtney Watt has been chosen to represent the Australian Clay Target Association (New South Wales) at the national trap championship. This sport is a tradition in her family, and Courtney is very excited to take part in the event in Wagga Wagga.
Gabby Venn plays netball and will represent Lismore and the district netball association at the New South Wales state age championships in Sydney in July. This is her third year playing representative netball.
I congratulate them all.
Kirstie Salgram, from Summerland Credit Union is off to Fiji in June to run a financial literacy program for the community there. She needed to raise $3,300 to help fund the program, which is run by the charitable foundation Credit Union Foundation Australia. Last week I joined about 10 other people in a 200-metre kayak race down the Wilson River in Lismore. Congratulations to all participants—Kirstie Salgram; the Lismore City Council general manager, Garry Murphy; Andrew Gordon; Darren Camidge; David Salgram; Stephanie Merk; Darren Foster; Adrian Salgram; and Brian, from Dawson Street Auto. Many people turned up to watch the event. Unfortunately, my kayak did not go as straight as I would have liked. Congratulations to Lyndal Norris, from Tursa, was the winner, and to Andrew Gordon— (Time expired)
This is one of the last remaining opportunities I will have to speak in this particular parliament in this chamber. In particular, I would like to talk about priorities for the Australian economy and my constituency in budget week 2016. The people living in my electorate of Holt in the south-eastern suburbs of Melbourne—in the great suburbs of Endeavour Hills, Doveton, Hallam, Hampton Park, Narre Warren, Lynbrook, Lyndhurst, Cranbourne and others—are looking for the budget to focus on the outer suburbs. They are looking for a greater sense of security and to benefit from new opportunities that a government should provide in a budget. They are looking for a budget that invests in creating jobs; that invests in health and education, particularly in the outer suburbs; and that invests in new social infrastructure.
In partnership with the City of Casey and others in the region, I lobbied the Australian government to provide $10 million for a $125 million project to build a brand new arts precinct and 800 seat regional theatre called Bunjil Place. Construction has begun, the cranes are in the air and, during the construction phase, 1,200 people will be employed to build this phenomenal new facility. Bunjil Place will not only comprise an 800-seat regional theatre but also include a regional art gallery and 300-seat function centre as well as a community library, meeting rooms and an activated community plaza. The great spirit of creativity, art and design will be on show for all to see. It is wonderful that this project is being built in the Westfield Fountain Gate precinct.
Budget 2016 will probably have additional funding to ease congestion—I think there has already been an announcement on that—on the Monash Freeway, but it is vital that we see additional funding for other road projects in the outer suburbs. As an example, the Andrews Victorian government's additional funding of the Thompsons Road project in Cranbourne is extremely welcome. Whilst I think that project funding was something in the order of $150 million, it still needs an overpass over the Western Port Freeway. That is something we will ask and have been asking this government to take care of or to look at in the budget. I look forward to reading about that announcement in the budget. I would be very disappointed if it were not in the Turnbull government's budget.
Budget 2016 also needs to address an area that is quite essential to the development and the continuation of the development of outer-suburban areas like Holt—that is, the faster rollout of the NBN to people living in the outer suburbs. The Prime Minister talks about the new, agile economy. The new, agile economy needs new, agile technology to plug into the information superhighway, but what we get at present are so many people and a lot of businesses contacting my office each and every day of the week complaining about broadband difficulties. It is essential, in the 21st century, that every home and business has access to high-quality broadband services.
There has been some criticism about the previous government and its rollout, but the previous Labor government would have rolled out, under the original NBN plans, fibre to the home to many places which have been simply discarded in this government's rollout. In Holt, nearly 10,000 homes in Cranbourne are connected to the NBN, but let us hope by 2020 that every home and business in Holt will be connected. We are certainly concerned, and we have raised these concerns on a bipartisan level, that this has not been rolled out to the outer suburbs of Melbourne, because it is quite essential. We look at some of the world-leading hi-tech companies basing themselves in the outer suburbs, and they still cannot access adequate speeds.
This is one of the things that we had looked at and addressed. The original plan had this sort of work spoking out from Cranbourne and Dandenong, which are epicentres of Telstra with the existing cable network. That work has, basically, stopped. There are some new estates. We have a situation where Westfield Fountain Gate has built another shopping centre because the growth is so great. We are going to have a catchment area of over 400,000 people. In the old days with the old Telstra, you would make sure that every house was connected to a telephone line. We cannot even guarantee that every house is going to be connected to a functioning broadband system they need, to deliver the services they have paid their taxes for. I think it is reprehensible. It treats people in the outer suburbs like they are second-class citizens. We have heard a lot about that, in recent debates, and it is just not satisfactory.
In a similar vein, last week I was joined by Senator Katy Gallagher, shadow minister for mental health; Simon Curtis, the Labor candidate for La Trobe; and Jennifer Yang, our outstanding Labor Senate candidate for Victoria, to visit headspace in Narre Warren as part of the funding discussion about mental health, which should be a budget priority. The headspace staff at Narre Warren provided an update on their service and the headspace YEPP program, and emphasized how important this service was for Casey's youth. Let me explain how important it is. In 2011-2012, we had what is known as a suicide cluster in the south-eastern suburbs of Melbourne. I do not want to go into the number of young people that took their own lives, and the concern and distress. Youth suicide is tragic in any set of circumstances; there is no other way to describe it. This was a substantially large number of people, there and in Albury.
It provoked national attention. Four Corners did a program on my area, which was called 'There is no 3G in Heaven.' It was an outstanding program. As a consequence of the lobbying efforts of young people, we had two headspaces created there—a headspace created and funded in Dandenong and a headspace in Narre Warren. The rollout of those headspaces and what we call the youth Early Psychosis Prevention and Intervention Centre, which sort of rolls over the top of headspace, has given young people in the region profoundly affected by a whole set of factors—family dislocation; drug and alcohol dependency issues—a place where they can feel safe to go.
What has really upset me, as someone who spearheaded the creation of those facilities, is that clearly, after the briefing that we have had from the great staff of headspace at Narre Warren and at the other Headspace YEPP service, those programs are not guaranteed. Even headspace will not be guaranteed. Since 2014, three lead agencies—we are about to find out who the next lead agency will be—have managed that headspace, and as a consequence of that they are losing trusted staff. If this Turnbull government is going to do anything, it has to guarantee, it must guarantee, providing services to our most vulnerable people—and our future is our young people.
It is also beyond my comprehension that the Turnbull government is cutting funding to the Youth Early Psychosis Program, the YEP program that I referred to at headspace Narre Warren. In 2016-17 there will be a 25 per cent budget cut to the YEP program, and in 2017-18 there will be a 70 per cent reduction to this program by the Turnbull government. How can we be talking about the future of the agile and innovative economy? This service is a world leading service. Headspace and this Youth Early Psychosis Program have been exported, almost, to places like Canada, to places like Europe. They are looking at our program, looking at the success rate and looking at how needed it is. This is the cradle where we invented this program, through the great work of Professor Pat McGorry, 2010 Australian of the Year, and others. There are over 100 headspaces around the country, a number of which have the Youth Early Psychosis Program rolled over them. How could you as a government, or as a parent, in all conscience blithely announce that funding of these programs is going to be cut and offer no guarantee for their future.
I have talked about infrastructure, I have talked about lots of things, but as a parent and someone who is concerned about what has happened in the area I believe that this Turnbull government has got to guarantee the future of headspaces, has got to guarantee the future of the Youth Early Psychosis Program, because, frankly, why would you be a government when you cannot even protect your people in the region?
When in opposition I spoke in this place about the stark contrast between the commitment to the development of policy that we were involved in and the policies of the then Labor government. We heard legendary stories of the opposite side writing up policy on drink coasters on VIP flights and asking members to come with butcher's paper and a pencil, the day before a sitting week. During my time in politics I have developed a strong perspective of the danger of political considerations when trying to build the best possible suite of policies to govern our country to the very best of our abilities. Many in this place would be dismissive of such a position that would approach our greatest challenges, our greatest mistakes of the past, without the baggage, the encumbrance, of considering any issue that impairs or corrupts the process of forging the best policy path to pursue. They wish to play a game called politics.
Government is a serious business and decisions made in this place impact on our health, our education, our housing, our national security, our quality of life and our prosperity. Has the game of politics impeded our capacity to effectively plan, to have the courage of vision and direction? Have we been reduced at every hurdle to opt for the short-term pleasure at the expense of forfeiting our long-term goals?
With no planning, settlement in Australia has a most extraordinary imbalance that sees an overly congested Melbourne and Sydney amongst the most expensive cities in the world and with no master planning of infrastructure or urban renewal and densification, restricting growth, productivity and competitiveness.
The Prime Minister has established the House Standing Committee on Infrastructure, Transport and Cities, which I am proud to chair and which has commenced an inquiry into the impact of infrastructure on land values and value capture as a way to sustainably fund infrastructure—a serious approach to master plan and master fund our infrastructure needs tied to the purpose of that infrastructure.
It is interesting to note that earlier today Anthony Albanese introduced a private member's bill to set up a high-speed rail authority and yet, when he was in government, he chose not to and also projected that such infrastructure would not be built for a very long time. At that time, he made no reference to the rebalancing of our settlement through regional development or value capture to fund this essential infrastructure. The key benefit of high-speed rail is not as an alternative to air travel between Sydney and Melbourne, although, as that is the third busiest air corridor in the world and CBD-to-CBD travel time by high-speed rail is comparable, this is a worthwhile aspiration. The key benefit, however, is the development of our regions and the rebalancing of our nation's settlement to take the pressure off the suburbs of Sydney and Melbourne. High-speed rail can create connectivity and build competitiveness for regional centres to flourish as genuine alternatives to Sydney and Melbourne. These new centres will provide affordable housing, career opportunities and facilities at significantly lower costs. Their growth will help rebalance our nation's settlement and economy and act as a pressure-release valve for our overly congested major cities, and, as quality housing can be bought at a fraction of the cost, there will ultimately be downward pressure on costs of living in the major cities.
My electorate of Bennelong possesses some of the most congested roads in New South Wales. Too little has been done for too long by governments at all levels to address this and continual densification will only worsen the problem. Australia's population is expected to reach 70 million by the end of this century. Major cities simply do not have the capacity to shoulder all of this growth. High-speed rail is the infrastructure that creates a sustainable national wealth, and it is this wealth creation that pays for the infrastructure. When you develop a rural village into a self-sufficient city, you facilitate a sharp rise in property prices, which leads to an increase in government revenues—capital gains taxes, stamp duties, land taxes and council rates. Every time a regional property is sold, subdivided, developed and sold again, the government receives an increased return. The uplift occurs immediately, as the announcement of the project leads to an instant speculation-driven increase in property values. Value capture removes the obstacles of up-front costs to government and instead allows us to ask the question: can we afford not to build high-speed rail? Our nation's growth is currently restricted by the capacity of our major cities. How can we lift that restriction if not by decentralisation and regional development through high-speed rail connectivity? It is time to take this opportunity to plan the growth of our new cities strategically located along this high-speed rail corridor.
This debate goes hand in hand with questions on housing policy and how we can create affordable housing for the next generation whilst protecting the most valuable asset of many Australians. This plan of strategic decentralisation will provide affordable housing supply for the indefinite future. Vital to this growth is a sustainable housing market. Negative gearing has been a key element of the property tax system, which at its best provides affordable rental accommodation. As with many policy areas, there may be minor policy improvements that can be made to this system, but Labor's irresponsible proposal to abolish access to negative gearing on existing homes will devastate the housing market. The lowest interest rates in our history have empowered investor behaviour, causing concerns for volatility in our housing market. This led the House Standing Committee on Economics, of which I was chair, to commence a parliamentary inquiry into homeownership in May 2015, which examined the proportion of investment housing relative to owner-occupied housing, the impact of current tax policy and opportunities for reform.
The inquiry has highlighted the extraordinary amount of wealth held by Australians in property and therefore the absolute need for any policy reforms to be implemented in a careful incremental manner to avoid causing any destabilisation to the market. Throughout this process I have stated my personal opinion that a new lever to incrementally adjust the rates of tax deductibility for new investors may be worthy of further consideration. Administered by the RBA in direct response to market conditions, this lever would maximise our ability to balance optimum owner-occupier access with an affordable rental market. I have spoken of this lever several times in this place and in public committee meetings over the past two years.
In this climate of low interest rates, negative gearing has given greater advantages to investors, but in recent months we have seen changes implemented by APRA to slow down investment lending. This has had the desired effect of increasing owner-occupier participation in the market. The positive impacts of these changes must be patiently observed as we receive further data from this market. The market is our largest asset class. Labor's promise to abolish tax incentives for investments in existing homes after 1 July 2017 is reckless policy. Investors currently account for around one-third of new lending for houses. Under the basic economic principles of supply and demand, Labor's policy will encourage these investors to withdraw from the existing housing market, removing overnight one-third of the foundation of the market. This will devastate existing home prices. And, as the vast majority of rental accommodation is in existing houses, this will impact supply and therefore directly increase rental rates.
This policy represents Labor in full flight with its most comprehensive policy ever. Nobody escapes. If you own your home, if you have invested in property or if you rent, you will pay. The property market requires a stable policy environment in which to operate. Any changes must be finely calibrated and implemented incrementally to avoid destabilising our nation's biggest asset class. Labor have shown an absolute lack of understanding of market economics, proving time and again the great threat they pose to our nation should they return to the Treasury benches.
The government I am proud to be a part of respects the deep consideration of our regulators and recognises the action taken by APRA has effectively addressed negative gearing issues that impact the housing market that have now seen investor appetite reduced and homebuyers again in the market. Our largest asset class must be treated with respect, maturity and consideration of the many factors at work. Labor's rashness and willingness to play politics on such an important issue demonstrates comprehensively that they are not fit to govern.
There being no further grievances, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
Federation Chamber adjourned at 18:38