I present the annual report for the 2015-16 of the Standing Committee on Appropriations and Administration.
Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).
I present the fifth report of the Petitions Committee for the 45th Parliament.
On behalf of the Standing Committee on Petitions, and in accordance with standing order 207, I present the following petitions:
One ministerial response to a petition previously presented to the House has been received as follows:
As this is the last presentation for the year, I take the opportunity to brief the House on the work of the Petitions Committee thus far. Since the commencement of the 45th Parliament, the Petitions Committee has held five meetings, considered 87 petitions, certified 32 e-petitions and 32 paper petitions as being in order, and certified 23 petitions as being out of order. The committee has taken time to deliberate over the content of some of the petitions at these meetings to ensure that they meet the requirements of the standing orders.
In my role as chair, I have presented 13 petitions and 21 ministerial responses that were certified in the 44th Parliament, and I have, on behalf of the committee, presented 16 e-petitions and 18 paper petitions, along with five ministerial responses.
The Petitions Committee is pleased to note that at this time there has been a good uptake of the e-petition system, with there being an equal number of e-petitions and paper petitions that have been found in order to this date. The committee is also pleased that the majority of petitions that the committee considers are in order, which is a good result for those who seek to petition the House.
The content of the petitions has been diverse with petitions from schoolchildren concerned about the price paid to dairy farmers for their milk, and communities concerned about the lack of mobile phone coverage, or the protection of local environments. Communities have banded together to petition the House on topics close to them such as the provision of an integrated cancer centre in a regional hospital.
The Petitions Committee has been very busy so far this parliament and I am sure that, in 2017, the committee will continue to be busy assisting concerned members of the Australian community on how to petition the House. I thank the Speaker.
On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Migration, I wish to make a statement concerning the committee's inquiry into migrant settlement outcomes. I rise to inform the House that the Joint Standing Committee on Migration has commenced an inquiry into migrant settlement outcomes. This inquiry has been jointly referred by the Minister for Social Services and the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection.
I have spoken many times in this place of my concerns in my electorate about the rise in crime committed by gangs of young migrants. It is timely that reasons behind this trend are examined, to put a stop to the crimes that are occurring and to prevent young migrants from being caught up into these gangs in the future.
I encourage all members who have these issues arising in their communities to publicise the inquiry and to encourage individuals and service providers to make a submission. The inquiry will examine issues that lead to migrant youth becoming involved in youth gangs and issues arising from social marginalisation and disengagement. This is not just for young people but for their whole families.
The inquiry will consider the availability of settlement services and whether these services are effectively promoting good settlement outcomes for migrants. The increase in crimes committed by migrants in my electorate and in Victoria would suggest that more needs to be done in this regard. This is an issue that the inquiry will look into closely.
The committee has been asked to consider national and international best practice strategies for improving migrant settlement outcomes. In a globalised world our migration mix is increasingly diverse and we must be aware of and open to new approaches for managing settlement services to achieve the best outcomes for migrants and the Australian community as a whole. The inquiry will also consider whether the Migration Act character test is a useful mechanism for responding to migrant crime and whether in its current form it is an adequate deterrent. Finally, the inquiry will examine whether current migration application and vetting processes adequately assess an applicant's migrant settlement prospects and whether English language ability impacts on a migrant's settlement outcome.
The committee will travel through Australia next year to listen to the stories in our community and to learn about what is and what is not working with our migration settlement services. The committee hopes to hear from a wide range of groups: migrant communities, providers of settlement services, law enforcement agencies, English language education providers and the wider Australian community. The more groups and individuals we hear from, the more likely it is that the committee will develop a strong understanding of the issues at play and prepare clear recommendations that will assist in addressing the issues currently emerging in electorates like mine right around the country. I would also like to thank the member for Bonner, who is also a committee member.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
To be absolutely clear, and I think I can speak for the member for Melbourne, who is seconding this Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry (Amendment) (Tagging Live-stock) Bill 2016: I—we—oppose the live animal export trade in the strongest possible terms. It is clearly systemically cruel; it is clearly not in Australia's economic self-interest, in the way that it has taken thousands of jobs; and it is unpopular, as evidenced by a number of opinion polls which show strong public support for shutting the trade down.
In essence, this government's policy and the policy of the alternative government, are bad policies. This shows a very worrying failure of governance in this country, that we would allow—and in fact, this government encourages—an industry and a trade which is so wrong in so many ways, ethically and economically.
Now, the government—and the alternative government—say to people like me and the member for Melbourne that there is nothing to worry about here; that, since the introduction of the Export Supply Chain Assurance System, or ESCAS, all is well; that now the trade is very well regulated; that we know where Australian livestock are going; and that we know that they are going through a supply chain of acceptable standards. But the reality is that ESCAS does not work.
We know it does not work, because we are still seeing expose after expose of cruelty to Australian livestock in other countries. Only a month or so ago we saw the shocking revelations out of the Middle East and Malaysia during the Festival of Sacrifice. We saw in that footage Australian sheep in particular being handled in the most dreadful way, in a way that no reasonable person—a person with any heart—could approve of. But what is the response? Next to nothing, at least in this place. In fact, it is very interesting that no exporter has yet been prosecuted for the mistreatment of Australian livestock, even though this government and the alternative government would say that all is well, and they keep coming back to ESCAS: 'ESCAS has fixed it.' Well, it has not fixed it. It has not fixed it in a number of ways.
It is interesting that ESCAS—and I have gone to the department's own material here—is based on four principles: animal welfare, control through the supply chain, traceability through the supply chain, and independent audit. But the problem is that you cannot achieve any of those principles when exported animals cannot be properly identified.
That now goes to the essence of this bill: the need to properly identify all livestock that are exported to other countries. I will just quickly read a summary of the situation with tagging as it now stands. In regard to cattle, all Australian cattle are required to have electronic ear tags as part of the National Livestock Identification System, which is a scheme run by the state and territory governments. The tags are required to be read when the beast leaves a farm and throughout the supply chain until it reaches the port, but—and this is the crucial bit—there is no requirement for the tag to be read after the animal leaves Australia. The beast is simply marked as 'exported' after it gets on the boat, and no further information is collected.
The situation is even worse with sheep and goats. They are currently only required to have a plastic ear tag bearing the property identification code of the property where they came from—in other words, a tag showing a property number—and each individual animal is not identified. We have seen, time and time again when there is an expose, particularly in the Middle East, where many of our sheep go, that the tags have been ripped off, so they cannot identify even what farm that animal came from, and hence they cannot identify which exporter was responsible for sending that sheep to that market.
With other livestock—and people might be interested to know that we export a lot of camels and a lot of goats—generally, under state and territory law, all livestock that leave a property must be plastic tagged, like the sheep, with the property identification code, and the transfer must be registered in some way with the relevant state or territory authority. However, as with sheep and goats, there is no requirement that the tags be able to individually identify the animal, and, as with all exported livestock including cattle, there is no electronic traceability of the animal after it is exported.
In other words, it is all well and good for the government to say that ESCAS has solved all of the problems, but it has not. It has not for a number of reasons. Probably the most significant reason—other than perhaps a failure of political leadership to address this issue more broadly—that ESCAS has not solved the problem is that our current tagging arrangements are completely and utterly unsatisfactory. We have cattle, as I read there, that are electronically tagged, but there is no legal requirement for those tags to be read after the animals leave Australia. And sheep, goats and camels are not even required to be electronically tagged.
This bill will remedy that. I hold out some hope that the government, the alternative government and the industry will at least give some measure of support to this bill.
This bill remedies things because it would require all livestock exported to be fitted with an electronic identification tag of the kind approved by the secretary of the department. And the data from that tag is to be collected and recorded at each stage during the live export process, including when the beasts—and sheep, goats and camels—are taken off the vessel in a foreign port, when perhaps they are transferred to a feedlot, when perhaps they are transferred to a market for sale and when perhaps they are transferred to an abattoir or a slaughterhouse.
In other words, we will know, if this is done right—and it can be done right—where every single animal is at any point in time and exactly who is responsible for that animal. That alone will go some considerable way to forcing the industry to clean up its act. There will be no more ripping off plastic tags and suddenly a sheep's identity is lost. There will be no more not using the electronic tag overseas. We will know exactly where every Australian-sourced animal is, who is responsible for it and, by implication, who is responsible for any mistreatment.
I am doing what I am doing today at the behest of a number of people in the industry—people who see the risks to their industry. They see that there are real problems with the industry and that unless they clean up their act—unless they can be seen to be acting more ethically and unless they can be seen to be minimising, at least, the cruelty to Australian livestock—they know that their industry is on notice.
I, for one, will continue to do everything I can to see the industry shut down. People might see a contradiction in what I am trying to do here—in some ways I am trying to help the industry to be put on a more sustainable footing. I suppose what I am doing, ultimately, is saying that I will keep fighting to wind up the live animal export trade. But until we get a government that has a strong sense of integrity, until we get a government that has a clear understanding of the public interest and the national self-interest and until we get a government that is prepared to show a bit of strength and do what the public wants—shut this industry down—then let's at least do what we can in the interim to ensure that all livestock exported from this country are properly identified. I think that will go some way to ensuring that animals are better treated throughout the supply chain.
And then, and only then, the government will be able to stand up and say that ESCAS actually means something—that the ESCAS principles of animal welfare mean something, that the principle of control through the supply chain means something and that traceability through the supply chain means something. An independent audit: how can you even audit ESCAS when we do not know where our livestock are, who is responsible for them or where they are going? We cannot audit it. So, at the moment, until there is proper electronic tagging of all Australian livestock exported overseas that will be completely hollow, and just theatre.
I notice that the Victorian government, to its credit, has just introduced—or is in the process of introducing—electronic tagging for sheep and goats born in Victoria from 1 January 2017. So, good on the Victorian government!
Hear, hear!
Thank you, member for Indi. Again, how predictable and how upsetting it is to see our own Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Agriculture condemn the Victorian government.
Mr Speaker, I thank you for your time and I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The people who collect our trolleys at Coles and Woolworths, and those who flip our burgers at Hungry Jack's or McDonald's or who fry the chicken at KFC are getting paid less than the legal minimum. They certainly have been for a number of years, and this needs to be fixed.
There is a loophole in the Fair Work Act that says if you are on an enterprise agreement you cannot be paid less than the legal minimum in the award, but that provision only applies to your nine-to-five working hours on Monday to Friday. The protection does not apply to people who work on weekends or at nights and, as a result, hundreds of thousands of workers—mostly young workers—who are getting paid very low wages have been underpaid by these very large corporations over many years because of substandard deals that have been approved in the Fair Work Commission. On one estimate today these young people are being underpaid a million dollars a day. A million dollars a day is going to Coles, Woolworths, Hungry Jack's, KFC and McDonald's instead of being paid to those people who are working late at nights and during weekends. This Fair Work Amendment (Pay Protection) Bill 2016 will fix it, because every 18- or 19-year-old who is out there doing a job in a fast-food restaurant or supermarket should be paid the legal minimum. They know that without being paid the legal minimum it is hard to make ends meet, and I think that every parent who has a child working at one of these institutions would be horrified to know that they are not getting paid the minimum award rate.
Australia is not America, and that is a good thing, because in Australia we believe that people who spend their time working deserve a minimum wage, and minimum rights and conditions. We believe that having a job should not come at any cost—that there is a limit to what can be traded away. And we believe that, no matter where in you live in Australia, you deserve the same minimum wage, rights and conditions at work.
That is why we have national employment standards set out and protected by national legislation. Here in Australia we have a proud history of a strong labour union movement that exists to protect people's rights at work. The labour movement has fought to secure the weekend and an eight-hour working day, and they have ensured those working outside of these hours are fairly compensated through higher pay rates. We have unions who, time after time, have rallied together and fought the conservatives' attempts to cut the conditions that Australian workers deserve, and that step up when conservative governments try to tip the balance against ordinary working people.
I have spent my working life proudly standing up for workers and their unions, and I am proud to be part of a party that always puts people's rights at work ahead of big business interests. The Greens always have and always will protect people's rights at work. But what is clear is that our system has failed some of our lowest-paid workers in Australia. In our fast food companies and supermarket giants, workplace agreements have been struck that leave workers, some of our lowest-paid workers, worse off.
Thanks to a small number of dedicated individuals, it has been revealed that at some of Australia's largest businesses—Coles and Woolworths, McDonald's, Hungry Jack's and KFC—workers have been underpaid hundreds of millions of dollars a year. The deal struck with Coles saw the company paying night and weekend penalty rates lower than the award, leaving many workers out of pocket overall, with estimates that the underpayment is worth between $70 million to $100 million a year.
Woolworths, Australia's largest employer, has an almost identical agreement to Coles, suggesting many of its workers have also been underpaid. McDonald's workers are even worse off. It is likely that hundreds of thousands of workers have been underpaid at McDonald's. In 2013, McDonald's negotiated an agreement with the SDA under which some McDonald's employees are paid nearly one-third less than the award. McDonald's workers seem to be out of pocket by at least $50 million a year, including some young workers who earn just shy of $10 an hour.
Fairfax Media estimates that Woolies, Hungry Jack's and KFC together have short-changed workers by about a billion dollars over five years. As part of its investigation, Fairfax Media spoke to a young woman, Brigid Forrester, who until recently worked up to four shifts a week at a McDonald's store in Perth, including Sunday evenings from 4 pm to 10 pm, and she was not paid penalty rates. One 19-year-old in South Australia was paid $19,000 for their year's work at McDonald's when they should have received $25,000 under the award.
These are not corporations that are short of a quid. Last year, Woolworths had $58 billion in sales and Coles food and liquor sales alone brought in $32.6 billion. In 2013, McDonald's was estimated to have a turnover of $4 billion. At a very minimum these companies can afford to pay the basic legal minimum wage set out in the award to people working late at night or on weekends.
I think that most people in this country would be shocked to know that the people sitting behind the counter at these large corporations, which are meant to be regulated by federal law and where there are meant to be people looking after their interests, can be paid less than the award.
Mr Falinski interjecting—
I can hear the government member interjecting, saying this is outrageous. It is not surprising that they would say that. The government side of politics has taken donations from these corporations. So have the Labor Party. But I am hoping that in this parliament, instead of interjecting and saying, as the government members seem to be saying, that it is okay for 18- or 19-year-olds to get less than the award, that this will be a wake-up call for this parliament—that this bill can get consensus across the parliament to close this loophole. As I said, we have a provision in the act that says agreements cannot go below the award for the ordinary 38 hours. Let's extend that to cover night-time work and weekend work as well.
I want to acknowledge a number of people who have uncovered this scandal which is going on in some of our biggest employers. Josh Cullinan, in his spare time, has personally investigated and compiled evidence of this gross underpayment of employees. His work should be acknowledged. As should the reporters Ben Schneiders, Royce Millar, Nick Toscano and other members of the Fairfax Media team for their incredible work in further investigating and exposing these underpayments. I also want to acknowledge the workers who are working for these companies Duncan Hart, Penny Vickers and Michael Johnstone, who have taken it upon themselves to fight for their rights at work, and the rights of tens of thousands of their colleagues. And there is Siobhan Kelly, a lawyer who successfully ran the appeal case against Coles with Duncan and Josh, against teams of lawyers.
When this parliament sees wrongdoing by unscrupulous employers, we should stand up to it. When this parliament sees young workers working around the clock and getting paid less than the legal minimum set out in our legislation we should do something about. The Greens will. We have brought a bill to this parliament. When Fairfax Media, Four Corners and Michael Fraser revealed the rampant worker exploitation at 7-Eleven, we brought that to parliament too. We had those cases heard in front of a Senate inquiry and we have legislation in front of parliament to fix that.
It comes down to a fundamental point, one that I think everyone here should be able to agree with: an 18 year-old working nights at McDonald's should not be getting paid less than the legal minimum wage set out in the award. Otherwise, what are awards for? Why do we have federal legislation setting out minimum wages and conditions if someone is able to undercut it? They should not be able to undercut it. That is what a legal minimum is. If the law allows deals to be done that underpay our lowest-paid workers, then the law needs to be fixed.
This bill will close that loophole in our national employment laws that unscrupulous big business employers have exploited to strike deals with organisations like the SDA that result in some of our low-paid workers being drastically underpaid. It provides a simple yet important reform. It extends protections for employees covered by an enterprise agreement to require employers to pay a base rate of pay, full rate of pay and any casual loading that is no less than the relevant award or national minimum wage order. This amendment will apply to existing agreements and to those that are yet to come into effect.
I would ask everyone here in this place—every member of parliament—to ask themselves this: if their 17-, 18- or 19-year-old daughter went off to work at one of these large institutions, would they like them to be paid less than the minimum award rate of pay? Do they think it is fair that their son or daughter could be paid less than the minimum award? If they do not think that is fair then it is not fair for everyone else who relies on these awards to make ends meet. We should fix it, we have the capacity to fix it and that is why I commend this bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Today I am introducing the Air Services Amendment Bill 2016 because communities around the country that are affected by aircraft noise are not being represented and are not being protected. The rules that govern flight paths and community consultation are written for businesses and operators, not for the communities that live with aircraft noise every day.
This bill comes on the back of several years of my constituents working within the current law to seek a solution to issues of aircraft noise in Melbourne. In this time, I have spoken in this place about the experience of my constituents, and tabled a petition in parliament signed by hundreds of residents. I and my office have joined residents in meetings with representatives of various federal agencies, airports and aircraft operators. My colleague, the Greens Senator for Victoria Janet Rice, has further raised the issue in Senate estimates and other fora. And I know that Senator Rice and others have been doing similar work with communities affected by aircraft noise around the country.
What is clear, after this protracted process that has taken place over many years, is that the law needs to change. Legislation is required to change and clarify the responsibilities of federal agencies so that when it comes to aircraft noise, communities have a voice.
In introducing this bill I would like to inform the House about the problems faced by some of my constituents in Melbourne. Some aspects of the air noise issue my constituents face are specific to Melbourne and reflective of the growing pressures on the liveability of our city. But beyond the specific circumstances, the experiences of my constituents are deeply illustrative of the problems faced by communities around the country, and will find parallels in the experiences of the constituents of many of my fellow parliamentarians.
I was first in contact with residents of the suburb of East Melbourne in my electorate regarding aircraft noise in 2013. At that time, residents told me that they had noticed a significant increase in small aircraft, such as helicopters and fixed wing aircraft, flying at low altitude over the suburb. The observations of residents were borne out by official flight path data, which showed that small aircraft commonly circle in the airspace above these suburbs. In one weekend over 200 flights took place over the suburb, and I understand that the number of small aircraft flights over residential areas has been increasing over time—many, maybe looking at the MCG or the city, not essential flights by any means and, certainly, not flights designed to avoid disruption to residents.
For those who do not know the area of Melbourne and East Melbourne, it adjoins the CBD and it adjoins the MCG, and increasingly over many years operators have decided to fly fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters at low levels over these suburbs. Subsequently, it appears that the flight paths of larger aircraft may also have been altered, resulting in an increase in air noise from these flights over the suburb. I have been contacted by residents in other neighbourhoods, including Fitzroy, Richmond and Kensington, who have also noticed an increase in air traffic. Meanwhile, residents in Docklands experience high-frequency, extremely loud flights near to residential buildings—often from helicopter traffic.
It became clear as we tried to get to the bottom of this and how to deal with it that the buck stopped with nobody. In seeking a review of the situation from federal agencies, my constituents were sent from door to door, and told repeatedly that no response was possible. Airservices Australia is the government organisation established to provide services to the aviation industry, and residents are encouraged to contact it to raise concerns. But nowhere in the legislation governing Airservices Australia is there a requirement that it considers or minimises the impact of aircraft noise on the human and natural environment, community amenity and residential areas.
Repeatedly, residents in my electorate were told that the airspace above their homes was 'uncontrolled'. That is to say that neither air traffic control nor federal regulations applied to this airspace. Airservices Australia and CASA do have responsibility for planning and controlling flight paths, but are only empowered to do so with a view towards safety, efficiency for the industry or broader environmental issues. The legislation is silent when it comes to the responsibility to minimise the impact of flights on the human and natural environment, community amenity and residential areas. Because federal agencies are not required to protect community amenity or residential areas, airspace over residential areas is, if considered safe to fly in, not monitored or controlled. This means that small aircraft can fly almost at will at relatively low levels over suburbs, causing great distress and annoyance to residents.
In uncontrolled airspace like this, the only option available to communities is to seek voluntary agreements from aircraft operators. But this relies on goodwill. My constituents have written to hundreds of aircraft operators but have received very few responses. Supported by the advocacy of residents, the City of Melbourne—the council—has worked to create a so-called Fly Neighbourly Agreement, to raise the concerns of residents with aircraft operators and seek an agreement to establish voluntary guidelines. This process is ongoing, and I acknowledge the important work of resident groups and the City of Melbourne, and of our Greens councillors Rohan Leppert and Cathy Oke in pushing this process forward.
Nonetheless, when the law makes no federal agency responsible for protecting the community, the power is very much with the operators and the businesses rather than with the residents when seeking voluntary agreements. When I and my constituents repeatedly requested simple noise monitoring of aircraft over East Melbourne, just to establish a clear picture of the scale of the problem, we were told that this would be impossible because the airspace is not controlled. How is it that we can have high-intensity air traffic occurring over homes and impacting residents, but the federal agencies that exist to monitor and control air noise are not even able to record noise levels, let alone take any action to address them?
Meanwhile, consultation mechanisms have been flawed. Too often residents are simply unaware of changes to flight paths above their homes until they find out because of the significant increase in noise they hear daily once the changes have already happened. How can there be genuine consultation on aircraft noise when residents are not even informed until it is too late?
It is a key principle that in our cities and regions, residents should have a meaningful say in the decisions that have an impact on their community. But when it comes to flight paths, this is currently not the case. I fear that if this continues, we are putting at risk the liveability of our cities that we value so highly. This bill is addressing a problem that is emblematic to all of us who want more people to live in the inner city. We have to manage the pressures that come along with that. It is time for a change, to truly give communities a voice and independent support. For this reason I am pleased to introduce this bill.
The bill will do a number of things. First, it will enshrine in law new requirements for consultation with communities and give residents stronger independent representation when consulted. Under the bill, Airservices Australia must inform residents affected by changes to flight paths and, crucially, involve them in the process of environmental assessments with the amenity of residents considered. When a flight path change is proposed, Airservices Australia will be required to inform the minister responsible for the EPBC Act, who in turn is to appoint a Community Aviation Advocate to represent the affected parts of the community. The Community Aviation Advocate is to be completely independent of Airservices Australia.
Second, it will establish in legislation an Aircraft Noise Ombudsman, independent of Airservices Australia. This will offer important oversight and make recommendations to relevant agencies and ministers.
Third, it will amend the role of Airservices Australia in legislation to include a requirement to minimise the impact of aircraft operations on the human and natural environment, community amenity and residential areas. This broadens the responsibility of Airservices Australia in monitoring and controlling airspace and I believe will place a requirement on Airservices Australia to consider airspace over residential areas that it currently does not.
Fourth, the bill will require that the Airservices Australia board include an expert in environmental management and a representative of a community group affected by aircraft noise.
Fifth, in response to the specific and acute circumstances of high-intensity flights of small aircraft in uncontrolled airspace over Melbourne, the bill will prohibit flights of helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft below 2,000 metres above sea level within five kilometres of central Melbourne, with clear exemptions in the public interest of emergency services, defence and other like aircraft.
This bill includes several aspects of a previous private member's bill, introduced in 2011 by the then member for Pearce, the Hon. Judi Moylan MP. I would like to acknowledge the former member for her work on this issue. The 2011 bill was supported, with amendments, by the coalition parties at that time, and I voted in favour of it. However, ultimately the bill was narrowly defeated in the House by one vote. Since that time the ongoing gaps in community representation in controlling the impacts of air traffic have remained.
This bill would give Melbourne similar rules to that of Paris when it comes to small aircraft flying over the city and over residential areas, and, of course, it will not affect any flights taken in connection with hospitals, emergency services, defence or other aircraft.
It is time for action on behalf of communities affected by aircraft noise. As such I commend this bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
This Migration Amendment (Putting Local Workers First) Bill 2016 is about three things: jobs, jobs and jobs. Right now, over 700,000 of our fellow Australians cannot find a job—not even one hour of paid work each week.
More than a million Australians regularly record that they would like more hours of work and more security at work, but they cannot find it. Eight-hundred thousand members of our society are on a disability support pension. This government prefers to criticise and demonise them rather than support them into work.
In our regions, in our country towns and in the suburbs, Australians have been locked out of employment—denied the dignity of work, the security of a decent income and the opportunity to better themselves. This parliament should be working to change that, not with hollow displays of empathy or empty talk of agility but with action. It is why I am asking the parliament to support Labor's plan to put local workers first.
Skills and capacities from overseas will always be a necessary part of our modern, globalised open economy. Currently, I think Australians would be surprised to know there are more than a million visa holders in this country that have some form of work rights. Big parts of our temporary work visa system are being used and abused by dodgy labour-hire firms and unscrupulous employers. These operators are ripping off guest workers, using them as cheap labour to avoid Australian laws, to avoid paying Australian wages and to avoid meeting Australian standards, and, in turn, giving these guests to our country a terrible experience to report on when they return home.
The power of the employer to exploit visa holders is often absolute. We have seen it at Pizza Hut, 7-Eleven and now Caltex. These are not just dodgy subcontractors or backyard outfits; they are multibillion-dollar multinational companies paying people less than half the minimum wage, relying upon pyramid subcontracting and legal artifice and dodge to avoid paying their proper obligations. We all saw the appalling footage just last week of a staff member at 7-Eleven being taken over to the store ATM and made to withdraw money so they could hand back cash to their boss. This is not an oversight or an exception, it is a business model.
No-one wins from this. The vast majority of good employers—businesses doing the right thing—are put at a disadvantage. Australia's international reputation suffers and the wages of all working people are undercut. As someone who has spent their life representing Australians who go to work every day, I will not stand for this. As a party brought forth dedicated to the proposition of a fair day's wage for a fair day's work, we will not stand for this. As an alternative government that believes in a fair go all round, we are proposing action to deal with it.
I am proud that when I was Minister for Workplace Relations we toughened up Australia's 457 visas laws so that employers were required to look locally first. The now Prime Minister, the now Minister for Immigration and Border Protection and the now Treasurer all voted against Labor's sensible changes—they voted against better market testing and more controls in opposition, and they are doing nothing about it in government. It staggers me to hear the discredited Deputy Prime Minister championing these practices in the regions. When youth unemployment is 13 per cent in Townsville, 18 per cent in Armidale and 27 per cent in Cairns it is no wonder that the Nationals are becoming notorious as the sellouts of the bush.
It is no wonder farmers are furious with the mess that the Nats have made of the backpacker tax. It is no wonder the Deputy Prime Minister's personal, erratic intervention has thrown the Murray-Darling Basin agreement into disarray and has enraged his colleagues from the Prime Minister down. It is no wonder that the beleaguered Attorney-General openly debated whether there is any value in being paired with the National Party. What else do we expect from the Deputy Prime Minister—the only man in Australian politics who doctors the Hansard and ends up looking worse!
During the mining boom there were pockets in Australia, including places like Canberra, where unemployment was hovering around four per cent. But the world has changed. The economy has changed since then and our policies need to change with it. When full-time unemployment is on the rise we need to go further. But under the Liberals, the average number of 457 visas granted for cooks each year has more than doubled. Visa grants have increased for bricklayers, carpenters and cafe managers. These 457s are legitimately meant to fill a gap—to bring in specially skilled workers to do jobs an Australian could not do. Instead, we see Australians missing out on jobs, including electricians, motor mechanics, cabinet-makers and joiners. And, at the same time, apprenticeship places have fallen by 130,000.
On this side of the House we know that temporary work visas are not the long-term answer to a national skills shortage. We need a national training agenda. We need to invest in Australians in TAFE-training skills and apprenticeships. And we should not be discouraging our people from learning a trade or from getting a qualification by sending the message that employers can just bring in someone else willing to do the job for less.
This legislation is about supporting the Australian wages system, upholding our standards and creating Australian jobs. It sets more rigorous evidence requirements for labour market testing for firms to use 457 visas; a mandatory requirement for jobs to be advertised for a minimum of four weeks; a requirement for labour market testing to occur no more than four months before the nomination of the visa worker position; a ban on job ads that target only overseas workers or specified visa class holders to the detriment of locals; and a crackdown on job ads that set unrealistic requirements for vacant positions and are specifically designed to exclude locals.
If employers genuinely need a 457 visa holder for their business they should have to provide evidence information to prove it. We simply ask employers to show the need for a nominated occupation and to prove that none of these positions can be filled by Australians. Employers will be required to document their recruitment efforts, including the wage rates the job was advertised at and any relocation assistance offered to Australian workers.
Today, I am asking the parliament to support a new Australian jobs test. The Australian jobs test would mean that before the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection approves any labour market agreement they would need: to consider whether the agreement supports or creates Australian jobs; a labour market needs statement provided by the employer demonstrating why they need to use the temporary skilled migration; a training plan adopted by the employer showing how they will improve the skills of local workers; whether the visa workers will be able to transfer skills to Australian workers; and the employer's plan to support 457 visa workers during their stay in Australia, including information about workplace entitlements and community services. The Australian jobs test would apply for the life of the agreement. It would be an additional safeguard to labour market testing, not a substitute for it.
The quality of Australian work and the safety in Australian workplaces is a first-order priority for the Labor Party and, indeed, for the labour movement. This legislation raises the standards of 457 visa workers in occupations where it is mandatory for Australians to hold a licence, registration or membership. For example, in trades such as the electrical or plumbing occupations, where workers must hold state and territory occupational licences, our new system would simply require visa applicants in these occupations who hold a passport from a nominated country either to hold the relevant licence when they apply for the visa or to undertake a mandatory skills assessment to demonstrate that they can meet the standards, professionalism and safety required to obtain the licence. These standards must be met before the minister grants the visa.
The new visa conditions spelt out in this legislation would require 457 visa holders in licensed occupations not to perform the occupation before obtaining a licence, or to obtain the licence within 60 days of arriving in Australia; not to engage in any working consistent with the licence or its conditions; and to notify the department proactively of any changes to their licence.
I understand that it is not traditional for an opposition to put forward concrete legislation like this so early in the term of a government, but someone has to do it! It might be easy for us to sit back and complain, to try to garner a dividend from the government's inadequacy. This issue is too important for that. People doing it tough should not have to wait three years for this parliament to wake up and to hear their concerns to act. It is a chance for our parliament to do its job.
This government cannot have it both ways; it cannot complain about Labor raising these issues and also try to undermine Labor for raising these issues in trying to stand up for Australian standards. We recognise that guest workers are part of the Australian economy but we also recognise that the parliament should focus on making sure that we give our own unemployed and our own underemployed the best possible chance and the best start in life. Unlike the government, who come to this issue belatedly, in the Labor Party we know where we stand and we mean what we say. We are proud of our globalised economy but we are also proud of having policies which say that you buy Australian, you build Australian and you employ Australian. I commend this bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I am pleased to present a bill for an act to amend the Charter of Budget Honesty Act 1998. This bill is to be known as the Charter of Budget Honesty Amendment (Regional Australia Statements) Bill 2016.
The bill calls on the government, when formulating policy, to ensure that regional impact statements are prepared and accompany every budget and Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook report.
This amendment bill gives voice to those who live in regional Australia and it goes to the very heart of regional living and its relationship with the government and its fiscal policy.
In regional Australia, government initiatives often have a disproportionate impact on communities. This is due to distance, to lack of infrastructure, to low population density and to the time and cost involved in delivering services.
This is clearly evident with patchy and nonexistent mobile phone coverage or internet connections and in communities with little or no access to public transport which are limited by their day-to-day ability to participate.
The purpose of this bill is to call for regional Australia statements to provide information to allow the assessment of the impact of government policy decisions on regional Australia to be understood and communicated—communicated by and with the government, by and with departments, by and with stakeholders and by and with advocacy groups—with communities, with individuals and, importantly with the MPs who represent them.
This bill calls on the Treasurer to authorise these statements because the Treasurer is the architect of the budget, and it is surely a principle of good government that the Treasurer be responsible for both the reporting and the impact of his budget decisions—especially the impact, from my perspective, on those of us who live in rural and regional Australia.
The bill calls for much more detail than what is provided in the current rural and regional ministerial statements. While these statements can be useful, the current practice is to describe new and old programs. This amendment calls for providing regional Australia statements that provide information to allow the assessment of the impact of major government policy decisions. So, it calls for data, statistics, trends, analysis, statements, evidence of modelling and a demonstration that the government has truly appreciated the impact of its fiscal policies on those of us who live outside the cities.
With the adoption of this amendment, people who live in regional Australia in communities of Indi such as Wodonga, Wangaratta, Benalla and Alexandra can be confident and reassured that their needs have been taken into account in the creation of the government's fiscal policies.
The intention of the b ill
The intention of the bill is to ensure that people who live in regional Australia can have full confidence that the government really does understand the circumstances relevant to our lives and has taken these into account when making decisions.
Intended results of the legislation are that it improves knowledge and understanding of the impact of fiscal and budgetary measures upon the community; that, as a result of greater information and understanding, there is more confidence and trust in government and in government's ability and willingness to govern for all Australians; and that, with greater trust and confidence, there will be increased participation in our democracy and a willingness to take on leadership positions necessary to advocate for this great nation of ours, particularly leadership in rural and regional Australia and particularly leadership by those groups of us who so often suffer the unintended consequences of poor government understanding of our lives.
The major elements of the bill are as follows.
Item 1 proposes an obligation upon the Treasurer to publicly release and table regional impact statements with each budget and MYEFO.
Item 2 inserts a new part 5A—Regional Australia statements.
Section 19B outlines the purpose of regional Australia statements, this being to provide information to allow the assessment of the impact of government decisions on regional Australia.
Section 19C details the contents of the statements, including the likely economic, social, cultural and environmental impacts on regional Australia of key government initiatives. Specifically, it requires coverage of:
… the likely impacts on regional Australia of key Government initiatives, or significant changes to such initiatives, announced:
(i) since the last mid-year economic and fiscal outlook report was released; or
(ii) in connection with the budget; and
(b) progress made … in implementing key Government initiatives that are likely to have an impact on regional Australia.
It calls for regional Australia statements to be prepared having regard to the following:
(a) the economic, social, cultural and environmental impacts of Government initiatives;
(b) the economic drivers of regional communities;
(c) the disproportionate effect that Government initiatives may have in regional communities due to a lack of infrastructure, including:
(i) mobile phone coverage; and
(ii) reliable internet connections; and
(iii) access to public transport;
(d) the lack of access that people living in regional communities have to government services due to cost, and long travel distances and times;
(e) the effect that lack of competition in regional communities has on:
(i) the cost of living and doing business in regional communities; and
(ii) the cost and difficulty involved in complying with regulatory requirements for people and businesses in regional—
Australia.
Section 19D allows for the Treasurer to request government bodies to provide information to help in the preparation of regional Australia statements.
Why is this important? I acknowledge the presence in the chamber of the minister particularly responsible for aged care, which covers an important part of regional Australia—a vital service. What I have to say is that there are so many services that we provide in rural and regional Australia, but we do it differently to those who live in the city. But our experience is that much of government policy is one size fits all, and it is city centric. So, in our provision of child care, in aged care, in higher education, in health services and in infrastructure, what we know is that the unintended consequences frequently cause communities and the volunteers in those communities extra work, extra time and huge cost. But what we also know is that there is a fear that the government is not governing for us.
While I do not actually believe that, I do know that facts fight fears. So we call on the government to give us the facts. Show us how, in the implementation of fiscal policy, you have taken into account the circumstances in rural and regional Australia; you understand our particular positions; and you are governing for all of us. That is what we are asking for through these impact statements.
Call to action
In conclusion, I call on the government to acknowledge the impact that government decisions have on regional Australian communities and that this information is then provided to relevant parties. I call on the government to support this bill, as it demonstrates all the principles of good governance by promoting transparency and accountability. It will bring increased trust in a system of government, with the knowledge particularly by people in rural and regional Australia that their best interests are being considered, and I believe it will truly encourage people to participate at a much higher level in democracy.
So I call on the government to commit to this bill, to bring it up for consideration, to bring it up for a vote and to adopt it.
I commend this bill to the House.
Is the motion seconded?
I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting.
I move:
That this House
(1) notes that:
(a) 1 December marks World AIDS Day, which is held every year to raise awareness about the issues concerning HIV and AIDS, and is a day for people to show their support for people living with HIV and to commemorate people who have died; and
(b) the theme for World AIDS Day this year is 'HIV is still here—and it's on the move';
(2) acknowledges the roles played by people living with HIV and their friends, family, supporters, AIDS activists and researchers, past and present, in making living with HIV possible; and
(3) will support actions to reduce stigma and prevent new HIV transmissions, and work towards a cure.
The 1st of December marks World AIDS Day. It is held every year to raise awareness of the issues in relation to HIV and AIDS. It is a day for people to show their support for those living with HIV and also to remember those who have died. It is always important to acknowledge that there have been many, many terrible tragedies across decades from those who have died from this terrible disease and to acknowledge all of those people and their families in anticipation of World AIDS Day.
The theme for this year is 'HIV is still here, and it's on the move', because the prevalence of HIV and AIDS is something that is continuing to be a really important problem for our society both here in Australia and internationally. I think that, given the amount of time that has elapsed since HIV and AIDS first came to the nation's attention and since the campaigns of the 1980s, sometimes it is possible for us to forget just how significant and how ongoing this crisis is in Australia and across the world. The Australian Federation of AIDS Organisations advises that, by the end of 2015, 36.7 million people across the world were estimated to be living with HIV, with 46 per cent of them being on life-saving antiretroviral treatment, which certainly would not have been the case a long time ago.
In 2015, there were 2.1 million people who became newly infected with HIV, down from 3.1 million in 2000; 17 million had access to HIV treatments, up from 7.5 million in 2010 and 15 million in 2014; and 1.1 million people died of AIDS-related causes in that year, a fall of 43 per cent in annual deaths since 2003. These are encouraging statistics, but the number of people affected is still too high. It is worth noting, given some of the conceptions about this particular disease, that adolescent girls and young women aged 15-24 accounted for 20 per cent of new infections among adults globally in 2015, although they comprise only 11 per cent of the population. This is a very multifaceted challenge for the world to face and, here in Australia, it is something that we continue to face together.
I wanted to acknowledge and pay tribute to the Australian Federation of AIDS Organisations and to thank Darryl O'Donnell, who joined the federation from ACON earlier this year. That organisation is a federation of AIDS organisations. The AIDS organisations in this country have been doing such a fantastic job of not just cutting down the stigma around HIV and AIDS but also making sure that people have access to life-saving medication like the retroviral medication I mentioned earlier. I know that, most importantly, they are looking for ways to prevent people from contracting the disease in the future. They are looking at ways we can make medicine for people with HIV and AIDS something that is a feature of the past—if we could get rid of AIDS like we have with polio, for example, what a wonderful world it would be.
One important measure in the fight for prevention of HIV and AIDS is pre-exposure prophylaxis, and I know that everyone in this House and in the other place will join me in encouraging the government to continue to work towards listing PrEP on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. It is really important that, where we can help with prevention of the contraction of HIV, we do seek to help with prevention of the contraction of HIV. It is something that I know many, many people will be campaigning for.
My friend Phil Carswell, who I mentioned in, I think, last year's World AIDS Day motion or possibly the year before, is a founding member of the Victorian AIDS Council. He recently travelled to Canberra—a little bit later than he had anticipated doing so—to give a speech about the history of AIDS activism and responses to HIV and AIDS in this country since those fairly notorious grim reaper ads of the 1980s. I particularly want to pay tribute to him. He is not as young as he once was—and he will not mind me saying that—but is continuing to work very hard in the campaign to assist in breaking down stigma, to ensure that people get the treatment they need and to build on the efforts towards prevention, which are so important.
I also have a range of wonderful organisations in my home state of Queensland. For example, I recently had the benefit of, alongside Tanya Plibersek, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, visiting the Queensland AIDS Council, and I wanted to thank them. They did an amazing job at the pride fair this year of putting a lot of information out and reaching out to people—those with HIV and without HIV—in relation to this terrible disease, and I thank them for their work as well.
Is the motion seconded?
I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
The first World AIDS Day was back in 1988, and it was 1984 when I first turned up as a first-year medical student and the world was grappling with this new viral infection of which we knew very little. It was, at that time, HTLV-1 and -2, and we could not really see where this was going to head. But here we are, 30 years later, with 35 million people living with HIV, and about the same number having passed away due to HIV since the first cases were recorded.
Back in the eighties, there was great uncertainty and incredible fear. There was First World HIV and there was developing world HIV, and for some time we almost thought that they were completely different conditions, until we better understood the pathophysiology. Then, when I was an eye surgeon, in 1996, one of my major jobs in a major Sydney hospital was to treat CMV retinopathy, which was almost exclusively, at that time, due to HIV. So, as a medical student, I saw that this exploding area of HIV, then known as AIDS, was going to become a major job for clinicians of my generation. And it is only now—since, as we once said, we 'scienced the heck out of it'—that we can finally say that most people will live with and not die from AIDS. And that has been an incredible scientific and technological achievement.
Of course, the numbers are still very stark if you go to sub-Saharan Africa, where two-thirds of the world's cases still exist, and the great challenge there is to get people on treatment. So I do commend the 90-90-90 goals that have been set as part of World AIDS Day, and those are that: we know about at least 90 per cent of all infections; 90 per cent of those we know about are able to access ART, the appropriate therapy; and, for those on therapy, 90 per cent carry zero or near-zero low viral loads. Now, 90-90-90 sounds really good, until you do the multiplication and find what that really means is that only 72 per cent of people living with HIV are actually appropriately treated under ART. So it is still a very, very distant goal, particularly in parts of remote and sub-Saharan Africa.
To improve that, we have done things in different parts of the world. The most important things, I think, were major deals done, driven by Jeffrey Sachs, Michael Kremer and others out of Harvard, to set up a global fund, first of all, to provide a pull mechanism to fund the cures, but then—as it became pretty obvious that the cures were there and we simply needed to strike agreements—to make sure that these expensive drugs were available in countries where HIV was endemic. And, while we saw some potential risks—that these drugs, sold for one price in a developed economy, and provided virtually for free by beneficent pharmaceutical manufacturers, created some tensions where some of these products could be siphoned away and sold on the black market—that ended up being an incredibly minor challenge, compared to the overwhelming benefit of making sure that these drugs were available.
Closer to home, right here in Australia, we have seen an absolute focus on approving these drugs as soon as they have been appropriately assessed by international agencies and then by the TGA. We took away, as a government, the CD4 count requirement which said that, until you had a particular blood test result, you could not access the treatment. We realised that that was just delaying treatment. And what this is about is early identification and treatment.
The last national HIV strategy is coming to its conclusion, and we are talking about where we go from here. So, to remind ourselves of those facts: there were still, around the world, 2.1 million new cases last year, and 150,000 of those were children; and we know that the number of people receiving ART has gone up from 7½ million to closer to 17 million in the last 10 years, but that is still only halfway to where we would like to be.
But, most importantly, we have worked really hard on maternal to child transmission. Around the world, there are 1.8 million children who have HIV through no fault other than they were born to a parent who was a carrier of HIV. In Australia, we have seen that number fall precipitously. Around the world we have now seen a halving, since 2010, of maternal to child transmission, and that in itself is a major victory because, when you talk about maternal to child transmission, you are talking about someone living for the full period of their life carrying this disease, which is an incredible burden.
In closing, this is a victory of science and technology. Never had the world got together, I do not think, save for forms of influenza and epidemics, to be so singularly focused on finding a cure, and, for a decade, there was very, very little hope that that would be possible, and it injected huge amounts of community fear, uncertainty, stigma and discrimination. Thankfully, we are past that. Thankfully, now, we have got these numbers down. I think, without being too self congratulatory, developed economies found solutions for developing economies, like we have often failed to do in other areas. So, on World AIDS Day, I salute every clinician and researcher involved in that victory.
I rise to support the motion from my friend the member for Griffith, acknowledging that this week we will hold, on Thursday, World AIDS Day, and the theme this year is: HIV is still here and it is on the move. World AIDS Day has been held every year since 1988. More than 36 million people around the world are living with HIV.
The first recorded case of HIV AIDS in Australia was in Sydney in October 1982, and the first Australian death from AIDS occurred in July 1983. Between 1984 and mid-1985, there was a 540 per cent increase in HIV infections. And there was no cure. Labor health minister Neal Blewett, with the support of the then opposition, deserves incredible praise for embarking on a world-leading, pioneering and brave campaign to promote a safe-sex message. A television advertisement showing the Grim Reaper knocking people down like pins in a bowling alley was first screened on 5 April 1987 and kicked off efforts to provide the public with reliable information on preventing HIV and AIDS.
The success of the campaign can be judged by the reduction in the rate of infections. New diagnoses of HIV—according to the Australian Federation of Aids Organisations, based in my electorate in Newtown—have stabilised at just over 1,000 per year in the last three years. HIV diagnosis among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders, however, has been increasing over the last five years. Ninety per cent of people living with HIV are men.
The stabilisation follows a concerted effort to increase the scope and regularity of HIV testing. The key is awareness. Pre-exposure prophylaxis has revolutionised HIV prevention. Through its use—along with rapid HIV testing, treatment as prevention, condoms and lube, and supportive attitudes and laws—the situation in Australia has stabilised. What is more, highly effective treatment for those with HIV means that deaths in Australia are now rare.
Unfortunately, people are still dying, including my dear friend and the first out MP in Australia, Paul O'Grady, who passed away in recent times after a very long illness. When he contracted HIV he resigned from the New South Wales parliament because he was not expected to live very much longer. He of course lived for decades longer as a result of the effort of science in prolonging people's lives and providing that treatment.
Internationally, there remains a massive challenge. In our region of the Asia-Pacific, 180,000 cases of AIDS and 1.2 million cases of HIV are reported each year. The Australian government has committed $220 million over three years towards the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. This fund operates in 120 countries and is estimated to have saved 20 million lives since 2002. Australia should play a leading role in our region in tackling HIV, and this of course should be a bipartisan effort.
I want to today pay tribute to those people who in the early years had the courage to come out and say that they were HIV positive, sometimes attracting criticism and very personal derision as a result of the courageous stance that they took. Many of those people are no longer around. But, as a result of that many—hundreds of thousands—of lives here in Australia have been saved. The courage and vision that the former Labor government showed—and also it must be said the fact that the opposition of the time was prepared to support that leadership from Neal Blewett has made a real difference in our society. It is another reason why we need to be open about these issues, how we need to as a community do whatever we can to ensure that in future years we do not actually have a theme of 'HIV is still here and it is on the move'; but that we can celebrate that HIV is in the past.
It is a privilege to follow both the member for Griffith and the member for Grayndler on this important matter. I rise to speak in support of the member for Griffith's motion on World AIDS Day, which is Thursday of this week, a health issue which has wide-reaching impacts across all of our constituencies.
World AIDS Day is a good opportunity to both reflect on the significant progress we have made in fighting AIDS in our community, and to reaffirm our commitment to the challenges ahead. Certainly, developments in treating HIV have been a public health triumph. From the first Australian AIDS death in 1983 until the present day, where living with HIV is no longer a death sentence but is managed as a chronic disease, Australia has been at the front line of treatment.
Over the last 30 years the development of retrovirals, combined in this country with our world-class universal health care system, Medicare, and our Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme have meant the vast majority of Australians with HIV have been able to access the health care they need to ensure they will not go on to develop AIDS. We have also led the world internationally in trying to make sure that these retrovirals are available in developing countries.
We are at a stage where most people who now contract HIV in this country will be able to successfully manage their condition and remain relatively healthy for the rest of their lives. And advancements in treatment are continuing. One factor which will play a significant role in the fight against HIV is pre-exposure prophylaxis medicine, PrEP, which experts have called a 'game changer'. Trials of PrEP have shown it is highly effective at stopping the transmission of HIV, and that it will play an important part in supporting Australia to reach the goal of virtually eliminating HIV transmissions by 2020. I commend the number of state governments who are trialling PrEP and making PrEP available. We hope that it will eventually be available on the pharmaceutical benefits schedule.
But, while we mark the progress we have made in fighting HIV/AIDS in Australia, more than ever we cannot afford to be complacent. According to the most recent statistics, there are approximately 27,150 people living with HIV in Australia. It is estimated that 12 per cent of these people are unaware of their HIV positive status. While the rate of notifications per 100 people diagnosed and living with HIV has declined by 25 per cent in the past ten years in Australia, progress has flat-lined over the past three years. Significantly, the HIV diagnosis rate in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people has increased in the past five years.
We cannot afford any sign of complacency. Many Australians are of the impression that the great success we have had in dramatically reducing the numbers of Australians with HIV means that HIV-AIDS was no longer the threat it had once been. This is simply not the case. Australians must continue to be made aware that HIV remains a very serious threat and that the transmission of HIV can only be halted by safe sex practices and through harm minimisation with intravenous drug users. We still need to work very significantly with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities as a population to get the rates down there and we are working on the evidence for that.
As well as awareness of how at-risk groups can minimise their risk of acquisition, we must also promote awareness of how to support individuals living with, or affected by, HIV/AIDS. Confronting discrimination and promoting acceptance should be an essential part of community conversations about HIV/AIDS. Challenging the stigma around the disease is a critical part of promoting awareness and making sure people not only feel empowered to tackle the disease if they are infected, but to take steps to protect themselves from transmission in the first place.
Finally, I would like to acknowledge the work of researchers, AIDS activists, friends, family and supporters, as well as people living with HIV, in building a community in which HIV is now a disease people can live with. We know it has been the community working on prevention, hand in hand with government, community organisations and HIV-infected people, that has underpinned the success here in Australia, and that must continue to be the case. Again, I am always disappointed that we have seen many of the HIV-AIDS organisations defunded under this government. I would caution very strongly that the government, if it is going to continue to get infection rates down, needs to continue to engage with the sector. That funding needs to be restored or they need to work with the community to see how they can continue the very important services they provide today.
I support the motion moved by the member for Griffith. Acquired immune deficiency syndrome, or AIDS, has been called 'the epidemic of our time'. Since first being recognised in 1984, more than 35 million people have died from AIDS or HIV. It is one of the most destructive pandemics in world history. Since the first diagnosis of AIDS in Australia, in 1984, there have been more than 36,000 people diagnosed as HIV positive in Australia. It is estimated that more than 25,000 Australians are currently living with HIV. However, with the combination therapies now available, it is not the challenge that it once was.
AIDS initially appeared in the early 1980s as a trickle of cases and posed a dilemma for health workers, who did not understand it. By the mid-1980s the public was worked into a hysterical state. In Queensland, under the then Premier, Joh Bjelke-Petersen, the hysteria was arguably even worse. Recently released Queensland cabinet minutes from 1985 reveal the depth of misinformation and hatred for the LGBTIQ community at the time. Queensland's then welfare, youth and ethnic affairs minister, Geoff Muntz, said:
As a parent, I would have strong reservations about letting young people compete in a pool that was used for such a sick event as a gay swimming carnival.
Although the then Queensland health minister, Brian Austin, argued in cabinet to rescind the ban on condom-vending machines in Queensland, the Bjelke-Petersen cabinet rejected his arguments and the ban remained, notwithstanding the fact that the World Health Organization had recommended that the ban be lifted. Homosexual activity was a criminal offence in Queensland at the time under Bjelke-Petersen. It was not until 1990 and the first Labor government to be elected in Queensland for 32 years, with the great Wayne Goss as Premier, that homosexuality laws in Queensland were overturned. But in the 1980s police were regularly raiding venues in Brisbane and charging people for engaging in consensual homosexual acts.
With such an unenlightened government in Queensland in the 1980s, the community remained ill informed about AIDS, which promoted fear and encouraged discrimination towards the LGBTIQ community. The grim reaper advertising campaign contributed to that hysteria without providing any information about the disease itself. Although the larger community campaign was devoid of detail, targeted campaigns were being rolled out to the LGBTIQ community with much more detail and practical advice on how to stay safe. The larger community was further gripped with fear when several babies in Queensland died after receiving infected blood. The AIDS epidemic then became real to all Australians, not just the LGBTIQ community. Although Australia quickly set up screening procedures to ensure that blood transfusions were safe, the fear created by these infections quickly turned into anger. That anger, sadly, was directed at the LGBTIQ community, who were blamed for putting babies at risk. Adam Carr from the Victorian AIDS Action Committee delivered a speech at a public meeting in December 1984, just as the media was latching onto the story of the babies being infected. This is part of that speech:
Unscrupulous politicians, extreme right wing fringe groups, powerful religious bigots and a sensation-hungry media will combine to exploit public fear and to channel ignorance into bigotry and the search for a scapegoat, and we have no guarantee that even the most liberal-minded of governments will be able to resist this kind of pressure for long.
That was 32 years ago. I can relate to the frustration Adam Carr felt at the time.
Sadly, while the issues are different, the fear and division being inflamed by some politicians and elements in the media are the same today as they were in 1984. HIV is no longer the death sentence it was considered to be in the early 1980s. In Australia, more than 80 per cent of people living with HIV have access to antiretroviral treatment. Of these people, 92 per cent have an undetectable viral load. The targets set by the United Nations are that, by 2020, 90 per cent of people living with HIV will know their status, 90 per cent of people diagnosed with HIV will be receiving treatment and 90 per cent of people on treatment will have suppressed viral loads. We cannot be complacent about HIV and AIDS, but we have significantly improved the outlook for those living with it. We must keep up the awareness campaign to highlight the importance of safe sex.
World AIDS Day is an important part of this. Although by far the highest rate of transmission of HIV is through male homosexual activity, I stress that it can be transmitted by both homosexual and heterosexual activity. World AIDS Day is also a show of support for those in the community living with HIV, their friends and families and the many activists and researchers who have worked tirelessly to make it possible to live with HIV. I mention in particular the Bobby Goldsmith Foundation. It has been around since the 1980s. In fact, my brother was collecting for the foundation nearly 20 years ago when he met his partner, Michael—and they are still together.
HIV is still here and it is on the move. This is, of course, the theme of this Thursday's World AIDS Day and it goes to the heart of this very important motion the member for Griffith has put before the House, which I am pleased to speak in support of. I was also very pleased to be in the chamber for the contribution of my friend the member for Moreton, who spoke very effectively and passionately about the challenges of overcoming discrimination, which has been at the heart of our successes as a country in overcoming many of the challenges posed by HIV/AIDS. I was also here for the contribution by the shadow minister for health, the member for Ballarat, who touched on the progress and cautioned about complacency, which I think really goes to the heart of where we sit today in Australia as well as looking more broadly to the challenges in the developing world posed by the continuing prevalence of HIV.
In this motion, there are a couple of elements that deserve to be drawn out. First is the question of awareness raising, noting that this is a very important week where we show our support for work that has been done and for people. We acknowledge that 36 million people have died around the world of complications relating to HIV and that there are a similar number today, tens of millions, who are living with HIV. We show our solidarity for all of those people and our support for them. We also acknowledge the extraordinary advances that have taken place—advances in treatment but also advances in public health and wider public policymaking. It is important that all of us in this debate touch upon the extraordinary contribution of then health minister Neal Blewett and, indeed, to acknowledge the bipartisanship that was shown at that time when this issue first came into Australian political life and the critical importance of that bold and entirely appropriate response. But, in acknowledging those actions and the advantages in treatment, there is a challenge that comes with it, and that challenge really comes to visibility because, of course, HIV still exists in Australia as it does in parts of the developing world, particularly Sub-Saharan Africa.
As well as HIV still existing, it is disappointing and disturbing but we have to face up to the fact that so do some of the stigmas, which the member for Moreton touched upon, going back to the eighties and nineties—some of them still persist. That is why this motion in this place is so important. That is why a bipartisan support of World AIDS Day is so important.
The member for Ballarat, again, said that there could be no room for complacency when we debate these issues. She dwelt on a couple of really important matters: firstly, that there are a very large number of Australia's who are unaware that they have HIV today; and, secondly, that rates are flatlining and increasing when it comes to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community. This is not over as a public health problem, and we need to continue with our efforts when it comes to our work in treatments and our work in education, particularly around safe sex and some of the drug availability questions and, as other speakers have touched upon, PrEP. These continue to be very important, if we are to not only reach our goals of ending transmission worldwide by 2020 but also enable all Australians presently living with HIV to live full lives and participate fully in society.
This motion importantly acknowledges the roles played by people living with HIV and their friends. I think it is important to stress in this place the courage shown by many people at times when it was difficult to do so. It was their courage that created the impetus for effective political and public policy action that has been so successful in Australia. I also acknowledge, as previous speakers have done, the work of researchers and some of the advocacy bodies. I join other speakers in expressing my concern about the defunding of some advocacy organisations at a juncture when there is no time for complacency. I also join the call at the end of this resolution that this House will support actions to reduce stigma, prevent new transmissions and work towards a cure.
As we come towards World AIDS Day, I show my support with members of this House and other places to enable all Australians with HIV to live full lives. I join colleagues in making a statement not only in solidarity for all those who have past and all those living with HIV but also to take every action I can against further transmission. I commend the motion to the House.
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 House
(1) notes that:
(a) from 21 to 28 of October the Minister for Veterans' Affairs undertook a veterans mission to Korea; and
(b) eight veterans joined the Minister to tour battlefields and attend commemorations, including Mr Gordon Hughes DSM, Mr Graham Connor, Mr Les Hall, Mr Jack Lang, Mr John Murphy, Lieutenant Commander Les Powell RAN (Retd.), Colonel Peter Scott DSO (Retd.), and Mr Ray Seaver;
(2) acknowledges that:
(a) this year marks the 65th anniversaries of the Battle of Maryang San and the Battle of Kapyong;
(b) the Battle of Maryang San took place on 3 October when the 3rd Battalion, The Royal Australian Regiment, as part of the 28th British Commonwealth Infantry Brigade, took part in Operation Commando, which included the capture of Hill 317, where 20 Australians were killed and 89 wounded—noted as the most significant Australian action of the Korean War;
(c) in the Battle of Kapyong on 22 to 25 April 1951, the 27th British Commonwealth Infantry Brigade, including the 3rd Battalion, The Royal Australian Regiment, was instrumental in stalling the Chinese advance on Seoul, with 32 Australians being killed, 59 wounded and 3 taken prisoner;
(d) more than 17,000 Australians served in the Korean War and the post armistice period, with more than 1,200 wounded; and
(e) the names of 356 Australians killed in Korea are listed on the Australian War Memorial Roll of Honour; and
(3) notes:
(a) that although it has been called the 'forgotten war' in Australia, Korea and its people are still grateful for the significant contribution the Australian forces made in the defence of a free Republic of Korea; and
(b) the service and sacrifice of those who fought in the Korean War.
Australia has a long and rich military history. Many Australians are familiar with the Boer War, World War I, World War II, Vietnam and more recently the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Australians have great pride in those who have served to defend our country, our values and our interests abroad, and we honour the memory of those who have made the ultimate sacrifice every year on Anzac Day. But, sadly, our remembrance is often unequal and, while some of our wars are seared into the minds and imaginations of Australians, some are not—I think of the movie Gallipoli which has done so much to popularise World War I in the Australian memory. Who can forget young Archie forging his documents and gluing on a fake moustache so he could enlist? And who can forget that final scene of Archie sprinting towards a young death as fast as a leopard on that battlefield?
More recently, a favourite film amongst diggers these days is The Odd Angry Shot, which captures the bluff irreverence of the Aussie diggers in Vietnam. Who can forget the mateship at the heart of that film? Sadly, we have no such popular memory of the Korean War and no movies that have really captured the spirit of that conflict. We have a beautiful memorial on the western side of Anzac Parade but, if you ask most Australians, they are not familiar with the war. It is too often called the forgotten war.
The Korean War saw the service of 17,000 Australians, with 1,200 wounded and 356 who lost their lives. We have a duty to better understand the experience of these men and women who served in one of the 20th century's greatest conflicts. Our involvement in that war, so soon after the Second World War, was largely due to our burgeoning alliance with the United States. It was that growing relationship which led the Minister for External Affairs in the Menzies government, Percy Spender, to push for Australian involvement in the Korean War as he believed that a strong show of support for the US would help formalise an alliance with the United States. That alliance, of course, found its fullest expression in the ANZUS Treaty, which was signed in September 1951. That treaty, for more than 65 years, has established the contours of our closest security relationship with one of the world's oldest democracies. And it is still the United States with its vast navy that underwrites world security and guarantees Australia's lines of trade and communication.
The Korean War was significant in several respects: firstly, it halted the advance of communism at the 38th parallel, protecting many South Koreans from the brutality of communism; and, secondly, it formalised our security relationship with the United States. It has echoes today even in this parliament. The member for Dunkley made mention of this in his maiden speech only a few months ago:
Without our Korean War veterans, my wife, Grace, and daughter, Yasmin, would not be here. Grace was from South Korea, migrating to Australia with her family at three. Her dad's family only just made it across from the North Korean side, and they have not seen their relatives in North Korea since. The communists killed her mum's grandparents by throwing them alive into a well.
Our Korean War veterans helped many people in ways that are unseen and unheard. The member for Dunkley's testimony reminds us that Australian acts of sacrifice on far-flung battlefields—although forgotten and sometimes unreported—can make a huge difference in the lives of people.
I am therefore pleased to note the recent Korean War veterans' mission to Korea. Last month the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Dan Tehan, accompanied eight servicemen of the Korean War to that country: Mr Gordon Hughes DSM, Mr Graham Connor, Mr Les Hall, Mr Jack Lang, Mr John Murphy, Lieutenant Commander Les Powell RAN (Ret'd), Colonel Peter Scott DSO (Ret'd) and Mr Ray Seaver. Together they toured battlefields, cemeteries and memorials and participated in commemorative services. One of those men, Mr Jack Lang, is a constituent of my electorate. He lives in the small town of Coolup, central to Canning and a place well known for its green pastures, friendly general store—the only store—and horses. Today I want to share with you some of Jack's experience of the Korean conflict.
Jack was born in Harvey WA in 1931 and left school before he turned 14. Within a few years he had a good job at the Bullfinch mine. One day he and his mates were enjoying a beer at the pub when an Army recruiter pulled up outside. It seemed like a pretty good idea at the time, so Jack signed up. Being 17 he was underage, so he gave the recruiter his aunt's name, Olsen, as his own.
Jack hoped to be a bricklayer upon enlistment but, following basic training, found himself listed as 'general duties'. This meant, as he put it, 'They gave us a bloody tin hat, a pair of boots and a rifle and said, "Righto, you're off to Japan!"' A rifleman of 67th Battalion C Company 9th Platoon, Jack spent his first year of service as part of the British Commonwealth Occupation Force in Japan. The 67th Battalion was planning to return to Australia until the United Nations called for the defence of South Korea from communist invasion. As part of the BCOF Jack was among the first Australians on Korean soil in September 1950.
The BCOF landed in Pusan on the southern tip of Korea and pushed north with initial success. At the Battle of Kujin, Jack's battalion—by this stage renamed 3rd Battalion Royal Australian Regiment, 'Old faithful', with the motto 'duty first'—had to scale a blown-up bridge on makeshift ladders. Jack remembers this engagement was particularly bad with 'bullets flying everywhere and ricocheting of the bridge. I don't know how we got up there; but we had to keep going because we were exposed and all bottled up'. His good mate Bluey Wilkinson died in that action. Bluey was among the war's first Australian casualties.
The physical conditions of Korea were formidable. Jack remembers terrible freezing cold and rough terrain, the 'mountains upon mountains' in which they fought. Being ill-equipped for such conditions, Jack recalls how the Australians would steal heavy winter gear from the Americans, who eventually gave up and just started giving it to them. Under such conditions, the UN forces pushed North Korea to the brink of defeat. It was only the intervention of over half a million Chinese troops that forced the UN withdrawal. The 3rd Battalion, along with other British units, took part in extensive rearguard actions while the UN forces made their retreat. Jack never saw the 3rd Battalion's most famous battles at Kapyong and Maryang San. Kapyong, of course, is significant because the 3RAR halted a Chinese division in a desperate defensive battle to protect the approaches to the capital of Seoul. 3RAR were honoured for their valour over the course of several days with the US Presidential Citation.
Jack missed Kapyong because, in January 1951, he took cover behind a tank that exploded. This caused permanent damage to his hearing and after several months in hospital he was ruled unfit for the infantry. Jack was discharged and back in Australia by 1952. He returned to find most people had no idea of the war he had just come from. Old friends would ask where he had been, where Korea was and what he had been doing there. It was easy to wonder what it had all been for.
When asked what future generations should to learn from the Korean War, Jack said, 'People must understand that if you are going to have peace you have got to pay a hell of a price for it.' It reminds me of the RSL's motto fixed to many RSLs around this country: 'Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.' I am reminded of Ernest Hemingway, who I quoted in my maiden speech:
I have seen much war in my lifetime and I hate it profoundly. But there are worse things than war, and all of them come with defeat.
Jack describes travelling to Korea last month as part of the delegation as an honour—a good reminder that what he did over there was worth it. He says it felt good to be thanked by ordinary South Koreans who understand it was the service of men like him that protected them from the yoke of communism. To use his words, 'They were really thankful. It makes it worth it, that you have got someone who appreciates what you have done. It means a lot that the boys did not die for nothing.'
To Jack Lang and all who served in the Korean War, we say: thank you. We will remember your sacrifice for our nation, for its values, and for the people of Korea. And it is upon us to tell your story and to keep that story alive.
Is the motion seconded?
I second the motion. We have just heard from the member for Canning and I commend him for putting this motion forward. I had the great honour of joining the magnificent eight on that trip to Korea last month for the 65th commemorations of Kapyong and Maryang San. It was a great honour to join those extraordinary men. I spoke at length about them last week. For their years they are still incredibly resilient and still incredibly fit. They have very healthy appetites and very healthy drinking appetites and they were wonderful company. Like the member for Canning, I do want to honour them today: Graham Connor 1RAR, Les Hall 1RAR, Gordon 'Taffy' Hughes HMAS Sydney, Jack Lang 3RAR, John Murphy 3RAR, Les Powell 3RAR from the ACT, Peter Scott DSO 3RAR and Ray Seaver 77 Squadron.
As the member has said, the Korean War is a forgotten war, in many ways, for Australians. They do not understand what actually happened there. We had 18,000 Australians serve up there and we lost, tragically, 340 Australians during that war. Four million people died through the course of that war from right round the region as well. So it is a significant war and is, tragically, forgotten here. That is why I welcome this opportunity to discuss this motion. We do need to keep the contribution that Australians made to the effort in Korea alive. We need to keep having conversations on this because they made a significant contribution. It is one that lingers to this day and is one that is greatly appreciated by the Korean people.
I will talk about that at the end of my speech. But because I did not get a chance to do so in my speech last week I do want to take this opportunity to congratulate DVA on the commemorative visit for the 65th anniversaries of those two significant battles. I want to thank Squadron Leader Chris Gilbert, who was the doctor there, and Jane Gallagher and Julie Howard, who were the nurses there who were up at 4 am and in bed at midnight. They were up tending to these vets, looking after them and making sure that they were fit and ready to take on the day. They were just tireless and incredibly dedicated and incredibly patient. Those women deserve a medal. They are extraordinary. I also want to thank our embassy in Korea for its contribution, particularly the charge, Ravi Kewalran, as well as the defence attache, Captain Vaughn Rixon CSC. I also thank the Federation Guard, who, as always, put on a sterling effort in their performances at the many commemorative events that we had at the Busan cemetery, Kapyong and Maryang San. They were outstanding, as always. I also want to thank the young men from 3RAR who were there. As I said in my speech last week, they told me that they were there for their good looks, but I do wonder how they got a gig! But they were there and they were incredibly respectful, and they had a number of little commemorative services around each of those graves at Busan. It was wonderful to travel with them.
In my speech last week on the Korean War, I mentioned two very moving stories. I want to mention just one more today. The story is about the passage of Thelma Healy to Busan to visit the grave of her son Vince Healy. Vince volunteered and, once he had signed up, his letters to the family trickled to very little contact. His sudden death in uncertain circumstances on a frozen battlefield in 1951 plunged his mother into a deep depression. But Thelma Healy was determined to say farewell to her son. She vowed that, before she died, she would find her son's grave and say goodbye. This began a 10-year odyssey that eventually took Thelma, on her own, on a 15,000-kilometre journey halfway around the world to war-torn Busan in Korea in 1961, through a variety of transport mechanisms. Being a woman of no means, and with nine other children to feed and clothe, Thelma had to scrimp and save, sew and slave, to raise the money needed for her epic voyage. But she got there in the end to bid farewell to her much-loved son. She was an extraordinary woman. There are so many stories like this around the Korean War. Lest we forget.
Before the member for Canning leaves, I would like to mention what a great privilege it is to follow him, a decorated former member of the Australian Defence Force, in this address. Considering the context of the matter we are discussing here today, I would also like to mention the member for Canning's service in Afghanistan. We are so blessed in this country that young men and women are prepared to volunteer their services to protect our values. I thank the member for Canning for that.
The motion before the House today is one of great importance, particularly in 2016, the 65th year since the two major battles of the Korean War. As the member for Canning mentioned, the Korean War is often referred to as the 'forgotten war'. Australians fought and died in Korea, yet the veterans of this conflict have not always received the recognition they deserve. But I will return to this thought in a moment.
Sixty-five years ago, Australian soldiers joined British, New Zealand and American forces in the valley of the Kapyong River. Over three days in April 1951, the combined forces held their ground against a Chinese and North Korean offensive on Seoul. The enemy's forces numbered close to 500,000. On 23 April, the 27th Commonwealth Brigade was ordered forward to the valley of the Kapyong River, where a critical route ran south through the region. Faced with a requirement to cover a seven-kilometre front, the commander of the 27th Brigade accepted it would be impossible to establish a continuous defensive line. Instead, he set about creating strong points to block and contain any enemy offensive. One of the first battalions deployed, the 3rd Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment, was sent to hold the high ground to the east of the river. The men of 3RAR halted the Chinese advance in their sector, and no further attempts were made to break through on the eastern flank of the British brigade. But the battle cost the Australians dearly: 32 men were killed, 59 were wounded and three were captured as they withstood a continuous attack by a far more numerous Chinese force for more than 24 hours.
Six months later, the 3rd Battalion of the Royal Australian Regiment was again involved in one of the most momentous Australian actions of the Korean War. Fighting alongside British troops, 3RAR attacked a group of hills near the Imjin River. The attack was named after hill 317, the largest of those hills, also known as Maryang San. The capture of hill 317 was particularly significant because it allowed UN forces to push the Chinese troops back several kilometres. But it came at a price: 20 Australians died in this conflict and a further 89 were wounded.
These two battles speak of the resounding courage and resilience of the Australian troops who fought in the Korean War. Our soldiers fought to defend democracy and the values that we treasure in Australia. Those values are now upheld in South Korea, which I consider to be one of the great success stories of the 20th century. Yet the veterans of this conflict do not always receive our gratitude to the extent that they deserve. I would like to share, if I may, the story of Richard Woodhams, better known to his friends and family as Dick. Dick Woodhams enlisted in the Australian Army in 1951 at the age of 19. A member of the 6th platoon, 3rd battalion, he fought in the Battle of Maryang San 65 years ago. Now 85, he resides in Albany, the same town where I live with my family in the electorate of O'Connor. In regard to the notion of the forgotten war, he had this to say:
When I joined the RSL in 1953 and I mentioned I'd been in the Korean War, they said, 'You're joking mate, that wasn't a war.' Any veterans of the Korean War, they understand, but the old timers, they tend to think that it wasn't a 'real war'.
The conflict in Korea may not be recognised as one of great significance for Australians, but for veterans like Dick the memories of this war still linger on. He still remembers the cries of the Chinese troops as the 3rd battalion sprayed machine gun fire across the hills near Imjin.
Dick is one of the four Korean War veterans that live in Great Southern in O'Connor. I would like to pay tribute to Ivan Tilney and Victor Pope, also from Albany, and my old friend Ian Mangan of Jerramungup, who recently passed away.
These men deserve our respect and our gratitude. Of the 17,000 Australians that fought in the Korean War, 356 were killed and another 1,200 were wounded. The Korean conflict might be known as the 'forgotten war', but today we have a chance to recognise the Australians who fought for that democracy. I offer my gratitude and respect for every soldier who served in Korea, and I am sure everyone in this chamber would join me in honouring their contribution.
I am proud to be speaking to this motion regarding recent commemorations in Korea and I particularly want to acknowledge those who fought at the Battles of Kapyong and Maryan San in 1951. It is 65 years since those battles, as we have just heard. I want to congratulate everyone who was involved with the commemorations. I want to acknowledge my colleague and friend the member for Canberra, Gai Brodtman, who attended the commemorations along with other members from elsewhere. They were very important commemorations for very important battles that were fought by the 3rd Battalion with our UN partners.
As we have heard, it is a very important and sometimes overlooked part of our military history but certainly not for me, not for my brother Daniel and not for any other members of the 3rd Battalion of the Royal Australian Regiment who fought in those particular battles or other members of various regiments that hold those battles and our conduct them in them in high esteem. It is important that we remember. I thought I could shed some more light on some of the veterans and on what that war meant. Korea was the first test of the Australian Army following World War II, particularly for our newly formed Royal Australian Regiment. We fought alongside Commonwealth countries like Canada, Britain, New Zealand and other Commonwealth nations as well as America in that UN deployment. Seventeen thousand Australians served in Korea and 356 were killed in action. That was over three relatively short years of fighting so, when you compare it to other conflicts later on, it was a significant loss of life.
The Australian War Memorial records that there were 11 Territorians who served in Korea: Timothy Angeles, John Cubillo, Clifton French, Francis Gaden, William Hyde, Leonard Sargent, Larry Willaroo, John Wilson, Max Heinrich and Allan Laughton, and current Territorians like my friend Jack. Also of note is that, during the war, Reg Saunders became the first Aboriginal Australian to serve as a commander of an Australian infantry company and he lead Charlie Company during the battle of Kapyong. After the battle, Reg said, 'At last I feel like an ANZAC, and I suspect there were 600 others like me.'
In Darwin, on 24 April, to commemorate the Battle of Kapyong, a small gathering of ex-3rd Battalion Regiment and people who knew Korean veterans gather at the Darwin cenotaph. We do it each year to remember the extraordinary heroism and outstanding performance of the 3rd Battalion and all our Korean war veterans. The 3rd Battalion was awarded the Presidential Unit Citation, the blue swimming pool, which is worn still to this day by members of 3rd Battalion.
The Battle of Kapyong was a fierce battle. Thirty-two Australians were killed and 59 were wounded. Just months later, the 3rd Battalion, under the command of Lieutenant Colonel Frank Hassett, fought the battle of Maryan San. This time it was advancing not defending but it was again costly with 20 killed and 104 wounded.
The Royal Australian Regiment Association recently held its annual dinner in Canberra where the Hassett Trophy was awarded for outstanding junior leader in the Royal Australian Regiment for that year. This year it was awarded to mortar section commander, Corporal David Day, from 8/9 RAR. Congratulations, mate. Every year, members of the regiment and the wider Australian Defence Force and their families and parliamentarians travel to Korea to attend commemorations and to solemnly reflect on those lost in the Korean War.
One veteran of World War II, who is also a Korean war veteran and a Vietnam war veteran, Brigadier Jim Shelton, told us that he and all Korean War veterans are always very appreciative of the support and assistance they receive from the South Korean people whenever they visit South Korea. They remember as we should always remember the Korean War. Lest we forget.
I thank the honourable member for Solomon and I welcome him to the 45th Parliament.
Debate adjourned.
by leave—I move:
That the resumption of debate on the motion relating to domestic and family violence be referred to the Federation Chamber.
Question agreed to.
I present the report of the Privileges and Members' Interests Committee in connection with the claim of parliamentary privilege by a member in relation to material seized under a search warrant.
Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).
by leave—On 11 October 2016, the House referred to the Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests an inquiry into a claim for parliamentary privilege by the member for Blaxland in relation to material seized from Parliament House by the Australian Federal Police under a search warrant. The reference requires the committee to consider the member's claim and make a recommendation to the House about its ruling on the claim.
Many members will be familiar with the background on the matter. On 24 August 2016, the AFP executed a search warrant on the Department of Parliamentary Services. In accordance with the AFP National Guideline for Execution of Search Warrants where Parliamentary Privilege may be involved, the member for Blaxland advised the AFP that he would be claiming parliamentary privilege in respect of all the material seized under the warrant. The seized material has been held securely in the office of the Clerk of the House since that time.
The committee has now considered the matter. I present today a report setting out how the committee has conducted its inquiry, the committee's analysis on the law applying in this case and its findings and recommendations. In summary, the committee has found that in all the circumstances of this matter the material seized under the search warrant was held by the member for Blaxland in connection with his parliamentary responsibilities as a member and that the material relates to 'proceedings in parliament' as defined in the Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987. As a result, the material is subject to parliamentary privilege and need not be produced under the search warrant.
Accordingly, the committee recommends that the House rule to uphold the claim of parliamentary privilege by the member for Blaxland in relation to the seized material. The committee further recommends that the AFP be advised of the House's ruling on the matter and that the seized material be returned by the Clerk to the member for Blaxland.
I would like to thank the members of the committee—the members for Shortland, Menzies, Hunter, Scullin, Moore, Swan, Capricornia, Barker, Lingiari and Lilley—for their work on this inquiry. I commend the committee's report to the House.
I seek leave to move:
That the House:
(1) notes:
(a) revelations the Attorney-General acted against the interests of the Commonwealth by entering into a corrupt deal to give $300 million of taxpayer funds to the WA Liberal Government;
(b) the Attorney-General made this decision despite clear legal advice that the $300 million rightfully belonged to the Australian taxpayer;
(c) further revelations that other Ministers in the Prime Minister's Cabinet have been implicated in this scandal, including the:
(i) Minister for Revenue who was named in the WA Parliament for her involvement in the scandal when she was Assistant Treasurer;
(ii) Minister for Social Services who was named in the WA Parliament for his involvement in the scandal while he was Assistant Minister to the now former Prime Minister and Member for Warringah; and
(iii) Treasurer and the Minister for Finance who have direct portfolio interest and who have not yet explained their involvement in the scandal; and
(2) therefore, calls on the Minister representing the Attorney-General, the Minister for Revenue, the Minister for Social Services, the Treasurer and the Prime Minister to attend the House and provide a full account of their offices' involvement in this scandal.
Leave not granted.
I move:
That so much of the standing orders and session orders be suspended as would prevent the Manager of Opposition Business from moving the following motion forthwith:
That the House:
(1) notes:
(a) revelations the Attorney-General acted against the interests of the Commonwealth by entering into a corrupt deal to give $300 million of taxpayer funds to the WA Liberal Government;
(b) the Attorney-General made this decision despite clear legal advice that the $300 million rightfully belonged to the Australian taxpayer;
(c) further revelations that other Ministers in the Prime Minister’s Cabinet have been implicated in this scandal, including the:
(i) Minister for Revenue who was named in the WA Parliament for her involvement in the scandal when she was Assistant Treasurer;
(ii) Minister for Social Services who was named in the WA Parliament for his involvement in the scandal while he was Assistant Minister to the now former Prime Minister and Member for Warringah; and
(iii) Treasurer and the Minister for Finance who have direct portfolio interest and who have not yet explained their involvement in the scandal; and
(2) therefore, calls on the Minister representing the Attorney-General, the Minister for Revenue, the Minister for Social Services, the Treasurer and the Prime Minister to attend the House and provide a full account of their offices’ involvement in this scandal.
We know that there was corruption. What we do not know yet is how many of them were involved. We do not yet know how many of them were involved, but as you go through the evidence that has been provided already representative after representative, minister after minister have their fingerprints all over this. At the core of what we are talking about is a Liberal government pretending that $300 million of taxpayers money is their personal piggy bank, as though they are allowed to just dole out taxpayers money to any Liberal government they so choose.
The WA Treasurer, Mike Nahan, in the WA parliament made clear they would not have proceeded without the support—
I move:
That the Member be no longer heard.
The question is that the Manager of Opposition Business be no further heard.
Is the motion moved by the Manager of Opposition Business seconded?
I second the motion. This Attorney-General is a disgrace. Senator Brandis has failed in his duty to the Commonwealth. He has failed—
I move:
That the member be no longer heard.
Mr Dreyfus interjecting—
The member for Isaacs will resume his seat. I caution the member for Isaacs. I asked him to resume his seat. He continued to debate the matter without his microphone being on. Not only is it pointless; it is in defiance of the chair. Let me just say that, through the course of this week, it will not happen again. The question is that the member for Isaacs be no longer heard.
The question is that the motion moved by the Manager of Opposition Business be agreed to.
Before continuing on in my remarks in relation to the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Country of Origin) Bill 2016, I also pay tribute to and recognise the wonderful advocacy efforts of all of those Indigenous Australians in relation to the No More campaign.
This time 12 months ago, I was privileged to be touring through remote Aboriginal communities in the north-west of Western Australia, undertaking a fight for justice on behalf of plaintiffs, who were Aboriginal Australians who had been the victims of road trauma, often in circumstances through no fault of their own. In the course of the mediation conference tours that started as far north as Kununurra and Wyndham and Junee through the Kimberley south to Broome, I was very privileged to be invited into numerous communities along the way. I was struck by the resilience, dignity and determination of Aboriginal Australians who are fighting incredible battles that I can barely comprehend—being as close as I am to the services that I am so lucky enough to have access to.
It is an incredibly challenging environment and I would as honoured to be able to play a very small part in ensuring that Aboriginal Australians get justice in the context of compensation claims and access to the courts. I pay tribute to those families and the men and women that I represented. I understand that there are similar informal conference tours happening at the moment. To those mums and dads and kids who I was lucky enough to represent in my old life before making the transition to this place, I want to pass on the message that my transition here does not diminish my voracious appetite to make sure that the quest for a just outcome in the context of Aboriginal communities prevails.
Returning to this bill, my previous remarks went to the heart of the bill in the context of our support for the country-of-origin matters and notes that the bill also governs the use of country-of-origin marks such as the 'made in Australia' gold kangaroo in a green triangle. It defines the idea of a good being substantially transformed. It makes it clear that packaging materials are not treated as ingredients or components for goods with 'product of' or 'grown in' labels. It also mandates that water used to reconstitute dehydrated or concentrated ingredients is deemed to have the country of origin of the dehydrated ingredient irrespective of the actual origin of the water. Whilst the steps taken as reflected in this bill are not perfect, what they do do is indicate country of origin for imported ingredients, to take an example. These requirements are certainly a constructive and good step forward.
Labor supports this amendment because it provides certainly for businesses, particularly Australian food manufacturers, that the safe harbour provisions under Australia consumer law are aligned with the new country-of-origin requirements. More importantly, this new regime will make it easier for consumers when making decisions about what groceries to buy for their families to identify and then purchase locally-produced products.
I now turn to the amendment as circulated in my name in this matter. I do not believe it would be reaching too far to say that most Australians want to buy seafood that is sourced from local and sustainable fisheries. Unfortunately, recent studies have shown that almost 75 per cent of seafood consumed in Australia is imported, often unbeknowns, to those who are purchasing the seafood. Globally, we have seen a decline in fishstocks due to overfishing and the destruction of natural habitats.
But Australians currently have few options if they want to ensure they are eating local, sustainable seafood. This is not just a concern from a sustainability point of view; it is also relevant to people seeking to make healthy decisions. Some species of fish and shark carry high levels of mercury but, due to the current lack of labelling requirements, it is hard to know what you are eating. Without an effective and well-regulated seafood labelling scheme, Australians cannot have any confidence that the seafood they are eating is local or sustainable or even that it is what they paid for. It is an outcome that is suboptimal both for Australian consumers and for our local fisheries. Quite frankly, Australian consumers deserve better.
This amendment calls on the government to bring forward regulations that will apply a country-of-origin labelling regime to the sale of seafood in the food services industry—that is, at restaurants, cafes and fish-and-chip shops. And it is also consistent with Labor's platform and our dedication towards giving consumers more, rather than less, information about the products they are seeking to purchase.
A scheme for seafood country-of-origin labelling in the food services industry has been in place in the Northern Territory for many years. We know that it works. It is very successful and should serve as a model for a regime that could be rolled out all across the country. Interestingly, where the consumers of the Northern Territory are given the choice between local and imported seafood, at their local chippie for instance, they have been shown to be, by a big margin, willing to pay more for locally sourced fish. But consumers elsewhere do not have access to that information. I do not think it is unreasonable for Australian consumers to expect to know where their seafood comes from. I will move the amendment as circulated in my name and, for the sake of completeness, I will read the amendment. I move:
That all the words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House:
(1) notes:
(a) widespread community concern around seafood labelling;
(b) that Australian consumers want to know where their food originates; and
(c) the specific circumstances of seafood as a fresh food; and
(2) calls on the Government to act to improve country of origin labelling for fresh, cooked and pre-prepared seafood sold in the food services industry".
I commend the amendment to the House.
Is the amendment seconded?
I second the amendment.
I am pleased to rise to speak on this bill, the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Country of Origin) Bill 2016. Before I was elected to parliament, I spent a good part of two decades involved in the design, manufacture and marketing of consumer products, and I can assure you that country-of-origin representations are a most important part of that process. If we are able to label something 'Made in Australia', it carries extra weight. Consumers, I believe, are prepared to pay a higher price for goods with that 'Made in Australia' label. Conversely, with other products, especially food products, where someone sees 'Made in China' on a food product, they would be less prepared to pay a higher price. That is a competitive advantage that our nation has—and it has come at a cost. It has come at the cost of the regulations and inspection processes that we have had in place over decades. The 'Made in Australia' name and label are trusted by consumers and they will pay more for them. Conversely, in China we have seen food product scares and health risks. We saw the melamine contamination of baby powder. Because China has not had that regulation in place, it pays the price of country-of-origin representation. Therefore, it is very important that, if the market is to work as effectively as it possibly can, we ensure that we have regulations in place that guarantee those representations are correct—and for many decades we simply have not.
I can remember a few years ago, when the Labor Party were in government and we were trying to get something done on this issue, that Coles put out a product in their select range, a tin of pineapple. It carried the Coles name, which, of course, portrays an Australian company. The label on the tin was brightly coloured in green and gold, the Australian colours. It had a blonde-haired, blue-eyed girl on the front of the label saying how wonderful the pineapple product was, again giving that suggestion that it had something to do with Australia. But, when you picked up the tin, turned it around and used a magnifying glass, you found that the product was actually made in Indonesia. That was so close to the wire of being a misrepresentation, and it gave a perfect example of why the coalition government needed to act in this place. The laws have allowed that you could label a food product as 'made in Australia from local and imported ingredients'. This is a completely ambiguous term that means nothing, but, worse, it is terms like that that can hide countries of origin, the products of which consumers would pay less for.
That is why I am pleased to rise to support this bill. It amends the Australian Consumer Law—schedule 2 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010—to alter the definition of what is called 'substantial transformation' as it applies to the safe harbours provisions of the act. The bill simplifies the tests to justify a country-of-origin claim of 'Made in' by clarifying what 'substantial transformation' means by removing the 50 per cent production cost tests. Previously, it was a simple 50 per cent production cost. So, if you added value of 50 per cent, for example by packaging or by labelling, you were able to claim the product was made in Australia without true substantial transformation of the product. That is what this bill addresses.
Another reason why this bill is so important is that we have to protect our nation's competitive advantage. It has been very hard fought for. If we are to have a prosperous society and be able to provide health and education—all those costs of government—we can only do it if our nation has competitive advantages over other nations, and of course one of those advantages is in our food-labelling area. If a product is made in Australia, that is a competitive advantage. But, so often, we have seen that speakers from the Labor Party and from the other side of parliament either are slow to protect our competitive advantage or actively undermine it. That is why I am pleased it took the coalition to fix up our labelling laws where Labor failed to do so.
Also when it comes to our competitive advantage, contrast Labor's actions in the area of the cost of energy. On this side of the parliament, the coalition have set a renewable energy target, and the Minister for the Environment and Energy has admitted today in a piece in The Australian that this will cost each household $55 extra on their electricity bill. This will put us at a slight competitive disadvantage. But, if we look at Labor's plans for a 50 per cent renewable energy target, Bloomberg New Energy Finance has run the numbers. It has put Labor's plan at $48 billion. That is $2,000 for every man, woman and child in the country and represents $8,000 extra cost for every household of four. That is putting our nation at a competitive disadvantage that undermines everything that we are trying to do to create wealth in this nation and provide the social services that we need. We have seen Queensland's 50 per cent renewable energy target and the Queensland government boasting that this would have no cost for consumers and create no competitive disadvantage. The Grattan report last week blew that out of the water. The Grattan report said it is an 'economic illusion' to pretend it would have no price impact. These are things we need to guard like treasures. Our competitive advantage is a national treasure that we should protect with everything we have, and to see members of the Labor Party undermine it time after time is a disgrace. When it comes to maintaining and sustaining a competitive advantage, it was wonderful to see, when it came to the backpacker tax, that the Labor Party were out there saying, 'Oh, we have to have our tax rates internationally competitive.' That was absolutely right.
What about the rest of the taxes?
Correct, as the member for Hume notes. If we have to have our tax rates competitive, what about our company rate of tax? How much longer can our nation continue with a rate of company tax that is internationally uncompetitive? Our rate of corporate tax at the moment is 30 per cent, in the UK it is 20, in Canada it is 26½, in Singapore it is 17 and in Hong Kong it is 15.
And the US government?
The US, under President-elect Trump, has made a clear statement that they will reduce their company tax to 20 per cent. We cannot continue with an uncompetitive rate of corporate tax without it adversely affecting the prosperity of this nation. This is why everything we are doing on this side of the House is to maintain and sustain our nation's competitive advantage. On the other side, it is just your politics and all about not caring about the things that make us a prosperous nation.
Getting back to the exact provisions of the bill, I will give some examples of 'substantially transformed'. For example, if apples and spices are imported into Australia to make apple pies using other Australian ingredients, such as the pastry and the sugar, the finished product becomes an apple pie. That is fundamentally different from its imported ingredients—the apples and spices—in terms of its identity and its nature. Therefore they can be described as being substantially transformed. Likewise, when grapes are imported into Australia and converted into wine using Australian production methods, as the identity, nature and essential character of the raw grapes themselves are fundamentally different from the identity, nature and essential character of the wine, those goods can be defined as substantially transformed. Other examples that the bill gives are about what can be said: you could say 'made in', 'produced in' or 'manufactured in'.
An example that would be misleading or deceptive conduct is: Australian beef is exported to Thailand, where it is combined with local ingredients to make beef stock that is put into canned beef and exported back to Australia—if that product was labelled 'product of Australia', it would not meet the safe harbours defence, because it contains significant ingredients from one country that underwent major processing in another country. A further example is: wheat that was grown, harvested, hulled and cleaned in Western Australia then exported to Italy and re-imported in the form of prepackaged frozen lasagne—if it had 'product of Australia' or 'product of Italy', it would not comply with the safe harbours defence, because it contained significant ingredients from one country that underwent major processing in another country.
A further example is: bulk chocolate that was imported into Australia from the UK and then formed into smaller blocks of chocolate and packed for retail sale in Australia—if that product was labelled 'made in Australia', it would not comply with the safe harbours defence, because the chocolate was not substantially transformed here in Australia. Forming imported chocolate into smaller blocks and packaging them does not result in a product that is fundamentally different in terms of the nature, identity or essential character. The last substantial transformation of the chocolate occurred in the United Kingdom, where the processed cocoa, butter and sugar were combined with local ingredients to make a new product which is fundamentally different from the identity and nature of the chocolate.
Many of my good friends would argue that: 'This is an overreach. It is a little bit more red tape for business, and why should the government get involved in this?' One of the few areas where I believe the government has a rightful place to get involved, as we do in our consumer and competition law, is regarding misleading and deceptive comments. One of the things about the free market is that it operates more efficiently if the purchasing decisions are better informed. That is why we have provisions in our act that misleading or deceptive conduct in trade or commerce is against our law. Misleading and deceptive conduct can also be by omission.
We want to ensure that consumers, when they go to the supermarket, can look at a product and be sure that the representation that is made on that product is accurate because it allows greater competition between brands and products, we get a more efficient market outcome and, most of all, it protects our great nation's competitive advantage. We want to ensure that, where someone uses those words 'made in Australia', 'produced in Australia' or 'manufactured in Australia', which have a good reputation of consumers paying a higher price, that is protected. That is what this bill does, and that is why I commend it to the House.
The proposals before the House will have a negligible effect except to add to the cost of products on the shelves. Unfortunately, it will be a cost taken by Australian producers, the same as foreign producers. We introduced legislation, which did not get supported by either side of the House, where we wanted a label to go on all imported products—a cost that would only be imposed upon imported products. Australian-produced items would not have to be labelled. We wanted foreign products to have a warning label, saying: 'Warning, this product is imported. It has not been grown or processed under Australian health and hygiene standards and may be injurious to your health.'
One of my Independent small-party colleagues in the Senate said, 'Well, that's really going too far! You are really posing a burden and stopping stuff from coming in.' Shock horror that I would stop product from coming in! I represent a third of Australia's sugar industry. The great free-market country of the United States allows no sugar in. The great free-market countries of Europe allow no sugar in. The new Third World Asian tiger, Thailand, allows no sugar in. The great free-trading nation of Japan allows no rice into its country. My electorate produces rice. Shock horror that I would have a position upon product coming into Australia.
I will give you the dimensions of how sick the governments of Australia are. My flower growers came to me and said, 'They're charging us $300 an hour plus downtime for an official to come up from Cairns,' up onto the Atherton Tableland where all the flowers are grown, 'and they insist upon 100 per cent inspection of our exports'. The imported flowers have a five per cent inspection regime, which is borne by the government. So we have one set of laws for exporters and a completely different set of laws for importers. They get charged something like a 200 per cent tax, whereas the importers get no charge at all upon their product. This occurs again and again to a point where the average punter out there knows that the ALP and LNP will always be on the side of the importers. And they do not think they are.
Go and tell that to the people of Orange who just had their last whitegoods factory close down and see how pleased they were with the major parties at the last election. They have had enough of your lies and kangaroo droppings. They have had enough of listening to you. Look at the polls this morning. The others are on 32 per cent now, and you people are on 36 and 38 per cent and falling through the floor. When we get another four per cent you are out. Your days of running this country will be finished. They will be taken off you.
We are different from the United States. They have locally elected representatives and local primaries. They are a constituency based society. But even they have found a way out of the brutal two-party regime that has seen all their jobs go to Asia and across the border into Mexico or, alternatively, has seen Mexicans come across the border and take their jobs off them, legally and illegally. There are dangers, and people should know when a product is imported. They should also be told that others have different hygiene regimes from Australia.
I had the very great honour of being associated with establishing the prawn and fish-farming industry in Australia. We were doing about $750 million in exports. At one stage we were down to $25 million because the government decided, in its wisdom—both the ALP and the LNP—that they would bring the prawns in from overseas with no inspections. There is supposed to be a five per cent inspection, which is a joke. There is supposed to be a five per cent inspection on everything. I doubt whether there is a 0.5 per cent, and that comes from Customs officers. They said, 'We doubt whether there would be a 0.5 per cent inspection.'
Those prawns are coming in from countries like China, where they put raw sewage into the Yangtze River. They take the water out of the river and put it into the prawn farms. It is similar for all of the south-east Asian countries, like Thailand and Vietnam. In Vietnam they take untreated sewage water and put it into fish ponds. This has two effects. One is that the prawns and fish come in covered in bacteria, and two is that they have huge antibiotics inside their bodies to fight off the germs and disease. The result is that Australians now eat disease-ridden prawns and fish.
We do not know how many diseases are coming in and being contracted by Australians. It is very hard to track down where food poisoning comes from. It is very hard to track down diseases, such as hepatitis A from berries or the disease we got from imported tuna or just what product you ate that resulted in a disease. It is very hard to establish. What is not hard to establish is some of the other diseases.
We said, 'If you bring the prawns in we will get IHHNV on the reef and it will be disastrous for the Barrier Reef.' The prawns were brought in and within three years we had IHHNV endemic on the reef. We said, 'Stop the prawns from coming in, for heaven's sake stop.' They said, 'No, you have IHHNV now on the reef so we have no argument to stop them from coming in.' So they used the argument of having brought the prawns in to say that we cannot stop them.
White spot on prawns is such a deadly disease that when they found it in Darwin they dropped 23 tonnes of poison into Darwin Harbour to destroy the white spot there. God bless them for doing it, but how much damage was done to the Australian environment with 23 tonnes of poison being dropped into the harbour, I do not know. Our banana industry, worth maybe 7,000 jobs to North Queensland—if it goes it will take down a quarter of the tourism industry, and we will lose the backpacker industry as well—is under threat from Panama disease. Panama disease was brought into Australia by imported food product and the industry is now under threat. Bananas have previously been under threat from black sigatoka from products brought into Australia.
People in this place go around talking about Australia's clean, green image. We have a clean, green image because we were a hunter-gatherer society until 200 years ago, and we are an island, so we did not have any of these diseases. We did not farm and we did not husband animals, so we did not have any of these diseases. But every two or three years now we get another big disease. If you want free trade, then forget about your clean, green image because, clearly, you will have the same disease levels as all the other countries on earth. We have a valid reason for keeping products out.
It was the National Party that let most of this stuff in. Now, the great leader of the National Party in this place, , Mr Warren Truss—no-one would remember his name, but I will remind you that that was his name—said in defence of himself for allowing the grapes in that it would only affect Queensland. Right, well, we do not have to worry about it because it will only destroy the grape industry in Queensland! Ours was—'was', past tense—one of the biggest grape-growing areas in Australia. The Kennedy electorate in North Queensland has hardly any grapes left. The month that he decided to bring the grapes in from California was the same month that the Californian industry announced that 10 per cent of their entire industry had been destroyed by the glassy-winged sharpshooter. Only the Americans could think up that sort of a name, but that was the name of the disease. Ten per cent of their industry had been wiped out by the glassy-winged sharpshooter, but Mr Truss and the National Party had no difficulty in deciding that the grapes should come in. I was still in the National Party then, and 13 of the 15 members of the official LNP government committee reviewing the proposal said, 'You've got to be joking.' He said, 'We'll be taken to WTO.' All of us said, 'Let them take it to WTO. For once, we might be able to convince our own farmers that we are fighting for them.' So 13 of the 15 people at the meeting wanted us to be taken to WTO so we could be seen to be fighting for our farmers. But that was not to be.
The oranges and orange product coming in from Brazil has streptomycin in it. We are not allowed to use streptomycin in Australia, and yet we allow our people to eat streptomycin because it is an imported product. There is one set of rules for Australians and another set of rules for the importers.
We have a certain acceptable poison level that has been decided by the health department of Australia for cadmium in potatoes. Again, the National Party, in the portfolio, decided that it was all right to let in potatoes from the other countries. They could not come in because they have higher cadmium levels. 'Oh well,' he said, 'we'll just raise the allowable cadmium level.' I quote from the minister's press release:
To allow the potatoes in from Texas in America and from China, we will vary the cadmium levels.
So Australians will now eat more cadmium poison in their potatoes to look after the farmers of China and Texas. We can die in Australia. When I say 'die', this was a decision of the health department. The health department said that a safe cadmium level is that level. He raised that level and allowed us to eat much more cadmium. Did he know more than the health officials? No, he did not. What he was saying was, 'Our free trade principles are more important than whether people die in Australia.'
We had the papaya fruit fly, which cost the industry a couple of hundred million dollars. We had the citrus canker, which cost $200 million or $300 million to the Queensland economy. We had the black sigatoka outbreak, which cost us, maybe, $200 million. We have the Panama disease race 4. Individual farmers have each had to put in a million dollars worth of installation with Panama race 4. Every single one of them was brought in from food product coming from overseas. Nobody cares.
With hepatitis A in the berries there were two deaths, and nobody cares. With imported tuna that was carrying disease there were two deaths, and nobody cares.
The best we can do is to put it on a disk, which does not discriminate between Australian product and foreign product. I am sure every housewife brings along a magnifying glass, and she is really going to worry about that disk, which she actually will not be able to interpret the meaning of—and I have had a look at the proformas; I might not be very bright, but I am sure that I stand with most Australians in saying I am a bit confused by the disk—but she will not be worried about the disk; she will be worried about the price. Of course, our product costs infinitely more because our prawn farmers have to not only take in perfect water but allow perfect water to go out. (Time expired)
Australian country-of-origin labelling has proved to be a proverbial weeping sore, eroding consumer confidence, imposing excessive compliance costs and failing to provide fair and transparent safe-harbour defences to Australian farmers and food processors for far too long. It has been one of those perennial problems that has confounded successive governments, where almost everyone agreed there was a problem and that change was overdue, but the detail of the doing proved just too elusive, too complicated and just too damn hard. So down that time honoured road yet another can was kicked, but not by this coalition government. In its first term, it navigated a solution to country of origin labelling that comes to us today in this bill, together with the information standards that came into effect from 1 July 2016. And it is a solution that includes a consistent, highly visible, easy to interpret label with a logo, bar chart and text
In other words, what we see in this bill are the quintessential hallmarks of a coalition government: a willingness to tackle problems that others have happily thrown into the too-hard basket; an ability to find a solution that is fundamentally practical, neither overcooked nor ideological but based on good old fashioned pragmatic common sense; and a capacity to build consensus among the community, consumers and industry, key stakeholders and across the political divide. And what a great solution it is.
My nearly 25 years in business has been spent predominantly overseas, mainly in the Asia Pacific and emerging markets. For the first dozen or so of those years, I was in the food game working for Australian food companies, breaking into new markets and exporting Australian product, from commodities such as rice and wheat flour to more value-added fast moving consumer goods. Having therefore been a practitioner in the field, I want to commend the architects of this bill for settling on the kangaroo logo. Even though this bill relates to food sold domestically in Australia, it is important that mandatory food labels reconcile with our image of brand Australia. And, in my experience, there is no more recognised symbol that speaks to our identity of our country than the kangaroo and its symbol of quality, cleanliness, consistency and reliability.
As you know, the seat of Fairfax lies at the heart of Queensland's Sunshine Coast where food and agriculture are sectors that help drive the local economy. In consulting on this bill, I ran half a dozen public information booths at the Yandina market and at the Maroochydore Fisherman's Rd market and also a series of roundtables with local growers and other foodies. It was at these roundtables where the most meaningful contributions were made, due to intellectual giants of the Sunshine Coast food industry such as Julie Shelton, innovators like Tania Hubbard, producers like Steven Jeffers of Jeffers Markets and leaders from various sectors like: George Walker, eggs; Matthew Trace, dairy; Blake Nicolle, salads; and Jeremy Atkins, beef.
While most people with whom I consulted were overwhelmingly supportive of the county-of-origin reforms, local strawberry growers raised a concern. Their concern was with the transition period presented in an earlier iteration of the proposal that we debate today in the bill. You may not be aware, but the greater Sunshine Coast region accounts for at least 80 per cent of Queensland's strawberry crop, which equates to approximately 50 million punnets of strawberries and is perhaps the most significant producer region in Australia, employing up to 8,000 pickers each season. It was local strawberry grower Di West who first raised a concern that the business she runs with her sister Jodi risked losing tens of thousands of dollars' worth of plastic punnets stored in their warehouse unless the proposed transition period was extended. This led to significant consultations between them, the minister, his office and me, and also other growers such as the famous Twist Brothers of Chevallum.
And how pleasing it was to see that the solution that we found for Di, Jodi, the Twists and other growers to mitigate the risk of too short a transition period now finds forms in part of the bill before the House. On a personal level and as a relatively new MP in this Chamber, seeing the input that came from the grassroots of my electorate, from roundtables in Palmwoods to market stalls in Yandina and Maroochydore lead directly to legislative outcomes inspires great confidence in me in the process of parliamentary democracy.
There is an additional point that is worth making here, which puts this bill into a broader context. Many Australian growers and food manufacturing companies have been losing business in the domestic market to cheaper overseas imports. As a nation, we need to decide how to respond to this. We have a choice to make. Either we throw in the towel as the former speaker, the member for Kennedy, suggested we do and join the populists, spruiking false hope of prosperity through turning back the clock to an era of protectionism or we embrace free trade while seeking a more level playing field, stay on the field, play hard but fair and demand those who are also on that field play by the same set of rules. It is the latter of these two options that I choose. And that is precisely the spirit in which this bill has been put today.
On one hand, this bill levels the playing field by empowering consumers, by allowing them to be more informed and, on the other hand, this bill allows local players in the food industry to accentuate that which is their greatest differentiator—the fact that they, thanks to this bill, can be recognised as Australian.
I commend the bill as it has been put by the coalition to the House.
Order! The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour.
Community safety is one of the core functions of government. It is something Labor believes in very deeply. But I rise today to raise some critical questions about the commitment of the government. During the election, Justice Minister Michael Keenan went around the country with Liberal candidates promising millions of dollars in funding for local community safety projects. He promised $860,000 to the citizens of Cowan, $205,000 to the citizens of Dobell, $225,000 to the citizens of Brand, $100,000 to the citizens of Perth and $635,000 to the citizens of Solomon. Voters went to the polls on election day with those promises in mind.
Since the election, those local communities are being told a very different story. They have received a letter saying that they must now apply for funding. We do not know the criteria that they will have their applications assessed under. Most critically, they have been told that their funding application will now be 'considered as part of the budget process'. I have been around long enough to know what 'considered as part of the budget process' means. The Minister for Justice, Michael Keenan, is clearly trying to weasel out of his commitments. Perhaps he is trying to punish these local communities for electing Labor members of parliament. But these Labor MPs are fighters and they are not going to allow this to happen. The members for Cowan, Dobell, Brand, Perth and Solomon today will be standing up for their constituents in this chamber. (Time expired)
Today we remember the all-too-short life of Brisbane teenager Tyrone Unsworth. As members may be aware, last week it was reported in The Courier-Mail that Tyrone's mother, Amanda, said of his recent suicide that it was a result of a lot of people starting to pick on him because of his sexual orientation. Every day, around the country, children in Australia are bullied. I cannot speak with authority on the different bases of the bullying, but we are aware that many children who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender or intersex do face serious issues of bullying from others. Schools, of course, should be a sanctuaries and places of empathy and support for everybody, regardless of who they are. But what often is not appreciated is that many young LGBTI youth also experienced bullying from within—from fear that they should not be themselves because they will not achieve acceptance from their family and may experience social isolation. That is why suicide rates are so high. Young people cannot see their future, because of negativity that comes from within and from without. I hope all members will agree that there is no place for bullying and harassment of people in schools, workplaces and the community. For all young LGBTI children who are experiencing bullying and harassment, we should work to stop it and encourage resilience, because your life will be incredible and filled with incredible experiences and people who love you and care about you. You will realise your ambitions and dreams, because every day of your life you will— (Time expired)
I rise today to support the University of Tasmania's proposal for a science, technology, engineering and maths facility in the Hobart CBD. This is an incredibly worthwhile project, and the $400 million required would be a small price to pay for a revitalised and reinvigorated Hobart. Indeed we need to boost our investment in STEM to keep up with our region, as the percentage of graduates with a STEM background is only 18 per cent in Australia, compared to 35 and 47 per cent in Singapore and China respectively. The UTas proposal is for a brand new STEM precinct on 23,000 square metres. It would create 700 construction jobs and generate $3.3 billion in economic activity as well as providing a home for over 5,200 staff and students. It would also provide UTas medical researchers in Liverpool Street with ready access to physicists and engineers to help with the development of medical equipment and biotechnology. This proposal is on Infrastructure Australia's priority list, and I am heartened by the personal interest the Prime Minister showed about this project in question time a few weeks ago. The business case is now with the government, and I truly hope that they get on board and fund this much-needed Tasmanian project.
In my electorate of La Trobe, people are sick and tired of being a victim or the prospect of being the next victim. Just outside the electorate, we had an awful and disgusting incident recently, where Senior Constable Daniel Yeoman was at home with his wife and children, and young offenders broke into his house. His wife actually tried to stop them getting in, even trying to give them the car keys so they would just leave. Instead, one of the offenders decided to stab the senior constable in the face with an object. I know Daniel's father, Dave Yeoman.
This is the state it has got to. It is very, very disturbing. Each week in Victoria at least two police cars are rammed by young offenders. In my day in the police force, it was rare to ever see this happen. An article in The Age, written by Craig Butt and Cameron Houston, dated 14 November this year, states that aggravated burglaries across the state are 6.5 per cent of all burglaries, but a truly disturbing statistic is that in Berwick, in my electorate, one in five burglaries is a burglary where the victims are in some way assaulted. It is an absolute crying shame that the Daniel Andrews government has let it get to this stage.
Like my colleague the member for Hotham and many others, I am concerned that the Turnbull government have failed to keep their promises to the people of Brand. During the 2016 federal election campaign, the government committed $225,000 to the City of Rockingham for five mobile CCTV cameras, through Minister Keenan's Safer Communities Fund. But, with the election over, the government have backflipped and are asking the City of Rockingham to jump through hoops to get the funding they were promised. The council have already paid for the cameras and are now left in the lurch, waiting for the government to follow through.
It is important that the people of Rockingham and Kwinana feel safe in their community, and this initiative increases better behaviour. What we have seen in Western Australia is that crime has steadily increased the Barnett Liberal government. The Turnbull government were happy to stand with Rockingham during the election campaign, but now that they are elected, they no longer care.
The people of WA are sick of being used as a political football to further the interests of the Liberal Party. The latest farce involves dirty deals between the attorneys-general of Australia and Western Australia, to cheat Australian taxpayers of Bell Group litigation funds purely because the Turnbull-Joyce Liberal-National government will not put real expenditure into Western Australia. This is a shameful example of the depths these Liberals will sink to to save themselves. These dirty deals between Liberal governments are nothing short of a national disgrace.
Western Australians deserve safety, they deserve respect and, like all Australians, they deserve at least a competent government. But, sadly, Liberal governments at federal and state levels are incompetent at best and morally bankrupt at worst. (Time expired)
I rise today with some further good news on job creation in my electorate of Capricornia. BMA has awarded a local firm a $31 million contract to remove decommissioned marine infrastructure from the Hay Point Coal Terminal, near Sarina. Central Queensland business, Walz Construction Group has won the contract and the project will employ up to 20 people. The company will remove the original trestle and conveyor that have transported coal from a land terminal to waiting bulk carrier ships for more than 40 years. This infrastructure dates back to 1971 and has since been replaced by new technology. I was on hand with BMA Asset President, Rag Udd, at Hay Point recently to announce details of the project. Starting next month, December 2016, crews will work from barges to dismantle the 1.8 kilometre trestle. About 6,500 tonnes of steel will be transferred ashore for recycling. The project is scheduled to take 18 months.
This project follows further good news that I touched on in the House previously. Adani Energy Company will invest $200 million into construction of a solar farm near Moranbah, creating up to 1,000 new jobs over various phases of the project. This is at a time when coal prices are also on the rise.
I too am especially concerned that the government have failed to keep their promises to the people of Cowan, who continue to be ignored by this government. During the 2016 election campaign the government promised CCTV cameras and infrastructure in Kiara, Beechboro and Lockridge. Crime in Kiara has almost doubled in the last year, and the CCTV cameras are necessary to create a safer community for the residents there. Despite making a commitment to the funding during the election campaign, the government are now asking the City of Swan to apply for the funding. They are getting the city to jump through hoops to get funding through an application process that has not even opened yet.
I may be new to politics but, even as a new person to this chamber, I simply do not accept that a government can make promises during an election campaign and be friends to the people during the election campaign and then turn around and completely ignore them once they are elected. I simply do not accept this. I do not think it is going too far to suggest that Australians want their leaders to earn their confidence. How does this government expect to foster strong relations with people they serve when they cannot even follow through on the promises that they made? Treat the voters with some respect and be honest with them about what you can really achieve and stand by your commitments. (Time expired)
On Monday, 7 November, I had the honour of welcoming a delegation from the Armenian National Committee of Australia to Canberra to speak about the Armenian-Australian community's issues and concerns. ANC Australia was joined by the chairman of the Armenian National Committee of America, Mr Raffi Hamparian, who is a well-known name around Capitol Hill in Washington D.C. for the great work he does on behalf of the Armenian community in the United States.
The Armenian National Committees around the world, including here in Australia, do a great job of representing their community and providing us with the materials necessary to determine positions of importance to Armenians. A recent example of such material was a book titled Armenia, Australia and the Great War, by Professor Peter Stanley and Vicken Babkenian, which examines the deep connection between Australia's history of humanitarian relief and the greatest tragedy that befell the Armenian people, the Armenian genocide.
We have a rich historical connection with the Armenian people, yet the facts are unknown to many. For example, I would imagine that many of us here are unaware that our Diggers were among the first witnesses to describe the Armenian genocide, which became our nation's first major international humanitarian relief effort. My electorate is proud to be the home of thousands of Armenian-Australians, who all take part in our diverse community. I would like to thank the ANC for their efforts in helping this community and in the ongoing fight to have the Armenian genocide recognised around the world.
I am deeply concerned. The Toukley and District Senior Citizens Club is a regular target for vandalism and antisocial behaviour. When I was there on Friday I was shown damage to the building, including vandalised windows, fire damage and graffiti. Recently, the club spent almost $8,000 of their own funds upgrading lighting to improve security, and members are regularly required to fix damage to the building themselves, which Rex does almost every single day. They were excited when, during the recent election campaign, their club was included in the government's promise to deliver $205,000 to Central Coast Council for CCTV across the electorate of Dobell. In addition to the Toukley and District Senior Citizens, the promised funding would install fixed cameras at Cottage Youth Centre, Tumbi Community Hall and Sohier Park, and mobile cameras at the boat ramp car park in Norah Head—a project I know that Norah Head Marine Rescue are keen to see help them keep people safe on our waterways this summer.
The government now appear to be backing away from this promise and have sent a letter to Central Coast Council advising that there is no certainty around the funding and that they will now have to apply for the money under a grant program that has not even been set up. On behalf of the Toukley and District Senior Citizens, the Norah Head Marine Rescue and the Central Coast community, I call on this government to keep their promise to our community and provide this necessary funding.
I rise to commend a number of local sporting champions from my electorate of Menzies. Firstly—and this may come as a surprise to some of my rural colleagues in this chamber—the new world woodchopping champion resides in suburban Doncaster. Lawrence O'Toole led the Australian team to victory in the world championships in Germany, claiming two world records in the process. In fact, he joins his father and his grandfather as a third-generation world champion woodchopper. Secondly, I congratulate Bronwyn Butterworth, from Lower Templestowe, who won the World Taekwondo Championship in Lima, Peru. This follows her wins in both the US and the Canadian open championships. Thirdly, I congratulate Jade Vella-Wright, who won a gold medal in the Victorian Gymnastics Championships and, indeed, followed up with a bronze medal in the Australian championships. I would especially like to congratulate two Warranwood Primary School Students, Cooper and Rhys, both of whom have cerebral palsy, who will compete in multiple sports in this year's National Track and Field Championships. To each of them at different levels of athletic competition, to Lawrence O'Toole, Bronwyn Butterworth, Jade Vella-Wright and, of course, Cooper and Rhys: we salute you and commend you for your sporting prowess.
In the last week of the election campaign, the coalition government made an announcement that funding would be granted to the Darwin City Council from the Safer Communities Fund for five new CCTV cameras and that those cameras would be managed and monitored by the police. However, now we are hearing that the coalition government has backflipped from this funding announcement and wants the Darwin City Council to make an application for the funding.
To Territorians, this sounds familiar. The same process is happening with our cancer scanner, which was promised by the current foreign minister six years ago. We know what these processes and applications are. They are code for 'delay' and 'not fair dinkum'. We have heard from the Darwin City Council that they are no longer interested in receiving the money because it is completely insufficient to meet the ongoing maintenance, monitoring and management costs, as well as the fact that they need to go through a new grant process that does not even exist yet. It is yet another example of the coalition's complete failure to stand by commitments made during the election campaign. That is why Territory Labor is moving ahead with funding for our PET scanner infrastructure—we cannot depend on the Commonwealth. I fought for an extra $40 million for the Palmerston Regional Hospital because there were more games being played there. The coalition are big on games and rhetoric but low when it comes to delivery.
In unity and humanity we recognised White Ribbon Day, Australia's campaign to prevent violence against women. Domestic violence is not a private thing; it is a crime.
Many women in my electorate have shared with me their stories of domestic violence, and, in a previous life as a legal practitioner, I provided legal representation for women who were victims of domestic violence. The sheer anguish and fear and the physical hurt of the blows, and the acute psychological trauma of not really feeling safe and not being able to make their children feel safe, was often palpable.
Our greatest strength is in what unites us rather than what divides us. This is a bipartisan matter. Domestic violence penetrates our society and, in acknowledging the courage and suffering of all victims of domestic violence, I also acknowledge the people at Crossway LifeCare, located in Burwood East, in my electorate.
Gail Thannhauser, COO; Dale Stevenson, CEO; Pastor Toby Baxter; Christina Lim and Debbie Uy—together with highly qualified psychologists, social workers and 100 volunteers—do amazing work, including counselling services, financial counselling and training, and community mentoring. Their aim is purely to see women transformed so they can live safely and achieve their potential and participate fully in the community. The LifeCare Women's Empowerment Centre is a safe haven for women and children who are recovering from traumatic violent experiences. The centre provides programs in a supportive environment to assist women to rebuild their lives and flourish.
The question I have is: when is a campaign promise not a campaign promise? That might sound like a trick question, but when it came to the 2016 federal election in my home town of Perth I can tell you right now, as far as the Liberal government is concerned, things were not all that they might have appeared to be.
In the course of that campaign, my opponent, flanked by the Minister for Justice, made it very clear that they purported to be investing in community safety. They purported to the good people of Bassendean to have turned up to commit $100,000 for CCTV at the Jubilee Street reserve, where it is badly needed to combat a rising drug problem. They then turned around and went to the city of Bayswater to purportedly contribute $150,000 to try to make it safer around the Noranda shops and sporting complexes. Now it appears that both of these so-called promises are the subject of a grant application and the funding is indeed uncertain. It completely lets down the people of Bassendean. It lets down the people of Bayswater. It does not give them the certainty they required in relation to keeping the suburbs safe.
Throughout the entire country and the world, communities are growing increasingly disillusioned with the conduct of the major parties. What they see from the Liberal government is more of this giving with one hand and taking with the other. With all of these broken promises, how can we possibly be expected to rise above the fray?
This is my Christmas message to the people of the Wimmera and Mallee. Over 2,000 years ago, wise men saw a light in the sky. A great event had occurred and they travelled to the little town of Bethlehem. They journeyed to see the birth of a child, poor and humble: baby Jesus—the Christmas story. But the story does not stop there. That new baby, father and mother fled in the night. They became refugees in a foreign land. That child grew up working with his hands—a tradie. He became a leader and a public speaker who, in the equivalent of one term of government—three years—changed the world. He taught concepts like 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you' and 'turn the other cheek'. He taught people to pray—his words open this parliament every day. To the people of the Wimmera and Mallee, and to Australia: wise people still seek out the words of that man who was born in Bethlehem. Merry Christmas to you all.
The Deputy Prime Minister's bid to relocate the APVMA out of Canberra into his electorate of New England has got the green light. This is a shameless and blatant display of pig-headed pork-barrelling which has never had a shred of merit around it. On Friday, we learnt what we long suspected: it is all cost and no benefit. The cost to the taxpayer will be $25 million to relocate the agency. The cost to the Canberra economy will be $157 million a year and the 365 jobs that will be ripped out of it. The cost to the agency and the sector will be the loss of expertise, which will take years and years to replace and will add years to the approval time frame of new chemicals. But what I am most concerned about is the cost to the Canberra community and the cost to the 175 families whose kids must now be pulled out from their schools, whose partners must now resign from their jobs here in Canberra and who must now say goodbye to their friends and relatives and their lives here in Canberra.
The Deputy Prime Minister floated an obscene proposal—and it is an obscene proposal—that will cost the sector, the city, the staff and my community, all to help himself. And the Turnbull cabinet ticked it off. What an absolute disgrace—to sign my name and say, 'I don't care who it costs or what it costs, as long as it benefits the Deputy Prime Minister.' (Time expired)
On Sunday morning I was blessed to be at the thanksgiving and gratitude service at St Paul's Anglican Church to thank all those who selflessly give their time and effort to keep us safe and healthy when things go wrong or when we are in danger or are threatened—to let them know what they do is much appreciated by our community.
We thanked, for their work in crisis and in tragedy, our police force, our doctors and nurses, the ambulance drivers, our local hospitals and their ever available staff. We thanked: those who work behind the scenes in giving welfare and encouragement, medicines and practical assistance; the SES volunteers and neighbours who provide help and emergency care when the need arises; the CFA for their 24-hour a day availability; those who work quietly behind the scenes to raise the finances necessary for church and community so that they will function well and help those in need; the service clubs who work together; the many volunteers who work together to make both church and community a better place to live in. We thanked the Lord for all those things. Especially, we thanked our army of volunteers at the Parish Mine Road Op Shop.
I say to them all: you really are the keepers of the springs that make the community work. You really are the keepers of the springs that allow us to have communities like the Korumburra St Paul's Anglican Church and the motion like we have in this parliament for thanksgiving and gratitude. We thank you all. You are the keepers of the springs.
Today in this chamber I wear a brooch—a brooch that I know does not have the same monetary value as quite a bit of the bling that we have seen in this place, but it is priceless. This particular brooch has been made by NETschool students. Who are NETschool students? They are students who do not fit into mainstream schooling. They are students who, if it was not for NETschool, would not be engaged in schooling. They are students who, through their arts program, participated in the making of these brooches, as part of an art exhibition. This exhibition was successful at the recent Bendigo show, taking out first prize in both the fashion and school awards.
Despite the success of this program and of these students continuing to be engaged in schooling, the program is under threat. It is under threat because this government has cut funding—the Gonski funding. This is how schools in the area of the Bendigo electorate, as well as a number of other regional areas, help to fund these programs—school programs that ensure that young people not engaged in school get back enrolled in school and stay in education. Gonski funding, or equity funding, in my state is critical to keeping these young people involved in school.
I call on the government to restore the Gonski funding. Put it back! Give it back to the students of NETschool.
This morning's announcement of a negotiated tax rate of 15 per cent for backpackers is good news and brings certainty to farming communities. The 15 per cent rate is a good outcome for farmers, backpackers and Aussie workers. I have always supported a rate of between 15 and 19 per cent because that is what farmers in my electorate told me what was needed. The Bowen Gumlu Growers Association in North Queensland proposed a rate of 15 percent, but I know farmers generally accepted our position of 19 per cent originally.
Aside from that position, it is important to find the right balance between competing interests on this issue—that is, the interests of foreign workers and their willingness to work on Aussie farms against the competing interests of Aussie workers who work alongside them. Aussie workers doing the same job on the same farm should not take home less pay than foreign workers who work alongside them. It would be grossly unfair for an Aussie worker to pay tax while a foreign worker paid none at all.
Farmers did not come to me saying that the tax rate should be zero. Even backpackers accept they should pay some tax. So it is perplexing to see Labor even today still saying they are happy with foreign workers paying zero tax. Labor never has and never will represent the farmers. Labor long ago gave up on representing Aussie workers. The only people Labor is representing on this issue is foreign workers and their own political self-interests.
It is appropriate that I follow that nonsense from the member for Dawson just now because members of this place will know well that there is plenty of nonsense spouted on the website Twitter.com. Crazy people can say anything they want on this platform, especially in the so-called alt-Right—the anti-establishment right-wing conservatives that have taken over the platform in recent times. And I came across a cracking example of this today from a Twitter account called @Barnaby_Joyce—the Deputy Prime Minister, I believe, not a parity account. This tweet said:
Backpacker tax would never be 32%. We fought to take it to 19%. We said it would be resolved by Christmas. Welcome 15% break-through.
This was said despite the Deputy Prime Minister being a member of the Expenditure Review Committee that approved this measure; despite him being a member of the cabinet that approved this measure; despite him being a member of this parliament that debated this in the last budget.
This is beyond alt-Right; this is alt-reality. This is what we have come to expect from those opposite. But they cannot pretend that this shambolic, nonsensical policy-making process did not occur. They cannot mislead the Australian public and pretend that this embarrassing shambles of a policy-making process never occurred. They need to take responsibility for their actions. This would not have occurred if they had not initiated it in the first place. They should be honest with the Australian public and they should clean up their act in the future.
I want to thank and congratulate the Non-Resident Nepali Association for their sixth annual Grand Nepal Festival, held very successfully on Saturday at Darling Harbour in Sydney. The NRNA are a group which represents the community of Nepali citizens all around the world. They are nationals living outside of their nation. The Grand Nepal Festival is a fantastic event held every second year at Tumbalong Park in Darling Harbour. On Saturday it was good to meet Nepal's Minister for Foreign Affairs, Dr Prakash Sharan Mahat, who was the chief guest at the festival. It was good to discuss issues of mutual concern between Australia and Nepal with him.
We have a very strong and vibrant Nepalese community in my electorate of Banks and, indeed, right around Australia, with more than 40,000 Australians tracing their heritage back to Nepal. I would like to congratulate the entire community for this traffic event held on Saturday, including the acting president of the association, Mr Dinesh Pokharel. I thank him for his hospitality. I look forward to continuing to work further into the future with the Non-Resident Nepali Association.
It being just past 2 pm, in accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded.
My question is to the Prime Minister. The Western Australian Treasurer has told his parliament that the agreement was with the then Treasurer, the Hon. Joe Hockey. I refer to this letter which details an agreement between the federal government and the state Liberal government. Does the Prime Minister seriously expect the Australian people to believe that there was no agreement between the federal and Western Australian governments on the WA kickback scandal?
Honourable members interjecting—
Members on my right; members on both sides. Before I call the Prime Minister: obviously, I am allowing the question, but it was not particularly clear what the Leader of the Opposition was referring to at the start when he talked about an agreement. But the question is in order, and the Prime Minister has the call.
The Leader of the Opposition has not simply taken leave of his senses; he has taken leave of reality. The Attorney-General in the Senate set out in a very detailed statement all of the correspondence that relates to this. He has made it perfectly clear what occurred.
Mr Dreyfus interjecting—
The member for Isaacs.
All of the issues are dealt with there. This is a matter where there was a case determined in the High Court—and, I might say, fairly predictably—on section 109 of the Constitution and resolved, consistent with that section, in favour of the federal legislation. The conspiracy theories and the falsehoods that are now being spread by the opposition are all at one with their general approach. Earlier today, before the Attorney-General had even got through the statement he was making to the Senate, the opposition were on their feet calling for him to be sacked, and leading among them, of course, was the shadow Attorney-General. I hope a future Labor government does not ever appoint him to the bench. He will dispense with the trial and go straight to the execution. There will be no need for any rule of law or due process.
We are seeing now the absolute embodiment of post-truth politics and falsehoods from the Leader of the Opposition. We saw him telling falsehoods last week about the NBN, we saw him scandalously and shamefully stirring up racial dissent and racial hatred by misrepresenting the remarks of the immigration minister and now we see him talking about kickbacks. He is talking about bribery. And what is he now doing? He is accusing the Attorney-General of some crime. His imagination is as boundless as his recklessness when it comes to dealing with the truth. The Leader of the Opposition cannot be trusted on any matter of fact. Whether his statements are accurate or not is entirely a matter of coincidence. He does not care whether what he is saying is true or not. Again and again he will make things up. He will conjure up conspiracies. He has no regard for the facts. A leader, or would-be leader, who has no regard for the facts, has no respect for the people.
Mr Rob Mitchell interjecting—
Mr Dreyfus interjecting—
Ms Keay interjecting—
The member for McEwen! The member for Isaacs I have asked to cease interjecting, and the member for Braddon will as well.
I seek leave to table the document from the Treasurer to Mike Nahan, the Treasurer of Western Australia and the Hansard of the Western Australian parliament, where the Treasurer of Western Australia confirms there was an agreement between the two governments.
Leave not granted.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister update the House on the government's economic achievements, including how the Australian Building and Construction Commission will help to reduce the cost of construction and support hardworking Australians?
I thank the honourable member for her question. Shortly after the election, I said in this place that the 45th Parliament will be a term of delivery. I made it clear that we were committed to making the parliament work in delivering the important reforms we took to the people during the election that will continue to drive strong economic growth and the jobs that flow from it and to preserve our standard of living. Only months into the new parliament, that is exactly what we are doing. We are delivering on our election commitments, and we are providing the strong and stable economic leadership that Australians deserve. That is the leadership that enables us to meet and beat the economic headwinds that we face in the world today. The opposition, on the other hand, are determined to spread a miasma of fear and gloom with falsehoods; their imagination boundless in terms of the way they avoid the truth. They will never let the truth stand in the way of a political attack. But we will continue to get on with the job.
Since the election, we have delivered $20 billion in gross budget repairs. We have passed important changes to Australia's superannuation system, which make it more sustainable and much fairer. We have delivered tax cuts for half a million middle-income Australians, and we have passed the registered organisations bill, which ensures that union bosses are now accountable to their members in the same way that company directors are accountable to their shareholders. You would think that the union movement would have embraced it, but, no, Labor and the Greens fought tooth and nail against it. You would think that the Australian Building and Construction Commission legislation would also have the backing of Labor and the Greens. You would think that they would get behind it because, after all, what does it do? It restores the rule of law to the construction sector. And here in parliament what are we pledged to uphold? The rule of law?
Mr Shorten interjecting—
The Constitution, the Leader of the Opposition says. Fair enough—that is the foundation document of the rule of law. And so we seek to uphold it. We do, but the Labor Party opposes it, and they oppose it because they are wholly owned subsidiaries of militant unions who want to continue defying the law, want to continue their bullying, their thuggery, the way in which they add billions of dollars to cost to construction around Australia, fleecing taxpayers, fleecing homeowners, fleecing businesses. The rule of law must be restored, the thuggery must stop and the parliament should pass the bill to reinstate the Australian Building and Construction Commission.
My question is to the Prime Minister. In the Senate today the Attorney-General said about the WA kickback scandal 'there was never any agreement or understanding', so why on Friday did The West Australian newspaper report, 'Senator Brandis told Mr Gleeson an understanding had been reached between the Federal and WA governments,' and why is the Treasurer of Western Australia insisting that there was an understanding agreement between the Western Australian and federal governments? Who is telling the truth? (Time expired)
Based on his track record, there is absolutely no prospect that the Leader of the Opposition is telling the truth. He has no regard for it. It is, as I said, a simple coincidence whether one of his statements is true sometimes. It may be he gets the date right or the day of the week right, but in any matter that relates to his political self-interest he will prefer to say what suits him rather than what is factual.
The reality is this: the Attorney-General has dealt with all of these matters in a very lengthy statement in the Senate and he has tabled the correspondence, which is not as represented by the Leader of the Opposition. But the Attorney-General's statement speaks for itself. It is comprehensive, it deals with the issues and the Leader of the Opposition should stop misleading the House and focus on the factual matters set out by the Attorney.
My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer update the House on the progress made to repair the budget and arrest debt? What needs to be done to keep the budget on its path to balance, protect Australia's AAA credit rating and create jobs for hardworking Australians?
I thank the member for Canning for his question and his keen interest in restoring the budget to balance, which is a goal shared and a practice which everyone on this side of the House is pursuing with great gusto. Under the budgets of those opposite in the six years they were in power, their deficits were 78 per cent—almost 80 per cent—higher than the budgets that were being brought down by those on this side of the House. We know that the rate of growth and expenditure under those opposite under their budgets was 4.2 per cent and, under the budgets brought down by this side of the House, that rate of growth has fallen to 1.6 per cent. So we are getting expenditure under control and we are returning the budget to balance. It is currently projected to achieve that in 2021.
Already in this term of parliament, following the election, as the Prime Minister has just reminded the House, we have been able to secure the passage of more than $20 billion in budget improvement measures, and today we will be making further progress on that front—but not with the help of those opposite.
Ms Plibersek interjecting—
I hear the interjection from the member for Sydney saying, 'You're welcome.' They are not supporting the government in budget repair, They stand as a bulwark against budget repair, and the evidence on point today is their absolute commitment to try to give foreign workers in this country a zero per cent rate of tax while forcing Australians to pay for that. In the 2015-16 budget, there was a measure which would have contributed to the budget some $540 million on the backpacker arrangements. In the 2016-17 budget, that was upgraded to $760 million because of the addition of a year. As a result of the measures that this government has been able to agree with the crossbenchers in the upper house, we will achieve $640 million of the $760 million that was set out in the 2016-17 budget.
Those opposite were prepared to write off $760 million in revenue despite coming in here every other day and wanting to jack up taxes on homeowners, investors and small business. When you want to tax foreign workers, 'Oh no, we can't do that,' says the federated union of foreign worker representatives sitting opposite. They say, 'No, we want Australians to pay $760 million in higher taxes' so they can have a foreign worker free-for-all on the taxpayer. Those opposite have worked against the government tooth and nail to protect the tax rights of foreign workers and they still insist to this day that they should pay no tax. (Time expired)
My question is to the Prime Minister. Did the Attorney-General verbally instruct the Solicitor-General not to run a particular argument in the Bell case in the High Court? Prime Minister, this is not covered by the Attorney-General's statement in the Senate today, and the Attorney-General has said on Sky News today, 'I'm not going into that matter.'
During the motion that was raised earlier today denouncing the Attorney-General over this matter—which was being moved, of course, before he had even completed his statement to the Senate on it, showing the shadow Attorney-General's high regard for due process and natural justice—I was turning to talk to my colleagues and I heard the words, 'The Attorney-General is a disgrace.' I did not need to turn around to see who had said that; it is always the member for Isaacs.
Not since Rumpole spilt claret on Guthrie Featherstone QC MP's jabot has there been such a shameful sort of enmity in the bar common room. It is relentless. You can set your clock on a denunciation of the Attorney-General. The fact of the matter is the Attorney-General has set out a comprehensive statement of events. The shadow Attorney-General is asking me what transpired in a conversation between two distinguished members of the bar at which I was not present. Obviously I do not know what transpired between them, but the Attorney-General has set out his account of the events. It is completely comprehensive and I refer honourable members to it. I really hope that, in the spirit of Christmas and goodwill, the member for Isaacs will find something good about the Attorney-General and perhaps may think kindly of his fellow QC. Surely there must be something that can bring them together at this happy time of year.
Ms Keay interjecting—
Ms Butler interjecting—
The member for Braddon is now warned! And the member for Griffith will cease interjecting.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, this morning in this place I introduced a private member's bill, the Charter of Budget Honesty Amendment (Regional Australia Statements) Bill 2016, and this bill calls on the government to release with each budget or MYEFO regional Australia statements that outline the impact of fiscal policy on those of us who live outside the city. My question, Mr Prime Minister, is: can you give the assurance to the House that this bill will be brought on for consideration and, to demonstrate to those of us who live in rural and regional Australia, that our issues are taken account of by the government in preparation of its fiscal policy?
I thank the honourable member for her question and I acknowledge her and my colleagues' very keen interest in regional Australia and the impact of budget measures on it. I note for all honourable members' benefit that in every budget there is a statement, and I have in my hand the one from the last budget, Investing in Regional Growth. It is a statement which is presented by the Minister for Regional Development, Senator the Honourable Fiona Nash, and it sets out the key Australian government initiatives in regional Australia by each portfolio. I think this statement would largely meet the matters raised by the honourable member. But I can say to her that we will nonetheless closely look at the amendment she is proposing to see how we can continue to strengthen our support for and understanding of regional Australia in all of our government's decisions. It is an absolutely key focus of the government. Most of the regional Australian seats, as the honourable member knows, are represented by members of the coalition—
Dr Mike Kelly interjecting—
The member for Eden-Monaro is warned!
so it is always clearly in our thoughts. I want to remind honourable members that six of my cabinet colleagues are from rural and regional Australia. They provide a very strong voice on all government policy in the cabinet. We are backing regions through a $297 million Building Better Regions Fund. We are supporting regions to drive sustainable growth and employment through our $220 million Regional Jobs and Investment Packages, including $20 million for the Goulburn Valley—a particular interest to the honourable member. We are committed, as the honourable member knows, to a $10 million road upgrade package for her electorate of Indi. We are rolling out 30 new or upgraded mobile base stations in Indi under the Mobile Black Spots Program. I might say, on the matter of the NBN—an issue the honourable member is very enthusiastic about—there are 7,382 active NBN services in Indi and over 34,000 premises are able to order an NBN connection if they wish, including of course access to the Sky Muster satellite. The honourable member and the coalition will no doubt have differences at election time, but we are absolutely united in our commitment to regional Australia and our determination to ensure that the budget and every element of our policy delivers for regional Australians. We will have a very close look at her bill and I thank her for raising it.
The member for Bowman on a point of order.
I would ask that the member withdraw the comment regarding coming after the Prime Minister with a meat axe.
No.
Opposition members interjecting—
Members on my left! There is a long history in the practice.
Mr Rob Mitchell interjecting—
Mr Watts interjecting—
Mr Champion interjecting—
I am not going to address the House while the members for McEwen, Gellibrand and Wakefield interject. There is a long history in the practice that robust terms are used, but it was not meant literally; it is all in the context. I am calling the member for Parkes.
My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources. Will the Deputy Prime Minister explain to the House why the restoration of the Australian Building and Construction Commission is necessary to protect the agriculture sector and our hardworking farmers?
I thank the honourable member for his question. I note that this is an incredibly important issue. After Dyson Heydon's findings in the trade union royal commission, the CFMEU, which has donated over $11 million to the Labor Party since 2000, is seen to have 113 representatives before the courts and 1,129 breaches of law. I also note the member for Parkes' interest in this, especially because of the Dubbo cancer centre that is about to be constructed. One might easily draw parallels between the Dubbo cancer centre that is being constructed and the Melbourne Comprehensive Cancer Centre which was being constructed. At the Melbourne Comprehensive Cancer Centre, when being constructed, CFMEU members stopped subcontractors from entering the Victorian Comprehensive Cancer Centre in Parkville and another building site in Footscray. The CFMEU officials and union members attended at both of these sites and prevented Grocon subcontractors from going on the sites. Supreme Court injunctions were in place restraining the CFMEU from preventing, hindering or interfering with free access to and free egress from all Victorian sides, but of course it did not stop them. This is a body who believe they are above the law.
All we are trying to do with the ABCC is remove the law of the jungle and return the rule of law. The member would be interested, because he wants to get the inland rail built. We saw with the Lendlease sites, especially with the Sunshine Coast hospital, the CFMEU, once more, being ordered to cease a week-long strike blitz that is trying to force the builder, Lendlease, to sign a deal in breach of the federal government rules covering multimillion dollar projects. They use their power to bully. They use their power to try and create a mechanism where it is not the rule of law that runs the place but them.
The effect of the CFMEU can be seen all the way through here. Just lately we have seen the minister for agriculture up in Queensland lose her job. When she became the minister for agriculture she said of her experience, 'I grown my own vegetables occasionally.' So the CFMEU rep gets the job there. But nothing could outdo what we are seeing here with Senator Kimberley Kitching. The member for Isaacs is actually laughing now. The member of Isaacs is going to stand by the bold commitment he has to so many facets of proper process, but we cannot see the member for Isaacs standing up at the moment for this complete imbroglio which is Senator Kimberley Kitching, because he knows that it stinks to high hell.
And up stands the member who created the smell! (Time expired)
My question is to the Prime Minister. Did the Attorney-General verbally instruct the Solicitor-General not to run a particular argument in the Bell case in the High Court? In the event that the Prime Minister is unaware, will he report back the answer to the House today?
All of the matters concerning this issue are set out in the statement and the correspondence, and I cannot assist the honourable member with respect to further details of conversations to which I was not a party.
My question is to the Minister for Defence Industry representing the Minister for Employment. Will the minister explain what the trade union royal commission recommended with respect to the referral to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions of soliciting of corrupt payments? Why is it important that the union movement run honestly on behalf of hardworking Australians?
I thank the member for Moore for his question, and I can tell him that the trade union royal commission referred certain payments from Victorian businesses to AWU Victoria to the Commonwealth DPP for potential prosecution—
Mr Brian Mitchell interjecting—
The member for Lyons will leave under 94(a).
The member for Lyons then left the chamber.
under the offences of solicitation of a corrupt commission and giving of a corrupt commission. One particularly egregious example concerned a payment of $100,000 from Thiess John Holland to AWU Victoria in financial year 2005-06—so, $100,000 went from Thiess John Holland to the AWU in financial year 2005-06. In the same year, 2005-06, a sum of $99,426 was donated by AWU Victoria to the ALP in Victoria—so, only $574 difference, which I guess was a handling fee or a small administrative charge taken by the AWU in handing that $100,000 on to the ALP in Victoria. This was the only year in which such a donation was made when one person held the positions of National Secretary of the Australian Workers Union, Victorian Secretary of the Australian Workers Union, Victorian president of the Australian Labor Party and—just for good measure in that financial year, holding all three of those positions when that donation was made—was also preselected for a very safe seat in Victoria to represent the Labor Party in the federal parliament.
Who was that?
Indeed: guess who it was? It was our old mate Bill.
The Leader of the House will refer to members by their correct titles.
It was our old charmer the Leader of the Opposition, National President of the ALP, National Secretary of the AWU and state secretary to the AWU when these payments were made.
It was probably all very coincidental. There is every chance that it was just a coincidence. But the Leader of the Opposition could put that all beyond doubt by supporting the Australian Building and Construction Commission. This week in the Senate the Leader of the Opposition could show that he is not the cat's paw or a wholly owned subsidiary of the union movement. He could support the Australian Building and Construction Commission. He missed his chance on the Registered Organisations Commission but he still has the chance this week to prove that all of those unfortunate matters unveiled by the trade union royal commission had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with him by putting his money where his mouth is and supporting reform of building and construction in Australia.
My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the Prime Minister's earlier answer where he claimed the relevant correspondence had been tabled. In the Senate today the Attorney-General said of the Minister for Social Services:
He told me that on 2 March 2016 his office had received an email from the Western Australian State Solicitor containing a summary briefing and slide show of the history of the matter …
Why were these materials not tabled in the Senate today, and will the Prime Minister undertake to table these documents in the parliament today?
The documents that were appended to the Attorney-General's statement, the correspondence between the WA government and the Treasurer, was the correspondence I was referring to. You have asked me about some other correspondence that was sent to the government. I will certainly inquire about that correspondence and report back to the House as to whether it can be tabled. It may be that it has important issues of confidentiality as between the WA government and the Commonwealth government.
I just want to put this in context. The Bell Group litigation, as I think honourable members know, has been going on for over 20 years. It is a modern version of the Jarndyce and Jarndyce litigation immortalised in Dickens's novel Bleak House, where the lawyers are basically chewing up the assets of the estate. And what the Western Australian government sought to do was to deal with that. The legislation that they passed had a fatal flaw in it—it may have had others—which was that it was inconsistent with provisions of the federal taxation act, a point which was raised by a number of parties in the litigation, including the Australian Taxation Office, and which was the basis for it been struck down. I am prepared to accept that the Western Australian government's desire to bring the litigation to a close and ensure that the assets were fairly distributed was a reasonable one, but it was, from their point of view, flawed from a constitutional point of view. The Australian Taxation Office was represented, the Commonwealth was represented, the section 109 argument was put, I understand, by number of other parties, and if you read the High Court's judgement, their decision on that was very emphatic. That is the fact of the matter.
Mr Brendan O'Connor interjecting—
Member for Gorton.
The Commonwealth's interest was thoroughly protected, but the consequence of that, I am afraid to say, is that this litigation appears to be continuing without end. No doubt, it is much to the benefit of the legal professionals involved as it continues to diminish the proceeds of the liquidator and the proceeds of the estate.
My question is to the Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment. Will the minister update the House on how the government has opened new export opportunities for Australian businesses, how are these new opportunities creating jobs for hardworking Australians and is the minister aware of any risk to these jobs?
I thank the member for Wide Bay for his question. Like all members on this side of the House, he is deeply passionate about creating jobs for Australians and recognises that one of the ways that we create jobs for Australians is through the coalition's resolute focus on the free trade agreements which have seen Australian businesses gain preferential market access to help them grow their business and help create more jobs for local Australian workers. We are certainly proud of the record of delivery that we have. We, of course, have the trifecta of free trade agreements—with the North Asian powerhouse economies of China, Japan and South Korea—that were put in place by this coalition government, some of which have seen exporters increase their exports to China by over 200 per cent. We are not just limiting it to that; we are also focusing on what we have been able to do with Singapore. And, of course, I am putting a very strong focus on putting in place a comprehensive deal with Indonesia as well.
There are many examples of successes off the back of it. Lively Linseed in New South Wales, a Aromababy in Victoria, Grove Juice in Queensland in the member for Bonner's seat and Australian Honey Products in Tasmania have all stated that the coalition's North Asian FTAs mean more local jobs and more investment in new facilities. But I note the member for Wide Bay asks about risks. Unfortunately, there are some risks to Australian jobs. Despite the rhetoric that we hear from the Leader of the Opposition, the fact is we have to look at the Labor Party, in particular, the Leader of the Opposition's form, when it comes to Australian workers and Australian jobs. Because I have made the point before, the Leader of the Opposition, and the Labor Party more generally, say one thing in this chamber and a different thing out there on the street.
Look at, for example, the long-term Australian workers of Chiquita Mushrooms in Victoria. This was at a time when the Leader of the Opposition was the Victorian state secretary of the AWU. He was the man in charge when it came to the AWU in Victoria and, as leader, he then put jobs at risk, and he did it because he followed the orders of the CFMEU in relation to, for example, the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement. But more recently, we know from the royal commission into trade unions that they uncovered a grubby deal that was brokered between the AWU, which was reported to have cost 157 mushroom pickers to lose their jobs and 120 workers to suffer wage reductions. And, in fact, when the Leader of the Opposition was Victorian secretary of the AWU, he made sure that Chiquita did an EBA with a union-friendly Oneforce, as the Labor hire company to supply workers to Chiquita. They bypassed the tender process; they did not worry about going to tender. They just went straight to their union-friendly mates at Oneforce because they knew that that was where they were going to get their support, and it also meant that 157 Australian workers lost their jobs and 120 Australian workers got wage reductions. That is the process of delivery from this Leader of the Opposition. (Time expired)
My question is to the Minister for Revenue and Financial Services, and refers to her continuing ministerial responsibility for the Australian tax office. In state parliament, the West Australian Treasurer has said that the ATO acted in the Bell Group litigation 'contrary to the direction or advice of the Assistant Treasurer, Kelly O'Dwyer'. What direction or advice did the minister give to the ATO on this matter?
I thank the member for her question. As the former Minister for Small Business and Assistant Treasurer, and now Minister for Revenue and Financial Services, I do have ministerial responsibility for the Australian Taxation Office. As such, I receive updates from Treasury and from the ATO regarding matters that concern the ATO. When I was made aware of assertions being made by WA ministers regarding dealings with former Treasurer, the Hon. Joe Hockey, regarding the Bell litigation, I sought briefing from the ATO. The ATO advised me that it had a legal obligation and a sound case to intervene in the proceedings in the High Court of Australia to protect the interests of the Commonwealth. I fully supported the ATO position and so advised the Attorney-General of the joint position of myself and the ATO, to which the Attorney-General actually refers to in his detailed statement in the Senate. This position was subsequently vindicated by the High Court in a unanimous decision.
Can I ask that the minister table the document from which she was reading?
Was the minister reading from confidential documents?
Ms O'Dwyer interjecting—
The minister was reading from confidential documents.
My question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care and Minister for Sport. Will the minister update the House on the upcoming Commonwealth Games, to be held on the Gold Coast in 2018? Is the minister aware of any concerns arising in the games' preparation?
I thank the member for Fadden, representing the northern part of the beautiful Gold Coast, for his question. I have already detailed in this House the shameful way in which the CFMEU has delayed the construction of hospital and aged-care facilities for elderly and vulnerable Australians. Unfortunately, the news gets worse.
We are incredibly proud to be hosting the Commonwealth Games on the beautiful Gold Coast in 2018. It is an opportunity to showcase our hosting talents, and it is the first time a Commonwealth Games in Australia has been held outside a major city. It is very exciting. We are providing the lion's share of the funding: the Commonwealth government is providing $154 million towards a successful Commonwealth games; clearly, there are massive infrastructure spends associated with that. So how disappointed are we to hear—yet again—that on the construction sites associated with the Commonwealth Games, the bullies, louts, thieves, thugs and perjurers—not my words but those of Justice Heydon—are at work, if you can call it work, yet again. The Australian reported back in June developments that transpired on the building site for the Carrara Stadium. Carrara Stadium is where the opening and closing ceremonies are going to be held. It is where the athletics finals will be held: we hope to see Sally Pearson run a 100-metre-hurdle gold medal there; we hope to see Kurt Fearnley win the wheelchair marathon as he comes into that stadium. You would think the workers of the CFMEU would make a bit of an effort—actually, Mr Speaker, it is not the workers; I have no truck with the workers. It is the bosses—it is the bosses and their relationship with members opposite. We have no issue with the workers, who are being led to this. As The Australian said, the Federal Court heard that workers at the Commonwealth Games site clocked on at 6.30 am for coffee and a toolbox meeting until 7.30, before the first two-hour, union-led communication meeting. That flowed straight into a half-hour smoko until 10 am, then an hour of very little work, until the second union meeting from 11 am to 1 pm. A half-hour lunch break was followed by about an hour of work, before the workday finished as early as 2.30 pm. Is it any wonder that the cost of construction has been estimated to be at least 30 per cent higher than it should be? And long-suffering taxpayers are bearing that cost. We are not prepared to let an event like the Commonwealth Games on the world stage be held to ransom by the Labor Party's henchmen and -women in the CFMEU. We know that Labor needs to stop running a CFMEU protection racket and bring back the ABCC.
My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the statement by the Attorney-General in the Senate today, and to the answer just given by the Minister for Revenue and Financial Services. Is it seriously the position of the government that the only person to blame for the WA kickback scandal is the former Treasurer in the Abbott government?
I thank the honourable member for his questions. And, while we admire his persistence, his determination to misrepresent the facts—to use this chamber as an opportunity for smearing—is relentless. The matters have been dealt with in my earlier answers.
My question is to the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection. Will the minister update the House on steps the government is taking to ensure the integrity of the 457 visa program? Is the minister aware of any alternative approaches?
I thank the honourable member very much for his question. This is a very important issue, because it brings into focus the credibility of the Leader of the Opposition. This is a man who at every turn—and there are many people behind him that could attest to this—he has doublecrossed most people in his public adult life. This is a leader of the opposition who says one thing outside of this chamber and a very different thing inside of this chamber. The Leader of the Opposition is here, saying that he wants to introduce a bill in relation to 457 visas. The whole idea of the 457 program is that, if the company or the employer cannot find an Australian worker, they can advertise for an overseas worker. And we heard from the Leader of the Opposition on the introduction of a bill into this place—somehow, he wanted to change the focus of this particular 457 visa program. But when he was the employment minister—when he was a minister in the Gillard and Rudd governments—he did the complete opposite. Mr Speaker, can you imagine the surprise this morning when the Leader of the Opposition woke up to this headline in The Daily Telegraph
The minister knows the rules on props.
I understand, Mr Speaker. 'Do you want lies with that?' goes the headline in The Daily Telegraph, a story written by Simon Benson. As it turns out, this Leader of the Opposition signed off on a special deal for McDonald's. There was some confusion, as I understand it, in Labor ranks at the time, because the Leader of the Opposition thought that it was actually a special dodgy deal for Joe McDonald! You could understand his confusion, Mr Speaker. He will prefer union bosses over workers every day of the week. That has been his operation; that has been the way he has conducted himself all his adult life. He has ripped workers off, to the benefit of union bosses, on a regular basis. It has been documented in this place. It does not matter whether it is the special deal for McDonald's, or importing foreign workers and preferring them over Australian workers—it does not matter which example you to look at: this Leader of the Opposition cannot lie straight in bed. That is the reality. It is demonstrated in case after case. This Leader of the Opposition cannot go to the public at the time of the next election with any credibility on 457 visas. He cannot go to the Australian public at the next election with any credibility when it comes to border protection policy, because—as we know—before an election, this Leader of the Opposition will say or do anything. He will say or do anything, but the reality is that he cannot tell the truth. He has demonstrated it again in relation to this 457 issue, and the Australian public is awake to this phoney Leader of the Opposition.
My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Water. I refer to the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. Will the government guarantee to acquire the additional 450 gigalitres of water through infrastructure investment?
I thank the honourable member for his question and note that he, like most, would understand the plan. It was actually written by him so, obviously, any of the concerns that lie in there would have been known by him. We want to make sure that we deliver for the plan. We deliver for the plan to the word and letter of the plan, and we are now also trying to delve into how we construct and retrieve that water. I hear some of the suggestions that have been brought up thus far, and some of them quite amaze me. They bring up the Menindee storage lakes, which we are already doing. They bring up the Barmah Choke, which we are already doing, which is already part of the assessment. They bring up the Yarrawonga levees, which we are already doing—so the 450, as he well knows, is part of the plan. But what would be better is if he came to the despatch box with some ideas about the problems that he actually created.
My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Energy. I ask the minister if he will advise the House of how the Australian Building and Construction Commission would support Australia's energy sector and international competitiveness, and is the minister aware of any alternative approaches that would jeopardise industry and the jobs it creates for hardworking Australians?
I thank the member for Menzies for his question and acknowledge that, as a former minister for employment and workplace relations, he is absolutely committed to improving the—
Dr Chalmers interjecting—
The member for Rankin will cease interjecting.
lawful activity on our building sites and increasing the productivity on our building sites.
I am asked about the energy sector. It employs more than 200,000 Australians, together with the resources sector. It is worth some 10 per cent of GDP. It earns billions of dollars worth of export income and, in the gas sector alone, over the last decade, we have seen more than $200 billion worth of investment, particularly in LNG. There is more to come, because the International Energy Agency estimates that the demand for gas internationally will increase by some 48 per cent between now and 2040. But there is something that is holding back Australia from getting a bigger piece of this pie, and it is the lawlessness that we are seeing in the construction sector. It is the high prices that are being paid because of the unlawful activity.
Recently the BCA, the AIG group and the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry came together and, in a joint statement, talked about how the illegal behaviour in our construction sector adds significantly to costs. We know those additional costs to be some 30 per cent—that is 30 per cent to build more pipelines, 30 per cent to build more LNG plants, 30 per cent to build more mines, 30 per cent to build more roads. That is why we need the Australian Building and Construction Commission back in business. It produced a some $6 billion annual productivity dividend when it was in place and, since its abolition, there has been a 40 per cent increase in industrial disputation. We have seen that on sites like Gorgon, Wheatstone and Ichthys. On the Wheatstone site, a CFMEU member was found guilty of the Fair Work Building Construction Agency of what they termed 'deplorable and obscene contraventions', and ones that had a particularly racist overtone.
Members of the party of those opposite, like Martin Ferguson, have said we need a policeman back on the beat, and that it is time to bring back stability and decency to the construction sector. Those were his words. So my message to the Leader of the Opposition is this: say no to your paymasters in the CFMEU. Say no to bullying activity. Say no to illegal behaviour. Say no to contraventions and say no to the thuggery and intimidation. And say yes to lower costs in the construction industry, better prices and a better deal for consumers, for households and for Australian businesses.
My question is to the Treasurer. On Friday the Treasurer said:
What negative gearing is is the ability for you to deduct what is a business expense against a business income.
Does the Treasurer realise that that is not actually negative gearing? Is the reason why the Treasurer refuses to reform negative gearing that he does not know what it is?
I thank the member for his second-form question. This is the same shadow Treasurer who could not nominate the tax-free threshold on Sky News to Alan Jones. As usual, he misrepresents these matters. As I was trying to point out when questioned on the matter, the way it works is that it is a very simple tax principle: when you incur costs in earning an income, you can recoup the costs in claiming deductions for those. I was drawing a comparison with businesses in that the rental of a property is like running a business. I was trying to communicate a very simple tax principle. The tax principle is where you have net rental losses, when you have gone out and you have invested in your future and you are trying to provide for the future for you and your family as so many Australians do—ordinary Australians out there, whether they are police officers or nurses or teachers or others who are the predominant users of negative gearing in this country. They are out there trying to provide for their future.
What those opposite are saying is that when people incur costs in the procuring of that income, when they incur costs in repairing the property or doing all of these sorts of things or incurring costs in the dead interest costs, then they should not be able to claim that back. They are saying that is some form of concession. They are wrong. They are absolutely wrong. This is a tax principle that has been around for a century. Those opposite should focus more on the things they used to support to bring the country forward—things like reducing company taxes for small businesses. Those opposite would rather see small businesses pay higher rates of tax than see foreign workers pay higher rates of tax. What they would like to see is companies struggling more and not being able to give workers more hours and more opportunity to earn more. That is what their economic plan is, as well as increasing the deficit by $16.8 billion. On this side of the House we are focused on constructive measures which enable Australians to get ahead. Those opposite just want to tax them more.
My question is to the Minister for Small Business. Will the minister advise the House how militant union behaviour has impacted on small business in the building and construction sector? And how will the Australian Building and Construction Commission and Registered Organisations Commission restore integrity to the sector and generate jobs for hardworking Australians?
I thank the member for Hughes for his question. The 300,000 small businesses in the construction industry annually contribute more than $50 billion to GDP. There are 2,359 small businesses in the construction industry in the member for Hughes's electorate. They make up 20 per cent of the number of small businesses in his seat.
The coalition government is absolutely committed to creating an environment for these construction small businesses to thrive, not one in which they are concerned for their livelihoods. We have passed the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Bill 2014. We have delivered on a key election commitment to improve the transparency of registered organisations.
However, the most critical part of successfully creating this environment is bringing back the Australian Building and Construction Commission, to tackle the bullying and to tackle the lost productivity and the threats from disgraced union members. The most critical part, absolutely, is doing this.
We heard from the minister for health, aged care and sport, talking about the Gold Coast and the Commonwealth Games construction a little earlier on. We of course remember what happened on the Gold Coast not that long ago—we heard the Prime Minister enunciate it, at this very dispatch box: the CFMEU official who said: 'I know your phone number. I know where you live.' And that sort of bullying and that sort of intimidation has to be outlawed. Mind you, the swearing that he continued with I will not repeat in this chamber.
No, you won't.
That is reserved only for CFMEU officials and water ministers from South Australia. But I do like this particular quote: 'The list of projects affected by CFMEU lawlessness is simply staggering—everything from major gas export projects to major road and rail projects to children's hospitals, schools, social housing and community facilities. Lawlessness and dysfunction means all these facilities cost more, get delayed or both.' That was our employment minister, Senator Michaelia Cash. And you would expect her to say that. However, let me also quote from Wilhelm Harnisch, who was the CEO of Master Builders Australia:
The ABCC, in particular, is what the community deserves. At its very core, the ABCC provides statutory backing that will see the cost of construction for schools, hospitals and roads reduced significantly.
I would have thought that the member for Grayndler, given his position, would want to see the cost of roads reduced significantly.
Master Builders has backed the ABCC for over a decade.
Harnisch said that. James Pearson, the CEO of the Australian chamber of commerce, also agrees. The cost of infrastructure—and we have heard the Treasurer say this—is up to 30 per cent higher than it should be, due to unlawful practices. So taxpayers get less value from government spending and we all pay more. We need to reinstate the ABCC. We need to do it immediately.
My question is to the Treasurer. Given that the Treasurer has been contradicted by the New South Wales Liberal government on negative gearing, first argued there were excesses in negative gearing, then attacked Labor's reforms to negative gearing, then was rolled in cabinet when he himself argued for changes to negative gearing, and now does not know what negative gearing is, is it not plain this Treasurer is just incompetent?
I thank the member opposite for his question. This is the shadow Treasurer who, at the last election, thought the right plan for Australia was to increase the deficit—
Ms Burney interjecting—
The member for Barton is warned.
by $16½ billion dollars. Under the budgets of those opposite, they had accumulated deficits of 16.9 per cent of GDP. That is what they delivered. We have kept that—under the six years of the budgets, both on the projections and the forecasts of what we have delivered—to less than 10 per cent, and we have a credible plan to bring that budget back to balance. And that is necessary for the very important reason of retaining Australia's AAA credit rating, as the agencies have warned, and they have warned this parliament that they need to support the measures that bring the budget back to balance.
The biggest threat to that sits opposite, in the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Treasurer. They talk about their proposals to hit middle income families who are engaged in negative gearing with higher taxes. That is what they do. They say that and they say that that is what is going to bring the budget back to balance. But they know it is not true because, on their own measures that they put to the last election, which included hitting those middle-income earners by abolishing the negative gearing opportunities they had, as well as increasing capital gains tax and abolishing the company tax plan that we put to the election; they still had a deficit that was $16½ billion higher.
This is a shadow Treasurer who either cannot count or thinks that the best way to improve the government's position is actually to have a higher deficit. Well, had he been the Treasurer today, the AAA credit rating would already be lost.
My constituency question is to the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport. Will the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport update the House on the government's $6.7 billion investment in the Bruce Highway? How is this investment creating jobs, improving productivity and saving lives?
I do thank the member for his question and I congratulate him for carrying on the strong work of the former member for Wide Bay, Warren Truss. I recently attended with the member to the Cooroy to Curra section. It is good to see the Turnbull-Joyce government's plan for jobs and growth in action on the ground.
The member for Wide Bay is the co-chair of the Parliamentary Friends of Road Safety. I know he takes that responsibility very seriously. He is also a former traffic investigator. And the member for Wide Bay has firsthand experience of what it is like to turn up at a serious accident and have to attend with the grieving families associated with those events. I take the opportunity to thank him for his work in the past, but also to recognise those first responders around our nation who will be required to do their job again this Christmas.
This government is passionate about providing safer roads, as I know members on both sides of the House are. The $307 million commitment to the Cooroy to Curra section is a major commitment to a $384 million project which is going to make some significant improvements to safety in the member's own electorate around the township of Gympie in Wide Bay. We expect that the work will be completed by the middle of 2018.
It is often said—and I have repeated it many times in this place—that when we are investing in good infrastructure we are actually changing people's lives and we are saving people's lives. It changes lives by improving productivity. In relation to the Bruce Highway in particular, it is taking away the need for closures with associated flooding, but obviously it is saving lives. The investment in the Bruce Highway is in the order of a $6.7 billion commitment by the Turnbull-Joyce government for this 1,700 kilometre highway which is the arterial of life along the north-south corridor of Queensland. Road safety, as members would be aware, is all about investing in safer roads, and making sure we have safer drivers and safer cars along those roads.
Some of the work we have seen in Queensland that has been particular successful is a very cost-effective treatment: the widening of centre lines. This was introduced in Queensland in 2010. And we have seen a 43 per cent reduction in fatal crashes on those sections where the centre lines have been widened. It has been a very cost effective treatment. So I want to congratulate the member for Wide Bay for his advocacy, for the work he has done in the past in relation to road safety, but also in relation to the work he is doing now in helping to make the Bruce Highway a more efficient and safer network.
Many members on this side of the House in the LNP have raised their concerns in relation to the future of funding for the Bruce Highway. The member for Fisher, the member for Fairfax, the member for Dawson, the member for Capricornia, the member for Petrie, the member for Dickson, the member for Hinkler and the member for Flynn are all very passionate about seeing the coalition's investment in better and safer roads in Queensland continue into the future. We have a record $50 billion investment in infrastructure across the nation and we need to make sure that Queensland does receive its fair share and that we deliver the infrastructure that Queensland needs.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Yesterday, the former Prime Minister and member for Warringah said:
It is good that we are no longer talking about innovation and agility because, frankly, it loses people.
But, almost at the same time, the Minister for Finance said:
I think innovation and agility is an important part of our economic plan.
Whose lead will the Prime Minister follow today? And is agility still central to your government's policies?
Nothing is more important to Australia's future than innovation. Innovation is the driver of productivity.
Mr Hill interjecting—
The member for Bruce can leave under 94(a).
The member for Bruce then left the chamber.
And without continued growth and productivity, Australians cannot be competitive, our living standards cannot be maintained, and we will not be able to maintain a high-wage, generous, social-welfare-net first-world economy. So it is no accident that innovation is at the core of every G20 government's economic policy. It is no accident that innovation was central to the communique from the G20 summit in Hangzhou.
It is no accident that it was central to the communique and the discussions and the agenda of the APEC meeting in Lima. Innovation is key. It ensures that our children will have great jobs in the future. It ensures that the Zero Childhood Cancer initiative, which our government is supporting, will be successful. It ensures that children who are suffering from cancer today will find cures. It ensures that our service men and women, when they go into battle, will have the best equipment, the best technology and will be best able to serve our nation, and keep us safe and preserve our freedoms.
Innovation is fundamental to our success. It is fundamental to our plan. The National Innovation and Science Agenda is a critical element for our future, and its counterpart in every other country underlines the importance in this, the most rapidly changing time in human history, a time when the scale and pace of change is faster than ever. It is vital. I will quote, if I may, what I said at the APEC summit in Lima only a few weeks ago:
… the fact is we know what we have to do, we have to ensure that our nations, our businesses, our cultures are much more innovative. That is the key to maintaining strong economic growth.
… … …
Those who resist innovation are not defending themselves against the consequences of technological change, they’re making themselves vastly more vulnerable to it.
That is the government's policy. Our future depends on an innovative Australia.
The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order?
Mr Speaker, I would ask the Prime Minister to table the document from which he quoted himself.
The member for Petrie has the call.
Thank you, Mr Speaker—
Honourable members interjecting—
Members on my left and on my right, the member for Petrie has the call.
Mr Pyne interjecting—
Mr Bowen interjecting—
Leader of the House and Member for McMahon, the member for Petrie has the call.
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. My question is to the Treasurer. There are many businesses in my electorate and in the region that employ many people. Would the Treasurer please explain to the House how the government took to the last election a policy to cut company tax rates for small and medium businesses, and how extending the instant asset tax write-off will ensure there are more well-paid jobs on Petrie and right around Australia?
I thank the member for Petrie for his question because, like so many other people on this side of the House who have run a small business, the member for Petrie has employed people and given them jobs off the back of his investment and his wife's investment. They are working together in a small family business, making sure that they can give jobs to young Australians living in Queensland in their pest control business. I want to thank the member for Petrie for the contribution that he and his wife and his family have made in running that business, along with the hundred and thousands of other small businesses around the country which this government recognised in the budget. There are some 100,000 of them, who will be able to benefit from the lifting of the small-business threshold from $2 million to $10 million, to give them access to a 27½ per cent tax rate, the instant asset write-off, the depreciation pool provision and a range of other measures which ensure those small businesses can support the employees that work for them and ensure that they can give them more hours and they can make more investments.
Those opposite jeer and sneer at the member for Petrie, as they did when he asked his question. He knows more about employing people than any of the union hacks on that side do. The member for Petrie knows about employing people. Those opposite just recognise the rights of union bosses and union thugs and bikies, who do their dirty work, turning up to the immigration minister's office, standing there with their signs. But we are going to represent those small businesses who want to give Australians a job. The member for Fenner says, 'Certainly you want to be looking around the world for your company tax rate.' That is what the member for Fenner says, and the shadow Treasurer has said on any number of occasions that our company tax rate needs to be competitive. The United States will be going to 15, the United Kingdom is going to 17, Malaysia is at 24, Korea is at 24.2 and New Zealand is at 28. Maybe they are looking to France, where it is 33 per cent, or Italy, where it is 31.3. They seem to know how much tax foreign workers pay in New Zealand, but they do not know what small businesses pay in New Zealand. They do not want to ensure that there is a competitive tax rate for small businesses in this country, but they want to make sure that there is a lower rate of tax for foreign workers.
We are pursuing these reforms despite the opposition of those opposite and despite the fact that those opposite think small businesses should pay higher rates of tax and should be frustrated in their efforts to continue to provide jobs for Australians. As they demonstrated when the small-business man the member for Petrie asked the question, they jeered and they sneered because they just do not get small business.
After 23 questions and answers, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
I present the Auditor-General's performance audit report No. 28 of 2016-17, entitled Collection of North West Shelf royalty revenue: Department of Industry, Innovation and Science.
Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper.
Documents are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable members earlier today. Full details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.
This legislation, the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Country of Origin) Bill 2016, is very important to a number of my constituents. I particularly want to mention the story of Mr Simon Korlaki, who has contacted me on a number of occasions, including at one of my mobile offices, to raise with me his concerns about some of the difficulty in knowing where food comes from. I am a strong supporter of making sure that people are able to find out where the food that they are buying comes from. Of course, Mr Speaker, you will have heard Labor talking a lot lately about not just employing Australian and building Australian but also buying Australian, and I know it is something that my constituents are very concerned about. Mr Korlaki has raised a number of different types of foods. He contacted my office about walnuts. He bought a packet of walnuts and on the packet it said, 'Made from local and imported ingredients.' He said, 'It's a packet of walnuts. How can there possibly be a diversity of local and imported ingredients in that packet?' He came to see me at my mobile office, as I mentioned, and brought with him a packet of acai berries. I am not sure if I have the pronunciation right, but everyone in this place will have had an acai bowl with the beautiful bananas and strawberries and honey on top, and maybe with chia seeds. The berries are delicious, as I am sure you know, Mr Speaker. Trust me, they are delicious.
I'm not commenting—it's okay!
He is not commenting! Well, I am here to tell you that the acai berries are delicious. My constituent bought a packet of acai berries, presumably to make himself a delicious acai breakfast bowl but perhaps for other purposes—we did not really get into that. He showed me the packet and, again, it said on the packet, 'Made from local and imported ingredients.' He said to me, 'They're just berries. There's nothing else in the packet except for all these berries. How can they possibly be made from local and imported ingredients?' These are very good and interesting questions, but they are also very serious questions. If you want to buy Australian and you are an Australian who wishes to see money spent in Australia stay in Australia, then you do want to know where your food comes from and whether or not you are able to meet your ambition for your consumption by looking at food labelling.
As you know, Mr Speaker, this bill will give us some assistance in knowing a little more about where the content of packages has come from and where it has been made. Obviously, it will not go into a detailed ingredient-by-ingredient description of every component of everything that is in a packet, but it will give consumers a bit more to go on than they have had in the past. Mr Speaker, you will be aware, of course, of the labels proposed by this bill to be used. The label will give a little diagram that will show people the proportion of ingredients made in Australia in a given packet. That diagram will have your very familiar 'Made in Australia' logo on it—the triangle with the kangaroo; we have all seen that for many years in this country. Underneath the kangaroo logo, there will be a little window that will be shaded to indicate what proportion of the contents of the packet are made from Australian ingredients. The words underneath will say, 'Made in Australia from zero per cent Australian ingredients,' 'Made in Australia from less than 25 per cent Australian ingredients,' 'Made in Australia from more than 25 per cent Australian ingredients,' 'Made in Australia from more than 50 per cent Australian ingredients,' and so on. That will be the 'Made in' country-of-origin claim and there will also be 'Grown in' country-of-origin claims and 'Packed in' statements. All of those three things are of concern to people in the community, and that includes my constituents.
I think that these changes are a step in the right direction. Obviously, ideally constituents of mine would like to know very clearly all of those things—where things were made, where they have been packed, where they have been grown and about all the ingredients in the food that they have purchased—for a range of reasons, and they would be interested in knowing those things when they are at the supermarket. When you are at the supermarket, I do not know about you, Mr Deputy Speaker Coulton, but I certainly do pick up the packets and find out where things have been made or where they have been grown to the extent that the information is currently available because, as a consumer, I do want to be able to make a choice.
We have so much choice available to us, so we do want, when selecting between different goods, to be able to make an informed choice, and we—whether it is because of patriotism, whether it is because we have known people who have lost their jobs in Australia through redundancies when work has dried up or whether it is because we have friends or family who have been in that situation—want a situation where we buy Australian first. That is certainly something that a number of people in my electorate worry about, so a piece of legislation like this one is very important.
Food labelling seems like it is quite a mundane thing; it seems like it is quite an everyday question, but it is really important to the informed choice of consumers, to the money that is spent in Australia and to the question of whether the money does stay on our shores. I do believe that Australians are entitled to know exactly where their food comes from and, accordingly, I take this issue very seriously, as does Labor.
You would also be aware, Mr Deputy Speaker, that, in government, Labor conducted a comprehensive review of labelling laws, and that we worked very closely with the states, through the Council of Australian Governments, to improve guidance for both consumers and industry. We also recognised that consumers are not the only people participating in the market in Australia when it comes to Australian food. Producers are also participants, and it is really important that, when we think about the rights of consumers, we do make sure we are not putting an undue burden on Australia's food processors for many reasons: nobody wants to see people have undue burdens placed on them, and it would be counterproductive if it meant that food processing and manufacturing ended up going offshore.
The food-processing industry is an industry that is very important to Australia, and it is something we are good at because we are a safe country, we are not a corrupt country and we are a country where there are very high-quality standards, and those things are all very important for contributing to the quality of Australian-made products. Australian consumers benefit from food being produced, made, grown and packed here in Australia, and so I certainly support the importance of not placing an undue burden on Australia's food processors and thereby avoiding the possible perverse effect of sending manufacturing offshore.
Labor committed to funding a bipartisan solution on food labelling in February 2015. We called on the government to consult with consumer groups and food industry representatives. In doing so, we did highlight the need to get all of the relevant ministers together to develop a comprehensive and consistent approach to supporting Australia's food industry. We also said that the government should start by addressing the recommendations of the bipartisan House of Representatives report on food labelling, and that we stood ready to constructively consider any positive policy processes that might result from this process.
Buying Australian is the best way to secure quality food, and Labor remains willing to work with the Prime Minister and his colleagues to improve the country-of-origin labelling requirements. We also strongly urge the government to think a bit more broadly about biosecurity and we also strongly encourage the government to do what it can to encourage and support Australian manufacturing.
It is unfortunate that we have not really seen that strong commitment to Australian manufacturing from this government since it took office in September 2013. You only have to think, when it comes to manufacturing more broadly, of the way that the car industry was goaded into leaving Australia or you only have to think about what happened with SPC, for example. More broadly, what is really lacking from the discussion in this House is a serious industry policy aimed at reinvigorating Australian manufacturing. There are some people who say, 'Oh well, Australian manufacturing cannot be reinvigorated,' and they are absolutely wrong. In fact, if you look around this country you will see amazing examples of advanced manufacturing and what is possible through technology, through systems innovation and through leveraging that really high quality that we have. A good example, in my view, is the company Swiss that does the supplements—a really interesting firm, a really innovative firm. They manufacture here in Australia, because it gives them an advantage in overseas markets to be able to say that they produce their products here in Australia where there are those high-quality standards.
I also had the benefit recently of getting to know a little bit about some of the other manufacturing that is happening onshore. In fact, Johnson & Johnson stopped by my office, as I am sure they did many offices in this place recently, and mentioned their view in the course of the conversation that Australia is a great place for manufacturing, particularly for advanced manufacturing.
I would like to see more from this government in terms of Australian manufacturing, promoting Australian manufacturing and talking up our ability to be a great place for manufacturing to occur. That goes for food manufacturing, but it also goes for so much more when we are talking about what is possible in manufacturing, including advanced manufacturing, in this country.
We all know, everyone in this place knows very well, that there is a great big challenge for this parliament and for the government when it comes to Australian jobs, because Australian jobs need to be better. We need more jobs, and we need our jobs to be more secure. There is a real set of problems in our economy at the moment. There are 700,000 people in the unemployment queues, people who cannot even get a single hour of work. There are 1.1 million people who are underemployed, who want more work or who want more secure work. The underemployment rate is the highest it has been since the records started being kept in 1978, the year after I was born. That is a very worrying thing, and it should be worrying for all of us because that sometimes more hidden element of underemployment is really contributing to a range of the problems we have in this country—problems like really low wages growth; wages growth is at its lowest level since 1997 when the Wage Price Index commenced being kept.
It is a problem for the Commonwealth government budget—slow income growth affects revenue negatively—but also it is a problem for those households. They are not seeing wages growth. They are not seeing their living standards increase at the rate that economic growth in this country is increasing. It is not a problem that we want to import. It is a US style problem and they have had this issue for a number of years. We should not be importing that into Australia.
We need a jobs focus. We also need to remember that there are around one million people in Australia on temporary work visas of one kind or another. That should be concerning to people, particularly of that group. We should be particularly concerned about those who are here on visas that are designed to fill skills shortage gaps, the 457 visas. We should be particularly concerned about that because those numbers have been stubbornly high.
Why should it be that we have had the occupation of bricklayer on the temporary skilled migration list for longer than it takes to train bricklayers in this country? Fair cop that there was a sudden lack of bricklayers in Australia and we needed to get a bunch of them in to overcome that lack, but why in the years since then have we not trained enough bricklayers so that we can make the 457 visa for bricklayers obsolete? There are plenty of occupations on the 457 visa list, and that is something that should be of concern to us. That means we do need to be worried about jobs. We do need to talk about jobs in this place. And when we talk about jobs we mean jobs for locals, jobs that are secure, jobs that are available and jobs for which training and skills development are available. They are very important things.
These issues do not just affect the households of people who do not have work but also they affect the whole economy. If people are in secure work, if people have high levels of private debt, which we have in Australia, and they are worried about their capacity to service that debt, if people cannot get work in the first place, those things as well as affecting the household budget also affect the Commonwealth government budget and the national economy. This is because they have a detrimental effect on consumption, on aggregate demand. Those things should be worrying for all of us wondering where we are going to get the economic growth from that our country needs.
I would say that in talking about a bill that relates to issues on manufacturing we do need to be constantly mindful of making sure that there are jobs for Australian kids when they grow up and that people who are already in the workforce and employed, in the workforce and employed but underemployed, or seeking work, participating in the workforce but not having work, are able to get the jobs they need and the jobs they should be able to, in a country like ours with strong economic growth.
For all of those reasons as well as for the consumer-driven reasons I mentioned earlier, it is important and relevant for us to be talking about buying Australian, building Australian and employing Australian. Those three things are important when it comes to this bill. We do want to help consumers be in a position where they can be confident, when making a choice, that they are buying Australian, if that is what they wish to do. Accordingly, I am very pleased there has been some progress on the country-of-origin labelling. I know my constituent Mr Korlaki will also be very pleased that there has been some progress, although I suspect he would have liked a bit more progress. I commend the built the House.
I rise to speak on the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Country of Origin) Bill 2016. I would also say how pleased I am that it is finally coming to fruition, after some time. I am sure you are very well aware, Mr Deputy Speaker, coalition MPs and senators, particularly those such as John 'Wacka' Williams—and many others—have been fighting for more accurate country-of-origin food labelling for more than a decade. In fact, Senator Williams, I think, attributes his somewhat declining and receding hairstyle to beating his head against a wall for more than 10 years over just this issue.
Over the years there have been numerous inquiries and reports. I will not go into the specifics of every single report or review but between 2003 and 2013 there were four inquiries, four reports tabled two reviews. In March 2014 the parliament's Standing Committee on Agriculture and Industry agreed to undertake another one. The committee released its report A Clearer message for consumers in October last year. This committee was of the opinion that any country-of-origin food-labelling regime should not present an impediment to importers and/or provide non-tariff trade protection to our industries but it should provide clear information to consumers who wish to make an independent choice to support either Australian farmers or food manufacturers. The report also highlighted consumer support for local produce, stating:
The Committee acknowledges that many consumers want to support Australian businesses by purchasing Australian made products—consumers express a strong preference to support local industries including food processing and manufacturing.
The issue of berries in 2015 increased public awareness and support for something that the farming and fishing industries have been long calling for: a level playing field when it comes to labelling. The coalition government has taken action to support our farmers and they give consumers real choice. At the end of the day, it is quite simple: Australians deserve to be able to make informed decisions and to know exactly what it is they are buying at their local supermarket. We want Australians to have confidence in knowing where their food is coming from.
Research commissioned by the Department of Industry, Innovation and Science in 2015 looked at the value Australian consumers place on country-of-origin information when purchasing food. It found that being able to identify the country of origin of food was either important or very important to 74 per cent of consumers surveyed. Many consumers are interested in not just where something was made or packed but also how much of the food was grown in this country. Consumers want—and they deserve—peace of mind about labels. A claim that a product is 'made in' or is 'a product of' Australia in the new system will ensure that that is the case. In saying the product is made from 'local and imported ingredients' will, quite simply, not cut it.
Consumer dissatisfaction in the country-of-origin labelling system has been evident for many years. Most recently, the response to a Colmar Brunton online survey mirrored that of the CHOICE campaign earlier in 2015, which generated over 26,000 responses. It found that almost three-quarters of consumers believe that changes to country-of-origin labelling were necessary. That is almost as many, Mr Deputy Speaker, as I am sure you get to your online surveys. However, the importance of easy-to-find labels was indicated, in the Colmar Brunton research, by the clear preference of participants for the labels that included visual elements, particularly the label option that combined text statements with visual representations via the kangaroo logo and bar chart.
The participants in the same study were asked to estimate the proportion of time they spent during a regular but hypothetical 60-minute grocery shop, reading the back of the label to find where products have been made or processed or where ingredients come from. Their time amounted to eight per cent of shopping time, or five minutes in a typical hour-long shop. This is time that could potentially be saved if label information was more easily identifiable. Thankfully, the new food labelling system will quickly and easily show consumers where products are made, grown or packaged. The new labels for food will include a bar chart and words to indicate the proportion of Australian ingredients in the food.
All food for retail sale in Australia requires a country-of-origin statement, but there are additional graphic and information requirements mandated for labels for priority food. Importing ingredients and simply slicing or packing them here will no longer qualify for a 'made in Australia' claim. The bill will simplify the tests used to justify a country of origin 'made in' claim by clarifying what 'substantial transformation' means and removing the 50 per cent production cost test. The changes are aimed at providing businesses with increased certainty about what activities constitute or do not constitute substantial transformation. They will make it clear that importing ingredients and undertaking minor processes that merely change the form or appearance of imported goods are not sufficient to justify the 'made in' claim.
The 50 per cent production cost test is an unnecessary burden on businesses and it means little to consumers. The test is difficult to administer, given the complexities of sourcing components through the global supply chain and the fluctuations in input prices and exchange rates. The removal of the 50 per cent production cost test will significantly reduce the regulatory burden for all businesses, not just food businesses. It is the main regulatory offset against the added costs imposed on food businesses by the information standard. The decision regulation impact statement estimated the total savings from removal of the production cost test at $49 million per year, or $550 million over a 20-year period in present value terms.
Research has shown that identifying the country of origin is the most important piece of information for consumers when it comes to food, and it can influence buyers' decisions. The value consumers place on origin information can vary between food types, depending on the level of processing. Country-of-origin information is valued more for fresh and less processed food. This is supported by an international literature review of country-of-origin food labelling, which cited different studies in which country of origin was shown to be one of the most important cues demanded by consumers on meat products.
A comprehensive consultation with consumers, growers and businesses meant there was ample opportunity for people to have their say on the proposed labels. The green and gold triangle design was the overwhelming preference of more than 17,800 respondents to the government's food labelling community survey. I thank those people who completed the survey and had their opinions heard. After all, the labelling is supposed to make it easier for consumers, not more confusing.
Importantly, the new food labelling system will not impose an excessive burden on businesses. At June 2014, there were over 17,300 food retailers in Australia, including almost 10,000 supermarket and grocery stores; around 4,700 fresh meat, fish and poultry retailers; and 2,500 fruit and vegetable retailers. There are also over 13,000 food and beverage manufacturing businesses in Australia. Bakery product manufacturers make up the largest proportion at some 45 per cent, followed by beverage manufacturers at 19 percent. Each of the other sub-sectors accounts for one to 10 per cent of food manufacturers, including meat manufacturers, fruit and vegetable processing, dairy product manufacturing, sugar and confectionery manufacturing, grain mill and cereal, seafood processing, and oil and fat manufacturing. Agricultural food production is the other key player in the food industry, with over 133,000 businesses.
While the reforms began on 1 July 2016, businesses will have up to two years to transition to the new arrangements and incorporate them into routine label changes, and all stock in trade can see out its shelf life. The government has developed an online self-assessment tool for businesses specifically to help them determine their new labels. Businesses can download the new labels using this tool. There is also a style guide and other information available to help businesses understand the changes.
To support the effective implementation of the reforms, the coalition government has provided the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission with additional funding of $4.2 million over five years to undertake compliance and enforcement activities in relation to these new requirements. The government is also funding $15.2 million for an information campaign to ensure consumers and businesses understand the revised framework. However, the consumer benefit from the time saving that will be generated from the visual elements of the label is estimated to far outweigh the cost to industry of providing them with that information.
The new labels are expected to appear on shop shelves later this year, so keep an eye out for them; they are around. But Australians also have to get on board. You should always 'shop local' and always read the label. I always encourage constituents in my electorate of Hinkler to 'shop local' wherever possible, and why wouldn't they? There is so much on offer from our local businesses, whether it is macadamia nuts, avocados, tomatoes, sweet potatoes, limes, watermelons, pumpkins, rockmelons or strawberries, just to name a few. I even have a note here saying I can expand on this list if I wish.
We have several major food processing facilities in my electorate, including AustChilli, which has been featured on My Kitchen Rules; Simpson Farms, which was recently featured on ABC Landline with Pip Courtney; the Australian Ocean King Prawn Company in Hervey Bay and Urangan Fisheries. Those businesses export to the world and they employ hundreds of our local people. They, like other local companies around this great nation, deserve our support.
Australian food producers exporting their products can also use the new domestic label overseas, and they can do so proudly. The reforms to country-of-origin labelling comply with Australia's international trade obligations. The coalition government has consulted with trading partners throughout the development of the reforms and will continue to work closely with them.
There is no doubt that our domestic product is in high demand. You only have to look at the success of free trade agreements with China, Japan and South Korea. Recently, I hosted a seminar on the Sunshine Coast to inform businesses of how they can take advantage of those FTAs. I would like to thank my colleagues the member for Fisher, Andrew Wallace, and the member for Fairfax, Ted O'Brien, firstly for their hospitality and secondly for their attendance and keen interest in the FTAs and what they can do for businesses in their electorates. The CEO of Sunshine Coast exporter Nutworks, Kylie Watson, spoke about her company's experience following the reduction in Chinese tariffs on Australian macadamias. This was mandated, of course, under CHAFTA, the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement. She told the seminar that there had been an increase in demand for Australian macadamia products in China and if it were not for the FTA the costs would make it impossible for her compete with other countries.
I can also say that, most recently, this year my own electorate in the region has become the biggest producer of macadamia nuts in this country. They have far outstripped expectations. They are going incredibly well and, significantly, they are going very, very well because of the FTAs with those three countries.
I also recently had the opportunity to visit the Geraldton Fishermen's Co-operative facility in North Fremantle, Western Australia, which is a long way from home and which is the world's biggest exporter of rock lobster—right here in Australia, in the west. With a membership of 200 fishermen, the co-op employs 350 Australians and currently sells around $450 million worth of rock lobsters each year. Australia's free trade agreement with China, in force since December last year, has seen the tariff for fresh or chilled rock lobster cut to nine per cent this year and it will fall again to six per cent in just four more months, on 1 January 2017. For the first six months of 2016, direct Chinese imports of live, fresh and chilled Australian rock lobster more than trebled compared to the same period last year to reach $20.7 million. Continuing tariff cuts under ChAFTA for these and many other Australian exports will boost trade opportunities leading to sales growth for Australian businesses abroad and increased jobs here at home to meet this demand.
A little closer to my own electorate, my colleague the member for Capricornia, Michelle Landry, and I visited tropical fruit farmers in Central Queensland who are interested in new market opportunities in Asia. Mangoes are an important fruit export for Queensland, and the China-Australia FTA has already cut the tariff for Australian mangoes from 15 per cent to nine per cent. The trade data shows that, in the early part of this year, Chinese imports of fresh Australian mangoes more than doubled compared to the previous growing season. This meant that Australia overtook Thailand as China's principal supplier of mangoes in the first half of 2016. I am sure you will agree this is a fantastic result.
Elsewhere, under the Korea-Australia FTA, the 30 per cent tariff which Korea charges on shelled macadamias is down to 12 per cent already. These tariff cuts contributed to a tripling of macadamia exports to Korea in the first half of 2015 compared to 2014 and that higher export level has been maintained into the first half of this year. While it might have taken a while to get to this point, consumers will be the overall winners in having the new country of origin labelling systems and I cannot wait to see those on the shelves. When we talk about FTAs, when we talk about Australian products, there is no greater reflection, there is no greater introduction to an Australian product than actually using it, seeing it, tasting it.
On my most recent visit to China, I walked through the Guangzhou airport, which is obviously a very busy airport in China. There was a small fruit stall at the Guangzhou airport and I thought to myself 'Here is an opportunity just to see what it is that they are selling in China, in Guangzhou.' Much to my surprise, I picked up a mandarin from 2PH Farms, which is a very large citrus farm in Queensland. There were 2PH products, mandarins, right there in Guangzhou China. Through an interpreter, we took the opportunity to have a discussion with the vendor, who informed us that Australia products sell out not in two hours, not in one hour but in 30 minutes. They last just 30 minutes on the shelves. I would just like to say that this is a great bill for consumers and I commend the bill to the House.
As a member of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Agriculture and Industry which inquired into food labelling only two years ago, I welcome the opportunity to speak to the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Country of Origin) Bill 2016. As a result of the work of that committee and some subsequent events which followed, the government did make some changes to country of origin labelling which I welcome. Those changes in essence came into effect from 1 July 2016, and I understand that there will be a transition period for about two years whilst the changes take effect. Under those changes, I believe, there will be some improvements made to consumers' ability to understand where food is coming from, particularly with the labelling itself being changed and with the use of the Kangaroo, the triangle and the bar graph, which shows how much of the food is actually produced or made here in Australia. Those are indeed welcome changes.
The inquiry followed an earlier inquiry carried out by Dr Neal Blewett that was commissioned under a Labor government back in 2011 and his report came up with, from memory, over 60 recommendations which went to the very issues that many members have been speaking about today on this legislation.
One of the issues that is constantly debated and discussed out in the community is the fact that we could have a clearer and better to understand food labelling system in Australia. Having spent months speaking to people from around Australia as part of the committee, I accept that it is not always that simple and that easy to change the labelling system as people would sometimes have us believe. Indeed, having listened to many of the arguments both for and against the changes that were made by the government and which start in 2016, I understand the complexities and the difficulties associated with food labelling laws, not just in this country but indeed around the world.
I very much acknowledge that when America tried to do something similar with their beef and pork some three or four years ago, they were taken to that WTO court in breach of WTO agreements they had entered into with both Canada and Mexico, which highlighted that the issue of food labelling and the questions that need to be resolved are not solely questions for each individual country but in fact do have and can have implications for trade agreements that have been entered into in good faith by countries over the years.
I believe it is of concern that any country—and I hope Australia does not find itself in a similar situation to America—can be taken to court over trying to protect its own interests as America was trying to do with its own food labelling. It seems to me that any government entering into an agreement that would mean Australia was no longer in control of the labelling that it legislates for products here in Australia would be a retrograde step. I recall that, when we were discussing this issue in the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Industry, compliance with World Trade Organization obligations and any free trade agreements that we had entered into was one of the possible stumbling blocks about Australia changing its own labelling laws. But, in the end, the government of the day found ways of doing that, and I believe we have come to the right decision with respect to it.
Food labelling is an important issue for Australians. It is important to Australian food producers because it can affect their viability. It is important to consumers who want to know where their food comes from. And it is vitally important to consumers who, for health reasons, need to know what they are consuming. I say that with a degree of concern, because knowing what they are consuming goes to the heart of consumers' fears about food, because many Australians are allergic to a particular type of food. According to the latest ABS figures, almost four million Australians avoid a food because of allergy or intolerance to it. Of those, about 560,000 are children aged between two and 18 years. Allergic reactions can be traumatic to both the person affected and to other family members. In the worst-case scenarios—although not often in Australia—death can result. Indeed, there was a front-page newspaper story about a death related to a food allergy only last week. So, for the four million people in Australia and their families, knowing what is in food is indeed vital, and they need to be confident about the information on the labels. Not surprisingly, consumer information on food packaging is important and has been a priority issue for people for many years in this country.
Whilst this legislation is heading in the right direction, I believe that we can do more. This legislation amends the provisions relating to the safe harbour of food labelling and makes those provisions consistent with the new laws that came into effect on 1 July this year. It is clear that the 'Australian made' and 'Australian produced' tags provide a marketing advantage. If they did not, they would not have been so widely abused prior to certain laws being in place. The growers know that, the food processors know that, the resellers know that, the overseas food importers know that and the unethical food industry operators also know that.
I want to make some other comments about the unethical food industry if time permits, but I will say that dishonest claims about food origins are often made with respect to both the food sold in Australia and the food sold overseas. In fact, I suspect the dishonesty is probably more prevalent overseas, where food that may not be Australian is marketed as being Australian because that adds value to it. I accept that it is not possible for us to control what happens in overseas jurisdictions, but I do not accept that it is not possible for us to control what happens in the Australian market, and that is perhaps where this legislation is particularly focused.
One of my concerns is that, whilst we have labels, there is little oversight to ensure that the labels are actually correct. There is little oversight to ensure that the ingredients and contents of a food match what is said on the label. Generally it is only when a rival supplier raises a concern or puts in a formal complaint about a food that does not match up to the labelling on it that it is exposed, and then the relevant authorities step in. So it seems that one thing we could do better in this country with respect to food sales is not simply to change the labelling system but to make sure that the labelling system is also provided with some oversight and there are some compliance mechanisms in place that would give consumers the confidence to know that what is on the label is actually also in the food.
The situation is even more problematic with respect to processed food. After all, if processed food contains certain ingredients that are claimed to come from Australia, once the food is processed it is almost impossible to prove that the ingredients indeed do come from Australia and not from another country. So there has to be some degree of reliance on the honesty of the manufacturer. But nevertheless the issue remains that it is difficult and problematic to be guaranteed that the food sources are where the label claims they are. I think we could do better. I hope that in future there might be other ways of us being able to do that.
I want to turn for a moment to Labor's amendment with respect to this legislation, and that is about the consumption of seafood in this country. One of the matters that was raised with the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Industry when we were inquiring into food labelling was the need to ensure that all seafood that is sold in Australia is also properly labelled. While Australian consumers have some certainty about seafood they consume, there are some exemptions to that with respect to seafood sold at supermarkets and fresh fish shops. It has to have country-of-origin labelling, but the exemption is for cooked and preprepared seafood. If you buy fresh fish from a supermarket or a fresh fish shop, it should be labelled, and consumers should know where it comes from. If, however, you go into a restaurant or a takeaway food shop and buy cooked or preprepared seafood, then you do not know where that fish comes from. The effect of the exemption is that restaurants and cafes do not have to label the seafood they sell. That is a fairly serious matter, and I will come to that in just a moment, but one of the objections raised at the time by restaurant people across Australia was that it would become too difficult to correctly label where seafood comes from.
In 2006, the Northern Territory brought in their own laws, requiring cooked and pre-prepared fish to also be labelled, and I understand that New South Wales now plans to do the same. My understanding is that the Northern Territory's experience, which has now been in place for nearly 10 years, has showed that it has worked very well. Indeed, it probably increased sales of restaurant fish, because the consumers were more than happy to buy the fish if they knew where it came from. That is what we were told from people who made submissions to the committee's inquiry. Conversely, the justification for the exemption that currently exists appears to have little substance, given that the system has now worked successfully in the Northern Territory and New South Wales, as I understand, is about to do the same.
It has been estimated that about 40 per cent of all fish consumed in Australia is consumed in a restaurant setting. When consumers go into a restaurant most of them, according to the surveys, believe they are being served Australian fish. It is also estimated that 70 per cent of all fish consumed in Australia—about 370,000 tonnes—is imported. So, whilst Australian consumers believe that, when they go into a restaurant or a cafe, they are most likely to be served Australian fish, the reality is that it is not Australian fish. It would offer a huge growth opportunity for the Australian fish industry if consumers knew that they were going to be getting Australian fish. It would clearly make a difference, as the experience in the Northern Territory has already shown.
That is where we get back to the proposition that properly labelling food is good for producers in this country. The reason that Australian products—not just food but Australian products broadly—are often labelled as being made or produced in Australia is that consumers around the world generally accept that we have good standards here in Australia. I have spoken to people who have spent time overseas. Indeed, I spoke to one person who had spent several years in another country—which I will not name. He was very familiar with the way food was produced in that country and he was also very concerned with the way the food was produced in that country in terms of the how it was grown, the chemicals and the products used to grow it and then process it.
Those concerns equally resonate with people I speak to about the food that we consume in this country. If people know that the food is genuine Australian food, they are more likely to buy it—I always look for the 'Australian made' or the 'Australian produced' tag on products that I buy, if it is at all possible—and that in turn would create more demand for the Australian product. And, if we can create more demand for the Australian product, it is definitely good for Australian manufacturers, Australian producers, Australian growers and Australian industry generally, because there are very large flow-on effects from the food industry to a whole range of other industries. So it is good for the consumer; it is good for the economy; and it is good for the country. With those comments, as I said from the outset, Labor will be supporting this legislation, albeit that we would like to see more done with the fish sales in this country.
It is a pleasure to follow the member for Makin in this debate on the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Country of Origin) Bill 2016. He was a member of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Agriculture and Industry in the last parliament—a committee I was the chair of and I delivered the report that he referred to, which I will be speaking about in a moment—and so was the minister at the table, the member for McPherson. It was indeed a very interesting inquiry, but I will come to that in a moment. The government amendments to the bill before us are relatively straightforward. In reality, it is a bit of a tidy-up of the original legislation that follows the commissioning of our new country-of-origin food-labelling system. I will refer to those amendments later on in my speech.
Mr Deputy Speaker Coulton, I am sure you would be very aware of the saying, and many similar to it, that success has a million fathers, and I will claim some responsibility for the nation's new country-of-origin food-labelling system. In my mind, this was an issue that, for years, had deserved a better answer. While much of the legislation previously had been done bit by bit and incrementally, so it was with country-of-origin food-labelling, where we had finally arrived at a place where labels were confusing, difficult to find and almost impossible to understand. The poor information was frustrating to consumers and producers alike—and we are still waiting for those labels to be phased out. I recognise that a couple of manufacturers are using the new labels—and good on them—and I very much look forward over the next two years to all the rest of the manufacturers getting on board.
In early October 2014, as chair of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Agriculture and Industry, I sought ministerial approval from Ministers Macfarlane and Joyce to pursue this inquiry. This space was populated by a plethora of previous reports that had not been acted on, and I thought that it was very important that this one be different. Rather than just recommending that the government study or adopt a new country-of-origin food-labelling system, I thought it was very important that we actually mapped out a path and provided the answer to government. After this committee, we did not need another inquiry to go out and work out how to do it; we actually had the gumption to stand up and say, 'This is the way that it should be done,' and we delivered a report in October 2014—I must have confused the earlier date—entitled A clearer message for consumers.
In early 2015, when I was lobbying ministers for a positive response to the committee's findings, we had the frozen Chinese berries incident during February. Then Prime Minister Tony Abbott declared that enough was enough and that this area of consumer information and protection must be addressed. It was perhaps a little lucky in some ways, because the Chinese berries were clearly identified as Chinese—but it is a very black cloud indeed that has no silver lining. Reports do not always get immediate attention from governments—and I am quite happy to tell people that many reports are picked over for certain facts and positions that committees have arrived at—but, in this case, the Prime Minister declared that there should be alterations and they looked around for the most recent report and, as luck should have it, it was ours. We were in the right place at the right time.
I thank the Minister for Industry of the time, Ian Macfarlane, for inviting me to join the consultative committee. I believe I was able to bring some wisdom learnt through the process of the inquiry to the table on a number of occasions. There were a few suggestions that got thrown around that I was quite opposed to. I said, 'No, we discussed this. We took clear evidence on that particular issue. You need to go back and read the report and understand how the committee arrived at that position.' On two a three occasions, my advice was heeded. I was very pleased with that.
I thought the report from the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Industry was fairly finely balanced on how we can provide information the consumer wants without that violating our international trade commitments. It is worth remembering that Australia exports far more food than we import, so those international trade agreements are very, very important to us. We then had to provide information on what it was the customers really wanted to know. Some proposed that every ingredient and the country from which it came be identified. The committee's view was that that was far too prescriptive, particularly for Australian manufacturers who use complex global supply lines which may or may not be able to certify and substantiate exactly where every molecule of that food has come from to the manufacturer. Of course, to the manufacturer, the biggest sin in labelling is to mislead the public, either knowingly or unintentionally, with its information. That meant we needed to be very mindful of not making the cure worse than the disease.
It is patently clear that not all consumers are particularly stressed—in fact, I would say most consumers are not particularly stressed—about where their food comes from. Many simply do not have enough money to be choosy, and they are driven by price. Others just have no interest. But there is a strong consumer group—and I think a growing consumer group—in Australia that cares about safety and quality, and they rate Australian-produced food as some of the world's best in both areas. Some make a conscious decision that they want to support Australian farmers and Australian food-manufacturing jobs—and this is a great thing. It is one of the strongest reasons why our labels should easily, quickly and clearly identify the Australian content in the product. That is exactly what our new laws do.
The most important thing the recommendations gave to us, and, consequently, the legislation, was to separate the concept of 'grown'—where the food is sourced—from where it is manufactured. The label 'made in Australia from local and imported produce', which you can still see on your shelves, is virtually meaningless to the layman. I must say that I am quite good at reading labels. What is unsaid is as powerful as what is said on one of those labels. Having immersed myself in this subject for over six months, I find trying to buy Australian-grown and Australian-processed ham can still be quite a challenge, let me tell you. I understand how to read that system, but only because I spent six months living, eating, breathing and sleeping it. Clearly, it was not good enough to give the information, so we made a clearer message on that.
The first of those two things is manufacturing, and this government amendment goes to the point of what transformation is. That is a very important point. The other half of the message is the source country. In this case, we could have specified every country in the world, but we chose just to specify Australia so as not to make it too complex and to provide the information that we believed the Australian consumer was looking for: is this Australian? They can pick up the packet—it is in bigger writing than it has ever been in—and there clearly is the green and gold kangaroo and the bar graph, which will give them specific information. I think this will be welcomed by consumers and, in the end, it will be welcomed by producers.
I now come to the issue of the opposition's amendment. It would be fair to say that I have been approached by a number of people in the Australian seafood industry as to why we did not recommend that the new legislation around the country-of-origin food labelling be applied to the final point of sale of seafood, as it is in the Northern Territory—with that final point of sale referring to a cafe or a restaurant. It is a point of view that I have some personal sympathy for. However, there were a number of reasons why the committee did not recommend it. Firstly, if we had, it would have been the only foodstuff that was required to identify its point of origin at the tertiary retail point. We do not force that level of disclosure on beef, processed meats, salad, cheese or any other product, so to do so would mean you would have to make a special case for seafood only. I am not saying that case cannot be made, but it requires some very careful consideration before you would get to that point.
Secondly, the committee only took evidence on this particular issue from the Northern Territory seafood industry and from Australian restaurateurs. Those views were not in concurrence; they were totally opposed. One of the reasons that the Northern Territory has this system is historical. In the Northern Territory—and no-one was quite too sure why—every shop at any level that sells fish must be licensed to do so. That is not the case in the rest of Australia, but in the Northern Territory they have a special fish licence. It would be a brave government that would come out and say, 'We're going to put a new licence on every restaurant and fish outlet in Australia,' without having a very good understanding of what the parameters are and what the repercussions might be of that particular recommendation.
When the committee considered its recommendations, one of the things that I was very keen on, and the rest of the committee was keen on, was that we actually have a report that government acted on. In my mind, had we put recommendations around seafood in we would have almost certainly had a report that government would not have acted on, because it would have become a political football very, very quickly and something that a minister—and I would not blame them—throw their hands in the air and say, 'This is all too hard; everybody is fighting with each other.' So we avoided the issue.
What the committee did recommend—and this is where I take a small issue with the opposition's amendment, which I know is proposed in good faith, and I take it that way; but I think the cart is a little before the horse—was that COAG should consider forming an Australian-wide legislation surrounding fish retail, if it so choose to. I would not be beyond the government recommending that the current standing committee for industry look at this issue in more depth. Certainly, the committee that I chaired did not have enough information to make those kinds of recommendations.
I understand the drivers and why the Labor Party has made that amendment, but I do think that they are putting the horse a little bit in front of the cart. The lesson here about the successful adoption of most of the recommendations of our report was that we had done a lot of spadework. We actually understood exactly where we were going and we knew what we wanted to do. I think that building-block process is a better way of getting there.
In returning very briefly to the specific government amendments in this bill, what the bill does is clarify the safe harbour clauses referring to significant transformation. That in itself was something that the committee spent some time on—firstly, understanding what safe harbours were and then, secondly, getting our mind around the concept of significant transformation. Some of the examples used are: dicing tomatoes, to use another food term, will no longer cut the mustard; and reconstituting dehydrated goods. The amendment removes the 50 per cent production costs clauses. So it is an effort to make things more understandable and clearer for industry to use. What we want is a simple process that industry embraces because it works.
As has been alluded to many times in this debate, while it was not the primary reason we inquired to advantage Australian farmers are manufacturer, I have no doubt that good information, in this world where our global supply chain is sometimes questioned, will work in our favour and for our farmers and manufactures, but not in such an overt way as to offend those international trade obligations that I spoke about earlier that are so important to our farming and manufacturing businesses.
It is with great pleasure that I speak both to the amendments made to the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Country of Origin) Bill 2016 and also to Labor's amendment talking about the importance of labelling of seafood. This issue around proper country-of-origin labelling has been an issue close to my heart for some time. Indeed, I was pleased to have moved a private member's motion in this place in October 2010, really putting a focus and highlight about how important country-of-origin labelling was to my electorate—not only the importance of having very clear labels about where food comes but also the importance of the misleading labels that were often attached to food.
There has been a lot of talk about how influential the committee process was in developing this policy. I am very pleased that, while I was not on that committee, I made my own submission on behalf of residents in my electorate to the Representatives' Standing Committee on Agriculture and Industry inquiry into the country-of-origin labelling system. I was very pleased to have been able to make that on behalf of my constituents. Indeed, I have written and spoken many times about it.
The reason this issue is so important to people in my electorate is: quite fundamentally, people want to know what they are eating. The want to know what they are eating and they want to know where that food was grown. It is a very, very simple proposition, and it is something that people have raised with me many, many times. When we saw labels such as 'Made from local and imported ingredients', people were very confused. People are confused about what that actually means. If you pick up some sort of tin of product and you read that, it is very hard to decipher what that means and where the local produce comes from.
After this was raised with me on numerous occasions—in fact, many, many times—we actually had a look into this. What we found is what has been highlighted and what this bill takes steps to address: if you transform a product here in Australia then you can say it is made in Australia. That means that product may well have been grown in a different country, but, because of the transformation that it goes through—as the previously speaker said it may be dehydrated and rehydrated back here in Australia; or, indeed, I had issues around a range of different processes that the food went through—it then allowed a 'Made in Australia' label to be put on. Now, if you think it is made in Australia, then you would assume—and it would be a simple assumption to make—that, indeed, that food was also grown in Australia as well. Many people, when they found this not to be the case, were very upset. It was regularly raised with me about this type of labelling.
Also, when I looked into the definition of 'Made in Australia', 'Manufactured in Australia', 'Made from local and imported ingredients', there was no consistent way to communicate what was actually grown in Australia for consumers to make informed decisions. Then there was the 'Australian owned' label as well. As it was being accompanied by the Australian flag on that label, it meant that the company only had to be Australian owned. In fact, none of the food had to be grown or manufactured in Australia.
The lack of consistency and the lack of definitions have been a problem for a significant amount of time. I think we are now taking steps in the right direction, both with this piece of legislation and with the new labelling process that will, over the next two years, phase in the percentage that is grown in Australia and that is made in Australia, so that people have very clear information but also a visual context in which to make that decision.
I am still disappointed that, where the product is not grown in Australia, where it was actually grown will not necessarily be identified on the product. I heard the previous speaker talk about how complicated it can get, and I recognise that it is not an easy thing to work through, especially when—with tinned food, for example—you may have ingredients coming from a variety of places. However, other countries have worked out how to identify the origin of products, or the majority of products used—obviously, not for every single product used in a tin of canned food, but for a significant proportion of them. I will keep advocating to make sure that as much information as possible about where the product comes from, where it was grown, where it was manufactured and how it came to be on the shelves in this country is provided to consumers. Ultimately, an informed consumer is the best consumer, and it does give consumers the confidence to make those informed decisions. It is something I know that CHOICE has campaigned for for a long time, and I have to say they have done a good job when it comes to food labelling by regularly bringing this issue into the public sphere.
As I mentioned, it is in the national interest that we get on top of this. That is why Labor will be supporting these changes to the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Country of Origin) Bill as it amends the Competition and Consumer Act, altering the country-of-origin labelling safe harbour provisions under the Australian Consumer Law.
Safe harbour provisions are designed to provide businesses with certainty about the types of claims they can make regarding country-of-origin labelling without breaching the Australian Consumer Law. I think some of the examples that have been brought to me by consumers have sailed pretty close to the wind when it comes to the Australian Consumer Law; however, these issues have not been taken up and have not been prosecuted. I hope that this legislation, through really tightening and amending these provisions, will make it much clearer about when claims can and cannot be made.
Changes to the country-of-origin labelling requirement for food sold in Australia were announced—as mentioned—in July 2015 and came into effect on July 2016, with that two-year transition period for industry. I know that people in my electorate and growers alike are looking forward to this transition period being over, so we can start seeing these labels everywhere on our shelves as we walk up and down the shopping centre aisles. I really think that consumers are a lot more aware about where their food is grown. There are issues around health—we saw that with the hepatitis scare that affected this country very recently. It was something that I think jolted us all into action, but people in my electorate were already talking about this issue. They were already raising it with me and were already concerned.
When it comes to the changes, this may be an example of the parliament catching up with the people of Australia. I think consumers are very conscious about their health and want to know where their food comes from but, equally, I think Australians want to support Australian farmers. They want to support locally grown products, and that can often be seen through the large numbers of people turning up at farmers markets. I know there are farmers markets in and around my electorate selling local produce, and people like to go there and support local farmers.
I will pick up the member for Grey on one issue: he said that people want the cheapest food possible, and sometimes that is not the food grown in Australia. I have to say that, if he goes down to some of the farmers markets in or near my electorate, you can get a bargain—it is a lot cheaper than perhaps going to your local supermarket or indeed buying a can of food. There is some really good, cheap, fresh produce available straight from the farm gate, and I would encourage people who have not been to the Willunga Farmers Market to get down there and enjoy that, as well as the Adelaide Farmers' Market or the Adelaide Central Market. We have some wonderful produce on offer.
It is an important issue that we need to get on top of. That is why I think that, once this two-year transition period is over, people will be cheering about the fact that they will now know the percentage of Australian produce within products. Labor has made an amendment to this that would see labelling go further when it comes to seafood, and I will continue to advocate for much clearer labelling of food, particularly identifying not only the percentage of Australian-made food or Australian produced and grown food but also where the majority of the food may have originated from. We need to continue to push that. This is a step in the right direction, but we need to do more.
Finally, I would say that this is an important amendment. It is something that my constituents have been pushing for for some time. It is something that, as I said, I have made representations on, whether it be private member's motions, submissions to the committee or speeches in this place, and I am very, very pleased to see some movement. I commend this amendment, as well as Labor's amendment, to the House, look forward to the new labelling regime coming in and still will this House to do better.
I rise to speak on the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Country of Origin) Bill 2016. This is a good news bill. If you are a consumer like me, you most likely read food packaging to better understand where the product and its ingredients originate. I want to identify the origins of the product and ingredients so I can use this information to help make an informed decision to support local produce. Too often, consumers are faced with meaningless claims on labels like, 'made in Australia from local and imported ingredients'. This probably means that the food may have been only minimally processed, packaged, sliced or canned in Australia.
As consumers, we assume that businesses undertake stringent tests to attain and illustrate their 'made in' status on their products. However, as a strong advocate for businesses in my electorate of Ryan, I must also acknowledge that these tests are often unnecessarily burdensome, complex and costly.
I spoke in this House back in 2011 on this very issue—an issue that affects all conscientious consumers. In fact, at the time, the Australian and New Zealand Food Regulation Ministerial Council had released the Blewett report, which sought the extension of country-of-origin laws to include that, for foods bearing some form of Australian claim, a consumer-friendly, food-specific, country-of-origin labelling framework, based primarily on the ingoing weight of the ingredients and components, excluding water, be developed. However, those sitting opposite at the time did not support this recommendation because it was all too hard.
This bill, however, implements part of the coalition government's country-of-origin labelling reforms—reforms that benefit both consumers and businesses. Basically put, this bill will simplify country-of-origin labelling for consumers. It will simplify and clarify the safe-harbour provisions within the Australian Consumer Law. In doing so, this bill will ensure that minor processes, like packaging and canning, do not justify 'made in' claims.
As the daughter of a farmer, like many of my constituents and, indeed, colleagues in this place I support Australian farmers. But to do this, we want to know whether the food we buy is from Australia or elsewhere, and if it was made or merely packaged here. We really want to know how much of it was grown here by our farmers. The mandatory country-of-origin labelling requirements for food will now be enhanced and moved from the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code to an information standard under the Australian Consumer Law.
We have all seen the well-known kangaroo-in-a-triangle symbol. Under the new information standard, this symbol will be required on many foods found on retail shelves around Australia, identifying those that were grown, produced or made in Australia. This bill will see reforms that will give Australian consumers clearer and more meaningful information about the food they purchase.
However, I would like to point out that these reforms do not seek to impose excessive burdens on businesses to conform to country-of-origin laws. These reforms will not only provide further consistency of labelling for consumers but also support businesses to use terms like 'made in' and 'product of' with greater certainty. Businesses will be less inclined to make those meaningless origin claims like 'made in Australia from local and imported ingredients' that currently confuse consumers.
As a strong advocate for businesses in my electorate of Ryan and, indeed, a former small business owner myself, I understand firsthand the impact that regulatory burden has on their operations. I mentioned before the excessive red tape of complex production cost tests that are also difficult to administer. These tests strain businesses with unnecessary regulatory burden. Most notably, this amendment removes the production cost test and simplifies the testing regime used to justify country-of-origin claims by clarifying what 'substantial transformation' means. Instead, businesses in my electorate and around Australia will now find it easier to make reliable country-of-origin representations through a clarified substantial transformation test.
And the good news does not end there. In present value terms, the removal of the production cost test will realise total savings of $49 million per year or an enormous $550 million over 20 years for businesses. Given that one of the themes of this reform is simplicity, it is quite clear that these savings will allow businesses to better focus on their core activities, invest in their future and create jobs. Through interaction with my local chambers of commerce and business owners, I hear firsthand that these beneficial reforms will be welcomed.
The government is also working with industry to digitise food product information in order to better position consumers and businesses in the future. These are reforms that consumers and businesses want.
This is yet another way that the coalition government is supporting business and taking into account the voices of consumers in Australia. It is important that this bill is passed at the earliest opportunity to ensure the best possible outcomes for consumers and businesses alike. I congratulate the Turnbull government for listening to the issues and concerns of Australian consumers and businesses regarding this key issue. I commend this bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
This bill is the key element of a broader package of measures to implement the government's working holiday-maker reform package. This government has been committed to getting the policy right on working holiday-makers. It is important that our agricultural sector receives certainty. The government will therefore today put forward a bill which will propose working holiday-makers pay 15 per cent tax on their earnings from the first dollar they earn up to $37,000, after which ordinary marginal tax rates will apply. The government thanks coalition members and senators for their constructive contributions in resolving this matter as well as Senate crossbenchers with whom the government has reached agreement to deal with this matter.
Working holiday-makers are an important source of Australia's international tourism and a key source of seasonal labour in regional areas, particularly in the agriculture, horticulture, tourism and hospitality sectors. We have listened to stakeholders about declining numbers of working holiday-makers in areas that rely on their seasonal labour. The government wants to ensure that we have the workforce to meet these seasonal labour needs. As a result of our negotiations in the Senate, this bill will set the tax rate to apply to working holiday makers at 15 per cent from their first dollar of income up to $37,000, rather than the 32.5 per cent announced in the 2015-16 budget. Ordinary marginal tax rates apply after $37,000. The new tax rate will apply from 1 January 2017.
Taxing working holiday-makers at 15 per cent tax from the first dollar of income up to $37,000 is internationally competitive in terms of after-tax income. Even after taking cost-of-living differences into account, this change will mean that after-tax incomes for working holiday-makers in Australia are considerably higher than key competitor countries, such as New Zealand, Canada and the UK.
This bill gives both working holiday-makers and employers certainty about the tax arrangements that will apply. The Turnbull government's package of reforms to working holiday-maker arrangements addresses stakeholder concerns about the taxation of working holiday-makers and makes other changes to increase Australia's attractiveness as a destination for backpackers, while being conscious of its impact on the budget.
Full details of this bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum.
I call the member for Grayndler, on indulgence.
Thanks, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am somewhat concerned about the implications of legislation being introduced before the parliament, as outlined by the Treasurer, that seeks to bind not just future budgets—
Mr Morrison interjecting—
That's the next one?
Yes.
Okay. I will deal with it then.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Passenger Movement Charge Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2016 gives effect to the government's commitment that the rate of the passenger movement charge of $60 applying from 1 July 2017 will not increase for a minimum period of five years from this date. This commitment was made to One Nation senators during passage of the Passenger Movement Charge Amendment Bill 2016 which was passed by the Senate last week. That bill increased the passenger movement charge from $55 to $60 from 1 July 2017. This is the first time the passenger movement charge has been increased since 2012. The five dollar increase is broadly in line with the increase in the consumer price index between 2012 and 2017.
This measure—combined with the other measure, regarding the departing Australia superannuation arrangements, as well as the measures that I have just referred to in the introduction of the other bill relating to the 15 per cent tax on backpackers—ensures that, of the $760 million that was set out in the budget in May of this year, some $640 million or thereabouts of that will be achieved by the combination of these measures. These are important to ensure that no further diminution of the revenue is resulting from the conclusion of this matter. It has been important to resolve this matter. We are keen to ensure that this matter is resolved this week, for the backpacker market into Australia and for the horticultural industry in particular, who have raised significant concerns about this. But, equally, the budget measures have to be addressed as well, to ensure that taxpayers are no further impacted by these arrangements. I commend this bill to the House.
The debate must now be adjourned. Member for Grayndler?
Thanks, Mr Deputy Speaker—on indulgence perhaps—I note that the Treasurer has outlined the changes he seeks to make to a bill that was carried by the parliament on its last sitting day, last Thursday, and we will have a full debate about those issues when the bill is considered. But I am raising on a point of order about whether indeed it is in order for the parliament to consider legislation that seeks to bind not just this parliament but the next parliament as well with a so-called 'freeze' of five years, and indeed whether it is competent for this parliament to consider this legislation.
Governments come and go; budgets come and go each year. The suggestion that a government can be bound and that it cannot be undone by future legislation that would override this legislation seems to me to be self-evidently wrong in law. Therefore, this parliament should not debate legislation that is not in accordance with the competence of this parliament to consider it—that is, this attempt to bind future governments as per this legislation. I wonder about the status of the legal advice on this bill.
The member for Grayndler will take his seat and I will call the minister.
On similar indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker, I note the learned contributions from the member for Grayndler 'QC', but these matters obviously can be dealt with in debate and I look forward to that being the case.
I thank the minister. The debate must now be adjourned. I have sought advice from the Clerk and the Clerk has said that this can be debated during—
Mr Deputy Speaker, I am not adjourning the debate. I have raised a point of order and asked for a ruling, effectively, as to whether this proposed legislation is competently before the House of Representatives.
The Clerk has indicated to me that the debate must be adjourned. We can seek a ruling, but we cannot give it to you right at this moment. We will adjourn the debate and your request for a ruling can be addressed.
I do not want to create an undue difficulty, but I do think that it would be appropriate that a determination of my point of order, as to whether this is legislation that is competent for the House of Representatives to debate, be dealt with before we proceed to the further debate of this legislation. On that basis, I move:
That the debate be adjourned.
But I do think it would be appropriate for there to be a ruling from the Speaker prior to the commencement of further debate on this legislation.
Question agreed to.
I am speaking on the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Country of Origin) Bill 2016 in support of the amendment moved by the member for Perth. Australian people deserve to know where their food comes from. They deserve clear and concise food labels to ensure that they can make informed decisions regarding the food that they and their families are consuming. The purpose of this bill is to amend the Australian Consumer Law to simplify the test that is used to justify a claim that certain foods were made in Australia in a specified manner. The bill achieves this by amending one of the safe harbour provisions in the Australian Consumer Law.
The Trade Practices Act was the first Commonwealth statute to contain consumer protection provisions. In its earliest form, the consumer protection provisions contained in the TPA were: a general prohibition against misleading or deceptive conduct in trade and commerce, a broad prohibition against making a false representation about the country of origin of goods, and a prohibition against engaging in conduct which was liable to mislead the public as to the nature, including any country of origin, the manufacturing process, the characteristics, the suitability for their purpose or the quantity of any goods. Australia's country-of-origin laws have continued to develop in line with domestic judicial determinations and consistent with Australia's emerging international obligations as a member of the World Trade Organization. The Trade Practices Amendment (Country of Origin Representations) Act 1998 inserted what were colloquially known as 'safe harbour' provisions into the trade practices laws, establishing the regime for determining when goods would and would not be regarded as made in, produced in or substantially grown in Australia.
The TPA was renamed the Competition and Consumer Act with effect from 1 January 2011, codifying the safe harbour provisions as defences. Under the current law as it sits before the introduction of this bill, if businesses are to rely on the general country-of-origin safe harbour defence, they must satisfy two separate criteria: the goods must be substantially transformed in the country of origin being claim—this is known as the substantial transformation test—and 50 per cent or more of the total costs to produce or manufacture the goods must have occurred in that country. This is known as the cost of production/manufacture test. If a business makes a country-of-origin claim for a product and it is alleged to be misleading, deceptive or false, that business has an automatic defence to the allegation if it can show that the product meets the safe harbour defence for that claim. This amendment bill simplifies the tests used to justify a country of origin 'Made in' claim by clarifying what substantial transformation means and altering the definition of substantial transformation as it applies to safe harbour provisions under Australian Consumer Law.
This legislation also removes the current 50 per cent production cost test, which becomes redundant for food products with the introduction of labels showing the percentage of Australian ingredients. That is the great benefit of what is proposed in this bill. Australians will now be able to get a clear indicator on labels on the backs of products of the percentage of Australian based ingredients that make up that product. This will end some of the confusion that has historically existed with this issue not only in our domestic produce market but also internationally with our exports. It is important that a delicate balance is achieved that provides Australians with a thorough and accurate understanding of where their food comes from, while not overburdening Australia's food processors, which could lead to their relocation offshore.
In February 2015, the Labor Party committed to finding a bipartisan solution to food labelling. We saw what an important issue it was for the Australian public, and we committed to working with the government on achieving a sustainable and indicative program that provided reliable data and information for Australia's consumers. It also highlighted the importance of bringing relevant ministers and industry leaders together to develop a consistent approach to the food industry. This bill sets out that new regime. The elements of it are that goods can be represented as being grown in Australia, if each significant ingredient or component has been grown in Australia and all processes involved in the production or manufacture of the goods happened right here on domestic soil. This is much the same as the previous regime but, in terms of the legislation, there is a much greater clarification.
The rules around goods having a 'Produce of Australia' label are not changing. Importantly, the ingredients of goods with a 'Made in' or `Manufactured in' or 'Originating from' Australia label are changing, and they are as follows: the goods must have been substantially transformed in Australia, and no representation must be made that the goods were grown or produced in that country.
Further, the bill also governs the use of country-of-origin marks, such as the 'Made in Australia' gold kangaroo in the green triangle, which has been the symbol of Australian produce and Australian-produced products for many decades now. It is something that is well-known to the Australian public—although I did meet a Chinese businessperson who recently expressed to me his view that the label was confusing on food products for many people in China, who, when they saw it, believed that the package contained kangaroo, because of the gold kangaroo in the triangle. Maybe that is something for future governments to consider in respect of the Chinese market and the growing middle class in China and their food-consuming habits.
Nonetheless, this bill also defines the area of goods being substantially transformed, makes it clear that packaging materials are not treated as ingredients or components for goods with 'Product of' or 'Grown in' labels and mandates that water used to reconstitute dehydrated or concentrated ingredients is deemed to have the country of origin of the dehydrated ingredient, irrespective of the actual origin of the water.
While these indicators and this new regime are not perfect—they do not indicate country of origin for imported ingredients, for instance—the new country-of-origin labelling ingredients have been described by CHOICE as:
… a big step towards ending the confusion around country of origin labelling, especially for consumers who want to know how much of a product was manufactured or grown locally.
The Australian Food and Grocery Council have also been supportive of these reforms, stating that it is:
… a recognition of the importance of Australian jobs in the food production and processing sector
In government, Labor worked to ensure Australians conducted a comprehensive review of labelling laws and worked closely with the states, through COAG, to improve guidance for both consumers and industry. As I mentioned earlier, Labor has demonstrated a constructive approach to working with the government on this issue—a very important issue for Australian consumers. I am pleased to say that we now have a much clearer regime with better information for Australian consumers about the origins of the food they consume, and that is a positive step for our nation. I am happy to commend this bill to the House with the amendment moved by the member for Perth.
I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Country of Origin) Bill 2016. Country-of-origin labelling is an issue that has vexed successive governments for many years. Country-of-origin labelling has been compulsory in Australia for many years, but consumers have often found the information unclear, confusing or, in some cases, misleading. Australians want clearer, more meaningful and easier to find country-of-origin information so they can make more informed choices when purchasing food and other products.
These sound like simple goals, but implementing a system that meets those objectives is complex and challenging. But the coalition is determined to make progress on this issue and, in July last year, we announced a new country-of-origin labelling scheme. Under the new system, food labels will carry a statement about where the food was produced, grown, made or packaged. Most Australian food will carry the familiar kangaroo symbol and an indication of the proportion of Australian ingredients by weight through a statement and a bar graph. This is a key piece of information that consumers want. Many consumers find it very frustrating when they are confronted with labels like 'Made in Australia from local and imported ingredients'. That does not say which ingredients are imported, which ingredients are Australian and in what proportion. The new system will also have clearer rules around claims that a product was 'Made in' or 'Packed in' Australia.
It has been a long road to get to this point. We want a system that gives consumers more information without imposing a whole new set of regulations and red tape on our food producers. We believe we have the balance about right, and the bill before the House today is another step to fine-tuning the system to ensure that it is easy to understand for consumers and businesses.
The bill before the House today amends the Australian Consumer Law to clarify the test used to justify a claim that a particular product is made in Australia or another country. In effect, this bill makes it easier for producers and consumers to determine whether a product may legitimately be labelled as 'Grown in Australia', 'Produced in Australia' or 'Made in Australia'. The bill also clarifies the definition of 'substantially transformed'. This is important because it clarifies that minor processing activities like packaging should not be considered substantial transformation. A producer can claim that goods are made or manufactured in a particular country, if they were substantially transformed in that country. As an example, a producer will not be able to import all the ingredients for a product in bulk, chop them up and put them into individual packages in Australia, and then market the product as 'Made in Australia'.
The bill also removes the 50 per cent production-cost test, which was the source of considerable concern for many industry stakeholders. It was seen as an unnecessary burden on businesses and provided very little information to consumers. Removing the 50 per cent production-cost test is expected to save Australian businesses around $48.5 million per year in reduced red tape. As you would expect, the bill has received support from industry. The Australian Food and Grocery Council said it 'supports the urgent passage of the bill to provide certainty for industry'.
In conclusion, the new country-of-origin labelling scheme will be fully implemented over the coming years. It will provide Australian consumers with clearer, more meaningful, easier-to-find information on the origin of products sold in Australia. My electorate is home to a growing horticulture industry with a high range of quality produce, including blueberries, bananas, tomatoes, cucumbers and avocados. Of course, we are also home to excellent milk and dairy products, quality beef and goat meat, and excellent seafood. I have no doubt that produce from the New South Wales mid-North Coast is as good as any produce around the world.
I know that Australian consumers want to buy clean, green, Australian produce and like that it is produced in their local electorate. But consumers need clear, easily accessed information to know that they are buying Australian produce and not some vague mix of local and imported ingredients. I strongly support the new country-of-origin labelling system, and I commend the bill to the House.
I too rise in support of this Competition and Consumer Amendment (Country of Origin) Bill 2016. I welcome efforts to simplify our labelling laws and improve Australia's country-of-origin labelling. Consumers have every right to know where a particular product comes from—where it originated, where it was grown and where it was packaged. As consumers, when you have as much information as possible in front of you, you can make an informed choice when purchasing a particular product. Therefore I support any efforts to not only simplify but also improve product labelling.
I have raised this issue on many occasions, both in this place and in the media, because constituents continually raise it with me and have a keen interest in it. People want to know what they are buying and where it was grown, and the label has to identify those things. It is a very important step in helping our consumers better identify where their groceries come from and make those informed decisions regarding what they wish to purchase.
Most importantly, this legislation will address consumer concerns while also supporting food manufacturers in Australia. When I think of food manufacturers in Australia the first one that comes to mind is Arnott's Biscuits, which is in my electorate of Hindmarsh—I am very proud to have my electorate as the home of the Tim Tam. I have visited Arnott's many times over the years, and we have discussed labelling and how it affects them.
In some cases, it is not that simple to just label products with where the products have come from. For example, with chocolate biscuits you can only source cocoa from overseas. So it does make it difficult, in some cases. I am very proud that Arnott's manufactures and produces biscuits right there in the middle of the western suburbs. It employs over 200 people and exports its products all over the world.
We know that the best way to secure quality local food is for people to buy Australian-made products. I know many other places that support Australian-made products, such as Drake Foodland and the Romeo's Foodland group in my electorate. Drake has major supermarkets at West Lakes, West Beach and Torrensville, which is my local supermarket. Romeo has supermarkets in my electorate at Glenelg and Brooklyn Park. I shop there as well occasionally. They love to have local products on their shelves. They do all they can to try and sell Australian produce and I commend them both for that. This, in turn, supports local manufacturing—our food manufacturers and our reputation for very high quality food and produce.
This legislation does so by ensuring clarity of definition and supporting consumer choice based on informed decisions. Australian laws require all imported and domestically produced food to be labelled with their country of origin. This is designed to minimise the potential for false or misleading claims about a product's country of origin. You can see that in many instances over the years of particular products claiming to be Australian products but, when you scratch the surface a bit, you discover that the country of origin is thousands of kilometres away from these shores.
Before these changes came into effect, provisions in the Australian Consumer Law stipulated three classifications of label. One is that any product label made in Australia had to have been substantially transformed in Australia, with at least half of the cost of production or manufacture occurring in Australia. That may sound pretty simple and straight forward but consider the packaging, the wrapping, and a whole range of other things. If you have a very small product and the majority of it is packaging and wrapping, can you claim that as an Australian product? Products labelled 'Product of Australia' had to have all significant ingredients or proponents originating in Australia and virtually all of the manufacture or production of the goods happening here in Australia.
Products labelled 'grown in Australia' had to have every significant ingredient grown in Australia, and virtually all processes involved in production or manufacturing had to have happened here in Australia. So, it has been very confusing. It is not the labelling itself that is confusing, but the way things are labelled and when and why they can be labelled. It is the fact that it has left heaps of room for interpretation, meaning that, while the interpretation may have fitted the letter of the law in the legal requirements, at times it went against the spirit of the law and also against the will of the Australian consumer.
As I said, Australian consumers want to know where a particular product came from, where it was sourced and what is in it and then make informed choices about whether to purchase that particular product or not. For example, fruit juice made with foreign fruit but Australian sugar, bottles and labels could have been labelled as 'made in Australia', yet the fruit juice might have been from foreign fruit. This is very important for South Australia with all our Riverland orange growers and fruit growers. It has been an contentious issue for a long time that sometimes concentrate from Brazil may get mixed with in our orange juice and then it is called 'Australian made'. The situation as it was before the changes to the country-of-origin legislation came into effect in July 2016 meant that consumers could be misled as to where their product came from. I just gave the example of orange juice, which was raised with me many times over the years.
The new requirements make it a great deal easier for consumers to navigate and understand the labelling. The new labels are consistent, clear and simplified. They include an easily identifiable kangaroo triangle symbol, a bar chart and a text statement to show the proportion of Australian ingredients, ranging from zero per cent to 100 per cent Australian ingredients. What we want to aim for is to see 100 per cent Australian ingredients on as many products as possible that we buy here in Australia. Food that is only packed in Australia will have the text and bar chart showing the percentage of Australian ingredients. Imported food will clearly show the country of origin. This is very important. For example, I heard the member for Kingston speaking about her electorate earlier. I know a few years ago there was an issue where lots of olive growers in her electorate were rightly complaining about foreign olive oil coming in with claims it was 100 per cent virgin olive oil. There were also claims it was Australian because it was mixed with a small part of Australian olive oil. These are some of the complex scenarios that have existed.
Under these amendments, the last substantial transformation of a product carrying the label 'made in', 'manufactured in' or 'originating from' Australia must have happened here in Australia. This means that an imported product cannot claim it was made in Australia if it has only undergone minor processing such as slicing, canning, crumbing, reconstituting or repackaging in Australia. The amendments also remove the current 50 per cent production cost test, which becomes redundant for food products with the introduction of labels showing the percentage of Australian ingredients. In addition, the amendments make it clear that packaging materials are not treated as ingredients or components for goods with 'product of' or 'grown in' labels. The amendments also stipulate that water, when used to reconstitute dehydrated or concentrated ingredients, is deemed to have the country of origin of the dehydrated ingredient, irrespective of the actual origin of the water.
It is a very complex area and it is very important for consumers to have faith in the products they buy. Consumers need to have as much information as possible to make those informed choices, so that, when they are making a choice, they know what they are purchasing and they know if they want to support an Australian-made product or if they want to buy something from overseas. It is also very important when you are buying specific types of ingredients. Sometimes, you may wish to purchase something from overseas because it is the best you can get in that area and it may something that we do not grow or do here. You also want to make sure that you are purchasing the correct product, even if it is from outside of Australia.
Consumers cannot be expected to read the fine print. Currently, it is so complicated. All of us have been to the supermarket, picked up a product and tried to work out where it was made or where it originated from. The print is so fine on every product that you have to have an in-depth knowledge of the labelling system in order to work out whether a product is right for you, your family or the consumer who is buying it. Everyone is so busy, and we understand that people want to make good and informed decisions quickly and easily. If you are anything like me, you want to run into the supermarket, grab what you need and do it as quickly as possible. The last thing I and the Australian public need is to look at very complicated labelling and not be able to understand it. But this should not undermine people's ability to make informed decisions. It is so important.
Australians are entitled to know exactly where their food comes from, and Australians have told us—me in my electorate office; others in hearings and different inquiries that have taken place—how important this is to them. This is why I welcome these changes, and it is great to note that these changes have also been welcomed by the majority of producers and manufacturers, as well as industry and consumer groups. In fact, the consumer group Choice has described these changes as:
…a big step towards ending the confusion around country of origin labelling, especially for consumers who want to know how much of a product was manufactured or grown locally.
However, I understand that consumer choice and information should not come with associated excessive cost to producers. This would be counterproductive, of course. It is also critical that consumers are protected without putting an undue burden on Australian food processors, which would simply have the effect of sending more manufacturing offshore. On this side of the House, we are committed to supporting consumers and businesses. As I said, this is a very topical issue. It is constantly raised with me at shopping centres and everywhere I go because people want to know what they are purchasing.
Labor supports this amendment because it provides certainty for businesses, particularly Australian food manufacturers, that the safe harbour provisions under Australian Consumer Law are aligned with the new requirements. This is why I welcome the fact that these new rules will make it clearer for businesses to know when certain claims can and cannot be used. It is also why we welcome the two-year transition period, to enable industry to move to these new labelling regulations.
The opposition, the Labor Party, has long been committed to these reforms. I have been long-time committed to reforms to better labelling, which, as I said, have been raised many times with me. In fact on many occasions I have mentioned it on local radio's 5AA in South Australia on the Leon Byner show because it is a topical issue and it comes up regularly. When we were in government, we conducted a comprehensive review of labelling laws and worked closely with the states through COAG to improve guidance for both consumers and industry.
Labor was very clear that we were committed to finding a bipartisan solution on food labelling. At the time, we called on the government to consult with consumer groups and food industry representatives. We understood then the need to work across government and with industry and consumer groups to develop a comprehensive and consistent approach to supporting Australia's food industry. This will make it much clearer for consumers and it will support local produce. We heard earlier others speak about their local markets and local farmer's markets. This is a good thing. For these reasons, I support this bill and I commend this bill to the House.
It is great to rise to speak on the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Country of Origin) Bill 2016 because it is a great example of the Turnbull-Joyce government delivering. This is a government that keeps delivering on election promises and commitments. I note the previous speaker's contribution to this. I am glad he is a supporter. It is a pity we had to wait for our government to deliver it, and deliver it we will.
I was just noting to myself how this bill will improve or do good for my electorate. I just wrote down in about 30 or 60 seconds what food my electorate contributes to this economy. It contributes fish, beef, macadamias, dairy, blueberries, sugar, avocados, many other stone fruits, bananas, coffee and I could go on. They are just some of the examples of the food that my electorate produces and contributes to this economy. What we have always said and what the previous speaker noted was that the previous country-of-origin labelling was inadequate. It was something that since we have been in government in the last three years we have been committed to delivering—clear, simple country-of-origin labelling. Simple, you would think, but it has been quite an exhaustive process. What we have delivered are reforms that are going to provide consumers with very clear and easy to find country-of-origin labelling information so that they can make informed choices.
As many speakers before me commented, you could walk in and look at some labels on some processed food and it might have had no food that originated in this country but just have had some processing component that completed it in Australia and it could have an Australian label on it. This new labelling is going to show very clearly where the food is from, how much of the food content is from Australia and how much of it was processed here or elsewhere. This will give consumers great choice. It is good for our farmers and good for our food producers because we know that Australian consumers will buy Australian food even if it costs a little bit more than overseas food because they trust it. They trust our food, they trust our farmers and they trust our food producers. There was an example of frozen berries a couple of years ago, where people were made quite ill from eating food that had been processed elsewhere.
The substantial transformation test currently is inadequate. 'Made in Australia from local and imported ingredients' is when food is only minimally processed in Australia. Research has shown that the current framework is ineffective, particularly for food. Some origin labels and rules are still confusing and unhelpful. The proposed changes are aimed at providing businesses with increased certainty about what activities constitute or do not constitute substantial transformation. It will make clear that importing ingredients and undertaking minor processes that merely change the form or appearance of imported goods such as dicing or canning are not sufficient to justify a 'made in' claim. On top of the confusion to consumers, it is clear that the '50 per cent production cost' test that is currently used is an unnecessary burden on business and means little to consumers. I know that people across my electorate and indeed across the whole country have been calling for these changes on food labels.
The changes in this bill will make food labelling clearer, more meaningful and more accurate. This bill will help consumers identify the difference between descriptions like 'made in' and 'product of'. It is the aim of the new labels to be easier to understand. We are all time poor. When a consumer is walking down the aisle of a supermarket and they have a choice of different products, the labelling and the diagrammatic labels will be easy for the consumer to very quickly make an informed decision.
The changes will also assist with the reduction of red tape by removing the '50 per cent production cost' test. The regulatory burden for all businesses, not just food businesses will decrease. The regulation impact statement estimated the total savings from that will be close to $50 million per year and will increase for however many years it goes on. I know, Deputy Speaker Irons, you are very aware; you are a very informed member of parliament. I note you are very aware that there was an exhaustive, extensive consultation process with these country-of-origin label changes. There were discussions with businesses and community representatives. State and territory governments were involved. Our trading partners were involved. It is particularly important to note that, through this process, the government secured broad state and territory support for this.
I would like to take the opportunity to thank the thousands of people who took the time and trouble to contribute their views and to work with us during the development of these reforms. Their participation helped us to achieve our goal of providing consumers with the information that they want. The government is also going to provide the ACCC with additional funding to help undertake compliance and enforcement activities in relation to the new requirements. The government has also agreed to fund a $15.2 million information campaign so that consumers understand the changes and are able to work with them. Australian Consumer Law will also be involved, obviously, with people who try to not do the right thing with this.
It is lovely to have three of my Nationals colleagues in the chamber with me—the Minister for Small Business is sitting over on the other side; I am sure temporarily—because within our party room we were very passionate about the issue that the law on country-of-origin labelling change. It was not a simple process. As I said, exhaustive consultation happened, and it was a very laborious process to get state and territory governments, business and our trading partners on board. But it was something that our communities, our food-producing communities, were passionate about. We wanted the good-quality, clean food that we process to be very identifiable to the Australian consumer, because the Australian consumer wants to support the Australian farmer. It is great for us in the Nationals, together with our coalition partner, to be able to do this. The other side had been talking about it and said they agreed with it, but we, like on many things, are delivering it. It has been a pleasure to talk to this bill.
As those in this place know, food labelling is an issue that I take very seriously. The Minister for Small Business just popped over to have a quick chat to me about food labelling. It is something we have debated quite a lot, particularly in relation to Chiko Roll food labelling! I have stood in this place before and said that the National Party and members of the cabinet should read the label for the Chiko Roll and learn firsthand—
Truth in labelling!
truth in labelling—that on the back of the Chiko Roll it says, 'Born in Bendigo'. Bendigo is the home of the Chiko Roll. We have a bit of a laugh about it, but it is actually a very serious issue. It is the serious issue we are talking about here today, which is country-of-origin and region-of-origin labelling. We will leave the debate about the origins of the Chiko Roll to one side. It is not the only food that is produced in our region.
This issue about food labelling does come up a lot. A lot of people have laughed for a long time about the label 'Made from local and imported products'. What does that label tell us? What is the point of putting 'Made from local and imported products' on the label of the produce that people consume? The extensive research that was done in the field to find out what would be best has produced a new set of labelling. The new labelling, whilst it will inform consumers more about the amount of 'made in Australia' or local product and content in what they are buying, raises a number of other questions. This is the area where I believe that the government has a bit of work to do in enforcing truth in food labelling. I know that the back of the Chiko Roll is true, that the Chiko Roll was born in Bendigo. It is not just folklore. And I know that the member for Riverina, who covers Wagga Wagga, cannot produce his own Chiko Roll labelling and say that the Chiko Roll is from Wagga Wagga, because it is just not true. How do we enforce that, though? That is where we come back to making sure that, for any labelling of food, we have the necessary resources and requirements to ensure that what is on the label is what people are getting.
I can understand why people in our community might be a bit sceptical when it comes to the government's track record, because it was on this government's watch that we had berries enter this country that had not been tested properly, and a number of people became quite ill. A number of people contracted hepatitis. The country of origin was not clearly listed on some of the products as China. The berries were contaminated, and a number of people became quite ill. Why this is relevant to this debate is that it speaks to this government's capacity to enforce its current regulations around food and the importation of food.
If these labels are to mean anything, I want to see the resources invested to make sure that the products that people are buying are in fact 100 per cent or 75 per cent or 50 per cent Australian made. I think about product that is produced in Victoria where this labelling will help, and I think of canned tomatoes. Whilst there are not a lot of tomatoes grown in my part of the world, just to the north of the Bendigo electorate there are. When you meet with Kagome—who not only manufacture tomato products; they also grow tomatoes—they talk about how MasterFoods, who are just next door, will quite often have some of their own crushed tomatoes in their MasterFoods food products but the bulk of the product comes from overseas. Therefore Kagome and the other growers in that part of the world feel a little bit like they have been cheated, in that, just by having a small amount of local Australian-produced tomatoes, MasterFoods are able to claim the catch-all title, 'Made from local and imported goods'. The labelling that has been put forward will help us to understand that.
Australians are entitled to know exactly where their food comes from. Australian law requiring all imported and domestic products to be labelled with the country of origin is important to ensure that people know what they are eating. We know, through consumer surveys, that, when people are in the deli and they see fish which is imported and the country of origin is on the label, they are less likely to buy it, because people know the clean, green image of Tasmanian salmon versus fish that might be from Thailand or Vietnam. People want to make an informed choice. Whilst people know that the price may be a little bit more expensive, Australians, like the rest of the world, are willing to pay for the quality and the peace of mind that they are eating food which is healthy and is meeting Australian standards.
It is critical that consumers are protected, without putting undue burden on the food processors. This is another important point. Today I met with Australian Pork. Pork is an industry that we have in the Bendigo region. On this issue, they said that they are waiting to see what happens. They have invested a lot in their Australian Pork logo, which is easily identified in our supermarkets—not just on our basketball teams. Australian Pork sponsored the Bendigo Spirit for a while, and you could not miss them with their bright pink square logo that they have developed. You cannot miss that logo when you are in the shopping centre. Australian Pork themselves invested in their own branding.
Pork is one of those industries which has, in the past, struggled with this issue of Australian made and local food and ensuring that we have the labelling right. There have been breaches in the past that have been followed up. The kind of pork product you buy can dictate whether or not it is Australian pork. In the Bendigo electorate, we have one of the biggest producers of bacon, at Don KR, and we are also one of the biggest producers of ham on the bone. It is coming up to Christmas, and I know that lots of people will be standing in the deli and making a choice. What most Australians do not realise is that, unless they read the label closely, the bacon product that they buy could actually be Canadian pork or pork from Europe. But the ham on the bone that they buy and bake themselves is actually Australian pork.
Truth in food labelling will also allow us to start educating consumers and encouraging consumers to buy Australian made and Australian grown. With that growth, we can hope to see more investment in these industries to help them expand. If we know that people are willing to pay for more when it comes to Australian made, those brands as well as those products have a good future. We can help to educate consumers about why buying Australian made is not only good for the grower but also good for local jobs. Food labelling is one area where we talk about 'Ag is the new black' and 'Ag is where the future jobs will come from,' but what is critical within that is making sure that everything that underpins it is focused on that 'Made in Australia' logo.
I recently met with the VFF Chicken Meat Group. They are concerned about some rumours that were flying around about looking at chicken coming into our country. Whilst fresh meat must be Australian chicken, because of our strict rules, they are concerned about products that might contain chicken that are processed overseas coming into our country and the impact that that might have on their market. They support these regulations because, whether it is chicken that you crumb yourself or chicken that is crumbed overseas, people want to know that what they are eating is Australian made and Australian grown.
Whilst Labor support these amendments because they provide certainty for business, particularly Australian food manufacturers, it is important to note that the government needs to do more to ensure that there is proper education around food labelling in our community and that there is also proper compliance to make sure that product coming in and product on our shelves has truth in labelling. We need to make sure that the product that consumers are eating and consuming does in fact live up to the label. I also hope that the 25 to 50 and 55 to 75 and then 100 per cent will encourage our food manufacturers to use more Australian grown, locally produced produce in their products. We know that Australians, if educated and engaged, will choose Australian over alternate brands.
This has been a long time coming. It is something that the community has talked about for a long time. It is something that Australians expect their government to keep an eye on. Australians want to know that the produce that they are buying in the shopping centres or at their local markets are safe. They want to know that it is what is on the label.
The Chiko Roll.
The member again interrupts with talk of the Chiko Roll. Let's just put it on the record again. If we are serious about truth in labelling and making sure that we have country-of-origin labelling, I suggest the minister and his colleagues read the back of the label of the Chiko Roll. Perhaps we can say that they helped set the benchmark for country-of-origin labelling, in that they printed on the back, 'Born in Bendigo'. Let's just relive a bit of the history of the Chiko Roll, why it was born in Bendigo and why we claim to be the home of the Chiko Roll.
Three brothers, Frank, Leo and Gerard McEncroe, who were dairy farmers, decided that they wanted to go into the catering business. Frank was the entrepreneur. He was a boilermaker who invented the equipment for, and who first designed, the Chiko Roll. Anybody who knows how to cook a Chiko Roll knows it could fall apart quite quickly in hot oil if it is not made effectively. What these brothers did—and I am putting this in the Hansard so that our friend, Mr McCormack, can respond if he wishes to—was that Frank, the boilermaker, invented a machine that basically created the Chiko Roll, they froze the Chiko Roll and then it was fried so that it would not fall apart. So it was invented in Bendigo by the McEncroe brothers. The McEncroe brothers first called the Chiko Roll the 'snack roll'. The 'snack roll' was sold at local sporting clubs, at the QEO and at agricultural shows. They travelled with the Chiko Roll. Through their catering business, the McEncroe brothers did take the Chiko Roll to the Wagga Wagga show. The ingredients were slightly different, because it depended upon what they had growing in their vegie patch at the time. They had run out of cabbage, so they replaced the cabbage with lucerne. Those were the Chiko Rolls that were at the Wagga Wagga show.
The origin of the Chiko Roll is clearly based in Bendigo with the three McEncroe brothers who had the catering business. Perhaps this is too much detail for food labelling—perhaps people do not need to know the full history of the Chiko Roll—but I will state very clearly and loudly again for the benefit of members and the minister that labelling is important. Even if it is just to dispel myths about the home of the Chiko Roll, food labelling is important. While we may make humour about the Chiko Roll, and I claim that the back of the Chiko Roll helps dispel the terrible myths being put forward by some of those opposite about the Chiko Roll, it does go to an underlying issue, which is that people do read the label. They do care about what is on the label. Knowing what percentage of the produce you are eating is locally made and produced is important to Australians. I encourage the government to ensure that there is investment in making sure that people live up to what the label says.
I hope the member for Bendigo is not planning on leaving the chamber. When she first entered parliament in 2013, I reached over the great divide, I reached over to the other side of the chamber, to bring her into a conversation about the origin of the Chiko Roll. Colin Bettles from Farm Weekly was wanting to do a story as a promotion out the front of the chamber to talk up this wonderful product. I am glad the member for Calare is not in the chamber, because he would be claiming it. The fact is, in talking about the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Country of Origin) Bill 2016, we can all talk about the Chiko Roll, because it is currently manufactured by Simplot in Bathurst in the Calare electorate. It has been since Simplot took ownership of the Chiko Roll brand in 1995. As the member for Bendigo quite correctly pointed out just a moment ago, it first saw the light of day at the Wagga Wagga agricultural show in 1951. I agree with her, the McEncroe's originally came up with the idea—they invented it—in Bendigo. However, as I have always said, it is not where you were thought of, it is not where you end up, it is where you were born that makes such a difference. It saw the first light of day in Wagga Wagga.
The Chiko Roll's filling, even though the name might suggest it is chicken—and I am sure you have enjoyed a Chiko Roll from time to time, Deputy Speaker Kelly—is primarily cabbage and barley, as well as carrots, green beans, beef, beef tallow, wheat cereal, celery and, indeed, onion. This legislation is important for all of those items because they all need proper labelling. They are all items which need truth in labelling, irrespective of where we might think that the Chiko Roll was invented. I know Wagga Wagga has a claim, I know Bathurst has a claim and I appreciate that Bendigo has a claim. When the member for Bendigo came to that little bit of social media interaction out the front of Parliament House, I just wish that she had handed me a Chiko Roll that was cooked. She handed me a frozen one, and I took a great bite out of it and nearly broke my teeth.
Getting on to the important matters before the House today, this bill has a simple proposition: consumers should have the best possible information to rely on when they go to the supermarket to shop. In rising to speak on this very important bill, I do so noting that this bill presents something of an article of faith for country people, and especially for the Nationals. I am so glad that the member for Mallee and the member for Hinkler, the assistant minister, are beside me to support the passage of this important legislation through the House. For decades, the idea that consumers should be able to have an easy-to-use reference of whether the produce on supermarket shelves is Australian has dominated conferences, branch meetings and, indeed, discussions of the Nationals right across the country. So, too, the more than 5,000 farmers, many of whom are small businesses—in fact, I would say almost all of whom are small businesses—whom I represent in this place, have made the case that Australian producers want Australian consumers to buy Australian food and fibre. It almost goes without saying. This is exactly what this bill proposes and delivers upon. I am so glad that the minister, Mr Hunt, is here, because he also knows just how important this legislation is.
As a country member of parliament, I can say this is a matter which has dominated the conversations and interactions I have had with people right across the Riverina and the Central West for years. Many constituents of mine have written and called over the years. I know they are pleased that the government is listening to their feedback and enacting sensible and meaningful change through this particular legislation. Country-of-origin labelling should provide Australians with access to reliable information about where their food comes from so that they can make informed choices about the product they purchase. That is exactly, precisely and deliberately what this legislation does.
When this legislation was first proposed, the Nationals, as part of the coalition government, indicated we would reform the system for country-of-origin labelling. My electorate had the Snowy Mountains and the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area, so this is a matter of vital importance to many of my constituents and, indeed, many of my former constituents. A survey that I conducted of my electorate midway through last year demonstrated not only the widespread support for these changes but the opportunity they create for our primary producers.
As the minister responsible for consumer affairs—and I appreciate my shadow is opposite—I hear stories every day, and I am sure the member for Perth does, too, about how consumers want better access to information on supermarket shelves at a glance to make more informed decisions about purchases. It is why these changes have been top of mind since parliament resumed. State and territory and Commonwealth consumer affairs ministers agreed on 31 March this year to reform the country-of-origin labelling system for food to give consumers clearer and more meaningful information about the food they buy. They should expect nothing less. This is a critical reform. It is something on which the government has focused following extensive consultation with consumers and industry. And that word—'consultation'—keeps cropping up whenever we talk about legislation before this House, because that is what a responsible government does. That is what the Liberals and Nationals do. With every piece of legislation that comes before the House, we consult key stakeholders, industry groups, the various sectors affected and ordinary, everyday Australians—'Mr and Mrs Average', my mother-in-law often calls them. And she is right—as always.
Honourable members interjecting—
No—she is! I love my mother-in-law. She is—she is so right. She always talks about 'Mr and Mrs Average'. When it all boils down—and we can talk about all of the important things in this House—it does boil down to what the average man and woman, the average family, the average boy or girl need, want and expect from government. This is something which is so critical. For the mums and dads who are going shopping, and for the single people who are going shopping, they need to be able to go into those wonderful IGA supermarkets—I will give them a plug—and look at the labels on the shelves and know that what they are getting inside that can or bottle is in fact what they are paying for. This legislation is just another example of how the government is delivering on its promise to put small business at the forefront of decision-making and listening to consumers and producer demands—listening to what, as my mother-in-law says, 'Mr and Mrs Average' would want.
I just want to talk quickly about some of the aspects of this bill. These reforms give Australian consumers, as I have said before, clear and more meaningful information about the food they buy. It does not impose excessive burden on business. That is so important. I have heard you, Mr Deputy Speaker Kelly, a number of times in this House—almost on a daily basis—talk about lifting the load from business, particularly small business. You understand, we on this side of the House understand, that it is important to not overload small businesses, in particular, with burdensome regulation. Cutting through the red tape! We just heard an earlier speaker—the member for Page—talk about ensuring that we did not overload small business with more regulatory burden. This is the most significant change in this contentious area—and it has been a very controversial area for decades.
Many foods found on Australian retail shelves will be required to include a kangaroo in a triangle logo if they have been made, produced or grown in Australia, and a bar chart to indicate the percentage of Australian ingredients in the food. This reform will also make it clearer that 'made in' means more than just packaging or performing minor processes on imported food. That is so important.
I know a farmer at Rankins Springs, Ian Munro—better known as 'Jock'—who is often texting me very early in the morning—
Go Jock!
The member for Mallee says, 'Go Jock!' Don't give him your mobile number; he will text you every morning at 5 o'clock. But we has got it, member for Mallee, because he is always talking about making these changes not just because they sound good or because they are funky but to make sure that we make them so that they are meaningful.
The country-of-origin labelling reforms will be implemented by the new country-of-origin food labelling information standard under Australian consumer law—an area that I am responsible for as the Minister for Small Business. This legislation amends the existing safe harbour defences for country-of-origin claims. The amended legislation will apply to country-of-origin claims on all products, not just food. The reforms started on 1 July. The first labels are expected to appear in stores—and some already have. Businesses have two years to transition to the new labels. All stock in trade at the end of the period can see out its shelf life. To complement the reforms the government is also working with industry to digitise food product information to better position business and consumers for the future. That is so important. As I said, there has been stakeholder consultation. That is something that we as a coalition government always does.
The government understands that this bill needs to get through. It needs to get through because it is so important. It is important for farmers, it is so important for 'Mr and Mrs Average', it is so important for consumers going to supermarkets to know what they are buying is in fact what it says on the label. Truth in labelling is so important.
I am delighted to sum up the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Country of Origin) Bill 2016. Let me begin by acknowledging all of those who have contributed on the side of the opposition and those who are in the House. We have the member for Mallee, the member for Hinkler, the member for Riverina. I want to acknowledge the work of people, such as the member for Bowman, who have campaigned over many years, and the member from Reid, the assistant minister who has held carriage of this bill since the election. He has done a sterling job in working with the states, the opposition and all of the different industry groups that have interest in this space.
As the assistant minister said during the second reading speech, this bill forms part of the country-of-origin labelling reforms championed by the government. It is about truth in advertising. It is about allowing Australians to know Australian and to buy Australian. It is nothing more than a measure for full accountability so as those who make choices at the supermarket and at other retail venues are able to do so with full knowledge. It is about making sure that the kangaroo and the triangle, and the bar chart showing the percentage of produce from Australia, are clear, relevant and easily accessible.
Country-of-origin labelling reforms therefore represent a policy response to the growing demand by Australian consumers to know the origin of their food and to assist them in making informed choices about the product they purchase. This could be for reasons of health, confidence, economic consideration or national patriotic duty. The reforms, therefore, provide consumers with clear, meaningful and easier to find country-of-origin information so that they can make informed purchasing decisions. It is about personal preference informed by genuine, reliable information. The country-of-origin labelling reforms have bipartisan support. They have been worked through carefully with the opposition on a consultative basis and, until this moment, have been done entirely in collaboration. I hope—notwithstanding the late news of a second reading amendment—they will continue to have full bipartisan support. I also note that the Senate Economics Legislation Committee considered the bill and recommended that it be passed. We all thank them for that.
As Australians, what we want to know is whether or not the food we buy is from the country we live in or, if it is from elsewhere, where it is from, in what percentage and whether it was made here or packaged here. We also want to know how much of it was grown by our Australian farmers—clearly, unequivocally, the best in the world. The country-of-origin labelling reforms—fondly known as the 'cool reforms' by my assistant minister—are not only about labelling but also about removing regulatory impost on industry. Importantly, this bill, for instance, when passed by the parliament, presuming it does find favour in both houses, will allow for some significant changes to the Australian Consumer Law country-of-origin safe-harbour defences. These defence provisions provide certainty for business. If specific criteria are met, a business will have certainty that its approach to country-of-origin labelling is not misleading or deceptive. The proposed changes to Australian Consumer Law will simplify these defences and ensure they better reflect consumer expectations and international practice. They will make it clearer that minor processes such as packaging, slicing, diluting, crumbing or canning are not sufficient to justify origin claims such as 'made in', consistent with consumer expectations and international reforms. They will remove unnecessary burdensome or redundant revisions and amend and align remaining provisions with the new country-of-origin labelling standard made on 13 April this year.
The last issue I want to deal with which has been raised in passing by some government members and senators such as Senator Back and the member for Leichhardt, in consultation with some members of the fisheries industry, as well as, I acknowledge, by the member for Perth, is in relation to the origin labelling for seafood sold in the food services sector. It is what my assistant minister has described 'as dealing with the seafood basket question'—how you deal with an ever-changing product that has a multiplicity of sources without imposing an unnecessary burden on the restaurant and catering sector; something that none of us would want to do. That question has been raised through a second reading amendment.
I would note that the ministers of the Legislative and Governance Forum on Consumer Affairs decided in March 2016—this was from all states and territories and from people of both persuasions—not to extend mandatory country-of-origin labelling to the food services sector at this time, essentially for the reason of cost and complexity. That was a decision taken in consultation with the jurisdictions in March of this year, where the state and territory jurisdictions themselves—irrespective of their political leanings or their party—were concerned about an unnecessary burden on the sector. However, in good faith, recognising that there are views in both directions, I propose, in order to take forward the work of the parliament, whilst we cannot support this amendment without the work and cooperation of the states and territories—that would be a breach of the COAG commitment—I will undertake to include consideration of improved origin labelling for seafood sold in the food services sector through a working group on food services within the fisheries and seafood sector.
We would invite not just the states and territories but both the seafood sector and the restaurant, catering, hospitality and small business sectors to be involved. I will ask the assistant minister to lead the process, to report within 12 months and to invite the opposition to be part of the process. It is a genuine, good faith recognition of an issue that has been raised both by the sector and by some on our backbench as well as by the opposition. I think that is the way not to create a process of bad faith that accepting this amendment now would represent, and would be in breach of our COAG process and commitment. Having won the support of the states and territories, I would not want to do anything that lost the support of the states and territories. I hope that step forward is a constructive one and it acknowledges that parliamentary debate can advance an issue. I think that is the way this parliament should work at its best.
Having said that, I particularly want to thank my predecessor, the Leader of the House, and I want to acknowledge the commitment of the Prime Minister and the leader of the National Party, both of whom have been staunch advocates of this bill and these reforms. I would like to thank all of those people who have contributed, particularly those in the chamber at the moment: the member for Hinkler, the member for Mallee and my assistant minister, the member for Reid who have advanced this cause. The Competition and Consumer Amendment (Country of Origin) Bill 2016 is a genuine national reform. It is about truth in labelling, information for consumers and a better shot for Australian farmers to compete equally and on merit. With those comments, I thoroughly commend this bill to the House.
The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Perth has moved as an amendment that all words after 'that' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question now is that the amendment be agreed to.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Labor has worked with the financial advice sector to deliver better advice and fairer outcomes for consumers and we are supportive of any measures to improve the quality of financial advice and minimise harm caused by financial advice remuneration structures. However, there is more to do in protecting consumers from misconduct in the life insurance industry. Labor's Future of Financial Advice reforms banned many forms of conflicted remuneration for financial advisers, including for life insurance policies held inside group life policies and superannuation. However, other life insurance policies remain exempt from the Future of Financial Advice ban on conflicted remuneration.
Life insurance is a critical product that consumers use to manage risk for themselves and their families. Good financial advice can help consumers identify their life insurance needs and find appropriate and affordable products that meet those needs. Good advisers ask the right questions about a person's situation and ensure clients can confidently purchase a product that is good value for money. Should the worst happen, the quality of that advice determines when and how a customer receives the financial support they paid for.
But it is an unfortunate fact that far too many Australians have suffered the consequences of inadequate and unreliable financial advice. Media reports at the start of this year indicated that life insurance related disputes had a spike in 2014-15, according to the Financial Ombudsman Service. Across the board, disputes rose by six per cent, while disagreements over lump-sum payouts for claims of total and permanent disability rose by 20 per cent. The House will remember that less than two years after Commonwealth Bank head made an unreserved apology for the bank's financial planning division using forgery, fraud, management cover-ups and inappropriate advice—practices which led to thousands of customers losing their life savings—came the CommInsure scandal. According to reports, during the last six months of 2015 the bank's life insurance branch made a profit of approximately $200 million, while medical reports were manipulated, files went missing, doctors were cherrypicked or leaned on by claims managers to change their opinions, old policy definitions of heart attacks and rheumatoid arthritis were deliberately kept and prioritised to deny claims, and unethical policies were adopted to delay or deny total and permanent disability payments to terminally ill patients and claimants. When these allegations were raised by a whistleblower, the whistleblower was sacked.
It was reported in October this year that Westpac's life insurance arm rejected 37 per cent of total and permanent disability claims. This is an extremely grave concern for an industry that Australians rely on and for which Australians should expect the highest standard of ethics. That is why Labor will continue to argue for a banking royal commission to examine the culture of the industry and ensure Australians can tell their stories.
A series of reports have shown the need for reform to the method of remuneration for life insurance advisers. ASIC Report 413: Review of retail life insurance advice identified a strong connection between up-front commissions, policy lapse rates and poor consumer outcomes. It found, among other things: 45 per cent of advice provided under an up-front commission model failed to comply with the law, as opposed to only seven per cent of non-upfront advice; and 82 per cent of industry uses an upfront commission model and that up-front commissions for advisers are generally between 100 to 130 per cent of the product premium. The industry-commissioned Trowbridge review recommended several reforms to adviser remuneration, including a significant reduction in up-front commissions. Finally, the Financial System Inquiry recommended the abolition of up-front commissions and a move to level commissions, which means that the commission remains the same year after year.
According to ASIC, the up-front commission model is the main remuneration structure for life insurance. ASIC also found that up-front commissions have a 'statistically significant' bearing on the likelihood of an adviser who is working on commission giving advice that does not comply with the law. According to ASIC:
High upfront commissions give advisers an incentive to write new business. The more premiums they write, the more they earn. There is no incentive to provide advice that does not result in a product sale or to provide advice to a client that they retain an existing policy unless the advice is to purchase additional covers or increase the sum insured.
Because life insurance commissions are tied to selling, not giving advice, an incentive is created to sell insurance rather than provide strategic advice. This can lead to clients receiving poor value for money.
It was because of these concerns that Labor supported the life insurance framework bill when it was first introduced to parliament earlier this year, before the election, and that remains our position. But, as we noted then, we have some reservations about the reforms. Industry has been engaged in a long process of consultation and, while there is broad industry agreement on the need to reform the structure of commissions, some groups have voiced concerns or feel their voices have not been heard in the process. The Association of Financial Advisers has stated that 'the vast majority' of its members are supportive of the reforms, but a small group of financial advisers, known as the Life Insurance Consumer Group, has been vocal in its opposition to the bill. We also acknowledge concerns of consumer groups that the bill could go further in protecting consumers. CHOICE Chief Executive Officer Alan Kirkland has said:
Commission-driven churn is one of the major problems in this industry and we think that provisions to claw back commissions should extend for at least three years as originally proposed.
While this bill goes some way to reducing the incentives that can encourage financial advisers to recommend inappropriate life insurance products to consumers, it does not address misconduct on the part of the insurers themselves. For example, it would not address the poor claims-handling practices publicised in the CommInsure scandal and recently detailed in ASIC's Report 498: Life insurance claims: an industry review.
The first version of the Financial Services Council's Life Insurance Code of Practice, released in October this year, aims to improve consumer outcomes in the life insurance sector. But there is too much that it does not cover and much more work to do in this area. I note that the minister for revenue and financial services, Senator Gallagher, has stated that Treasury is looking into further amendments to the Corporations Act in response to the ASIC report.
Shadow minister.
The shadow minister. Thank you. I appreciate the interjection.
First of all, this bill does not guarantee that new standards will be enforced. It also does not address concerns with the way the life insurance industry handles claims. It does address issues of conflicted remuneration for financial advisers selling life insurance products, but it ignores extant concerns about conflicted remuneration for claims handlers, who have a role no less important than that of financial advisers, since they are required to make fair and appropriate decisions about the merits of a life insurance claim. So, I note with some disquiet ASIC's recent report demonstrating that at least two life insurers were still paying remuneration with incentives based on how many claims were denied.
Finally, the bill as a whole does not seek to remedy the clear cultural and operational concerns that have become obvious and destructive within the banking and financial services sector. Nonetheless, Labor will support the modest reforms in this bill in the hope that they can improve consumer confidence in the quality of financial advice on life insurance. But we do note that this bill stops short of the recommendations of the Financial System Inquiry and the Trowbridge review to remove up-front commissions. The package still allows for up-front commissions but caps them.
Unfortunately, because the start date has been pushed back from mid-2016 to the beginning of 2018, the 60 per cent cap will not be reached until 2020. This is a long lead period for a modest reform that was agreed to by industry in 2015. Had the government been well organised to progress it, the bill could have been law well before 1 July 2016.
In addition to the limits on the quantum of up-front commissions, the package introduces a two-year 'clawback' of up-front commissions. This means that up-front commissions will have to be paid back to the life insurer by the financial adviser in the event that the policy lapses. It will not be until 2020 that these reforms are fully implemented. We think that the ASIC review, now scheduled for 2021, will be important in making sure that these reforms improve consumer outcomes.
We welcome the implicit endorsement of the Future of Financial Advice framework from those opposite that this bill represents. It represents steps to better align the standard protocols of financial advisers with the interests of consumers, and it addresses concerns about advisers 'churning' clients through products. Labor will help the government pass this bill and we will watch carefully as it is implemented. We will also scrutinise the bill as it begins operation and look forward to ASIC's review at the beginning of the next decade.
I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak on this important bill, dealing as it does with an issue that has been contentious for some time, namely remuneration in the life insurance industry. The Corporations Amendment (Life Insurance Remuneration Arrangements) Bill 2016 amends the Corporations Act 2001 to better align the interests of financial advisers who sell life insurance products with those of the consumers to whom they sell those products. As you will be aware, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, back in 2012 the FOFA reforms prohibited conflicted remuneration, but life insurance sold outside of superannuation was exempt from those changes at the time. This bill seeks to address that issue.
Currently, there are very few restrictions on how life insurance remuneration is put in place, and that does make life insurance somewhat different to the other areas within the broader wealth management area. There have been a number of reports that have looked into this issue: ASIC's review of retail life insurance advice, the industry-commissioned Trowbridge report and the Financial System Inquiry (FSI). Of course, in recent years one of the themes in the area of life insurance and financial advice more generally has been conflicted remuneration and regulation seeking to ensure that the interests of consumers are aligned with the interests of those who advise them.
Interestingly, when ASIC looked into this they found that in cases where there was a heavy bias in favour of up-front commissions, with advisers getting a large proportion of their remuneration in the very early stages of a life insurance policy, the clients tended to get a disproportionately low level of advice. So the high up-front commission was, in fact, correlated with a lower standard of advice. The basic principle that underpins this legislation is that the remuneration to advises should be run out over a number of years whilst the policyholder continues to hold that policy, rather than being perhaps more skewed to an up-front commission, which does not align the interests of the two parties. Advisers can currently receive up-front commissions of up to 130 per cent of the premium and trailing commissions of about 10 per cent, which can be very high. The ASIC report did find significant examples of churn as a consequence, where policies were perhaps held for a short period of time, nonetheless the adviser received the large commission.
Both the Trowbridge report and the FSI recommended some reform in this area and the industry itself, in late 2015, also agreed that reform was required, and this bill gives effect to that. One of the key principles here is that the commissions must be level across the years, so a consistent amount each year rather than having that bias towards up-front commissions, which is a disincentive to align the interests of both parties. Importantly, under these provisions, by 2020 the maximum level of commission that an adviser can receive as prescribed by ASIC is about 60 per cent of the total premium, which is about half of the current amounts. This is also subject to various penalties: up to $200,000 for individuals and $1 million for corporate entities if these arrangements are not followed. The bill also includes our clawback arrangements so, if a client does not actually stay with that policy for a substantial period of time, that some of that adviser remuneration is clawed back. Again, that provides the incentive to the adviser to ensure that they are providing products to consumers who actually want them and will use them and will keep them, as opposed to just a very hard sell to obtain an up-front commission. By reducing those up-front incentives, it is expected that the level of churn in the industry will decline and there will be better correlation between both parties.
In 2021, ASIC is going to have a review of these new arrangements and see how they are working in practice. If the changes are not working to the degree that the government is seeking, it would then move to mandate level commissions across the industry, and this bill puts in place the arrangements to enable the collection of information for that purpose. So basically from 1 July, up-front commissions starting at 80 per cent on 1 January 2018—a maximum of 80 per cent of a policy—will drop by 10 per cent per year to January 2020 until they reach 60 per cent. And ongoing commissions—trail commissions—will need to be a lower rate, of course, than up-front commissions and capped at 20 per cent from 1 January 2018. As I say, there are a number of clawback arrangements in place for situations where a client gets out of their policy soon after they are sold it. The government wants to ensure that, in effect, advisers pay a penalty and do not maintain that full up-front commission if it turns out that the client did not actually want to stick around with that policy for a reasonable period of time.
These are very important initiatives in this area of life insurance and there are aware, a number of other activities taking place in this area. Just recently, ASIC released its report into the life insurance industry and you will recall, Acting Deputy Speaker Kelly, that when the commissioner, Mr Medcraft, appeared before the House economics committee we discussed a range of the conclusions coming out of the review of insurance policies that were published by ASIC at that time. That was the first publication of this kind and it is intended in the future that, on an annual basis, there will be a full and transparent reporting of the performance of the life insurance industry, in order to give consumers a better understanding of how that industry is functioning and also identifying any particular issues of concern.
One of the things ASIC noted in its report was that the rates of declined claims were highest for total and permanent disability cover with about 16 per cent of claims denied, and a very large variation between insurers with one insurer having a denial rate as high as 37 per cent for TPD insurance. That obviously piqued ASIC's attention, as no doubt it did many other people, including myself. You would think, logically, that given many of the standards and definitions for insurance products are reasonably standard, you would not expect a wide variation in the level of claims being paid. But, in fact, what that report did reveal was a significant variation, and one of the best ways to address a problem is to shine a public light on it and that is what ASIC will be doing in the future with its annual report on the life insurance industry.
It was also notable in that process that ASIC did say there were some insurers where there were financial incentives for employees, within those insurers, based on the percentage of claims which were denied. Again, that is a troubling fact because you would be familiar with the term 'perverse incentive', and it is a fairly perverse incentive to say to a claims assessor, 'Effectively, you will get paid more the more claims you deny.' The role of a claims assessor should be to objectively and professionally assess a claim against the relevant criteria. An incentive of that nature is clearly something that raises concerns, and ASIC identified that in a couple of the insurers on which it reported. Annual reporting of the life insurance industry is a very strong initiative from this government. Of course, it was the Minister for Revenue and Financial Services, or Assistant Treasurer as she then was, who asked ASIC to report back, for the first time in quite a public fashion, about the performance of industry. They did that last month and they are going to be doing that every year. That is a very important reform and it is something that was done by this minister and this government.
There are a number of related issues that I want to touch on. Similarly to the life insurance industry, the wealth management industry has had some significant issues in recent times, with significant numbers of bad experiences for clients, and cases of customers not being treated well. It is my view, and the view of the house economics committee in its report last week, that something similar to the annual reporting regime of the life insurance industry should be put in place for the wealth management industry, so that consumers have the capacity to have a look, to see and to understand the relative performance of the different wealth management providers—and, if there are public complaints about those bodies, or if perhaps they breach their licence conditions, or if perhaps the executives of those entities fail in their respective responsibilities to their clients, it is entirely reasonable for consumers to want to know about that. That is what this annual reporting regime will do. It is something which I think is very consistent with the approach that the government is taking already in life insurance.
There is so much activity on a regulatory front in this area, Deputy Speaker, and you would be familiar with the actions of the government in relation to raising standards of financial advisers. When we entrust our savings with financial advisers, we want to make sure that those financial advisers have the right skills, the right aptitudes, the right ethical standards and the right education to do the right thing. Again, the government has moved very strongly in this area.
In fact, just last week, the minister introduced the Corporations Amendment (Professional Standards of Financial Advisers) Bill, and there are a number of very important areas in that bill. Again, it is all on the theme of professionalism, of transparency, of giving consumers the tools with which to make informed judgements about the people from whom they seek their financial advice. That bill includes compulsory education requirements for new and existing financial advisers: I think it is fair to say that those education standards, on occasion, can be lacking at present. That bill will address this. It also includes greater supervision requirements for new advisers, a code of ethics for the industry that everyone buys into, an exam that represents a common benchmark of professional performance, and also an ongoing professional development component—because people can entrust, literally, their entire life savings with financial advisers. And, just as when somebody visits a legal professional or a medical professional, they do so in the expectation that that person has the training and the skills and ascribes to a set of professional standards that will protect the individual in the event that there are problems. To be frank, that has not always existed in the financial advice industry. The overwhelming majority of financial advisers do the right thing. It is a very large and important industry, and I have some familiarity with it, having previously been on the board of Yellow Brick Road. But it is an area where there is an opportunity for the government to provide a clearer and better framework, with better standards and with the overarching goal of putting the power back into the hands of the client—the consumer—and ensuring that they have the appropriate protections. So, from January 2019, when these new measures come into place, there will be a whole range of requirements around advisers holding an appropriate degree, and the exam, from January 2024, will be an important new initiative to protect consumers in this most critical of industries.
So there are a wide range of initiatives in this area. The life insurance changes that we introduce today are a very important part of these initiatives. I commend this bill, the Corporations Amendment (Life Insurance Remuneration Arrangements) Bill 2016, to the House.
I rise to speak on the Corporations Amendment (Life Insurance Remuneration Arrangements) Bill 2016. More than half of all Australians have some form of life insurance. I know it is an important part of the way people make personal arrangements. I acknowledge all of the workers in the insurance industry generally. I got to know them a lot better during the 2011 floods—not so much the life insurance industry but the general insurance industry—after my electorate was hammered by the floods, and then I was Chair of the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs, which conducted two inquiries into insurance more generally, and I got to see behind the call centres, and see behind the policies and the processes, and to acknowledge the large number of people who make a contribution through the insurance industry.
The life insurance industry specifically generates more than $56 billion annually in premiums; it is very significant and very substantial. There are around 28 registered life insurers operating in Australia at the moment. The Future of Financial Advice, or FOFA, reforms implemented by the Gillard government provided a general ban on financial advisers being offered remuneration when they sold a financial product to a consumer—not something that is familiar to lawyers. I see the member for Perth is in the chamber; certainly in his former life as a lawyer, I guess, the idea of giving legal advice when you are 21 and still being remunerated for that when you are 61 has a certain appeal!
Hear, hear!
but it is not something that lawyers were able to achieve—and I will take that interjection from the other side of the chamber. Obviously, as lawyers, you are paid for the advice you give when you give it and that is the end of the matter but, with financial advice, there is the potential for your advice to be remunerated in the future. Then, in fact, you could sell your books in a way, and give that advice that you had given to someone else to still take payment for that in the future. That is not something that lawyers are familiar with but, as I said, the Gillard government brought in the FOFA reforms that ended much of that practice. Those reforms protected consumers from financial advisers who would act against their client's interests in order to gain remuneration on the sale of a product—or, I should stress, the possibility of that. There were some exemptions to that general ban, including where the benefit related solely to a life insurance product that was not part of a superannuation scheme.
Several recent reports have made it clear that further reform is needed to ensure that the consumer's interests are not being disregarded in the pursuit of greater remuneration for the financial adviser. The ASIC report Review of retail life insuranceadvice found that 82 per cent of the life insurance industry provides upfront commissions to advisers which are generally between 100 per cent and 130 per cent of the product premium. The Trowbridge review, which was commissioned by the industry itself, recommended a significant reduction in upfront commissions, and the Financial System Inquiry recommended to abolish upfront commissions altogether. I know this is a significant issue. I have met with seniors in my electorate, both at the regular morning teas and also at the big seniors morning tea I hold with the Macgregor Lions every year, where this has been raised as an issue.
The bill that is before the chamber removes the current exemption from the ban on conflicted remuneration for benefits paid in relation to life insurance products. ASIC will be empowered to make a legislative instrument to permit benefits for life insurance products to be paid to an adviser, provided certain requirements are met. The reforms in this bill go some way to addressing the concerns by reducing incentives for financial advisers to recommend inappropriate life insurance products, but Labor still has significant concerns that the clawback period in this bill is only two years—one year less than the original industry agreement. This means that financial advisers will get to keep their upfront commission even if they move a client onto a new product after just two years.
Mr Deputy Speaker Buchholz, from your work done in this area on the economics committee, you know that commission-driven churn is considered by consumer groups to be one of the major problems in the industry, but the bill does not address misconduct of the insurers at all. Earlier this year we were all appalled by the reported cases of people who were insured by CommInsure, the Commonwealth Bank's insurance arm, and were denied payment of their claims—and I should declare that I am a shareholder of the Commonwealth Bank and also a policyholder of CommInsure. One of the examples given was of a 46-year-old man who had a heart attack that was so severe his heart actually stopped, and he was revived by nurses with a defibrillator. However, his CommInsure claim was denied because his blood tests did not reveal enough of the protein troponin in his blood after the attack. The CommInsure policy included a definition of 'heart attack' that relied on a very precise measurement of troponin in the bloodstream before an attack that would be deemed to be a heart attack under the insurance policy. Experts in the field of cardiology were reported to say that it was not possible to diagnose the severity of a heart attack based on troponin levels alone. The definition was completely out of step with current medical practice but, sadly, many people were denied their claims because of this outdated definition that was inserted into the fine print of the policy.
Then there was one of the Commonwealth Bank's own employees who reportedly was fired after suffering major depression and post-traumatic stress disorder following a violent assault. In an appallingly insensitive episode, the Commonwealth Bank terminated the man's employment, relying on a psychiatrist's report which said that he was not able to function in the bank or the general workforce. When the man made a claim to the insurance arm of the same bank, it was denied by relying on the same psychiatrist's report, and insisting that he was capable of returning to work. The claim took 2½ years to assess, during which time the man, a good employee who had endured stress and damage, reportedly was forced to sleep in his own car—a sad state of affairs. It has also been reported that the family of a woman who died from an accidental overdose of prescription drugs was denied a payout on her life insurance. Despite a police investigation and a post-mortem concluding that the woman died of an accidental overdose, CommInsure told the family that the claim would not be paid, because suicide was excluded under the policy.
The Commonwealth Bank's Chief Executive Officer, Ian Narev, gave evidence to the parliamentary inquiry earlier this year, where he told the inquiry that CommInsure have now changed their definition of heart attack. But, despite the shocking revelations of consumers being denied their legitimate claims, Mr Narev told the inquiry that not one person had been fired from CommInsure. These companies, many insurance companies, are raking in billions of dollars each year in premiums, but it appears that getting them to pay out on a claim is almost as difficult as getting blood from a stone.
These are some of the systemic issues that this bill cannot possibly address. It deals with some of the culture issues in the banking and financial and insurance industry that have been a concern for many MPs on both sides of the House. In fact, I think the MP for Dawson has recently come out in support of the idea of a closer look, and I think that the New South Wales senator, Senator Williams, has also indicated support for a royal commission into the banking and financial services industry. Sadly, we are not seeing that here in the chamber of the parliament.
Australians have traditionally had confidence and trust in the fairness of our financial services industry, including the life insurance industry. We need to see that reinstated. We need to have confidence and trust in these institutions. Sadly, too often when we listen to the radio, we see scandal after scandal associated with the banking and financial services industries, and too many people have been affected. We have seen it in the bush, we have seen it in the city, and we have seen it in small business and in big business, too often. Too many people have been affected. Some have lost their savings that they have spent a lifetime accumulating. As MPs, we have all had people come and talk to us about some of those scandals—some that particularly affected those in Queensland. There is nothing more heartbreaking than hearing someone in their 60s or 70s say they made what appeared to be reasonably prudent investments, only to find out they were ripped off by people. And, if they are being ripped off by those associated with those major institutions, that is when good government steps in.
A royal commission into the banking and financial services industry would be empowered to do things that the current set of arrangements cannot. It would be empowered to examine issues including: ascertaining just how widespread instances of illegal and unethical behaviour are within Australia's financial services industry; how Australia's financial services institutions treat their duty of care to their customers; and how the culture, ethical standards and business structures of Australian financial services institutions affect the behaviour of these institutions. A royal commission could look at whether Australia's regulators are really equipped to identify and prevent illegal and unethical behaviour. It could find out about comparable international experience with similar financial services industry misconduct and best-practice responses to those incidents and other events that may emerge over the course of investigating the above.
Sadly, the Turnbull government's approach of calling bank executives down to Canberra once a year to have a cup of tea will not go anywhere near addressing these significant issues that I have detailed. Sadly, I cannot expect the economics committee, which is chaired by the member for Banks—I kid you not—and where the Liberal Party have the numbers, to have any effect on banking culture beyond the questioning of executives on a yearly basis, where they will be a little bit uncomfortable.
I know that many people in Moreton, not just retirees, have approached me about this issue. They have had concerns about banks. They have had concerns about the insurance industry. There is much more to be done in both of these sectors and there is much more to be done with this piece of legislation before the chamber.
I rise this evening to speak on the Corporations Amendment (Life Insurance Remuneration Arrangements) Bill 2016. Before I get on to some specific comments about the bill, I would just like to respond to some of the comments from the member for Moreton, because he is clearly wrong and the opposition is wrong in its insistence on a royal commission. What the member for Moreton, in his speech, identified was a series of cases where there was a dispute over whether a claim on a life insurance policy should have been paid. Someone had paid the premium and believed that they were entitled to make a claim. And there was a dispute. Commercial disputes happen.
How will a royal commission sort out these disputes? It will not. This is why. The government's proposal to have a tribunal is far, far superior. At the moment the problem that we have is access to justice. If an individual believes that a large insurance company has done the wrong thing by them—and if that amount is above the level where the Financial Ombudsman Service can make a determination on that matter, as it often is—the only alternative, currently, that that person has is to take their claim to the Supreme Court. Unfortunately, in our legal system, the cost of an individual consumer taking their claim to the Supreme Court simply rules out that possibility in its entirety. And that is where the imbalance and the problem is.
A royal commission is not going to solve that problem. All a royal commission would do would be—after a lot of lawyers had run up hundreds of millions of dollars in legal fees—to come up with, maybe, a solution or a suggestion or a recommendation that there should be a tribunal to try to level the legal playing field. Our proposal is: if someone had a claim and believed that that claim should have been paid out but had been rejected by a large insurance company, they would have the ability to take that to a low-cost tribunal to have the issue determined. And why a royal commission would be so detrimental is that a royal commission would not have the power to make those decisions. A properly functioning tribunal is a step above a royal commission.
I would ask members from the opposition: let us work together on this. Do not go down your one-track proposal of a royal commission and nothing else. Let us work together because, with the tribunal, the devil will be in the detail. Let us work together and try and get the details of how that tribunal will work in the best way possible so that those consumers who have had the wrong thing done by them can get true access to justice and, if there has been a breach of the contractual terms, or unconscionable conduct, or misleading and deceptive conduct, those consumers can get fair and just compensation.
I will give another reason why a royal commission is such a bad idea. Under the provisions of our competition act, if there has been unconscionable conduct, or if there has been misleading and deceptive conduct, there is a six-year statute of limitations from the time the conduct was first identified. So the risk is this. Say someone had suffered an adverse consequence or was in a dispute and felt they were badly done by, by a bank or a large insurance company, and say that happened in 2013. Now it is three years plus. If we go down the track of a multi-year royal commission, then, by the time that royal commission gets around to deciding what we know now—that we need a tribunal to determine these cases on a low-cost basis—the risk is that that six-year statutory period would have expired. So the whole idea of getting these people compensation would have been ruled out and they would have been timed out because the Labor Party would have argued against this tribunal, through wanting to go for this show of a royal commission, and timed these people out from having their claim determined. That is why it is such a poor idea to have a royal commission.
When it comes to talking about changing the culture of banking practice, a lot of that culture comes about now because the large insurers and the large banks know—whether it be a small business or a consumer—if they are in a commercial dispute and they know it cannot be handled by the financial services ombudsman because it is above the threshold and the only access to justice for that consumer or small business person is through the Supreme Court, they know it is not a level legal playing field, and they know they can play hardball. They know if the consumer goes, 'Well, I'm going to take you to court', they can laugh at that.
If we are able to fix that problem with a functioning tribunal that levels the legal playing field, that gives someone who has a legitimate claim—and who has been unconscionably dealt with by a large bank or insurance company—the opportunity to have their claim determined in a low-cost, efficient and quick manner, without all the legal procedures and run-up of costs, that is what will change: the culture of the banking sector.
I would hope that members of the opposition would put down their 'opposition for the sake of opposition', work with the coalition on this and let's get that tribunal. Let's make it have all the powers of a royal commission but with the additional powers to be able to make determinations and award legally binding compensation.
On the specifics of this bill, I note that this bill does have bipartisan support but I must admit that I have some concerns with the bill. To start with, I was actually quite shocked at the size of the life insurance industry. The report from the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority said that, as at 30 June 2015, we had 28 registered life insurance companies operating in Australia. So there is plenty of competition. We have 28 companies offering life insurance products, and the net premium income follow-up 2014-15 alone was $60.9 billion. That is an extraordinary sum of premiums that are paid into the life insurance industry. That is the net premiums.
Those 28 large life insurance companies obviously have numerous ways they can get consumers to sign up and buy one of their policies. They could have commissioned salesman or brokers—as many are. They could also have just salaried staff, working on a certain salary, working for them, selling those to consumers. They could also sell them online, with basically no commissioned sales people or no salespeople whatsoever. What this bill is actually doing is putting in a form of price control that regulates what those commissioned life insurance salesmen or financial advisers are paid.
Let's just go through what is being proposed in this bill. Firstly, there are up-front commissions. Often we talk about an up-front commission and we talk about 100 or 120 per cent or higher of the annual premium. That often seems excessive. But whether it is 120 per cent or whatever it is should be almost irrelevant. What should be relevant is the cost of the financial service and advice that the financial adviser is giving. How many hours has it taken him to compile that advice to give to that client? That is what I see as more relevant than whether we saved 120 per cent or 110 per cent—that is outrageous.
Under this bill, ASIC will have the power to see the average 110 to 120 per cent commissions on a premium reduced to 60 per cent from 1 July, and permit ongoing commissions to be set at a maximum of 20 per cent. I cannot think of many other areas in the economy where the government is stepping in to reduce the payments or to set effectively a price cap on what financial advisers can be paid. I am at a loss as to why this is happening. This is a market where there is a lot of competition. There may be arguments about why that is, but that current arrangement has been negotiated by those 28 large life insurance companies with the financial services. So they are now coming to the government, saying, 'We think we're overpaying our sales staff. We want you to cut their commissions.'
Second is the issue of claw-backs. Claw-backs come about with what the industry describes as churn. Someone has a policy for maybe one or two years, then they change it to another insurance company and they may change it to another insurance company. By itself, there is nothing wrong with that. Consumers should be able to change over the years if they find a better policy. If they find a better credit card offer, they should be able to change. If they find a better housing loan, they should be able to change. They should be able to change their bank. There is nothing wrong with that. The only problem that comes about is when those large financial insurance companies have decided they would pay these large up-front commissions, and then they have to continue to pay them time after time, and that becomes an incentive perhaps for the financial advisers to sell the policies and to churn the policies over.
But, again, I am at a loss to see why this is something that those 28 large registered life insurers cannot negotiate themselves with the industry. We have a long, long history throughout the world that wherever governments have tried to enter the market and fix prices it has had substantial adverse consequences to consumers. The best tool to fix any problem is to make sure that there is adequate competition. Competition is always a better tool than price fixing by governments.
When it comes to competition, there are some things that we should work on—and we are—things like better disclosure. If someone signs up to an insurance policy, let them know what percentage commission the salesperson is getting. Let them know what percentage of claims are being paid by that life insurance company. That something that we know ASIC is working on at the moment—a very important step. If a particular insurer has knocked back 37 per cent of claims and another insurer has knocked back five per cent, I know where I as a consumer would want to take out a life insurance policy. That is the best indicator. The only reason I can support this bill is that there will be a review in 2018, which will look to see if there have been improvements in the industry and what the effects have been.
I say in conclusion that we need to be very careful in government. It is very easy to think that government knows best—that it knows what the prices should be and should try and set fair prices. The history of economics throughout the world has shown that that fails. The other issue is that, like anything, when government comes into control something, there are many ways around it. Yes, a large insurance company may be restricted in what it can pay in commissions, but there are many ways other than financial remuneration. What is to stop one of those large insurance companies as an incentive giving a financial adviser a free trip to a conference in the Maldives? These are all issues that we need to look at. At the moment, with great reluctance, I support this bill, but we need to monitor this closely to look out for those unintended consequences, because the history of governments interfering in the market and setting prices has always been a disaster.
I speak in support of the Corporations Amendment (Life Insurance Remuneration Arrangements) Bill 2016, which builds on the strong record that Labor had when we were in government of protecting consumers in the financial services and insurance industry in Australia. This bill builds on the Future of Financial Advice reforms that were put in place by the previous Labor government in the wake of many scandals in the financial planning and life insurance industries. They included Trio Capital, Storm Financial and, in recent years, Timbercorp. In only the past couple of years we have seen the CommInsure scandal, where literally thousands of consumers have lost money and have been worse off because of unscrupulous financial planners, advisers and people who were selling to consumers products that were not in their best interests. When Labor was in government, with the FOFA reforms we introduced a ban on conflicted remunerations. We introduced a best-interest duty to ensure that consumers were protected from unscrupulous financial planners and that the financial planner had a duty, by going through a checklist, to act in the best interests of the consumer. Of course, when Labor introduced these reforms, they were opposed by the coalition. Much the same as the previous speaker did, they said that they were interference within the market and that they would leave consumers worse off. What we have seen, of course, since that time is scandal after scandal in the financial services industry, highlighting the need for, if anything, stronger financial planning reforms and stronger reforms in the insurance industry—and this bill does that.
Life insurance policies, particularly those held through group life policies and superannuation, were covered by FOFA. However, other life insurance policies remain exempt from the FOFA ban on conflicted remuneration, and addressing that is the purpose of this bill. This bill reduces the capacity for conflicted remuneration in the life insurance industry, with the aim of improving outcomes for consumers while recognising the need to lower underinsurance rates in the life insurance industry. The main provisions of the bill, which is scheduled to commence on 1 January 2018, are the phasing down of up-front commissions to a maximum of 80 per cent from 1 January 2018, 70 per cent from 1 January 2019 and 60 per cent from 1 January 2020, together with a maximum 20 per cent ongoing commission; and a two-year retention, or clawback, period which requires advisers to repay premiums received in the case of policy lapse in the first two years of a policy as follows: 100 per cent of the premium in the first year of the policy and 60 per cent of the premium in the second year of the policy. The bill enables the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, ASIC, to make a legislative instrument to permit benefits in relation to life risk insurance products to be paid, provided certain requirements are met. These requirements relate to the quantum of allowable commissions and to clawback arrangements, where a certain portion of the up-front commission is paid back to the life insurer by the financial adviser in the event that the life insurance policy is cancelled or the premium is reduced. This bill introduces a ban on volume based payments in life risk products and includes transitional, or grandfathering, arrangements in the Corporations Act. The bill gives ASIC the power to create an instrument that sets the maximum permissible up-front and ongoing commissions. There will be no ban on level commissions—commissions where the same commission is paid for each year of a policy—nor will there be a ban on fee-for-service arrangements. ASIC will be required to conduct a review of the reforms in 2021.
Underinsurance in Australia is, sadly, not a new concept. In 2013 underinsurance provider TAL—sorry, insurance provider TAL. Well, they are underinsuring; I think everyone is underinsuring! TAL found that only 30 to 37 per cent of Australians aged 18 to 69 held some form of life insurance. Only 11 to 18 per cent held disability cover, income protection insurance, or critical illness and trauma cover. In 2014, KPMG released a research project into underinsurance in Australia for people aged 18 to 64. The report found that around 35 per cent of people in Australia have no disability insurance at all. Of the age group 45 to 64, nearly 77 per cent were found to be underinsured. In October this year, CANSTAR noted that Australians are underinsured to the value of about $1.8 billion.
Australia needs a system that promotes insurance take-up by consumers, and the best way to promote insurance take-up, particularly life, disability and income protection insurance, is to ensure that Australians have confidence in the system and in those who are selling those products into the Australian market. That is the aim of this bill—to provide reassurance and confidence that people cannot be ripped off, if you like, by products where commissions and other payments are being hidden from the public by those who are receiving them.
Labor supports this bill on the basis that it modestly improves protections for consumers with respect to life insurance products; however, more work is needed to be done. There is much more work that needs to be done in terms of protecting consumers. This bill does not address broader issues in the life insurance industry, such as issues with claims handling and outdated medical definitions which have come to light in recent months through the banking inquiry and the CommInsure scandal. However, if we are going to be serious about tackling some of the problems that exist in the insurance industry then only a royal commission will get to the bottom of exactly what is going on in banking and financial services.
A series of reports have shown the need for reform in the way that insurance advisers are remunerated. ASIC Report 413 Review of retail life insurance advice identified a strong connection with upfront commissions, policy lapse rates and poor customer outcomes. The factors ASIC identified that affected the quality of advice were: adviser incentives, inappropriate scaling of advice, a lack of strategic life insurance advice, weak rationales for product replacement advice and failure to consider the relationship between life insurance and superannuation. After reviewing over 200 files, ASIC found that the way advisers were paid had an influence on the likelihood of their clients receiving advice that did not comply with the law.
ASIC's report found, among other things, that 45 per cent of advice provided under an upfront commission model failed to comply with the law, that 82 per cent of industry uses an upfront commission model and that upfront commissions for advisers are generally between 100 to 130 per cent of the product premium. The industry-commissioned Trowbridge Review recommended several reforms to adviser remuneration, including a significant reduction in upfront fees. Finally, the Financial System Inquiry recommended the abolition of upfront commissions and a move to level commissions.
There has been a series of these reports, a series of these reviews, in the wake of all these scandals that we have seen in the industry. I have to comment on the previous speaker's comments that these will all be solved by a banking tribunal. We all know that is complete and utter rubbish. A tribunal will not have the power and will not have the expertise to get to the bottom of what exactly is going on in this industry. A tribunal has been panned by consumer advocacy groups, and all of the banks have come out over the course of the last couple of days saying that they do not support a tribunal. The government cannot explain how a tribunal will work; how people will be appointed to it—whether or not it will be in the form of a membership corporation or if it will be a judicial body established by statute with power to not only make decisions but enforce those decisions; and what an appeal mechanism will look like.
Also, we have seen through the scandals that have come out in this industry that a tribunal is simply not good enough. The previous speaker made the comments that, essentially, what has gone on in the CommInsure scandal and other insurance providers with product problems with inappropriate products being sold and with medical definitions being changed are essentially just commercial disputes. They are just commercial disputes between an insurance company and the people who happen to take out those policies and did not like the way the insurance company looked at the definition and made a decision on their claim. Well, tell that to the thousands of people who have now had their insurance claims denied because some insurers use outdated medical definitions from the 1940s to basically deny claims.
The whistle was blown on this by medical experts who worked for these insurance companies—doctors who have an oath to provide the right advice to clients and to patients. They got uncomfortable about the fact that the definitions they were being asked to change reports on and to deny claims on were not up to date. The definition of 'heart attack' and the definition of 'rheumatoid arthritis' simply did not meet modern medical practices, and several of these doctors blew the whistle on what was going on, particularly at the Commonwealth Bank. They took their complaints to their immediate managers and they were ignored. They took their complaints to their divisional heads and they were ignored. It took Dr Benjamin Koh at CommInsure taking the issue to an independent director on the Commonwealth Bank board before action was taken and a review was conducted.
In many of these cases, it takes the media getting involved before the banks and insurance companies take action. That is not simply a commercial dispute between an insurance company and its customers; it is the deep-seated problems with this industry that only a royal commission will be able to get to the bottom of. I do not know why this government is siding with the banks on this. I do not know why this government is doing the bidding of the banks and ignoring the pleas of the Australian people who are fed up with, and sick and tired of, the actions of banks and who want a royal commission into this industry. It is only Labor that supports a royal commission. It is only Labor that can deliver a royal commission into the banking industry.
In terms of the ASIC review into the insurance industry, they will complete their reforms in 2021. The data that ASIC relies on for its reviews will be largely based on transitional commission levels and may not necessarily give a clear picture on the impact of these reforms.
We should note the continuing uncertainty around ASIC's resourcing as a result of the user-pays ASIC funding model and recent budget cuts, as it relates to ASIC's ability to do this review. This is a big issue and something that was identified by ASIC representatives when they appeared most recently before the House of Representatives economics committee. They highlighted the fact that the government is giving them all these additional reviews to undertake, all this additional work, but no additional funding to perform those tasks. You cannot expect a regulator—and a properly well-informed regulator—to do its job if it does not have the budget and staff to complete that work.
Our No. 1 priority on this side of the chamber is to ensure that customers are protected and that when they are seeking financial and insurance advice they can have every confidence that their planner and those offering that advice are acting in accordance with their best interests. That is the basis on which we implemented the FoFA reforms and that is the basis on which we are supporting this modest reform here today. But we do need to go further: we need a royal commission into banking and insurance in this country.
I begin my remarks on this Corporations Amendment (Life Insurance Remuneration Arrangements) Bill 2016 by saying how important this issue is for me and how I have been touched by a number of victims in my own electorate. In 2011 I represented, in the Brisbane City Council, parts of Brisbane that were devastated by the January floods. Homes, businesses and local communities were torn apart as a result. From that, and listening to the heartbreaking stories of so many of my local residents, when I saw this issue come before the House, I wanted to make sure that my voice was proudly and very strongly associated with reforms on life insurance remuneration arrangements.
When you listen to victims, and the pain and heartbreak they have had to go through, it is incumbent upon every single member of this House to do whatever they can to use the instruments at their disposal. I listened to the member for Hughes talk about how government was not necessary, how you have to be careful about government. If there was ever any evidence to suggest that government does need to intervene and government does need to take a firm hand, it is in this industry. Those opposite talk a lot about government not being involved in people's lives. I am yet to meet victims and people who are suffering greatly come up to me and say, 'Gee, I'd like a little less government in my life.'
We serve communities around Australia, here in this place, and we have a job to do: to make sure the most vulnerable, and those who need protection, get protection. The importance of life insurance cannot be underestimated. I know, from talking to a number of my local residents, that life insurance is ensuring a peace of mind and financial protection in difficult times, not just in times of natural disaster but also in illness, accident, disability and, sadly, death.
When it comes to the provision of financial advice relating to the endorsement of life insurance products we do support measures that increase quality, transparency, protections for consumers and reduction in the opportunity for people to be ripped off. When listening to the member for Kingsford Smith, I was reminded of Labor's proud record in the area of financial advice reforms. The FoFA reforms not only increased access to quality financial advice but also gave the industry a stronger foundation for growth.
This bill removes the exemption contained in the act from the ban on conflicted remuneration. It applies a ban on volume based payments to life insurance and includes grandfathering arrangements and, as we heard today, a two-year clawback period, where a portion of the up-front commission is paid back to the life insurer by the financial adviser if the life insurance policy is cancelled or the premium is reduced.
In preparing for today's debate and going through the ASIC reports I know there are 14 million group life insurance policies, which are typically sold through superannuation; four million retail life insurance policies, distributed by insurance brokers and financial advisers; and around 3.9 million direct life insurance policies, sold through direct contact with a life insurer or affiliate, such as a bank.
The growth in non-advised and retail policy sales is important to acknowledge in today's debate. In 2013 non-advised policy sales totalled 3.6 million, and 3.8 million in 2014, and by 2015 it was up to 3.9 million. Retail policy sales also experienced growth over the same period. The 2013 retail policy sales totalled around 3.6 million and up to four million by 2015. These reports have indicated to Labor members why we need reform of the way life insurance advisers are remunerated.
ASIC report 415 Review of retail life insuranceadvice identified a strong connection between up-front commissions. I refer to page 43 of the policy. Looking at the graphs, and hearing the debate today, 45 per cent of advice provided under an up-front commission model fail to comply with the law. At paragraph 90 of the report 82 per cent of industry uses an up-front commission model, and up-front commissions for advisers are generally between 100 and 130 per cent of the product premium. A 2013 report by Rice Warner shows the average retail term life insurance product, which pays a benefit on the death of the insured, is around $246,000.
While we support the bill we do hold some serious concerns about some aspects of it—namely, we do not believe there are enough measures in it that may reduce incentives for financial advisers to endorse inappropriate life insurance product. It would not capture misconduct on the part of insurers themselves, and we heard a number of speakers today talk about the CommInsure scandal. The two-year clawback period is one year less than the three-year period in the original industry proposal of 2015. Leading consumer advocacy group, Choice, said:
We are disappointed that today's announcement will allow advisers to hang onto their upfront commissions if they seek to move a client to a new product after two years. Commission-driven churn is one of the major problems in this industry and we think that provisions to claw back commissions should extend for at least three years as originally proposed.
The package we are dealing with today stops short of the recommendations of the FSI and the Trowbridge review to remove upfront commissions. The cut will initially be set at 80 per cent of the cost of the first-year premium. It will go to 70 per cent in the second year to which the bill applies, before settling at 60 per cent of the cost of the first-year premium up front. The package also caps ongoing commissions at 20 per cent, which I support.
Due to some of the changes that have occurred, the start date has been pushed back from 1 July 2016 and will now be 1 January 2018. It appears the 60 per cent cap will now not be reached until 2020. I think that this is a long time for the introduction of what is pretty much a basic reform, but we are seeing movement in this area, and Labor will be supporting the bill. We supported the bill when it was first introduced to the House and when it first came through this place on 3 March 2016.
I want to touch on some of the shocking cases that I have read about and that ASIC has outlined in its recent Report 498: life insurance claims: an industry review. When you hear about some of these shocking claims, it is nothing more than heartbreaking.
I read the case of a woman who was diagnosed with cervical cancer and, after receiving both radiotherapy and chemotherapy treatment, was ill and could not work. The insurer had been paying monthly benefits but then informed the policyholder that it had cancelled the policy as she had not disclosed that she had experienced depression several years before. The insurer claimed that, had the policyholder disclosed her depression from several years before when she applied for the policy, it would not have offered insurance cover under any circumstances. The policyholder observed that the non-disclosure was innocent and that she had never been depressed enough to require medication or time off work. Thankfully, the matter was resolved between the parties, but the amount of stress that I can only imagine the policyholder would have gone through was unacceptable.
The other case was where a metal object accidentally lodged in a policyholder's heart, leading to cardiac arrest and requiring open heart surgery. Apparently, this did not meet the policy definition of 'trauma' as, under the policy, only heart conditions related to congenital conditions and/or out-of-hospital cardiac arrests caused by arrhythmia were covered.
These kinds of examples, when you read them, see them and hear them, are clear evidence to me about the action that we need to take. There is a need to have strong regulation and strong bodies in place to address the stress and strain that millions of Australians could perhaps face. People need peace of mind that when they pay for insurance for medical conditions their claims will be met.
ASIC's analysis of the dispute data, in light of insurers' claim numbers by share of claims, indicated that for three insurers the number of disputes, particularly about heart attacks, was adversely disproportionate to the share of claims. For example, one insurer's share of heart attack definition disputes was six times their share of claims. ASIC also reports that a leading bank in Australia declined 37 per cent of claims for total and permanent disability between 2013 and 2015 and declined 31 per cent of claims made under trauma cover.
There is a litany of dodgy practices that we have all seen through the media. There is the practice that we heard about today of 'twisting and churning,' which the member for Fenner made remarks about. This is where consumers are encouraged to cancel existing policies and take up new ones, often to their detriment. I read about the case of a man in New South Wales who was twisted out of a policy three times in a 12-month period by the same insurance agent, but when the man claimed costs for skin cancer treatment, he was told that it was a pre-existing injury on his new policy and he was refused payment under the policy. Sadly, a Queensland couple, both of them pensioners, were sold a policy that excluded claims being paid to people on a pension. So, pensioners are being signed up and are giving their money over, but the policy does not apply to them.
There is also a worrying practice that I have read about—the practice of 'tombstoning'—which involves agents signing up dead or non-existent clients and secretly paying for their initial premiums just to pocket larger commissions. These fraudulent applications for insurance are done simply to drive up the sales. Agents are being pressured to sell as many policies as possible to win prizes, promotions and—as we heard about earlier in today's debate—apparently, overseas trips.
Agents are falsifying or omitting medical, income, occupation or date-of-birth information simply to maximise commissions, making the policy worthless upon a claim because insurers may refuse to pay out a policy if the incorrect information is supplied. Agents are preying on residents in remote communities and, particularly in Queensland, some of the Indigenous communities. Of course, we know the shocking case that was revealed on Four Corners, where the whole financial services industry clearly demonstrated that it needed to be further investigated, with doctors being pressured to change their assessments of customers, payouts being delayed to terminally ill customers and, as I indicated before, heart attack claims being refused by relying on outdated definitions inconsistent with current medical practice.
I have one thing to say about this: this is clearly about putting profits first. They are worried about the end dollar, not the end product. Everything else comes a distant second. If these cases were not warning enough, were we serious about consumer protection we would be having a royal commission into our financial and banking sector. It is not good enough for excuse after excuse. Little wonder that there have only been two speakers on this bill today. This is a serious issue. We heard the member for Hughes simply dismiss the need for a banking royal commission because—in paraphrasing—'these things happen'. They should not happen. People who live in my suburbs in the south-west of Brisbane were unfairly targeted through no fault of their own in the 2011 floods, where their homes and literally their livelihoods were washed down the street. Their records, their photographs, their lives were destroyed within a 24-hour period because people were sold incorrect policies. Some of the people selling those policies were more worried and focused on commissions because that was their livelihood; I understand that. Those who most need it, those who are vulnerable and those who need protection need quality life insurance. They need protection to make sure that insurance is what it is and that they are not being robbed. I will continue to support these reforms for a fair go for all people.
It is quite surprising really that we are here today given that it was so many years ago that the Labor Party, in government, put forward the future of financial advice reforms, acknowledging then how important it was to tackle the link between remuneration and corruption of advice. Making sure that clients receive advice in their best interests has taken this long to resolve through this legislation.
Of course after those excellent reforms were put forward by the Labor government, one of the first things that happened upon the election of the Liberal-coalition government was that the government tried to roll back the FoFA reforms. The FoFA reforms ban many forms of conflicted remuneration for financial advisers including for life insurance policies that were held as group life policies. But other life insurance policies have remained exempt from the FoFA ban on conflicted remuneration.
Many speakers here tonight have spoken about some of the real world examples that have arisen from conflicted remuneration. Indeed only on Friday the Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services heard evidence from ASIC dealing with the issue of conflicted remuneration. Just what does about conflicted remuneration mean? What is a conflict of interest? What is really interesting in this sector is people who are vulnerable rely on expertise. They go and seek expert advice to look after their financial future. We have not nailed down a proper definition of a conflict of interest in this sector in all areas. It is very clear in other more established professions what a conflict of interest is and that is why we have and have had for centuries professional and ethical obligations in this sector and it is why it is so important to make sure that we rid the financial advice sector of conflicted remuneration.
Labor supports this bill on the basis that it modestly improves the protections for consumers with respect to life insurance products. It is a modest improvement. It reduces the capacity—it does not remove it—for conflicted remuneration. It is a good start. It is an improved outcome for consumers, this legislation. While recognising the need to lower under insurance rates in this life insurance industry, Labor also acknowledges the concerns consumer groups have raised that the bill does not go far enough. The bill does not go far enough in the two-year claw-back period, which really should be a three-year claw-back period.
The bill does not address the broader issues though in the life insurance industry such as those raised this evening in respect of claims handling and outdated medical definitions, which have all come to light through the Comminsure scandal and through the many other recent inquiries. In fact, only a number of weeks back as part of the economics committee we had both ASIC and APRA come to speak to us about inquiries that they had been undertaking in the life insurance industry. Some of the things that came out of that were shocking.
It was not just that we had 30 per cent rates of declining claims being made on these insurance packages but the thing that actually really troubled me in all of that was that ASIC did not want to tell anyone who those life insurers were. The reason they did not want to tell anyone who those life insurers were was because they were concerned about the validity of the data that they had generated, because, when they went to speak to the life insurers, the life insurers could not give them concrete answers to the questions. The thing about that that really troubled me was people invest in a life insurance policy, a financial product, not for their future but for the future of their partner, for the future of their children. They make an investment over decades of premiums to make sure that when something bad happens to them, if they lose their life early, that their family will be looked after, that their home will not be taken away from them.
What came out of the inquiry by ASIC and APRA—and APRA acknowledged this in our hearing—was that the records are not kept properly by these life insurers. APRA agreed and APRA is concerned. What does that mean for the potential regulation and the capacity of these life insurers to ensure that they are able to make proper actuarial assessments to make sure that if claims are made on life insurance policies that they are able to pay out. So when people have made decades of investment, paying premiums to look after not them but to look after their children, they need to know that that life insurer is able to pay out. They fundamentally need to know that. It is not just a matter of: have I complied with these strange terms that no-one would ever have predicted? It is not just a matter of whether a life insurer is interpreting its policy in a capricious manner but, also, are those life insurers going to be there at the time when the people need to call on the policy?
APRA tried to assure us that they have no fundamental concerns with these life insurers but they were concerned about their capacity to do their job at best practice, to manage their book. They do not actually know the rates at which they decline, the claims that are made on their insurance policies. As I mentioned, there has been a series of inquiries and a series of reports into this industry. They have shown the fundamental need to reform the way that life insurance firms are regulated.
Order! The member will be allowed to continue his contribution at a later date.
I rise tonight to speak of some of the issues facing young people both in my electorate and right throughout the country. In particular, I want to address the Turnbull government's ongoing attacks upon our young people, whether they are young people studying, at TAFEs, schools or universities, or planning to go to university or looking for work. I also want to speak about the government's cruel plans to cut penalty rates, which will particularly impact on young workers, and the government's failure to address high youth unemployment and the lack of training for young people.
Our younger generation, our country's future, have been left behind and forgotten by this government. We can look at some of the facts. As of 2014, 42 per cent of people in the 20 to 24 age bracket were engaged in some form of education and training—a very large amount. This group, these young Australians, are most at risk from the Turnbull government's very vicious cuts to schools, TAFEs and universities, which make it very difficult for them to access the quality education they need and deserve, and policies such as the government's $100,000 university degrees. That policy particularly impacts regional Australia very harshly. It means many of those younger kids just cannot get to uni. Of course, in our regions, we blame the National Party for these rather harsh cuts and harsh plans for universities.
It is hard to understand how the Liberal-National party, who go around shutting down local TAFES and underfunding schools and universities, supposedly have plans for Australia to become an 'innovation nation'. How can we do that when your cuts are so widespread? In opposition to all the government's very vicious attacks on our young people, at the last election Labor was very proud to present a long-term plan for the future of education and the future of our young people. That is because we understand that education is not just an expense to be cut—as those across think it is—but is in fact an investment, a great opportunity. We know that educating and training our younger generations, not giving tax cuts to big multinationals, is the key to our country's economic future.
I and the Labor party will continue to stand in opposition to this government, which fails to understand many simple principles about providing for our younger generation. Sadly, simple cuts are not the extent of the Liberal-Nationals campaign against our young people. For over 100 years, penalty rates have long protected workers, particularly those working on weekends, and many working conditions have been protected. Those people have been compensated for the irregular hours of work that they do. It is very difficult having to work long hours and on weekends and therefore give up time that many other people spend with their families and friends. I would like to note that the Labor Party made a submission to the Fair Work Commission arguing in favour of penalty rates, because we acknowledge their importance. If the Turnbull government actually cared about workers' rights at all, they would have made a similar submission.
This issue, as I have said, affects many workers who access penalty rates, but it disproportionately impacts young people, as many of them work in the hospitality and retail sector. We will not be holding our breath for those across to suddenly understand the need to support young people, particularly when the majority of them continue to argue that penalty rates should be cut. This is an issue that does really affect young people, and it will affect those hardworking young people who can least afford it. Many of these jobs are in the hospitality sector, as I said, where workers are already among the bottom 30 per cent of Australian income earners.
Retail is another common area of employment for young people, and it features the largest proportion of low-paid workers in Australia. A McKell Institute analysis reveals that, in rural Australia alone, retail and hospitality workers could lose between $370 million and $1.55 billion each year if the Turnbull government's plans to cut penalty rates succeed. It would really unfairly target those young workers. It should be noted that John Hart, the CEO of Restaurant and Catering Australia, has conceded that cutting penalty rates will not generate new employment and says that, rather, if penalty rates are cut, people will work more hours for the same pay. That is the reality. They will just be working a lot more hours.
Labor will continue to fight for young people, who are continuously attacked and punished by the Turnbull government. We will continue to do that on many different occasions. The youth unemployment rate as of October 2016 was at 12.5 per cent. That is a very big concern. We are seeing this government with many plans that are cruel to young people, such as their plans to force young people to live without any support for month, while displacing real jobs with some of their very exploitative internships. In contrast to this, Labor has been focused on getting more young people into work. Our Working Futures program, which we took to the election, would have meant much greater training for young people, which is vitally important. We will continue to fight for young people, when this government continues to attack them on all fronts.
The best part of my job as the member for Chisholm is that I get to meet so many wonderful people in Chisholm who create such warmth and generosity of spirit. It is these people in Chisholm who create the warm community ambience. Their hard work is often unpaid, as many work in community centres and sporting groups as volunteers. The volunteers in these centres and sporting groups can be from all walks of life. The hard work to support the sporting pursuits of the many children in Chisholm does not stop at the end of the game. Many mums and dads and grandparents work to set up the rooms, the courts, to start up the sausage sizzle after the game, cut the oranges, make sure there is ice in the ice bucket to keep the drinks cold or just roll up their sleeves and pitch in for whatever needs to get done. Every contribution, be it large or small, helps to make these community and sporting groups work better and grow and develop for our children and our children's children.
That is why I am proud to be part of the Turnbull government, which has delivered on funding for several projects for the many and various sporting and community centres in my electorate. The coalition government is delivering on its promises. For example, it was great to meet Rob Nash, manager of the junior team, and David Cowell, club president, at the Nunawading Cricket Club, where the coalition government provided funds for portable cricket pitches for junior cricketers. They are two great, dedicated, passionate people who are supporting the great summer sport of cricket with all their hard work and also building and developing a girls team.
At the Ceres Calisthenics Club, again we provided funding for the centre's development, which is due to be finished in March. While completion of the building is highly anticipated, the teachers and parents and friends of the Ceres Calisthenics Club are so committed to enabling their children to partake in this great activity, in the context of creating wonderful costumes and making exciting preparations. On the other side of the centre at Elektra Avenue, a wonderful bridge club and the Monash Croquet Club are also run out of there—a veritable hub of people of goodwill and spirit.
The Turnbull government also provided funding for a mobile vehicle, so that the pursuit of gymnastics at the Eastern Gymnastics Club, as run by the lovely Alison Dunn, can be extended and used more efficiently outside the centre's permanent place. The Whitehorse Club was founded and built over the years particularly by the local community of Italian heritage and is currently led by the warm and very friendly Pasquale, who is very appreciative of the new billiard table and refurbishment for the enjoyment of its members. Angelo Sticca, from the Mount Waverley City Soccer Club, is also very appreciative that the government provided $20,000 for an upgrade relating to the club rooms, storage and equipment. The purchase of a new hammer and discus cage at the Hagenauer Reserve in Box Hill was made possible by the Turnbull government. What a great centre this reserve offers for the people of Chisholm, for Box Hill Little Athletics.
Bernard Tanner, from the Surrey Park Senior Football Club, and Rowan Sutherland, from the Surrey Park Junior Football Club, and many of the others on the committee have been associated with the clubs and their families for years and years. The government support in the form of cricket net upgrades and floodlighting will undoubtedly help the club. The Waverley Blues Football Club received $20,000 for their new electronic video scoreboard, which will no doubt make life easier for the many parents and friends of the club.
Happy memories of being at the Box Hill Miniature Steam Railway Station flooded back when I went and toured the site with Bill Hanks and Bruce Gilpin. I took my children there when they were young. It was an absolute joy to be there and so heart warming that this fantastic venue continues to be run and managed by volunteers. I am so delighted that the Turnbull government recently contributed $17,000 for further development of a storage shed to help the railway station's operations.
Support for the Waverley District Netball Association in Ashwood for new netball courts and for the extension of the Waverley Gymnastics Centre in Mount Waverley is a testament to the Turnbull government delivering for the community of Chisholm. These clubs are more than bricks and mortar; they are about the people of Chisholm, who are using their time, effort, passion and commitment to support these community based organisations for generations to come.
Representing the good people of Chisholm makes me very proud and it makes me very happy that I get the opportunity to meet with and support these wonderful organisations, underpinned by our government's commitment to support local communities, such as these in Chisholm, to prosper and grow, which will make a genuine and lasting difference.
Today I bring to the attention of the House the importance of investing in our nursing workforce and ensuring that there is strong future for Australian nurses. There are almost 10,000 Australian nurses and midwives who cannot find permanent employment; yet we are seeing thousands of 457 visas for nurses being granted. In the last three years, we have seen 3,347 foreign nurses brought into this country under the section 457 temporary skilled migration system. Answering a question in the House last week, the Minister for Immigration said of the 457 visa program:
The objective of the program is to find work for Australians first.
The minister and the government are clearly failing their own test.
If 10,000 nurses cannot find a permanent nursing job, we clearly do not have a skills shortage that justifies the high use of 457 visas. It is just not right that employers, including the NSW government, are continuing to use this visa system to bring in nurses from overseas, when there are thousands of Aussie nurses desperate to find work. The most basic point is that Australian trained nurses and midwives should be accessing employment before foreigners. That is why Labor is rightly calling for a review of temporary workers in Australia.
The most recent figures from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, an agency of the Department of Health, confirms that almost 10,000 nurses and midwives are looking for work in the industry. A survey of recent nursing graduates by the Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation revealed the following worrying trends: most graduates who did obtain employment are employed on an uncertain basis through agency, part-time or casual arrangements; many graduates go to incredible lengths to obtain work, such as moving interstate; and, finally, employers identified in the questionnaire as rejecting new graduates use 457 workers.
My region of the Hunter and the Central Coast is most definitely experiencing these trends. The University of Newcastle has a magnificent School of Nursing and Midwifery. Our area health services are a major employer in the Hunter and Central Coast. There are three major public hospitals that service my constituents, Wyong, Belmont and the John Hunter, which is the only trauma hospital between Sydney and Brisbane. The Hunter region also has many private hospitals and aged-care facilities. Unfortunately, we are seeing significant use of 457 visa holders at the cost of local nursing graduates. Confidential data I have seen shows that the number of local nursing graduates who secure a graduate position in the public health system in the Hunter and the Central Coast has declined from 80 per cent to 50 per cent. This is an almost 40 per cent decline in positions. The data also reports that, while some of the graduates find work in private hospitals or in aged-care facilities, most are forced to move away or find non-nursing employment. This is a massive waste of their skills and the investment taxpayers have made in developing their nursing skills and qualifications.
The use of 457 visa nurses in the broader healthcare system is also of concern. I am concerned that these nurses may be exploited by being paid less than Australian nurses. Besides the basic unfairness of this, it also places Australian nurses at a competitive disadvantage. Furthermore, a 457 visa holder has fewer rights than Australian workers and permanent migrants in the workplace. It is much harder for these workers to blow the whistle on any issues relating to the quality of health care or treatment of patients. Let me repeat this: if a worker's residence in Australia depends upon staying with their current employer, as is the case with 457 visa holders, if they know that they have a short amount of time to find another job if they are sacked or they face deportation, it is much harder for them to risk their job by speaking out if they see something in their workplace that is unacceptable.
We must prioritise employing Australians who have spent years training to be a nurse, or permanent migrants who have greater rights and are committed to making their home in this country. Unemployment on the Central Coast and in Lake Macquarie is well above the national average, and we have the perverse situation where we have qualified local nursing graduates being denied employment and the chance to contribute and make a difference in our community.
Nurses, alongside all other healthcare workers, are essential to our modern, prosperous and healthy society. After significant training, they do a thankless task, working long hours in difficult conditions, often in situations where their personal safety is at risk. That is why I am so angry that thousands of quality-trained Australian nurses cannot obtain permanent employment because of the 457 visa program. Labor does not oppose foreign workers coming here where there is a genuine need, but in our nursing industry this is just not the case. Australian nurses deserve priority over foreign workers and I will continue to advocate on their behalf.
I want to join those Australians who have come together today and last week to condemn violence against women and to stand up and act against crimes that can never be tolerated in our society.
On Friday, Australians marked the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women, which is now better known as White Ribbon Day. Across the world, White Ribbon Day is an opportunity for all of us—but for men in particular—to recognise that too many women experience physical, mental and sexual abuse. And today this parliament recognised our own challenge in reducing domestic violence in Indigenous communities as part of the NO MORE Campaign. This is an issue that is above politics—as it should be. The parliament has seen a unity of purpose to tackle a problem that, at its heart, deprives women of the dignity and safety that should be an undisputed right.
In public life, we often talk of striving for equality of opportunity for Australians. That equality, those opportunities we want for all our fellow citizens, cannot exist if you live in fear for your own physical and mental wellbeing—even more so if that fear is found in what should be a sanctuary: our own homes and within our own families. Most of us will never witness violence in our own homes against the women we love—be it mothers, siblings or partners—and most of us are repulsed with the very thought that any person would be subjected to this kind of abuse. Yet we know that so many women, even in modern Australia, are not so fortunate. Let us have no doubt that violence, particularly in relationships at home, is overwhelmingly a crime perpetrated against women.
The statistics tell the story. One in four women in Australia has experienced some form of physical violence from an intimate partner. Twenty per cent of women—one in five—have suffered sexual abuse. And today we heard that Indigenous women are hospitalised for domestic violence incidents at 30 times the rate of non-Indigenous women. Most tragically of all, on average, one woman is murdered each week by a partner or a former partner. Despite all our efforts, this number is increasing. In my own state, New South Wales police have reported a 40 per cent jump in domestic violence related deaths. It is why strong action by government remains so important. At the Commonwealth level, our $100 million domestic violence strategy—announced by the Prime Minister as one of his very first acts—is well underway and making inroads.
But, ultimately, this is a problem that needs to tackled by all of us, and it is why days like White Ribbon Day are so important. Each and every one of us needs to be ambassadors for the message of White Ribbon Day that violence against women is never justified or acceptable. And men need to be at the forefront of delivering that message to their peers. Importantly, all of us must be prepared to act rather than turn a blind eye if we know of domestic violence. If we saw someone being assaulted in the street, we would call the police. Yet, too often, many are reluctant to act if they suspect domestic violence because somehow it is considered a private matter. We need to be clear: domestic violence is crime that must be reported. The consequences of not doing so are simply too great.
Domestic violence knows no boundaries: affluence, education and geography do not define its occurrence. Support for the victims of domestic violence therefore needs to be available across our cities and towns. In my own electorate, I know there is a critical need for crisis support for women and children fleeing abusive domestic circumstances. There are too few women's refuges north of the harbour bridge—less than can be counted on one hand. There is the need for many more.
In one positive development, earlier this month a new women's refuge opened in our region. Mary's House has come about through the work of the North Sydney Women's Benevolent Association with the support of our local Jesuit parish. It will provide physical shelter, as well as support services, to women and their children fleeing domestic violence. I want to acknowledge the incredible volunteer efforts of its organising committee, with the financial and in-kind support of so many individuals and businesses, from the Mater Hospital to groups like the Rotary Club of North Sydney Sunrise. I am also pleased that the federal government was able to contribute towards the cost of security.
Safe places like Mary's House can make a difference, but they help treat the symptoms and not the causes of domestic violence, which is why I hope that all Australians will spend some time thinking about how they can stand up or speak out and act to end violence against women.
I rise tonight to speak about the great strides being made at Newcastle Airport, in my electorate of Paterson.
The airport, which is the largest regional airport in NSW, shares a runway with RAAF Base Williamtown and is jointly owned by Newcastle and Port Stephens councils. It is where I catch my flight to Canberra each Sunday afternoon before a parliamentary sitting week and where I return home on Thursday nights—usually—a little bit weary. I usually manage a nap in both directions, actually.
It is a tiny plane that I catch, but I am very, very grateful for the direct FlyPelican service, as are my Newcastle and Hunter colleagues. In fact, the pilot, Brian, and I often share a joke and a word, and last Sunday he quipped to me that if I got any closer I would have to share the responsibility of flying the little bug smasher—as they call it in the industry—with him. But without it we would need to drive to Canberra, or at least drive to Sydney and then fly to the capital.
The convenience of our airport has certainly registered with many people in Newcastle, the Hunter Valley and Port Stephens, and the October just gone was the busiest month ever on record. There were 113,907 passengers who went through the gate in October, a figure that is two per cent higher than the previous monthly record of 111,757 flyers, which was achieved in October 2010. The airport is on a trajectory to achieve 1.2 million passengers this year, but it has its sights set even higher.
I met last week with Newcastle Airport chief executive officer, Peter Cock, and chairman, Peter Gesling, and they shared with me their desire for, and commitment to, even further growth. They can see an opportunity to grow passenger numbers through Newcastle, benefiting the local region while at the same time relieving the congestion in Sydney while that city waits for its second airport. They advised that passenger traffic at Newcastle Airport has been strong since the $14.5 million terminal expansion was completed in August last year. They make a solid case that even more investment will attract even more passengers.
The growth in passenger volume is attributed to: the airlines that fly into Newcastle increasing capacity to the market; major events around the country; school holidays; and increased business travel. Each month for the past year passenger numbers have surpassed the month before. September and October saw particularly strong growth, with greater than seven per cent growth year on year. In October, the long weekend, the end of school holidays and the start of the spring racing carnival in Melbourne put plenty of bums on seats. That was really fantastic. The growth goes to show that Newcastle is now a true alternative gateway for New South Wales.
The Hunter Regional Plan 2036 identifies Newcastle Airport as a key regional asset, highlighting the importance of creating links with international markets. And how we would all love to board a flight for our overseas adventure without the palava of a trip to Sydney! Newcastle Airport has secured its long-term future by extending its lease with the Department of Defence for 60 years, with an additional three 10-year options. The longer runway being constructed by Defence and the works to accommodate the Joint Strike Fighter also boost the case for the larger passenger aircraft capacity needed for overseas travel. Work will start next year to fit out facilities and the technology required for international processing of passengers, bringing Newcastle a vital step closer to that international dream. An expanded airport will, of course, have the capacity to attract overseas visitors, support population growth in our region and support the key areas of health and education—fields in which our region is a centre of national excellence. In addition to attracting the domestic and overseas tourist dollar, the airport has the capacity for value-added freight exports to the hungry markets of Asia and the Pacific.
With increasing constraints in Sydney, Newcastle Airport has the opportunity to complement our city and further enable the growth of New South Wales. With its sights set on the Pacific, New Zealand and Asia, expansion will provide enhanced connectivity and create a true global gateway right into our own backyard. That would be very welcome.
'Once upon a time, a certain town grew up at the foot of a mountain range. It was sheltered in the lee of protected heights, so the wind that shuddered at the doors and flung handfuls of sleet against the window panes was a wind whose fury was spent.
'High up in the hills, a strange and quiet forest dweller took it upon himself to be the keeper of the springs. He patrolled the hills and wherever he found a spring he cleaned its brown pool of silt and fallen leaves of mud and mould, and he took away from the spring all foreign matter so that the water which bubbled up through the sand ran down clean and cold and pure. It leaped sparkling over rocks and dropped joyously in crystal cascades until, swollen by other streams, it became a river of life to the busy town—a popular attraction for tourists from all over the world. Millwheels were whirled by its rush. Gardens were refreshed by its waters. Fountains threw it like diamonds into the air. Swans sailed on its limpid surface, and children laughed as they played on its banks in the sunshine.
'But the city council was a group of hard-headed, hard-boiled businessmen. They scanned the civic budget and found in it the salary of a keeper of the springs. Said the keeper of the purse: why should we pay this romance ranger? We never see him; he is not necessary to our town's work. If we build a reservoir just above the town, we can dispense with his services and save his salary. Therefore, the city council voted to dispense with the unnecessary cost of a keeper of the springs, and to build a cement reservoir.
'So the keeper of the springs no longer visited the brown pools but watched from the heights while they built the reservoir. When it was finished, it soon filled up with water, to be sure, but the water did not seem to be the same. It did not seem to be as clean, and a green scum soon befouled its stagnant surface. There were constant troubles with the delicate machinery of the mills for it was often clogged with slime, and the swans found another home above the town. At last, an epidemic raged, and the clammy, yellow fingers of sickness reached out into every home. And the tourists disappeared.
'The city council met again. Sorrowfully, it faced the city's plight and frankly acknowledged the mistake of the dismissal of the keeper of the springs. They sought him out of his hermit's hut high in the hills and begged him to return to his former joyous labour. Gladly, he agreed, and he began once more to make his rounds. It was not long until the pure water came lilting down under tunnels of ferns and mosses and to sparkle in the cleansed reservoir. Millwheels turned again as of old. Stenches disappeared. Sickness waned and convalescent children playing in the sun laughed again because the swans had come back. And the tourists returned.'
That was the beginning of a sermon by Peter Marshall called The Keeper of the Springs. Who are these keepers of the springs? They are those who so generously contacted me over the last couple of weeks. They are those who help me do my job behind the scenes—you know who you are. It is the clerk and the assistant clerk, and their teams. It is the committee staff, the transport staff, the library staff, the department staff, the gardeners, cleaners, security, caterers—all the best, Tim, in your new endeavours—and the ministerial staff who help us to do our job. They are the keepers of the springs. My staff—Jennifer, Prue, Millie, Laurie, Matt and Ken—and my co-chair of Friends of Multiculturalism, Maria Vamvakinou: you are the keepers of the springs. My colleagues in this House—Independent, Green, Labor, Lib and Nat—help me do my job. To the Prime Minister and opposition leader, and all those who work in the best interests of the Australian people, you are the keepers of the springs.
God bless you all and keep you this Christmas. Thank you to every one of you for the work you do on our behalf. You may not be seen but you are the keepers of the springs.
House adjourned at 19:58
I rise today to speak about a wonderful organisation, one that is a national organisation, but we all have branches within our electorates: Meals on Wheels. A lot of us in this place are very involved with Meals on Wheels: we visit their AGMs and we go out to assist occasionally. In South Australia we have over 88 branches across the state. I was very privileged to attend two AGMs recently. One was the West Torrens Meals on Wheels AGM. They do wonderful work in the western suburbs. Their president is Mr Robert Boyle and their secretary is Mr John Madden. They deliver hundreds of meals—I have been out with them in the past—but it is not just the meal service; it is a connection with people who perhaps have very severe disabilities, are ageing or have a whole range of illnesses. Sometimes the person delivering the meal is the only person they will see for the entire day. So on many occasions these volunteers are the first people to pick up on issues or problems that may arise and be their only contact to the outside world.
Some magnificent people have served on the West Torrens Meals on Wheels committee over the years: I have mentioned President Robert Boyle and Secretary John Madden and I would also like to acknowledge Len Glastonbury OAM, who passed away a couple of years ago. Len was a stalwart of Meals on Wheels across the entire community. He received an OAM a few years ago for his wonderful work. He retired as chair in 2008 and, of course, many others have come in to fill his role. But he is missed at West Torrens Meals on Wheels—a great man who contributed so much to our community.
At Meals on Wheels they acknowledged the wonderful year they have had and the number of meals they have delivered. It was followed by a wonderful afternoon tea, which was attended by the Mayor of West Torrens, John Trainer, who attended all the AGMs that I have been to over the years.
Meals on Wheels is an absolutely brilliant organisation. We had a friendship group here that we co-chaired with the member for Parkes up until 2013. I would like to see that group restarted and reinvigorated, because Meals on Wheels does such good work in all our electorates and each and every one of us in this place would have been out to volunteer with them at some stage. A couple of years ago, in 2012 I think, we delivered the millionth meal here in Canberra, with Mark Coulton. (Time expired)
Thank you for your contribution on such a worthy organisation. I call the member for Swan.
I rise today to update the House on some great schools in my electorate that have been recent recipients of the government's Capital Grants Program. The Turnbull government is providing higher levels of school funding than ever before—a record of $73.6 billion in total funding, over the forward estimates, in all states and territories. That represents a growth in funding from $16 billion this year to $20.1 billion in 2020.
This government recognises the importance of providing and improving school capital infrastructure. These grants from the Capital Grants Program ensure attention is given to refurbishment and upgrading of capital infrastructure for existing students, while also making provisions for needs arising from new demographics and enrolment trends. The non-government schools sector takes a strong interest in these grants and regard the program as an essential component of the Australian government's support for their schools.
Just recently, two schools in my electorate were awarded funds under the Capital Grants Program. The first was St Maria Goretti's Catholic School, which will receive $457,000 to construct a new covered assembly area, a new lift and multi-purpose rooms. They will also refurbish existing learning areas and the canteen. This money will also be used to extend the existing library.
The Kewdale campus of the Australian Islamic College will receive $235,000 for their construction of four general learning areas and two multi-purpose rooms. These construction and refurbishment projects take into account the latest education research and will see students learn more effectively and be inspired by their new facilities. I am looking forward to seeing these projects completed.
Two weeks ago, I officially opened the new classrooms at Fountain College, thanks to the Capital Grants Program. I was more than happy to represent the education minister and my colleague the member for Tangney, Ben Morton, whose electorate Fountain College is actually in. Before the boundary redistribution, Fountain College was in my electorate so I know how great a school it is.
The secular school is very impressive. After we officially opened the new classrooms, I was given a tour of the school's lab, where students showed me some of their robotic projects. There was a music machine, an electronic ball you had to get through a maze and even a Rubik's Cube-solving robot, which solved a Rubik's Cube in 100 seconds. What was more impressive, though, was the student who made that project: she could solve the Rubik's Cube faster than the robot.
Before I finish, I want to publicly congratulate two students from Fountain College whom I presented awards to: firstly, Esra Savran for her citizenship, leadership and philanthropy work—I can see a bright future for her in politics—and secondly, to Hadi Mohd Fairouz, a year 2 student who finished first in Western Australia for both maths and English in the International Competitions and Assessments for Schools run by the University of New South Wales. To both those students, congratulations: your awards are well deserved.
I thank the honourable member for his contribution. Those Rubik's Cubes were always a challenge for me! You have got some clever kids in your electorate.
I rise today to be absolutely committed to do everything I can to hold this government to account to ensure we do everything in power to end violence against women. Domestic violence figures are confronting and they demand serious action from all levels of government. On average, one in three women today have experienced physical violence since the age of 15, and one woman dies at the hand of a current or former partner every week in this country. Every year, 300,000 women experience domestic and family violence.
I am proud to be a White Ribbon ambassador and this is an incredibly important role that I take in our community. As we know, White Ribbon's aim is to generate understanding of domestic violence. It acknowledges that men speaking to men about stopping violence against women is a powerful catalyst for change. Through education, preventative programs and community partnerships, we will see a reduction in these horrific statistics.
One of the events I was privileged to attend last week was held at the St Hugh's Anglican parish in Inala, in the federal seat of Oxley. It was organised by Salome Swan of Anglicare. We were joined by Senior Sergeant Neil Gardner from the Queensland Police Service and Helen Poynton from Relationships Australia. I want to thank and acknowledge those who attended and spoke at a moving and very worthwhile event: Bevan Doyle, Bruce Manu Sione, my good friend Uncle Albert Holt, Eddie from Kiwi Daddys, Jeffrey Mwanza—who has been a White Ribbon ambassador since 2009 and a dedicated social worker—and Greg Duncan, who led a very moving smoking ceremony.
It was great to see so many members of our local community engaged in standing up against domestic violence through creating understanding, sharing dialogue and encouraging men in our community to take a stance against domestic violence. I note that last week we saw significant announcements by Bill Shorten, the Leader of the Opposition, including on family violence leave in employment standards, making revenge porn a criminal offence and, most importantly, not allowing perpetrators to cross-examine victims.
We all know, in some way or other, in this House people who have been touched by domestic violence. I know in my own community this is an issue. I will continue to speak out. I note that on Friday we joined hands to change ways to make a better place for you and me and it starts with all of us taking action.
Today, millions of households in developing countries are being denied access to low-cost fossil fuel generated electricity. In the name of taking action on climate change, the World Bank has said it will no longer fund coal fired power stations in poor countries. Green activists call for bans on coal exports. Celebrities, like DiCaprio, jet around the world instructing that the fossil fuel industry should be taxed out of existence. Yet fossil fuels remain the lowest cost method of generating electricity. Therefore, without access to this low-cost fossil fuel generated activity millions around the world are forced to cook and heat their homes with what is deemed renewable energy—the burning of animal dung, wood and agricultural waste—exposing them to high levels of indoor air pollution from particulate matter and carbon monoxide. According to the World Health Organisation this indoor air pollution from such renewables, killed 531,000 children under the age of five in the year 2012 alone. So, this decade over five million children under the age of five will die from exposure to indoor air pollution, simply because they do not have access to low-cost electricity to cook and to heat their homes.
In addition to these deaths, exposure to indoor air pollution as a child unleashes a cycle of social and economic depravation that exacerbates poverty throughout that person's life. Those five million deaths from indoor air pollution are only the numbers for children under five. From the total population the World Health Organisation estimates that the number of deaths over the decade from indoor air pollution will be 30 million people. By comparison, 60 million were killed in World War II. The majority of these 30 million dead will be women and girls, as a consequence of the disproportionate time they spend at home near the family stoves, burning the renewables of wood, dung and straw.
The world has the ability to end this great green genocide by assisting with the development of low-cost electricity networks around the world. But we have deemed that taking action on climate change is more important. In the belief that we can stop bad weather and prevent the seven seas from rising, we can simply shrug our shoulders and write off these 30 million deaths as mere collateral damage.
With the end of the parliamentary year upon us, as a new member I want to emphasise what is important to my electorate. I have seen that what grabs the headlines is not what is important to the people of Macarthur. The Sunday papers, but not the latest ABS data, suggest Sydney is set for a housing construction boom. If it happens, a lot of the proposed construction will be in and around my electorate of Macarthur, and we are up for the challenge. There will be lots of jobs for people who work in my electorate and live in my electorate. But as Badgerys Creek airport—unsupported by adequate rail services—looks more likely to happen than not, we are also primed for the predictable transport chaos that will follow.
I hope also that new housing development in Sydney's south-west is not scuppered by the continuing drift in federal housing policy. Maybe the government will face up to the issue of housing affordability. It could do worse than take the lead of the member for Bennelong, who is showing remarkable tenacity in dragging his leadership to realise the importance of actually doing something about housing policy. The Treasurer too might take seriously the New South Wales planning minister's criticism of the taxation policy.
Locally, our national seniors in Macarthur are wondering why there is no government money to fund the dedicated geriatric clinic that they need but heaps to subsidise property speculation and high-end tax breaks.
The Macarthur community groups are bewildered by this government's inability to constrain the debate on section 18C of the Radial Discrimination Act. Most just cannot see the point of the endless chatter. Our ethnic communities are a pretty tolerant bunch, but they, like me, have had it up to here with the grandstanders on this one. Admirably, the members for Berowra and McMillan want their government to take a more tolerant line as well. I am pleased to see one of them here today.
Out my way people are more interested in why they cannot afford specialist medical appointments, why they cannot afford legal services and why they struggle to get literacy support for their children. Local seniors want government to stop categorising age pensioners as welfare recipients, and to do more to help with superannuation for low- and middle-income earners, particularly women.
Macarthur is a slice of middle Australia and an honour to represent. It is an increasingly diverse group of people with great optimism for the future. They, I have found, are an intelligent group who are sick of politicians not telling the truth, and they are more interested in answers than arguments. From young to old, they want to work. They need our help to find work. I, like my electorate, am optimistic about our future. I have been very happy and grateful for all the support I have received from both sides in this parliament, and I thank the members present for that. I look forward to our future with optimism.
Everyone in this parliament, as all Australians would be, is horrified by the recent reports of unexplained child deaths, particularly in the homes and dwellings known to child protection agencies. All of the work we are doing in health in reducing the deaths of children is, at the same speed, being undone by suspicious deaths, most usually due to ice addicted households. Crystal methamphetamine is a concern for both sides of this parliament, but we have to be unified in coming up with solutions. It is not fundraising dinners, awareness days and wearing ribbons. We have had enough of that. We have had a doubling in unknown or uncertain or unexplained child deaths in Queensland in just one year. We have had 21 deaths in Queensland, of which 15 were unknown, but at the same time we have the appalling falls in the investigation of these cases by child protection workers.
Obviously, there is a tsunami of claims, cases and reports that this beleaguered department needs to address. But I have had enough of hearing about kids stabbed while they sleep. I have had enough of hearing about children lying on the bottom of a pool for 40 minutes before anyone was alerted. I have had enough of hearing about ruptured duodenums and ruptured anuses. All of these stories can only stop if we start doing something completely different.
There must be zero tolerance for sending children home into the arms of ice addicted parents. In Queensland, all five cases where tragedies occurred in ice families happened when they were downgraded from statutory separation to an IPA, meaning: we will attempt all wraparound supports possible and see if this works. That kind of social experimentation is utterly unacceptable. We know about the paranoia, the violence and the agitation that comes with ice. We know that amphetamine users are moving to this pure and more aggressive form. So we need to do something. We need to make sure child protection is absolutely on the ball so that we do not have 79 per cent of cases not investigated within 10 days, as demanded. We need to make sure the kids are not sent home from paediatric units with absolutely no evaluation, with a warning sent to child protection that is simply not picked up. We need to make sure that if you want to take a child with suspicious injuries home, you will pass an ice test before that child leaves our care.
No child is safe in the home of an ice abuser. We can link to CrimTrac and link to Centrelink and make sure that every adult in that household is clear of ice, or we do not release their child. You can stay with your child, but you will stay there until you are clean and clear, because these parents are not spending their money on their kids—covered in nappy rash and excrement. The money, which is public money, is going on drug debts. And that will only end with a unified Labor, Liberal and crossbench approach to cracking down on ice and not leaving children in these parents' care.
On 25 November last year, my electorate suffered through some of the worst fires in South Australia in living memory: more than 80,000 hectares burnt; a fire front of around 200 kilometres long; and two people, sadly, died in the blaze. In its aftermath there were dust storms and many devastated communities and farms; there were burning hay bales and hay sheds. A big clean-up and a big recovery effort was needed. Of course I want to extend my condolences to both the Hughes and Tiller families, who suffered the worst loss as a result of these fires.
The towns affected—which included Pinery, Mallala, Pinkerton Plains, Wasleys, Owen, Hamley Bridge, Stockport, Roseworthy, Templers, Freeling, Daveyston, Greenock, Kapunda, Tarlee, Marrabel, Allendale North and Eudunda—tell you about the extent of this fire. It tells you the communities affected are part of South Australia's great farming communities—very productive farmland, very beautiful farmland. The fire burnt right up to the edge of the Barossa Valley. It was really only the wind that stopped it going into the valley or going into Gawler or Lyndoch. It was a truly terrible event.
I know many people, some I went to school with, who did not see this as an anniversary to be remembered, and who politely said on Facebook that they were very happy that everybody had contacted them, but they were going offline for a little while to digest the year just gone, the one we are remembering.
I do want to thank the Plains Producer for doing such a wonderful spread in their paper. Of all the community events and the things that have gone on since that time, to mark the anniversary of what was a devastating fire—it is important that we remember it; it is important that we prepare for a new bushfire season. We have had a very wet winter in South Australia, so the fuel loads will be quite large. There is already an explosion of snakes in the Barossa Valley. I had one in my front yard the other day. We are seeing that increased fuel load, and we will need to be very cautious about the fire season ahead. I encourage everybody to prepare and to have their fire evacuation plans in place.
Today I stand to condemn the recent push through the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, or UNESCO, for removing Jewish ties to the Temple Mount complex. This comes after a vote on 26 October, where UNESCO voted to refer to Jerusalem holy sites by only their Muslim names, through its resolution on occupied Palestine. This is not acceptable. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu rightly slammed the vote, stating:
The theatre of the absurd continues at the UN … denying the Jewish people's connection to the Temple Mount, our holiest site for more than 3,000 years.
To say Israel has no connection to the Temple Mount is like saying that China has no connection to the Great Wall of China or Egypt has no connection to the pyramids … But I believe the historical truth is stronger and that truth will prevail. And today we are dealing with the truth.
I would like to state on record today that I believe strongly in the statement of Prime Minister Netanyahu and that that is the truth.
Religious freedom must always be accommodated in the rights and freedoms of all, but we must recognise the freedom of the Jewish people should be respected, including proper respect for their faith, culture and cultural ties to significant and important sites. This resolution segregates the Jewish people further. It is utterly shameful. Estonia, Germany, Lithuania, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and the United States have made it known to the world that they are prepared to stand up for religious freedom and for the enduring connections of the Jewish people to Temple Mount—and so should we. This decision to dishonour and disrespect the enduring connection of Jewish people to the Temple Mount makes a mockery and undermines some of the fundamental principles that this country should stand for.
In a much broader context, I am concerned about some of the trends we are now seeing. According to reports in The Australian today, it has been alleged by Israeli authorities that our government has indirectly and unintentionally been one of the biggest funders of the Hamas terrorist organisation in Gaza over the past seven years, through World Vision Gaza.
The head of World Vision Gaza has been charged in August for funnelling money, and subsequently World Vision Gaza has suspended operations. I think that it is very important for all of us to make it clear that this is inappropriate and we expect an immediate investigation so that no Australian tax dollars are used to promote terrorism against the Jewish people of Israel as well as the Palestinian people, as so often the governments in those regions have sought to do. This is an opportunity for us to stand up for our values in the international sphere and continue to recognise the enduring connection of the Jewish people to Temple Mount and also ensure that our tax dollars will never go towards promoting terrorism. I am sure all members would agree with me on these sentiments.
The federal Liberal government's plan to destroy Medicare by dismantling and limiting access to Medicare is proceeding at breakneck speed. The Liberal's strategy is now clear. By stopping the processing of Medicare claims at Centrelink offices and progressively removing Medicare staff from Centrelink offices, the government is forcing people to wait weeks for claims to be processed and paid. By doing this, they are removing universal access and trying to destroy Medicare's appeal to the general public. Bringing the public sector and its services into disrepute is part of this government's strategy to remove the social safety net. There are now around 130,000 patient claims in the queue for processing. And claim rebate times have increased from two days to five to six weeks.
Only on Friday, Margret from Nundah called my office. She explained: her daughter had been waiting six weeks for a Medicare rebate. There are at least 130,000 Margrets right across this country. There will be resistance to this from the public and it will increase customer aggression. Staff are already being encouraged to mislead the public in promising claims will be processed overnight, if left. Wait times this long are not just an inconvenience. They create serious hardship for working Australians. The removal of immediate claims processing from the DHS offices will adversely affect the poor, the sick, the technologically-disadvantaged and the chronically ill or anyone who needs to access their rebate straightaway, for example, to pay for further treatment or medication.
The Medicare staff at Centrelink have a wealth of knowledge and experience, and many of these are being removed and sent to staff hubs. This will lead and represent a drastic loss of knowledge and information. The Liberal's strategy is now very clear—having failed to undermine Medicare with a series of proposals designed to eat away and undermine the framework of Medicare, they have now decided they will degrade Medicare services to the point where the public demands change to Medicare. From what I have been hearing from other electorate offices, this is occurring right around the country. The Liberals are intent on strangling Medicare services. What is occurring now in Centrelink offices is just part of wrecking Medicare. Australians pay a Medicare levy to ensure their access to affordable universal health care is conducted professionally and efficiently. This government is the first in the history of Medicare to short-change the Australian people by not giving them the fast, reliable rebate of their medical expenses that they pay into their levy. The Australian people know that this Prime Minister cannot keep his hands off Medicare. Why can't he? This Prime Minister and the Liberals and Nationals have a 40-year project to destroy it. (Time expired)
The coalition government has sought to turn the tide of economic mismanagement under successive Labor governments. We have cut red tape and taxes on small businesses, which are the lifeblood of the Australian economy. Since the coalition was returned to government in 2013, 467,100 new jobs have been created. Jobs growth has been running at 10 times the rate that we inherited from the previous government. Consumer confidence has risen. Real or nominal growth has increased. This is what comes from responsible economic management.
My electorate of Berowra is home to over 15,000 small businesses. We have one of the largest number of small businesses of any part of Australia. And Berowra businesses want tax relief. They want tax relief so they can invest more in their businesses. They want tax relief so they can employ more people. They want tax relief so governments can get out of their way and help turn their small businesses into bigger businesses. They want tax relief because Berowra businesses know that they can spend their own money so much better than any government can. That is why, during the election campaign and afterwards, small businesses in my electorate have told me how much they like the government's Enterprise Tax Plan.
Berowra small business people know that there is a difference between revenue and profit. They know that businesses that have a $2.1 million turnover are not just small businesses; they are microbusinesses. It is why, during the election campaign and after, Berowra small businesses kept asking me, 'Why don't the Labor Party support the government's Enterprise Tax Plan to reduce company tax all the way to 25 per cent?' It is because Labor are playing the politics of envy. They do not want small businesses to become larger business; they do not believe in jobs and growth; and they have given up the economic reform mantle of the Hawke-Keating years—a period in government which was an anomaly in Labor's history.
This was not always the case. The Leader of the Opposition used to support company tax reform. As Assistant Treasurer, on 6 April 2011, he said:
The Government's tax reform agenda has a strong focus on ensuring that Australia remains an attractive place to invest.
… … …
Cutting the company tax rate is an important step along this road.
This recognises the benefits to investment and growth—
I repeat that: 'the benefits to investment and growth'—
from lower company tax rates and a trend to lower rates across the OECD over … 30 years.
As Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation, on 13 March 2012, he said:
Any student of Australian business and economic history since the mid-80s knows that part of Australia's success was derived through the reduction in the company tax rate …
… We need to be able to make life easier for Australian business, which employs two in every three Australians.
And as Assistant Treasurer, in 2011, he said:
Cutting the company income tax rate increases domestic productivity and domestic investment. More capital means higher productivity and economic growth and leads to more jobs and higher wages.
It is time Labor backed small businesses in Berowra and elsewhere. It is time Labor acknowledged that a business with a turnover of $2.1 million is not a big business. It is time Labor supported the government's Enterprise Tax Plan.
In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has now concluded.
Before calling the member for Bruce, I remind the member of standing order 88.
I will be entirely respectful in relation to the appropriate address to the Queen. I move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) there is a current controversy pertaining to the so called 'palace letters' between the then Governor-General Sir John Kerr and Her Majesty The Queen in the months leading up to the dismissal of the Whitlam Government; and
(b) this correspondence has been declared 'personal' and therefore secret at 'Her Majesty the Queen's instructions';
(2) acknowledges that:
(a) these letters are a matter of our national history which should be made available to the Australian people;
(b) regardless of the merits or otherwise of the dismissal, Australians deserve to know the extent to which The Queen involved herself in the sacking of an elected Australian Government; and
(c) the very notion of 'personal' letters between the Monarch and the Governor-General offends all concepts of transparency and democracy that we hold dear; and
(3) call on the Australian Government to take steps to have the documents released.
I am pleased to move this motion regarding the so-called palace letters, which remain hidden from the Australian people. It calls upon the government to take immediate steps to have these documents, which belong to the Australian people, released. It is an intriguing affair, and I know it may seem less relevant than many of the important debates that confront our nation—the government's lack of plan for jobs, economic mismanagement, growing inequality and so on—but I do believe that these issues are also important and worthy of this 20 minutes of debate.
What are these documents, and why are they not being released? The letters are between the then Governor-General and the Queen in the months leading up to the dismissal of the Whitlam government. We do not actually know how many letters there are, although informed speculation suggests there are dozens. Ordinarily, we would not even be having this debate, because they would simply be released as a matter of course through the normal FOI or Archives Act procedures. These mechanisms do not exclude Government House, but these letters have mysteriously been marked 'personal', and therefore secret, at Her Majesty's instructions; hence the ordinary procedures are not working, and this veil of undemocratic secrecy has descended.
We understand that the final word on whether Australians will ever see these papers remains with the Queen's private secretary and the Governor-General's official secretary, even after 2027. In my view, this is outrageous and illogical, as dispatches to the Queen are part of the Governor-General's duty. Indeed, Sir John Kerr made that clear in his book Matters for Judgement. So how on earth can they now be marked 'personal'? They should be available like other important government records.
But why does it matter? Firstly, they are of great historical importance, and they are Australian documents—one of the few remaining missing pieces that relate to the greatest constitutional crisis our country has known. They may well provide the smoking gun as to how much the palace knew of Sir John Kerr's intentions to sack a democratically elected government. Whatever you think of the Dismissal, and there are a range of views, Australians do have the right to know the full story. It has been a bitter and abiding controversy for decades—to quote Professor Jenny Hocking, 'always with the lingering sense that there was more to be found'. It has taken decades to find out many of the basic facts, in large part due to the diligent work over many years of Jenny Hocking. Sir John Kerr, at the time and for years afterwards, provided a misleading and deceptive public account arguing that his dismissal of an elected government was necessary to break a political deadlock. Yet we now know that he was considering the possibility of dismissing the government for months and that he had certainly decided to do so some days earlier, apparently fearful for his own job.
Secondly, they raise important issues about our democracy, constitution and sovereignty. The defining feature of this, our parliamentary democracy, is that the party that commands a majority in the House of Representatives shall form the government. This was repudiated in 1975. The dismissal of an elected government is no small thing and history can repeat itself. So it is important that, even 40 years on, we eventually gain a full understanding of what happened. I believe that this raises genuine issues about our residual relationship with the Crown. Are we really a sovereign nation if we cannot access our own national records, just down the road in the National Archives, without the permission of 'a foreign queen'—those were the Prime Minister's words.
Finally, this is a matter of principle because this curious case breaks principle and practice in regard to the release of government documents. Cabinet documents will soon be released just 20 years after they were created, and there is no basis for these documents to be locked away. So how can they be released? We should not be having this discussion—but we are. The courts are one possible way. There is a current Federal Court case, on which I will not comment. I commend Professor Jenny Hocking, who has mounted this case on her own initiative and at considerable personal risk. But it should not be left up to a researcher.
It has been reported that, in November last year, the Prime Minister said he would make a formal approach to the Queen to ask her to release what are our national records. I have heard no more of that and I do not know whether it has happened. In any event, that is not good enough. I call on the government to take firm action now and advise the Queen formally to just release these documents immediately, understanding that she is required to act on such advice. Or so we are told; if not, then that is a shocking revelation about our system of government. A one-off request does nothing to ensure that similar documents are not hidden again. So we may need to review legislation and arrangements to stop this from happening. In summary, I believe this is an important matter of historical record. These are Australian documents. What is there to hide? Why not simply release them? They do raise important issues and it breaks the general principle that government documents are released—and Government House is not exempt from this legislation.
Is the motion seconded?
I second the motion.
I thank my friend the member for Bruce for this particular motion but I have to say I disagree with it. It underscores Labor's enduring obsession with Sir John Kerr, an obsession that never really died. That is really what is at the heart of the motion today. It is understandable that there is significant public interest in these documents. These documents will be released at some point in the future, but when they are released is quite properly a matter for Her Majesty the Queen and the Governor-General. I find it ironic that we get this motion from a political party that established special legislation in the case of the parliamentary committee of inquiry into the conduct of a judge. That was the Murphy papers. It was an inquiry relating to whether former High Court Justice Lionel Murphy had indeed met the test under section 72 of the Constitution that proved misbehaviour. That particular set of documents was sealed for 30 years and has only just been released. The full set of those documents is still not in the hands of the public. Instead, we have a motion like this one, which is looking at documents which in the ordinary course of events will eventually be released. But now is not necessarily the time. As the member for Bruce said, this matter is the subject of Federal Court proceedings at the moment. I think it is premature of the House to have this motion at a time when those proceedings are still pending.
One of the things with the Labor Party's Kerr obsession is that they hounded him from office, they refused to attend functions with him while he was there, they encouraged protesters to 'maintain their rage' against him, they hounded him—and now there is this, beyond the grave. When does the obsession stop? The truth is that one of the biggest electoral defeats for the Labor Party occurred after the 1975 dismissal. The Australian people had their say. Sir John Kerr's duty in that election was to resolve a political and constitutional crisis by letting Australian have their say.
I think there is an assumption on the other side of the House that statements in these papers may well vindicate a view that Sir John Kerr acted improperly. I am not sure that it will. Opposition members should not assume that. It is clear from Sir John Kerr's unpublished book The Triumph of the Constitution that he himself wanted his correspondence to eventually be released. My successor as Executive Director of the Menzies Research Centre, Professor Don Markwell, who is an expert in this area, wrote in his recent book TheConstitutional Conventions and the Headship of State: Australian Experience 2016, on page 146 in reference to The Triumph of the Constitution:
It is clear that Sir John Kerr wished the correspondence with Buckingham Palace made public at an appropriate time ... The clear implication of what he writes is that this will show that version of events which he record in—
his book—
Matters for Judgement was what he recorded at the time of events in reports to the Queen.
So the eventual publication of this correspondence might not actually give members opposite what they are looking for.
But there is a broader principle here, which is the principle that correspondence between the sovereign and the Governor-General is of such a high level that it would deal with the most important, most secret matters, of state, and you want to have a free and frank exchange between the sovereign and her representative here in order that both her representative can get counsel and the sovereign can be fully informed about Australian matters. I do not have any doubt that what the Queen, or the Queen's Private Secretary, wrote at the time, on 17 November 1975, to the Speaker of the House of Representatives remains true, and that is:
As we understand the situation here, the Australian Constitution firmly places the prerogative powers of the Crown in the hands of the Governor General as the representative of the Queen of Australia. The only person competent to commission an Australian Prime Minister is the Governor-General, and the Queen has no part in the decisions which the Governor-General must take in accordance with the Constitution. Her Majesty, as Queen of Australia, is watching events in Canberra with close interest and attention, but it would not be proper for her to intervene in person in matters which are so clearly placed within the jurisdiction of the Governor-General by the Constitution Act.
We have a fairly clear statement that the Queen remained out of these matters, that these were always matters for her Australian representative to deal with, and that is exactly what occurred here.
One of the other great myths about 1975 is that the blocking of supply by the Fraser opposition was somehow completely out of whack with what had occurred previously in the Australian parliament. There were 170 occasions during the life of the Gorton government where the Labor opposition in the Senate sought to block supply. Mr Whitlam and Senator Murphy, as he then was, both were architects of those occasions. I oppose the motion and hope it is defeated.
Transparency and probity have not been the hallmarks of the Abbott-Turnbull government, with failures from tax transparency to the refusal to release the Attorney-General's diary, marking the Abbott-Turnbull years like ink blots on a parchment of otherwise inconspicuous and subpar governance. The Attorney-General failing to support the freedom of information laws that he is in fact responsible for overseeing was an unedifying spectacle but one that Australians are now used to seeing under this government. Despite this government's scant regard for transparency, I speak today to call on the Prime Minister to take action to require the National Archives to release the so-called palace letters—the letters between the Queen and the then Governor-General Sir John Kerr regarding the dismissal of the Whitlam government.
It is farcical that some 41 years after the Dismissal the full facts of the event are not known. Indeed, it is a gross disservice to the history of our great country that such a central event in Australian political history has been hidden from the public eye, and the contribution to this debate that we have just heard from the member for Berowra in fact demonstrates the point. He was prepared to engage in yet further speculation and then say, 'I don't know about the events that these letters are concerned with.' The Australian public deserves to know from these letters and from every other document relevant to this matter exactly what occurred.
In 2005, 30 years after the Dismissal, the National Archives of Australia released Sir John Kerr's notes, journals, reflections and letters regarding the Dismissal. These pieces of correspondence revealed, or should I say exposed, the collusion of Sir John Kerr with Malcolm Fraser to dismiss the Whitlam government. We learned a lot from the release of these documents 30 years after they were written, but the palace letters, the central part of the puzzle, remain unreleased.
The reasons that the letters between Sir John Kerr and Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth were classified as 'personal' is unclear, to say the least. To my mind, it is a ludicrous suggestion that they should be described as 'personal'. Queen Elizabeth II was and is the monarch of Australia. Sir John Kerr was her representative in Australia. The letters between the two were written entirely because of their respective positions. They were not inviting each other to afternoon tea. The relationship between Queen Elizabeth and Sir John Kerr was a governmental and professional one—one befitting the relationship between the Queen and the Governor-General. If Sir John Kerr had not been the Governor-General, these letters would not have been written. They were written to discuss a matter of governance—namely, whether the Governor-General would dismiss the democratically elected government of Gough Whitlam.
The suppression of the palace letters is a complex affair. As they are still classified as 'personal letters', they are not considered to be Commonwealth records and accordingly do not fall under the Archives Act, meaning that their suppression cannot be challenged through the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, as could occur with other records belonging to the Archives, but instead only through the Federal Court.
I acknowledge the work of Professor Jenny Hocking of Monash University, who has launched a legal action against the National Archives for the release of the palace letters. Professor Hocking's action supports the great tradition of transparency in this country, and she is owed a debt of gratitude for her commitment to removing ambiguity and ensuring accuracy of Australian history. The palace letters are a piece of Australian history that is far too important not to be released. Any action to suppress these letters, whether through inaction or through direct opposition, is a hit on the principles of open access and transparency that all governments should support.
I understand that the Prime Minister has proposed a formal approach to the Queen requesting her approval to release our country's own records. We live under a passive monarchy, where the rule of law and the principles of transparency and probity are not run past the monarch for her approval but established in this parliament in which I speak today and upheld in the courts of Australia. This is not a matter of whether you are a republican or a monarchist; it is a matter of the accuracy of one of the most important events in modern Australian history. The position of the Governor-General is one of public interest. Letters between the Queen and her representative, the Governor-General, are by definition governmental and professional and should be treated as such by the Archives Act. I know that the Prime Minister is a keen follower of our national history, and I call on him to support Australia's great egalitarian tradition and take the appropriate steps to ensure that the National Archives release these documents.
Given that there are no further speakers, debate is now adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting day.
I move:
That this House:
(1) recognises the actions this Government has taken to establish the Commonwealth Redress Scheme (CRS) for survivors of institutional child sexual abuse;
(2) congratulates this Government for leading by example by establishing the CRS for survivors of institutional child sexual abuse and for inviting other governments and institutions to 'opt in' to the scheme on the responsible 'entity pays basis' recommended by the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse;
(3) acknowledges the courage of the survivors who presented evidence to the Royal Commission and that their past and continuing advocacy for redress is vital to the successful implementation of the CRS; and
(4) recognises that this Government acknowledges that survivors of institutional child sexual abuse need and deserve equal access and treatment.
The Turnbull government announced on 4 November this year a Commonwealth Redress Scheme for survivors of institutional child sexual abuse and, on that day, invited states, territories and non-government institutions to join in the Commonwealth scheme to deliver redress to the survivors of these wrongs. It was a privilege for me to be there on the day that the Minister for Social Services, Christian Porter, made the announcement in my home town of Perth. Much of the information that I will relay today will be information that Mr Porter included in his speech and also in documents about the redress scheme. Mr Porter said at the announcement:
Today's announcement is delivering on the Coalition's commitment to strive to ensure redress is provided for survivors of institutional child sexual abuse across Australia by the responsible institutions
Mr Deputy Speaker, I am sure you are aware that, in the time that I have been in parliament, on many occasions I have called for redress from those institutions, the churches, charities and non-government institutions who sexually abused children during that period of time, and for them to stump up, return the money that was paid to them by governments and give some redress to these people who were wronged.
The government acknowledges that survivors of institutional child sexual abuse were abandoned and betrayed by many institutions, including governments, churches and charities. Some people may ask what the Commonwealth government Redress Scheme is. To put it simply, this scheme will provide support services to people who were sexually abused as children in Commonwealth institutional settings. It will offer a direct personal response for those survivors who seek it, psychological counselling and a monetary payment to acknowledge the wrongdoing inflicted upon survivors.
Along with many of my colleagues on both sides of the chamber, I think this has been a welcome announcement. I know there are some who may say it has taken too long, and there are others who will criticise the scheme and the processes. There will be others who also say that the scheme should be compulsory, but we cannot forget that this is about getting the best outcome for victims of sexual abuse. I know that some people have said, 'Can't the Commonwealth just establish a scheme for all survivors?'
The fact is that we cannot force the states to be a part of this national scheme. Our desire is to achieve the best option as soon as we can, and that is for a nationally consistent approach to redress so survivors across Australia get equal access and treatment. But the states and the institutions need to be on board to achieve this. We will continue discussions with the states in the hope that we can get the best outcome for survivors.
As I said earlier, while the Commonwealth is unable to force participation in a national scheme, the government will be working closely with states, territories and other non-government institutions to work towards maximising national consistency. A truly national scheme requires the support of the states and the territories. I would also look to those on the other side of the House to assist the states that are led by people in their party to get on board with this Redress Scheme, as I will be encouraging the Western Australian government to get on board with the scheme as well.
The Commonwealth scheme is expected to be established by 2018 and will offer a direct personal response for those survivors who seek it, options to receive psychological counselling and a monetary payment, comprising a maximum payment of $150,000, to acknowledge the wrongdoing inflicted upon them. As I have said many times, the money will never compensate for the abuse that they received, and the psychological and ongoing support that they need is probably just as important as the payment.
The government will also establish an independent advisory council as soon as possible, bringing together a broad group of specialists, including survivor groups, legal and psychological experts, to provide advice on the implementation of the scheme. Hopefully, there will be people from both sides of this chamber—at least one representative from each side of this chamber—on that independent board. Importantly, the government is taking strong action to prevent child sexual abuse in the future, working with state and territory governments, law enforcement agencies, the community sector and researchers to keep children safe. I just happened to see the member for Bowman make a stirring speech here before, in this same chamber, about child abuse and child sexual abuse. In particular, through establishing the National Framework for Protecting Australia's Children and funding a range of early intervention and prevention services such as the children and parenting support program, Communities for Children and the Intensive Family Support Service, the central thing that we are trying to avoid in all of this is re-traumatising the victims, who have already been through an enormous amount.
In designing the blueprint for the Commonwealth Redress Scheme, we have exercised every available method and have endeavoured to give practical and operational effect to the recommendations of the royal commission. The design of the redress scheme operated by the Commonwealth is based on four principles. The first principle is that the Commonwealth Redress Scheme will not just be about facilitating individual monetary redress payments. Of equal importance to the individualised monetary redress payments is ensuring that the scheme develops and provides emotional, mental and other support mechanisms to people who are survivors of institutional abuse. So, as well as the monetary payments designed to provide some tangible recognition of the hurt and the harm that have been suffered by so many Australians, the Commonwealth scheme will also provide access for survivors to trauma-informed and culturally adapted counselling over the entire life of the scheme.
It will, thirdly, also allow for something that many redress schemes have not allowed for, and that is personal and direct contact being available, if sought by survivors, with responsible institutions. To put that in more detail, it will be open for any survivor, if they wish, to be able to tell directly and in person a very senior and appropriate individual located in the appropriate organisation their story, and what actually occurred to them. That will be totally at their wish, but that will be available to them as well. So part of all this is going to be a structured and available forum for the victims of sexual abuse to direct and give their stories in a meaningful, individualised way.
The second principle of the Commonwealth Redress Scheme will be that the Commonwealth will continue to do absolutely everything within its power to institute a Commonwealth scheme that has maximum reach to Australians, no matter where they suffered the abuse. The government will exercise every endeavour to make the reach of our scheme as broad as possible, with the ultimate point being to try and make the system that will operate across Australia as consistent as possible for each victim, each survivor, no matter where they were located.
Now to give life to this principle, and to use the direct language of the royal commission report, the Commonwealth will be the operator of a best practice redress scheme, which is open nationally for any state, any territory or any non-government institution to opt into the scheme. The government will be—and this is the second principle—the operator of an opt-in scheme. Any state, any territory, any church or any charity who has responsibility in this area will be able to opt into the scheme that the government has announced.
Consistent with the royal commission recommendations, where an entity opts into the scheme—whether they be a state, territory or non-government institution—they opt in on an opt-in basis. Using again the words of the royal commission, they would opt in on a basis that they fund the cost of their own eligible redress claims in accordance with the requirements of the redress scheme operator. The description of that second principle is this is an opt-in scheme that is operated on a responsible entity-pays basis, consistent with the recommendations of the royal commission.
The third principle on which the scheme will be based is that the Commonwealth, of course, as the operator of this scheme, will require opting in entities, whether they are churches, charities, state governments or territory governments, to abide by the process and design rules that we, the Commonwealth, will institute. The opt-in scheme that we establish will represent the absolute best practice scheme in Australia.
Central to being the best practice scheme, it will be as non-legal and as informal as all the circumstances will allow. Redress payments will be exempted from any potential Commonwealth debt recoveries that may be going on, or could in the future go on, with respect to the individual. Payments will be exempt from any income tests that are relevant to other government payments; so, if there is an income test that is relevant to a government welfare payment, the redress amount will be exempt from that assessment. The application process will be supportive, it will be simple, it will be flexible, and as much will be done as is reasonably possible to avoid the process of re-traumatisation. The scheme—and this is very important—will last for 10 years, and it will be flexible. At the end of that 10 years, there will be a review. If there is a requirement to extend the scheme, it will be extended.
I have run out of time, but I really do want to speak to all the survivors who have given their stories to the royal commission and congratulate them on their valiant efforts to bring to light the sexual abuse they suffered while they were in institutions. I wish them all the best for the future, and I am proud to have been part of the process that has brought this issue to this conclusion.
I thank the honourable member for his heartfelt contribution. Is the motion seconded?
The motion is seconded.
I thank the honourable member.
Can I thank the member for Swan for putting this motion on our agenda, and I also thank him for his engagement with this issue, which is so close to him. I cannot say I agree with everything he has said, but I do want to point to the recommendations in the royal commission. There were five key findings: firstly, that a national redress scheme should be established to process compensation claims for about 60,000 child abuse survivors; secondly, survivors with a reasonable likelihood of having been abused should receive at least $10,000 and up to $200,000 in the most severe cases; thirdly, that federal, state and territory governments should pay shortfall funding for institutions, which would be about $613 million or about 15 per cent of the total redress funding; fourthly, religious organisations and residential facilities for children should be liable for child sexual abuse in civil lawsuits—I think that is problematic; and, fifthly, unlimited counselling and psychological care should be available episodically through the survivors' lives.
In my view, the government has opted for the next best option with the 'opt in' proposal. There is real concern in the broader community about this element of an opt in. There will be a 10-year scheme, as the member said, which will commence in 2018 and could be extended past 2028 if that is required. The royal commission estimated the total cost of redress—at $200,000 for 60,000 abuse survivors—including administration costs, at about $4.3 billion, which is a significant sum of money. It is very clear that there are many, many Australians who have suffered as a result of the perversity and horrendous victimisation of child sexual abuse and suffered the depravity of those who have perpetrated that abuse on them.
I want to concentrate on evidence which the royal commission took from the Retta Dixon home in Darwin—one of a number of institutions for the stolen generations in the Northern Territory. There were seven institutions in the Northern Territory, where over 1,000 children were placed in homes. They were run by the church and funded by the Commonwealth government. These institutions were open at various times:
1. Croker Island Mission was a ‘half-caste’ mission located on the coast of Arnhem Land approximately 150kms by air from Darwin and run by the Methodist Overseas Missions …
2. Garden Point Mission on Melville Island, run by the Catholic Church and is about 60klms north of Darwin.
3. Kahlin Compound was on the same sight of the old Darwin Hospital over looking Cullen Bay on Myly Point—
It was administered by the federal government—
4. Retta Dixon Home on Bagot Road, Darwin run by the Aboriginal Inland Missions
5. Emerald Mission on Groote Eylandt near Angurugu community in the Gulf of Carpentaria.
6. St Mary’s near the Alice Springs Race Course run by Australian Board of Missions.
7. The Bungalow the Old Telegraph Station, Alice Springs.
I am indebted to Maurie Ryan and Tania Gaston for that information from their submission into the inquiry into the Stolen Generation Compensation Bill 2008.
I am raising this because over the period we have done a really good thing. We have focused on the need to provide redress to those who have been harmed while in care. What concerns me though is that we, as a federal government—on both sides of the parliament—have failed to stump up to redress arrangements for members of the stolen generation. What that meant needs to be understood.
The Aboriginals Ordinance 1911 gave the Commonwealth the power, and gave to the protector of the native affairs, at that time—this was in 1913—the power to commit any Aboriginal half-caste to an institution in the Northern Territory until they reached the age of 18 years. That happened to so many wonderful people in the Northern Territory.
It is notable that the forcible removal of children was included in the definition of the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crime of the Crime of Genocide. The Bringing Them Home report concluded that the forcible removal policies were a denial of common law rights and a serious breach of human rights. However, there have been no reparations for the stolen generations. They have not been forthcoming—save through the possibility of payments under this redress scheme, which we are talking about here this morning. Apart from the severe suffering and trauma of the children of the stolen generation who suffered sexual abuse while in the care of the state, they also suffered in the short- and long-term the affects of being simply members of the stolen generation.
As Sue Roman has so eloquently written, 'The nature of loss and harm experienced by a member of the stolen generation includes the loss of identity, family bonds, relationships and difficulties with parenting skills; the loss of cultural knowledge including language and traditional inherited rights; the loss of opportunity to be recognised as a traditional owner and member of a land trust under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 and the Native Title Act 1993; the lack of opportunity to own land, unlike non-Aboriginal Australians priding themselves in providing inheritance to their children; the lack of opportunity to gain formal and informal life skills from their families.' And they have suffered generational cycles of homelessness, alcohol and drug abuse, domestic violence, poor health and shorter life expectancy.
These people have never had redress. I think now is the time. No government of any political persuasion has accepted the need to provide reparations or a redress scheme to members of the stolen generation. They have been forced to go to the courts and, sadly, have been unsuccessful. But in this context it seems clear that the Commonwealth cannot abrogate itself of the responsibility that it has had for the welfare of children of the stolen generation. The Commonwealth was responsible for the administration of the Northern Territory and of these ordinances. They gave the power to people to steal these children from their parents. It seems to me that as a mature nation it is now time for us to stump up and do the right thing by these people.
There is no doubt that many suffered from sexual abuse whilst in care. Of that there is no doubt. I relate just one submission from the Bringing them home report:
Q: Did any girls get pregnant at Garden Point when you were there?
I remember one and they actually took her off the Island. And when I ask everyone, like even now when I ask people about her, they don't know what happened to her …
Q: Who was the Father?
The Priest. The same bastards who …
Q: How do people know that?
Well, the reason they know is, Sister A, poor thing, who's dead—I know she was upset because that priest had that young girl living in his place.
This was systematic exploitation of young, defenceless people stolen from their families. Whilst these particular individuals suffered from sexual abuse and from the privations of sexual abuse, importantly, others also suffered from psychological abuse by being taken away from their family—which I think is a form of cultural genocide.
It is about time we, as a nation, understood our responsibilities and took them to heart in relation to the stolen generation. I do not think it is beyond our wit and wisdom to do that. But, sadly, we force people to go to the courts. But I now understand the Retta Dixon children are class action litigants suing the Commonwealth government for lack of duty of care. Previous actions in the Federal Court have failed in Cubillo and Gunner v Commonwealth [2000] FCA 1084 and Kruger v Commonwealth (1997) 190 CLR 1.
Now we have a capacity to do something about this. The Commonwealth did have a duty of care to these children. Never mind the reparations that should have gone to their parents for the fact that these kids were stolen in the first place, but the suffering these people have endured over generations now is something that I understand because I know members of the stolen generation and have done for many years. But they have, for whatever reason, been sidelined. Yes, they have been given Link-Up services. Yes, they have been given counselling support. Yes, they have been given other assistance. But at no point has the Commonwealth—and I am now talking of Labor as well as Liberal—accepted the principle that these members of the stolen generation, of whom there are very few left, should be entitled to reparations of the type we are seeing here today. Why not, I ask. It is a very simple question, and I think it remains an open wound on the soul of this country.
It is depressingly obvious that so many young and vulnerable people have been failed by Australian institutions, both public and private, over a very long period of time. Institutions that have often worked to the net benefit of Australia and of those who are placed in their care have, nevertheless, failed thousands of individuals who have been wronged by the system, by society's collective neglect and by those institutions' dereliction of duty to the individual.
Sadly, the sensational stories that we read about in the press—and certainly there have been plenty emanating from my home state of South Australia concerning the operations of Families SA—are telling us that even today our systems are not perfect. Monsters are either harboured or at least allowed to operate within organisations that are charged with protecting children.
However, there is at least some good news. The Turnbull government has announced its intention to form a national redress system to provide support to those who have suffered sexual abuse in Commonwealth facilities. The government is determined that this should become a truly national scheme. Because it is important to have conformity across Australia, we are urging the individual states and private and religious based organisations to make this vehicle a one-stop shop for those who have suffered. Inevitably, all of the individual organisations must meet the cost of addressing the problems of those that they have failed. But I think it is very important that they come under one umbrella so at least those who have been violated know where to go to and will be getting the same type and level of attention that they would had they reported it in any state in Australia.
The scheme will allow for compensation of up to $150,000 per person, bringing it in line with the schemes that now operate in Victoria and New South Wales and that some of the major non-government institutions have adopted. It remains important that the rest of the states and organisations come on board so that people know they will receive the same attention from one end of Australia to the other. An independent advisory committee will be appointed as soon as possible—and I look forward to that so that we can get on with the job. The scheme will run for 10 years. Hopefully, by that time, the backlog of issues will have been addressed. If they have not, one would assume that the government of the day will come back to the table and reassess that position. But 10 years is a very suitable period of time and I thank the government for making that commitment.
This is not only important so that people can now receive the services and compensation that they need to try and ameliorate the damage that was done to them; it is a very important public recognition of the systems Australia-wide to deliver to individuals the care and protection that they should have. It is planned that the scheme will be operating by 2018. I look forward to that day. For the last 12 months, the government has tried repeatedly to bring all the parties on board. But we have not reached the level of cooperation that we had hoped for. That is why we have chosen to just get on with the job—to fulfil our obligations, to lead by example and to perhaps shame the stragglers to come on board. Well done to the government and the ministers responsible.
We apply ourselves to the errors of the past, but as legislators in this place it is important that we remain attuned to the needs of the children of today. There are not so many children held in institutions anymore, but some are living in unsafe environments. Some are removed from their home. Some homes are plainly terrible. Sometimes I think our institutions have lost the gumption to do they what they have to do—that is, removal. Whether the children are removed and put into foster care, or however they are cared for, we must make sure it is a safe and caring environment. I commend the motion to the House.
The abuse of children in the care of institutions in our country has been one of the most appalling chapters of Australia's recent history. No country should stand by and let this horrifying sexual abuse and shocking violence happen, and no country should stand by and let perpetrators get away with these crimes. The Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse delivered its second interim report in September 2015. This report sets out the royal commission's recommendations for the establishment of a national redress scheme. Such a redress scheme, the commission found, can provide a critical part of the healing process for victims and survivors of this abuse.
Labor is very proud to support a national redress scheme that will relieve some of the pain of the survivors of these horrendous crimes and Labor is ready to work with the government to ensure that the sufferers of this abuse get the redress that they deserve.
Labor believes that the costs of redress must be met by the institutions responsible for the perpetrators of the abuse. These institutions damaged the lives of thousands of Australians, and they should pay appropriate compensation. The royal commission recommended that a national redress scheme should include a direct personal response from the responsible institution if desired, including but not limited to an apology; counselling and psychological care services; and monetary payment of between $10,000 and $200,000 per victim to recognise the wrong suffered. The size of each payment would be determined by criteria that assessed the severity of the abuse.
Labor is very proud to have established the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. I am very proud of the small role that I played as Attorney-General in the establishment of the commission. This royal commission has given an opportunity to thousands of people who are the survivors of these sickening crimes to be heard. For many, it was the first opportunity they had to speak in public about their ordeals. I acknowledge the extraordinary men and women who have spoken of their horrific abuse at the hands of institutions at the public hearings of the royal commission and at the private sessions that it has been possible to arrange under the legislation that we passed to establish this particular royal commission.
Labor understands the devastating toll that this abuse has had on thousands of Australians, including many who are no longer alive to see this royal commission's recommendations. Labor understands that thousands of survivors of institutionalised abuse are seeking an apology from their abusers. These apologies must acknowledge the wrongs that were committed and accept responsibility for the harm and suffering that the institutions have caused. Many of the thousands of Australians affected by institutional abuse have a need for ongoing professional counselling. The institutions responsible for the abuse must be held accountable and meet the cost of this counselling. Survivors whose lives have been changed by the malicious and criminal acts of their abusers should be entitled to appropriate monetary consultation. The compensation, for some, will help them to sustain their lives. For others, a monetary payment will reflect a small recompense for the mistreatment and abuse that they suffered.
Labor is pleased to see that the Turnbull government has recently and at long last committed to a redress scheme, although we have serious concerns about several aspects of the Turnbull government's scheme. Under the proposed scheme, states and institutions responsible for perpetrating child sexual abuse can opt into the scheme. This means that, if the institutions that perpetrated the abuse do not want to pay, they will not have to. We are very concerned that the government appears not to have made sufficient effort to enlist the support of the states before making the announcement of the proposed scheme. This is too important for survivors. They should not have to face this extra uncertainty. This government has had over a year to do this important work, and it appears that it has not done enough. Survivors of child sexual abuse have been waiting their whole lives for redress for the crimes perpetrated against them as children. They should not have to worry about whether states or institutions are eventually going to decide to opt into the redress scheme. Redress needs to be provided to all survivors regardless of which state or territory they were abused in or now reside in, regardless of whether the institution was a government or non-government institution, and regardless of whether the abuse occurred in more than one institution, whether the institution still exists or, indeed, the assets available to the institution. (Time expired)
I too strongly support this move for redress and compensation for those who were involved in institutional sexual assault in these settings and the terrible wrongdoing inflicted on survivors that has been recognised here today. I will refer briefly to what has been a bipartisan effort, starting with the royal commission under the previous administration and then the redress scheme that was announced earlier this month.
But I also want to note that, in many cases, apologising on behalf of our predecessors is a privilege that we earn by ensuring that no such injustice occurs under our own watch. While it would be quite easy to remove the words 'institutional abuse' and substitute other forms of abuse that are occupying this building even as we speak this morning, we must be absolutely certain that the precursors and antecedents of this kind of abuse do not simply lead, generations later, to large redress schemes because we did not act on what was right in front of our eyes.
As a politician paid to talk, I must confess many in the community are getting sick of talk. While money is a small proxy and substitute for talk, we would actually like to see these things addressed in real time and prevented. We can talk about institutional abuse, which was the issue over the last century. Right now we have complete separation of Indigenous Australia from economic and employment opportunities, leading to what we marched on today. And finally, in Queensland, we have a complete outbreak of child violence, injury and unexplained death due to an increasing use of ice and, most importantly, child protection cases not being adequately investigated at the time. It is so simple to apologise a generation later, isn't it? We do not have to look anyone in the eye who was actually there at the time except those who come and tell us a generation later. But we have exactly the same thing happening now.
So I am absolutely delighted that, in our term, we can do our best to draw a line under what happened in these institutions; invite other governments to be part of that; and actually identify and talk about, as a number of the previous speakers have done, the institutions that were involved. We are acknowledging openly the suffering of survivors, and of course the $550 million to $750 million compensation scheme with a per capita cap on that is an early start. But many will still have questions about how the scheme will work and whether there will be other conversations that could have come through other channels that will be denied them because of the Commonwealth Redress Scheme.
In Queensland we are talking about protection of children and an explosion in domestic violence. We are talking about cases that are not adequately investigated. If you go to North Queensland, where there has been some talk already, in North Queensland we have 826 substantiated cases of abuse but 2,631 unsubstantiated cases and, extraordinarily, 209 cases closed with no outcome at all. Where public notifications require an investigation of a tragic circumstance like this, 79 per cent of the cases are not seen within the required 10-day period. Where it is deemed to be incredibly urgent—and this notification requires a five-day investigation—fully 74 per cent of them are not investigated in the appropriate time. At the same moment as we apologise for our predecessors, we are seeing an explosion in the prevalence of family risk factors in these substantiated households. We are seeing family risk factors like, obviously, being abused as a child, criminal history in the household and domestic and family violence. But we are seeing drug and alcohol abuse increase by 12 per cent, not over a generation but since 2011, as a cause for child suffering, neglect, injury and death. Of course, we have mental health issues going from 37 to 49 per cent. I can see that greater recognition and identification of mental health may be a good thing even though, in a quantifiable sense, the number is increasing.
In causes of death in my state of Queensland—the one that I can speak of with some authority—we had 50 deaths of children at June 15 last year. It is 51 this year. Despite all of our work in accidents, halving the rate of suicide in Queensland over those two small samples, and getting control of SIDS and other unrelated conditions, we have seen a doubling of unknown or yet to be determined causes from 10 to 18 children this last 12 months. These need to be addressed as much as the redress scheme is required for the generations that came before. (Time expired)
I am very pleased to be speaking on this motion moved today by my friend the member for Swan. He and I have done a lot of work together on these issues, and I commend him for all that he has done. As the motion indicates, the Turnbull government announced in early November that it would implement a national redress scheme. Of course, we understand that no amount of money can make up for the pain and trauma experienced by the survivors of child sexual abuse, but we believe that redress can be a very important step along the road to healing for survivors of child sexual abuse. That is why Labor announced back in October 2015 that we would establish a national redress scheme for survivors of institutional child sexual abuse.
Of course, it was a Labor Prime Minister who, some seven years ago now, apologised to the forgotten generations. The member for Swan was very helpful in making that a very important occasion. It was Labor under Prime Minister Gillard that established, more than three years ago, the royal commission into institutional child sexual abuse.
We do acknowledge the decision by the current government to fund trauma counselling and other supports. It is a very important decision they have made. We also acknowledge the decision to appoint an advisory committee made up of survivors and their supporters. We believe that these are important developments and we welcome them. However, federal Labor does have concerns about the Commonwealth government's proposed opt-in redress scheme for survivors of child sexual abuse. Under the proposed scheme, states and institutions responsible for perpetrating child sexual abuse can opt-in to the scheme. Labor is concerned that this means that, if institutions that perpetrated the abuse do not want to pay, they will not have to. Many survivors of institutional child sexual abuse have been waiting their whole lives to redress and they should not have to worry about whether or not states or institutions decide to opt-in to the redress scheme.
I was at the AGM of the Care Leavers Australia Network, otherwise known as CLAN, a couple of weeks ago and I heard yet again firsthand their view that the opt-in nature of the scheme is a very big worry for survivors. The idea that some institutions responsible for these crimes might decide not to opt-in to the redress schemes offends their sense of justice and, I would have to say, mine. As I told the 'CLANies' that day, Labor will continue to fight for them. We will fight for a fair and consistent redress scheme so that people get the compensation they deserve. We will, of course, continue to work closely with all of those involved to scrutinise the details of the scheme when it is fully release. We will do all that we can to make sure that survivors have access to one national scheme, as recommended by the royal commission.
We are also very concerned that not a single state or territory has agreed to be part of the scheme. Until these negotiations are finalised and survivors have certainty that they will get what they deserve, I am sorry to say that this announcement will be of very little comfort. That is why I urge the Turnbull government to immediately secure the agreement of each state and territory government and the institutions responsible for abuse to make this a truly national redress scheme. Redress can be achieved only if perpetrators of child sexual abuse are required to pay redress to survivors.
I want to finish by acknowledging the extraordinary courage of survivors as they have come forward to the royal commission. The evidence given at the royal commission has shocked many Australians. I want to take this opportunity here today to acknowledge the way in which people have come forward and told their stories. For years they were not believed. I want to say to them today that you are believed. We believe you and it is time for justice. (Time expired)
I start by also acknowledging my good friend the member for Swan, Steve Irons, and the work he has done as a co-patron with me of Care Leavers Australia Network, CLAN, and in raising this issue in the parliament today. I would also like to acknowledge the member for Jagajaga, who, as shadow minister responsible for Labor's response to these issues right now, but also as minister, has been absolutely critical in seeing the apology to the forgotten Australians take place, as it did just over seven years ago today. Indeed, the member for Jagajaga, as minister, was instrumental in seeing the royal commission established. In absentia, I acknowledge Jason Clare, the Member for Blaxland, who is a patron of Care Leavers Australia Network and has been very active in this space. I am a proud patron of CLAN. The work I do in this space is as important as anything I do in this building—as anything I have done in parliamentary life.
I would like to acknowledge Leonie Sheedy and Joanna Penglase, who founded CLAN and, between the two of them, have been amazing in raising this issue. Their determination and their relentlessness, which we are all very familiar with, has taken this from an issue which I did not know about to one which is now very much on the national stage. It was principally their energies which led to the apology to the forgotten Australians back in 2009, and it was principally their energies which led to the former Labor government establishing the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse.
It is important to say at the outset that the story of those who grew up in orphanages is not all about sexual abuse. There are wider dimensions to that story, but there is no doubt that the sexual abuse that occurred to them as children is a very significant part of the story, as a very significant proportion of people who grew up in orphanages suffered that fate. Like the Member for Jagajaga, I would also like to acknowledge the bravery shown by those people who were prepared to tell their stories to the royal commission. Having met a lot of 'CLANies', as I know the members for Swan and Jagajaga have both done, you realise the extent to which what occurred to them as children now impacts their lives on a daily basis. There is courage involved in being prepared to stand up and tell your story with a degree of publicity—and the fear of not being believed. But, like the member for Jagajaga, I want to make it very clear that what came from the national apology and what came from the royal commission was a statement by this country that we absolutely do believe what they have said and the veracity of it.
But for them telling their stories, we would not now have this as part of the national story and we would not have the responses which we are now debating in this chamber today. In that respect, I would like to acknowledge Vlad Selakovic, who is a constituent of mine and a 'CLANie' who has done fantastic work, and also Anthony Sheedy—Leonie's brother—who passed away a few years ago. He was a constituent of mine and he was incredibly brave in the way he dealt with the lot that he had been given in his life.
Back in January 2015 the royal commission recommended a national redress scheme. That was no surprise because almost from the day I met Leonie she was making it clear how important a national redress scheme was—in part, the compensation that comes from that but, most of all, the acknowledgement that comes with it of what actually did occur. I was really proud that in October last year, through the member for Jagajaga, it was Labor's position to support a national redress scheme and whilst acknowledging the government's announcement, which forms part of this resolution earlier this month, I share the member for Jagajaga's concerns about the fact that what is being proposed is an opt-in scheme. The reality is that for those who experienced this, there was no opt-in. For anyone who has been a victim of child sexual abuse, it is critical that they get the recognition that comes from a redress scheme. Everybody deserves that. This needs to be a genuine national redress scheme, without the opt-in as part of it.
There being no further speakers, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting day.
I move:
That this House:
(1) acknowledges that:
(a) Saturday 3 December 2016 is International Day of People with Disability (IDPwD);
(b) the United Nations proclaimed IDPwD for the first time in 1992 as a way of promoting better understanding of disability issues and as a sign of support for the dignity, rights and wellbeing of people with disabilities; and
(c) each year, the United Nations chooses a theme for IDPwD and this year's theme is 'Achieving 17 Goals for the Future We Want', which draws attention to the 17 Sustainable Development Goals and how these goals can create a more inclusive and equitable world for people with disabilities;
(2) encourages all Members of Parliament to support IDPwD in their electorates; and
(3) reaffirms its commitment to:
(a) ensuring Australians with a disability get the support they need; and
(b) an adequately funded and resourced National Disability Insurance Scheme.
This Saturday, 3 December, will be International Day of People with Disability, a very important day for many people in my electorate of Lindsay, and also across the country and, indeed, around the world. As I have noted in my motion, International Day of People with Disability was proclaimed for the first time by the United Nations in 1992 as a way of promoting better understanding of disability issues and, importantly, as a sign of support for the dignity, rights and wellbeing of people who live with disability. Paragraph (2) of the motion is incredibly important. This is a day where communities can demonstrate their support for those among us who live with disability, whatever it may be. It is a day when we can reflect on what it is that we are doing to ensure that every life has dignity and purpose, and that every person is valued and can contribute.
This year, the theme of International Day of People with Disability asks us to consider the role of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals in building a more inclusive world and a more equitable world for people with disability. Some of the key development goals include the provision of quality education and learning, so people with disability can pick up the transferable skills so vital to a sense of self-worth. Also among the development goals is an increase in decent and supported work, so people with disability can contribute to society and build an independent life for themselves.
Perhaps the most important development goal relevant to those with a disability is the goal to end poverty. We know that in Australia people with disability are significantly more likely to live below the poverty line. In fact, this year's Poverty in Australia 2016 report by ACOSS shows us that more than 300,000 Australians who are severely impacted by disability live below the poverty line and a further 500,000 Australians with various levels of disability who live below the poverty line. According to ACOSS, people with a disability are between 50 per cent and 100 per cent more likely to live in poverty, compared to Australians who live without disability. That is simply unacceptable. It is a continuing injustice and it must be addressed.
The NDIS presents a remarkable opportunity to ensure all people with disability live with dignity and not in poverty. Importantly, this motion recommits us and the government to adequately funding and resourcing the NDIS, a reform from the previous Labor government that has the power to deliver life-changing benefits to people with disability, their carers and their families. We all know the preceding system of disability care in Australia created huge swathes of further disadvantage for people with a disability right across the country. In fact, the Productivity Commission labelled the past system 'underfunded, unfair, fragmented and inefficient.'
The NDIS was created to address these concerns and establish a fair and necessary system where participants are given a say in the services they use and the rigid service delivery structures of the past are broken down to make way for more flexible and personalised models of care. People with disability and their families then knew how important this reform was and they know it today. However, time and time again I hear from people who fear the NDIS is stuck in a rut, and this government is not doing all it can to ensure service providers and the National Disability Insurance Agency have the resources they need to deliver the scheme. Critically, I am hearing that care plans are often expiring without new plans being in place. I have spoken before about the impact of a plan expiring, leaving families without the supports their children need and leaving adults without access to the assistance they absolutely require.
Of course, this scheme was created to provide long-term certainty around disability care, and it seems to me that the government is letting down scheme participants and it is letting down the service providers, who are constrained by the level of resourcing and the lack of funds flowing from this government. I am sure we can all agree that on the eve of International Day of People with Disability the best thing we can do as a parliament to support the dignity, rights and wellbeing of those who live with disability is to ensure the NDIS is able to live up to its promise of fairness.
I encourage all members of parliament to join with me in celebrating International Day of People with Disability on Saturday, 3 December. And I extend that invitation to everyone in the wider community: visit www.idpwd.com.au and check out the community event calendar to find out what local events are being held near you. I am actually looking forward to visiting the No Boundaries Art Group, which meets in my electorate every Monday to support people living with disability and their carers to get access to creative and practical arts.
Is the motion seconded?
I second the motion. I rise today to support the motion, moved by the member for Lindsay, acknowledging Saturday, 3 December as International Day of People with Disability. I thank her for bringing this very important motion to the House.
It was 1992 when the United Nations first proclaimed International Day of People with Disability, and they did so to promote better understanding of disability issues and to support the dignity and the rights of people with disabilities. Twenty years ago, the Australian government followed suit. I would like to make reference to the fact that over four million Australians have a disability—that is one in five Australians—so reaffirming our support for them and also reaffirming our support to achieving the 17 Sustainable Development Goals is absolutely critical to the way we deal with this very important issue, as is, of course, this House's reaffirming of its support for the NDIS and the work that it hopes to achieve for people with disability in Australia.
I want to go to Karni Liddell, Australia's most successful Paralympian and 2016 patron of the International Day of People With Disability, who says, 'The most disabling thing about having a disability is other people's assumption about what we can and cannot do.' She says if people with disabilities can shine on the sporting stage, then they should be able to experience basic human needs and desires such as fulfilling careers and relationships, travelling, being fit and healthy and living away from their parents.
Australia came fifth on the medal tally board of the 2016 Paralympic Games in Rio this year. One of the gold medals of the games belongs to Nazim Erdem, a successful wheelchair rugby player who has competed in four Paralympics and, I am very proud to say, is one of my constituents. I had the pleasure of meeting Nazim this year before he took off to Rio. At the age of 20, Nazim's life changed forever when he broke his neck in a diving accident. Nazim was told that he had a spinal cord injury and would never walk again.
Nazim says a spinal cord injury changes your life forever. He says that you do not know what your future is going to be like but he wants to show disabled people all the possibilities. Through his work with Spire, the Spinal Injury Resource and Support Network, he mentors and supports those with spinal injuries and helps them adjust to their new life. He says, 'You can go back to sport, to work; you can have relationships—whatever you want. You just do it a little bit differently.'
He does say that after every Paralympic Games that he has attended, there is a lot of attention on the athletes and that attention gets bigger and bigger with each games. The media attention highlights their successes, which means they then have to work even harder. Their training regime becomes more intense. They attend lots of training camps. The point is that Paralympians deserve the same accolades and attention as other athletes receive. People with disability do want to achieve what everybody else wants out of life, and they should, of course, be given the opportunity to do that.
I want to say a few words about a very good friend of mine and a constituent, the wonderful Janet Curtain, who, for some time, worked in my office. When Janet came to work for me, I realised how restrictive life could be for a disabled person. The truth is that, in our office, we did not have the ability to deal with or accommodate a person in a wheelchair. There were no disabled toilets and, of course, in order to be able to allow Janet to move freely within the office or actually enter the office that had been assigned to her, we had to remove the door. It sounds very primitive, but there you are. I am happy to say that my new office is totally fitted out for people with disability.
I want to quote Janet, because she is a very warm and passionate advocate. I asked her the other day what it is that she would like me to say to the House. These are Janet Curtain's words: 'For me, international disability day is not only celebrating people's abilities, tenacity and determination to live their lives the way they choose, but, even more so, celebrating how far society has come in its awareness of differences and diversity where people are not defined by their disability, but are seen for the people they really are.'
In my electorate, we have found lots of fun ways to celebrate International Day of People with Disability, and I look forward to being able to share some of those events: at the bowling centre in the Watergardens; at the Broadmeadows Aquatic and Leisure Centre, a disco night is planned. I look forward to getting back home and visiting with them.
It is a pleasure to rise today on the motion on the International Day of People with Disability before the Federation Chamber. For me, the International Day of People with Disability is really about ensuring that people with disability can be seen as full participating members in our society. On that note, I just want to make one minute's brief comment about a program in my electorate run by the Footscray Community Arts Centre—ArtLife. ArtLife is a program that has been running for more than 20 years. It engages artists with disability, and enables them to collaborate with professional artists in the community in Melbourne's west. Professional artist tutors work with artists with disability to make new works, to build capacity and, importantly, to change perceptions in our community.
This has been a thriving success in Melbourne's west over the last 20 years. It has been particularly successful in engaging other community institutions, reaching out to the other institutions in Melbourne's west. I have been very proud to host a series of works that have resulted from the ArtLife program in my electorate office in Footscray. So all the people visiting me as a member of parliament in my constituency office have been able to see these works on display. I commend this program, and I will cede my time now to other speakers in this debate.
I rise today to speak on the private member's motion brought to the chamber by the member for Lindsay to acknowledge International Day of People with Disability on Saturday, 3 December. I note that this year's theme is 'Achieving 17 Goals for the Future We Want', which draws attention to the United Nations' sustainable development goals that can encourage a more inclusive and equitable world for all people.
Like the member for Lindsay, and all on this side of the House, I am committed to ensuring Australians with a disability get the support they need through an adequately funded and resourced National Disability Insurance Scheme. The NDIS, developed by Labor, has been life-changing for so many people, and we will work to ensure the Turnbull government adequately funds and resources the NDIS so that many more people with a disability can achieve their goals to live inclusively and equitably; to live well. Labor remains committed to working with the government to ensure its success. It is too important to fail.
The goals determined by the United Nations are worthwhile reflecting upon: to end poverty and hunger; to ensure good health and education; to ensure access to clean water and sanitation; to ensure affordable and clean energy; to stamp out inequality; to ensure decent work, economic growth, industry, innovation and infrastructure; to ensure sustainable cities and communities, responsible consumption and production; and to ensure peace and justice for all. These goals build on the principle of 'leaving no-one behind', emphasising a holistic approach to achieving a sustainable world. But these goals are particularly relevant to people with a disability, as there is a strong link between disability and poverty, especially in developing countries. Even in our own beautiful country, disability can cause poverty by preventing full participation in the economic and social life of our communities, especially if the appropriate supports are not available.
We are fortunate to have so many organisations that do work towards making those appropriate supports available, and today I would like to make mention of just one in my electorate. Mai-Wel in Maitland, led by an extraordinary CEO, Pennie Kearney, is one of the largest disability service providers in the lower Hunter region, providing services and programs to 800 clients across nine local government areas. Mai-Wel offers people with a disability work and training opportunities, living, leisure and lifestyle services, and a creative arts program—which comes into its own at this time of year.
There are number of Mai-Wel events around International Day of People with a Disability that I would like to share with you. There was a performance last week of Destiny—The Musical—The journey starts here at a fundraising party for the launch of a disability-led arts project funded by Accessible Arts NSW and hosted by Cessnock's Royal Oak Hotel. Maitland Includes You: a summer exhibition of artworks at Maitland Regional Art Gallery featuring the works of artists with a disability. Cessnock Includes YOU is a similar exhibition at Cessnock Regional Art Gallery, which will be officially opened on the International Day of People with Disability, this Saturday. And, to take place next Wednesday, there is the Tin Pan Alleycats original songwriting album launch party celebrating the debut album of students graduating from Hunter TAFE with a statement of attainment in Certificate III in Music.
Congratulations to everyone involved in these events. They truly are examples of the kinds of supports our community needs for all people to live inclusively and equitably and to live well. I for one again want to really celebrate the work of the creative arts that have been achieved through Mai-Wel. The artists, the musicians—I have sat and had chats to them, had some little jams and looked at their paintings. They truly are amazing, and they are worthy of display in some of our most reputable art galleries. That is why it is so great to think that they will be hanging in the Maitland Regional Art Gallery and in the Cessnock art gallery. Again, this is about inclusiveness for all so that we can have a better world for people with disabilities. I commend them to you: this coming Saturday, 3 December.
I rise to support the motion by the member for Lindsay in relation to the International Day of People with Disability, and I thank the members for Calwell, Paterson and Gellibrand for their comments in relation to this motion as well. Of course, we want to see people with a disability live normal lives. They want to be able to play sport. They want to be able to work. They want to be able to have relationships like all of us. The NDIS has bipartisan support, and I think that as a parliament together we need to continue to work on that to ensure that it is delivered on time and is helping those people who need it most in all of our electorates right throughout Australia.
I met a young guy just last week—on Friday, actually. He was having lunch nearby. He came to one of my job seeker boot camps that I put on a couple of weeks ago. He was looking for work. He is a young man with Asperger's. He has been on a disability support pension for two years. He really wants to go to work. I ran into him again on Friday and said, 'What is it that you really want to do?' He wants to be a baker. I encouraged him. He could get some experience now in a bakery, and perhaps in years down the track he could run his own bakery. He is putting together his resume at the moment so that in the next week or two he can get out and see all the bakeries in my electorate and ask for the opportunity to work in one of those bakeries with great customer service on the front bench, serving people, perhaps getting in really early and helping with the actual baking—when they get in at three in the morning—and everything else.
I mention that because I believe, after talking to him on Friday, that that young man will achieve his goals. It goes to show that, just because you have a disability, that does not mean that you do not have goals like everyone else. I think this motion is very relevant, and I thank all the speakers involved.
There being no further speakers, 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 House:
(1) urges all Australians to drive safely and with consideration for fellow road users over the upcoming summer holidays;
(2) notes the Government has made significant investments in road safety including:
(a) $500 million from 2014-15 to 2018-19 in the Black Spot Program (BSP);
(b) an additional $200 million from 2015-16 that makes an important contribution to reducing the national road toll under the National Road Safety Strategy and Action Plan; and
(c) completing 977 projects under the BSP which has saved an estimated 116 lives and prevented 5,959 injuries from crashes over 10 years;
(3) encourages all state and territory governments to address the over-representation of men in road fatalities through improved driver information and education; and
(4) calls on all Australians to drive carefully over the summer period.
Just over a week ago, four young men were killed in a car accident on their way to work in my home state of South Australia. Our thoughts and prayers are with their families at this terrible time. The families and friends of these young men will face an unimaginably difficult Christmas this year. We do not know the reason for their accident, but it forms a tragic reminder that male drivers remain vastly overrepresented in our road deaths each year.
I call on grandmothers, mothers, sisters, wives and girlfriends to remind the men in their lives that they need to take extra care when driving. We desperately need to raise awareness of the risk men face. My home state of South Australia provides a stark example of the overrepresentation of male fatalities, as I discovered in 2014 when I wrote to The Advertiser about a horror few days on our roads that saw four male drivers killed in four separate accidents in the space of one short weekend. In the decade between 2005 and 2015, 75 per cent of drivers, or 446 individual men who were someone's—
A division having been called in the House of Representatives—
Sitting suspended from 12:25 to 12:46
As I was saying, in the decade between 2005 and 2015, 75 per cent of drivers, or 446 individual men—someone's husband or father or brother or uncle—were killed on South Australian roads. In comparison, 148 female drivers were killed. This is even though the numbers of male and female licensed drivers were almost equal. And yet, to the best of my knowledge, our state-based road safety campaigns never focus on the fact that men are more at risk. We hear a lot about the dangers of drug driving, drink-driving, fatigue, speeding, distraction, young drivers, country driving and seat belts, but we do not hear the simple fact that more male drivers are likely to die on our roads. Our national statistics also reiterate this fact: last year men represented 73 per cent of the road toll Australia wide. Every one of us needs to do more to make men aware of the tragic fact that they are at risk. Our state governments, through their road safety awareness programs, need to do more to provide information about those facts as well.
From a national perspective, a figure that is just as concerning is the fact that during the last 12 months 1,271 men and women died on our roads. We need every single Australian driver and road user to be aware of these facts and to stay safe on our roads over the school, summer and Christmas holidays. Nationally, we, as the Turnbull coalition government, are doing our part to help road users stay safe. We have committed $500 million to the Black Spot Program from 2014 to 2019, which includes an additional $200 million over the two years from 2015-16 to improve road safety across the nation. The Black Spot Program is estimated to be reducing fatal and casualty crashes at treated sites by 30 per cent. I am proud to say the Turnbull coalition government has provided $296,000 of blackspot funding in my electorate of Boothby to improve safety at a very busy part of my electorate of Jetty Road, Brighton.
This said, it is up to every single driver and road user to make sure they are taking responsibility for themselves and their actions on the road, particularly during the summer, school holiday and Christmas period. I say to drivers in particular, 'Do the right thing'. As someone who grew up in the country and who spends a lot of time on the road in my electorate of Boothby, here are my do's and don'ts. Most of them are obvious. Do not take drugs, do not drink-drive, do not drive at dangerous speeds, do not drive when you are tired, do not tailgate, do not use your mobile phone and always use a seatbelt. Some seem to be not quite so obvious from what I have witnessed on our country and city roads, which I find astounding, particularly in the country where people are driving at speed. Drive to the conditions—if it is pouring with rain, slow down. Keep two hands on the steering wheel at all times. Pay attention and anticipate what every single driver coming towards you might do. Do not swerve to miss a bird or a kangaroo and end up killing yourself or another road user. Be a considerate road user. If you are not driving at the speed limit, or if you have no intention of overtaking the car in front of you, leave plenty of room between you and the next car so that people can travel freely and do not get frustrated. We know that is when accidents can happen: when people get frustrated and do silly things. Most of all, I want to say to all Australians, all South Australians and everyone in my electorate of Boothby: please stay safe these summer, school and Christmas holidays when you are driving on our roads.
Is there a seconder for the member's motion?
I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
I begin by adding my condolences to the families of the four young people killed in the south-east recently. When former Prime Minister Abbott was elected in 2013, he wanted to be known as the infrastructure Prime Minister of Australia. He thought that, if he said it often enough and if his government members said it often enough, he would be so. But the reality is that it was all spin and the facts show otherwise. If the Prime Minister wanted to be the infrastructure Prime Minister of Australia then he needed to actually spend money on building infrastructure, and the reality is that he did not.
The spend that occurs and has occurred since this government came to office has been nothing more than normal annual expenditure that governments of all persuasions do each and every year. It is what taxpayers expect governments to do with the taxes that they pay. But the reality is that we are not even getting the amount of infrastructure spend that we might have got in the past. Much of it is just deferred or delayed and, whilst the government keeps talking about it, the reality is that it is saving the money by not spending it.
Even worse than that, when this government came to office, one of the first things it did was to freeze the financial assistance grants to local governments. That meant that it was cutting $1 billion from the councils around Australia. Councils build and maintain local roads. It is a core responsibility for them, and indeed they are one of the levels of government that actually do a lot of good local work in repairing and maintaining our local roads. When the government finally decided that it would give some money back to councils, it did so because of Labor's insistence that its support for the fuel excise indexation was contingent on the money raised going back to local government. So it was, indeed, Labor who ensured that that additional money went to local councils.
But I say to the member for Boothby that we did not get back the $18 million of supplementary local road funding in South Australia that the Local Government Association of South Australia has for years been campaigning for and which in previous years was given to South Australia as a supplementary fund. When this government came to office, it was cut. We did not get it. It seems to me that, as a state that has 11 per cent of the roads, seven per cent of the population and only five per cent of the road funding, we could do a lot better. Perhaps the member for Boothby would like to stand up within her party room and see what she can do about ensuring that that is the case. It is time that funding for roads in South Australia was fairly and permanently fixed up.
Road safety is affected by many factors. Bad roads in terms of both design and maintenance, poor driving, poor vehicle maintenance and driver fatigue all contribute to road accidents. When the Transport Workers Union of Australia raise these legitimate concerns, government members ridicule them and dismiss the concerns that they raise. Safe Work Australia confirms that truck driving is Australia's deadliest job. Five hundred and eighty-three drivers were killed between 2003 and 2015. Yes, most of them are males, because, if we look at who most of the transport drivers of this nation are, most of them are males. In the 10 years to 2014, over 2,500 Australians have died in truck crashes, so it is not just the drivers who become our road fatalities. In fact, my understanding is that since October of this year, in less than two months, we have had 26 people die on our roads through truck crashes.
Transport companies and owner-drivers widely place unreasonable and unsustainable pressure, by low-cost contracts, on drivers, forcing them to skip maintenance, to speed, to overload vehicles and to drive long hours. They do that in order to make ends meet. Not surprisingly, the industry has very high rates of bankruptcy, suicide and workplace deaths and injury. ASIC data confirms that transport operators have one of the highest rates of insolvency in the country. And then we have the case of exploited migrant workers who are given shonky licences from dodgy training schools, without proper training, or are being paid low rates and are working extra hours without even being paid.
The causes of all these accidents are known to this government and they should stop ignoring them, because road safety affects us all. Finally, can I say that the motion says nothing about the responsibilities of the federal government with respect to road safety.
I rise to commend this motion moved by the member for Boothby and also to commend her outstanding speech. It is a timely reminder to all Australians about the need to drive safely on our roads. As the motion describes, there are at least two approaches that our communities can take to address this issue: driver education and government investment in known black spots.
Driver education can, of course, come in many forms, but as the mother of two young children no example has struck me more than the one championed by the Little Blue Dinosaur Foundation, an organisation of which I am proud to be patron. Michelle and David McLaughlin launched the foundation in memory of their precious son Tom. The tragic loss of Tom in a road accident at Macmasters Beach in my electorate two years ago helped Michelle and David build a legacy through child road safety initiatives and education. In their own words, Tom was a vibrant and loving young boy with a zest for life and an unforgettable smile. He loved to draw blue dinosaurs, and image that is now the logo for his foundation. Tom's message, 'Slow Down, Kids Around' is now written in colourful writing on signs at beaches and alongside some of our busiest roads on the Central Coast. And I am sure it is sinking in, because my own two young children, Oscar and Mollie-Joy, have both stopped in front of busy traffic on two separate occasions, because they remembered the little blue dinosaur and its message. I would like one day to see the 'Slow Down, Kids Around' signs displayed right around the country, especially if it means safer roads for families and young children.
Other driver education methods can be more direct. For example, I have met with Ronak Shah and Luke Wall from the Academy of Road Safety in my electorate. Their focus is to reach as many high school students as they can to deliver training in knowing what to do if faced with an emergency situation behind the wheel and in understanding the reasoning behind speed limits. I would encourage our young people to consider courses like this, in particular, as the Member for Boothby has outlined, our young men.
The New South Wales member for Terrigal, Adam Crouch, has also been a strong advocate in this area and I would like to commend his leadership in helping to make sure more young people are getting the training they need to stay safe on our roads. Two recent devastating fatal incidents in my electorate this year have demonstrated why this is so urgent. First, teenager Jackson Williams died on Willoughby Road at Wamberal. Jackson was a back-seat passenger in a car that left the road, hitting a power pole. Local resident Lindy Hewett started an online petition, which has attracted more than 5,000 signatures. It was presented to the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport here at parliament. Such an extraordinary response in just a few short days from our tight-knit community on the Central Coast is partly why I am calling for this road to be upgraded by Central Coast Council.
The other incident tragically happened just three weeks later. It involved a mother of four young children, Annabelle Deall. Aged in her early 30s, Annabelle, a pedestrian, died after being struck by a car outside The Cowrie, a restaurant in Terrigal. I have also nominated this stretch of the Scenic Highway for consideration for Black Spot funding. I recently held a community morning tea in Terrigal to hear more stories from locals about why this road—which is not a highway, in the strictest definition of the word, but a suburban street—must be addressed.
We still have work to do with the council and our community to ensure we get the right traffic solutions in both locations. But I welcome the response from Central Coast Council, which announced that at a public meeting to be held in the coming weeks they will reveal preliminary plans for the Scenic Highway. Council CEO Rob Noble said last week that they have inspected the site and started a detailed review of the road, which includes improved pedestrian facilities and roadworks designed to slow down traffic. I echo Mr Noble's words: 'This was a terrible, terrible tragedy, and our hearts go out to the family.'
I am fighting for funding from the Turnbull government's Black Spot Program for both projects. The government has invested $500 million in this program, from 2014-15 to 2018-19, with an additional $200 million from this financial year that makes an important contribution under the National Road Safety Strategy and the National Road Safety Action Plan to reducing the national road toll. More than $2.7 million has already been delivered in my electorate since 2013, including fixing dangerous black spots at East Gosford, Green Point, Umina Beach, Gosford, Woy Woy, Narara, Kincumber, Mooney Mooney, Patonga, Avoca Beach and Somersby. I commend this motion to the House and again ask drivers to slow down and take care this holiday season.
With the arrival of the holiday season comes many family road trips and a large number of people on our nation's roads. I join the member for Boothby in urging all Australian's to drive safely and with consideration for fellow road users. Road safety and road infrastructure are significant ongoing issues in my electorate of Mayo. As many members in this chamber would know, parts of the existing road network in Mayo were significantly damaged in the storms that took place in September and October this year. Several roads were damaged—with parts of these roads being washed away completely, including Montacute Road in Chain of Ponds—making what were already hazardous roads particularly dangerous. Thankfully, repairs are underway. But the fact remains that road infrastructure funding directed towards South Australia is below par and needs to change.
While I acknowledge the government's ongoing financial contributions to the black spot program, I renew my call for equity in funding to be implemented to ensure South Australia gets its fair share. South Australia has 11.8 per cent of the nation's local road network and 7.1 per cent of the population, but currently receives less than five per cent of total federal funding towards land transport infrastructure projects. To make matters worse, in 2014 South Australia lost the supplementary local road funding that addressed this inequity. I have previously called upon the government to reinstate this supplementary funding and I am sure the member for Boothby would support me in that call.
The lack of road funding in South Australia only exacerbates the fact that Mayo contains some of the most dangerous roads in the state. Over the last four years, there has been an average of nine fatalities on roads in my electorate each year. There has been an average of 97 serious injuries from road accidents each year in the same time. This is the highest in the state. Every one of those statistics is a person who is loved and missed. Each day, as I drive from my home to my electorate, I pass at least seven black markers, many with flowers at their feet, for people who were missed and taken too soon—people whose deaths were preventable.
Anyone who has been lucky enough to drive through the beautiful Adelaide Hills would know how treacherous some of our roads can be. They are truly rural roads with blind corners, narrow lanes and many trees. We have high speed limits and at night there is limited lighting. And we have many tourists on roads, who are vulnerable users. Many of them are not even sure which side of the road to drive on. In the southern part of my electorate, the Victor Harbor Road is notoriously dangerous. The most recent statistics from 2014 outlined that there was a crash causing damage or injury on the Victor Harbor Road every week. Unfortunately, it was also the road with the third most fatalities in the state. These statistics are shocking; but, unfortunately, they are familiar. Supplementary funding is critical to upgrade and maintain this road in an effort to drastically reduce these fatalities and serious injuries. If the Victor Harbor Road was in any other state in Australia, it would by now be a dual-lane road. On behalf of my community, I will continue to advocate strongly to the federal government for this road to be upgraded.
In 2014 the federal government committed $500 million to the black spot program from 2014 to 2019. Since that time the government has delivered just over $21 million of the black spot funding to South Australia, and only $3.2 million of that funding has been spent in Mayo. There is no doubt that the funding is needed in Mayo. I will continue to push for more to be spent on the dangerous roads throughout my community.
This festive season many families will be travelling down to Victor Harbor to enjoy some much deserved time off down on our pristine southern coastline. As a top tourist destination, there will also be many families taking day trips. With the increase in traffic on the Victor Harbor Road, in particular, I plead with everyone in my community to take extra care to ensure that everyone gets home safely. Better to be late than never to arrive at all. Every year we hear about families that are torn apart during the holiday season by road fatalities, and I sincerely hope that this year we have a fatality-free period right across Australia. I wish every person in Mayo and across the country, but particularly in regional Australia, a happy and safe holiday season.
Can I echo those remarks in regard to every electorate across Australia. I hope they have a happy and safe holiday. There is not one of us in this place—or probably in our broader communities—that has not been directly or indirectly affected by motor accident trauma. In fact, we can all go back to somebody, where we have attended a funeral, where families have been devastated. When you lose a child, often the history is that the family breaks up—not because there was anything wrong with the family unit before the child was killed in the accident, but these things are pretty hard to deal with in families. In fact, it is so traumatic that it not only affects the siblings and the cousins and the friends but has long-term effects on families.
I can personally attest from my own youth. People do not notice, but my left hand is quite severely smashed to pieces. It was at 16 years of age, and it was the first operation that used microsurgery at the Box Hill Hospital, to sew my wrist back on and connect up the nerves. It is not noticed that I suffered that trauma myself and lost my best friend in the process at that time, a tragic accident that affected his family so enormously that I could not explain to you the enormity of what happened at that time. So I can identify with every family who has lost a child, even in my own close family. They lost a brilliant young doctor in Western Australia who was only hurrying home to watch Collingwood on the television, and the car slipped on some gravel—tree; end of story.
I do not know what message we can possibly send to the Australian people when the Victorian road toll is actually increasing after all we have done, after all the advertising programs, after, 'If you drink and drive, you're a bloody idiot,' and, 'Don't get on the back of the ute.' How many instances have you seen of kids on the backs of utes in country Victoria being killed. There were those four wonderful young men in South Australia going to work at three o'clock in the morning, obviously to get there by 7 o'clock in the morning to start work in the forest industry—all killed. We do not know the background to the story or what happened, but four of them were killed. It completely changes the history and lives and generations of people.
There have been 1,200 people killed across Australia this year—1,271, I think. If that were an epidemic or a sickness or something else, this parliament would be running against it. We have become immune in our heart and soul and being to what is happening in our community, because these are, in many cases, very young people—highly talented in some cases—that are a massive loss to our community, yet we say, 'There's been another road accident,' and we move on.
The other road accident recently that I heard about in my area turned out to be someone very close to me; his mum was very close to me. They just make a one-second mistake or a two-second mistake—'I didn't see it coming.' In front of me the other day, there was a brown-coloured car in front of me on the way to Phillip Island, and a silver-coloured car was doing a right-hand turn. Just as the brown-coloured car came to that silver-coloured car, the silver-coloured car turned right directly in front of the car, missing it by seconds. The silver car did not see the brown car. It saw me, but in the light of that time of night they just did not see the brown car at all, or obviously they would not have turned in front of it. We are moving at such speeds these days that your life is gone in a second with one mistake.
The last thing I bring to you is: where is the road rage coming from? I have to say to those around me: do not respond. I wish everybody, as every member in this House does, a safe Christmas on the roads, but the only person that can protect you is yourself.
I, too, rise to speak on the issue of road safety, an issue that impacts on all Australians. I was very proud to introduce the current National Road Safety Strategy 2011-2020, part of a global response to this issue. It seeks to reduce deaths and serious injuries on our roads by 30 per cent over this decade.
Unfortunately, however, as we stand up to this point we have, in the last two years, headed in the wrong direction if we look at the number of fatalities on our roads. After literally decades of improvements, for a range of reasons, we are going backwards. There are three key elements of road safety: safer roads, safer vehicles and better driver behaviour. The latest figures show that to October there have been 1,081 deaths so far in this calendar year, 6.5 per cent higher than the same period last year. These figures hide the real trauma—the trauma of all those who have families and friends. There would be not Australian who has not been affected directly in losing a loved one or a friend on our roads. Every death is one too many.
We do need to address safer roads. Major investments in roads such as the Pacific Highway and the Bruce Highway were a part of that. That funding needs to be accelerated, not slowed down as has occurred over the last two financial years. The motion refers to a range of programs for the government. The problem here is that a range of those programs have seen underinvestment compared with what the 2014 budget promise was. The Black Spot Program, for example, in its first two completed years—2014-15 and 2015-16—had an underspend of $34 million, so 55 per cent of the budgeted amount was not spent. The Bridges Renewal program had a $25 million underspend—40 per cent of the budget not invested. Most disappointingly, the Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Program, one that I was proud to introduce—basically, truckies' rest stops—had $27 million not spent, or 70 per cent of the budget not invested.
I was concerned last year with the government's abolition of the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal. We know that fatality rates for accidents involving heavy vehicles are about 12 times the national average, and there are about 200 lives lost annually—not just heavy vehicle drivers but, more often than not, people in passenger vehicles impacted with heavy vehicles. We need to address it. The government abolished the tribunal but did not replace it with anything.
Also, the second part of our campaign needs to be safer vehicles. Data shows that the percentage of new light vehicles sold with a five-star ANCAP rating has increased from 56 per cent to 86 per cent since 2010. That is a good thing. New technology, including smart vehicles and telematics, should also provide opportunities for increasing safety to all road users and pedestrians.
The third part of the strategy is targeting driver behaviour. The strategy measures both responsible and irresponsible driver behaviour patterns, including age, type of vehicle, lack of restraint, consumption of alcohol or not holding a licence. The segmentation shows considerable difference in results between 2010 and 2014. Federal support for programs like keys2drive, which is administrated by AAA, are very important. It is a free lesson for learner drivers at a cost of $4 million per annum, but also, importantly, a lesson for those people who are training those young people—for the parents and the friends who are doing that—and making sure that good lessons are passed on.
Safer roads, safer vehicles and better driver behaviour—all three need to be supported by all sides of this parliament if we are going to truly address these rising figures and turn it back to where it should be, which is reducing the number of fatalities on our roads. (Time expired)
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 House:
(1) notes that in 2012, following a comprehensive and rigorous process, the then Labor Government declared 40 marine parks in Commonwealth waters, creating the world's first and largest comprehensive national network of marine parks;
(2) notes with concern that there is increasing pressure on Australia's marine environment, as indicated by frequent and severe bleaching of coral reefs across Australia's northern waters, extensive and unprecedented dieback of mangroves, and the loss of large areas of kelp forests in southern Australian waters;
(3) notes that Australia's marine environment is the most biologically diverse in the world according to the 2010 Census of Marine Life, with our oceans spanning tropical, temperate and sub-Antarctic waters, and where at least 33,000 marine species have been identified (many of which are found nowhere else on earth);
(4) notes that Australia is a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and as such is required to both conserve as well as sustainably utilise its Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ);
(5) notes the economic opportunity that marine parks bring regional communities as evidenced by long standing marine parks in Australia, including the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park which is worth over $6 billion to the Queensland economy, and others including Ningaloo Marine Park, the Great Australian Bight, Lord Howe Island, Solitary Islands Marine Park and Maria Island National Park;
(6) notes the clear evidence that marine parks play an important economic role in accelerating the recovery of depleted fisheries, and that the long term net effect on fisheries of increased resilience and sustainability from highly protected marine reserves is positive;
(7) notes that in the 1990s the then Coalition Government put in place a systematic approach for declaring a comprehensive, adequate, and representative network of marine parks in Australia's EEZ, and proceeded to declare 22 marine parks in Commonwealth waters;
(8) notes with concern that:
(a) in December 2013 the incoming Coalition Government suspended Labor's marine parks from operation by re-declaring the parks in order to set aside their management arrangements and commencement date, pending the conduct of a politically motivated and unnecessary review; and
(b) after almost 3 years, these 40 marine parks have not been implemented, existing in statute only—leaving 5 of Australia's 6 marine regions with little to no protection at a time when the threats to Australia's valuable and important marine environment are increasing;
(9) notes that in the May 2016 budget the Coalition Government committed to completing the re-development of the management plans for the new parks within 12 months;
(10) notes that in the recent consultation by Parks Australia, over 50,000 submissions were received from around Australia, including from more than 5,000 recreational fishers, calling for the reinstatement of the marine parks and their high level marine national park zoning, without further delay or loss of protection;
(11) notes that the Expert Science Panel of the Coalition Government's own review recognises both the extensive science that went into the development of the marine parks developed by the Labor Government and the scientifically proven benefits of marine national parks;
(12) notes the Bioregional Advisory Panel of the Coalition Government's own review recognised the extensive consultation that has occurred in developing the marine reserves developed by the Labor Government, stating that there was in fact a considerable amount of 'consultation fatigue' expressed by many stakeholders;
(13) notes the increasing move by other countries to put in place large and highly protected marine parks in their EEZs, including action taken by the United States, Palau, Chile, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and, most recently, the declaration in October 2016 by 24 nations, including Australia, of the Ross Sea marine park in the Antarctic high seas; and
(14) calls on the Coalition Government to bring the Commonwealth network of marine parks that were declared in 2012 into operation without further delay, and with no loss of marine national park protection.
We have been on the brink of introducing the first national network of marine protection since the Labor government completed a careful and widely consultative process in 2013. The reason for finally establishing a system of strong and comprehensive national marine protection could not be clearer or more compelling. Across the globe and here in Australia, oceans have already suffered significant damage and marine life is under threat. We have seen very significant loss of species. We know that fragile marine ecosystems like the Great Barrier Reef are being degraded by the impact of human activity. Around the world, we have witnessed catastrophic environmental disasters in the form of oil spills and we have marked the savage depletion of fishing stocks.
If we keep going along this path without change, without radical improvement to marine protection and conservation, the social, economic and environmental harm will be profound and, in some cases, irreversible. Everyone will lose. Our oceans and the marine life with which we share this planet and on which we depend will be subject to ever steepening pressure, harm and degradation if we do not act, and act decisively. That is a proposition we have understood and accepted for some time. That is the shining imperative behind the Save Our Marine Life campaign.
Since 2013, the Abbott-Turnbull government has stalled progress on reform in favour of a questionable review process which has resulted in two work products, the expert scientific panel report and the bioregional advisory panel report. The expert review has comprehensively endorsed the process that created the network proclaimed by the Labor government. It has endorsed the science, the economics and the consultation. It confirms the value of marine park national park zones, which offer the highest value protection, within a framework of varying representative protected areas. But the report of the bioregional advisory panel has proposed some changes that defy the science and will substantially weaken marine protection in key regions.
In my part of the world, this would mean moving the sanctuary away from the head of the incredible Perth Canyon, where the nutrient upwelling is strongest. This is a feeding ground for the endangered blue whale, and it is the main biodiversity hotspot between Ningaloo Reef and Kangaroo Island. The review also proposes removing inshore sanctuary protection at Bremer Bay, a zone of importance for endangered Australian sea lions and one of only three calving sites for southern right whales. This wind-back is to accommodate the expansion of a trawling operation that ABARES has estimated is worth a grand total of $4,700 per annum. As the Ocean Science Council of Australia has said, the 'overall emphasis of the review' appears to have largely focused on modifying the zoning by 'eroding the critically important zones of high protection to zones of lesser protection', but without any scientific basis and, according to ABARES, minimal economic benefit.
Reform is not easy, and the last thing we need is to start undermining or walking back the vital pieces of this network. I represent a fishing community. I marched through the streets of Fremantle a few weeks ago as part of the 68th annual blessing of the fleet. I have close friends whose families depend on fishing, and I also know how important diving, surfing, sailing and tourism are to the local and wider Western Australian economy. Freo people, like people right around this island nation, feel connected to and responsible for the sea. As Tim Winton has said, it is part of their birthright.
On this issue, all our social, cultural and economic interests are aligned. So let us not go about creating false divisions on this issue. Let us not pretend that a person who fishes for their livelihood, for their table or for fun is somehow different from a person who loves the sea, who wants to protect biodiversity and ensure that future generations live in harmony with the ocean and all its life. They are the same person. They could just as well live in Albany, Hobart, Darwin or Maroubra as in Spearwood or North Fremantle.
Shaping and implementing this network of marine protection is not a contest; it is a shared endeavour. Through painstaking consultation, evidence and scientific expertise, the Labor government secured a network that reaches around this continent and represents at last a basis on which we can live in harmony with the great blue lifeblood that surrounds us. It is open for the Turnbull government to deliver on that reform and to share in that legacy achievement, but it requires them to show some steel. The bioregional advisory panel report makes recommendations that rip and tear at the fabric of a network that must be allowed to operate as a whole; that is what the science tells us. And it will be a howling failure if, by ignorance of the science or by some calculation of narrow political benefit, this government caves in and carves back carefully chosen and scientifically formulated marine protection. Reform is not easy. This reform has been hard won. Let's seize the opportunity to look after our oceans while we still have the chance.
Is the motion seconded?
I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
I thank the member for Fremantle for raising his 14 points, but I point out that they are nothing but an effort to hijack the outcomes and recommendations of the recently completed Commonwealth Marine Reserves Review as an achievement of the previous Labor government. I would like to point out that this current government is proud of its record, which builds on the achievements of the Howard government, in extending the protection of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park and creating the world's first network of representative marine protected areas in the southeast.
Speaking specifically of my electorate of O'Connor, I am extremely proud to see the outcomes of the recent review process which will see more targeted and greater protection of marine parks along the entire southern coastline of Western Australia. I would like to refer specifically to the Bremer Commonwealth Marine Reserve, which, under the previous government, offered marine national park zone protection status only to a small portion, that being the inshore leg of a vast marine reserve extending to depths of greater than 1,000 metres. With due respect to the member for Fremantle's claim that the 2012 declarations followed a comprehensive and rigorous process, I query how then have the bioregional panel and scientific expert panel both reached the conclusion that the protection should be expanded by some 70 per cent, giving greater protection to an extra 3,000 square kilometres of the Bremer Commonwealth Marine Reserve.
I also refer to the same Labor declaration that relocated another marine park in my electorate some 70 kilometres to the east and, on the basis of their 'comprehensive and rigorous process', placed parts of the new reserve over nothing but sand. In fact, the consultations leading to the 2012 declarations appear to be anything but comprehensive and rigorous, with some key stakeholders completely omitted from the process. I have documentation from one key stakeholder stating that, when the draft marine park boundaries were announced in 2011, they did not affect their fishing enterprise, so they relaxed and got on with business as usual, fishing sustainably off the south coast of my electorate. However, in July 2012, the boundaries were changed, new maps were released and this key stakeholder, the only fishing enterprise in this newly impacted area, had not been involved in any consultations, nor were they advised of the process. They related to me:
We were never contacted by the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities.
They asserted:
… the consultations were rushed ... It was like a rubber-stamping exercise.
This is a truly modern fishing enterprise, one that fishes sustainably and provides valuable data to both the state Department of Fisheries and the Western Australian Museum. In fact, when questioned by Senator Richard Colbeck at Senate estimates in 2013, SEWPaC representative Stephen Oxley acknowledged the department:
… did not have the capacity to go, and identify and make communication with every individual fisher.
SEWPaC also admitted they had done very little research on the marine environment to the southwest corner of Western Australia. The recent Commonwealth marine review independent bioregional panel, on the other hand, did consult extensively with stakeholders to arrive at the management plans that would support the biodiversity values of the area better than those previously gazetted in 2012 and better support fish stocks into the future. I am proud to have conducted my own extensive consultations within my electorate of O'Connor and have fed back the views of my communities, stakeholders and conservation interests to the federal government. My outcomes concur largely with those reached by the independent investigations of the bioregional advisory panel and the expert scientific panel.
I note that the member for Fremantle acknowledged the economic value of marine based tourism but pointedly avoided mentioning the fantastic outcomes that this Commonwealth marine review process will have for the Bremer area of my electorate. This is possibly because it does not fit with rhetoric peddled by the Labor Party and organisations like GetUp! who refuse to acknowledge that the coalition government is committed not only to reviewing the science around previous declarations but to responding, as it has done in the instance of the Bremer Commonwealth Marine Reserve, to the recommendations and actually increasing the protection of this marine reserve by over 70 per cent compared to the previous government's recommendations.
The Commonwealth Marine Reserves Review recommendations have also taken that unprecedented step of locking out all possible oil and gas exploration. On top of this, Ministers Hunt and Frydenberg have committed an additional $100,000 to exploring the recommendations made by the bioregional advisory panel to consider expanding the protections to the west of the marine park.
In closing, I dispel the myth proposed by the member for Fremantle that the current Commonwealth Marine Reserves Review recommendations only underpin the findings of the previous government and note that the process towards these enhanced protections, based on thorough stakeholder consultation and sound science, is on track for completion by mid-2017.
I am pleased to support this motion. I thank the member for Fremantle for raising a very important issue. Australia's marine network is under unprecedented pressure, particularly around the Great Barrier Reef, with unprecedented levels of coral bleaching which is going to, if it is not abated, affect the domestic tourism industry and so many industries that rely on the health of the reef for people to make a living. There is little doubt that Australia is blessed with some of the world's most beautiful ocean environments. Whether it is summer trips to the beach with the family or our fierce protection of our ocean wildlife, Australians place extraordinary value on all things connected with the ocean. Given our strong feelings, Australians expect a high standard from their governments when it comes to management and conservation of those marine assets.
The Labor Party has an exceptional record of protecting Australia's ocean environment. The Whitlam government established the nation's first marine reserve to protect the Great Barrier Reef; Bob Hawke and Michel Rocard worked together to turn the Antarctic into the world's largest conservation area; and the last Labor government established Australia's marine park network, the largest network of marine protected areas anywhere in the world. In developing these marine reserves, Labor spent four years establishing the science, conducting more than 250 public consultations and receiving more than 750,000 submissions from Australians regarding ocean conservation. It puts to shame the claims made by the previous speaker that Labor did not consult when it established these marine reserves—750,000 submissions speak for themselves.
As noted in the motion, according to the 2010 Census of Marine Life, Australia's marine environment is the most biologically diverse in the world, with our oceans spanning tropical, temperate and sub-Antarctic waters where at least 33,000 marine species have been identified. It is also important to note that Australia is a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and is required to conserve as well as sustainably utilise its exclusive economic zone.
In our marine environment, we have much to be proud of, and it is a source of pride that warrants proper protection. Unfortunately, this Liberal coalition government has set aside the management plans for the Commonwealth marine parks so that it could conduct a review—a review that, as I mentioned, the Labor Party already conducted when we were in government. And now, after almost three years, the 40 marine parks have not been implemented, leaving five of Australia's six marine regions with little or no protection despite the fact that the government made a promise to implement those marine reserves within 12 months.
Also noted in this very thorough motion is that, in recent consultation by Parks Australia, over 50,000 submissions were received from around Australia calling for the reinstatement of the marine parks and their high-level marine national park zoning without further delay or loss of protection. I have had numerous representations from constituents in my electorate. I have received visits here in Canberra from people who are concerned about the fact that this government is stalling and delaying the ultimate declaration of these important marine reserves The government has turned its back on a great number of Australians that are in support of protecting our marine environment and its biodiversity.
Labor understands the importance of protecting our environment, particularly our marine parks, for current and future generations as well as supporting sustainable, well managed industries. Only Labor has proven that it can deliver both. With these goals in mind, I add my voice to this motion and the call for the Turnbull coalition government to bring the Commonwealth network of marine parks that were declared in 2012 into operation without further delay and with no loss of marine national protection.
Sitting suspended from 13:30 to 16:00
On Friday perfect weather and a strong field added up to a record crowd for the Wodonga Gold Cup. About 7,000 people turned up for the cup, the third cup staged by the Wodonga and District Turf Club since the public holiday was moved to accommodate Wodonga's premier race. Congratulations to Racing Wodonga's general manager, Tom O'Connor, and his committee Kevin Richardson, Terry Doolan, Colin Hayes, Paul Curtis, Trevor Cutler, Brian Flanagan, Terry Maher, Reg Ryan and Mark Bowen on a day that was a huge success. Congratulations also to Racing Wodonga's staff, stewards and race day officials, as well as all the sponsors who made it such a wonderful day. There was a huge crowd. They were beautifully dressed and well behaved. It was a credit to everybody involved.
I would also like to congratulate the connections of Michael Maroney for training the gelding Loyalty Man, who was first past the post, and Ben Hollands and Dutch media, from Wodonga, for their excellent promotion of the cup. Country racing continues to be important in the north-east, where it is worth over $40 million to the economy and creates more than 350 jobs.
Racing Wodonga has developed its business plan for the precinct, the master plan, and I am really looking forward to working with the turf club to get the funds that they need to make Wodonga an absolute centre of excellence and functions for all around north-eastern Victoria. Congratulations to everybody for a great job and a terrific day.
I was unable to speak on the private member's bill in the House this morning due to some competing commitments, but I want to put on record my support for World AIDS Day, which is on 1 December. This important day provides an opportunity to raise awareness for those who are suffering from this disease as well as those who tragically have lost their lives to it in the decades since the disease emerged both here in Australia and around the world. World AIDS Day is a time for considering on one hand the significant achievement in tackling the HIV epidemic around the world through unprecedented global efforts, through education and awareness and through improvements in prevention and, especially, treatment.
At the same time, we must take stock of the challenges that still confront us. Of course, HIV still exists in Australia, with about 1,000 new diagnoses a year still being made on average. Obviously, there is not yet a cure or a vaccine. Despite many promising breakthroughs in both treatment and prevention, tens of thousands of Australians still have to manage their chronic conditions on a day-to-day basis. And behind such statistics are individual people, human lives and personal stories. It is worth noting in particular the challenges facing some of our neighbours in the Asia-Pacific region. We must keep up the fight and we must do more. I want to pay tribute to the Queensland AIDS Council and all the local community groups, health groups and practitioners in Brisbane and around Australia whose efforts continue to do so much.
The New South Wales Liberals have today been shamed into listening to the needs of my community following the announcement of the Nepean Hospital upgrade, which comes after years of neglect, inaction and excuses. In his own words, the New South Wales Premier today said this has been a long-fought campaign. Well, I can assure him it has—but not by those on his own team. Our community has been demanding this upgrade for years. In that time, we have seen the human cost of the Liberal Party's indifference to health and hospitals in Western Sydney. I had been personally fighting for this hospital well before I was elected to the parliament; and, since being elected, I have used every single opportunity to call on Malcolm Turnbull and Mike Baird to act. They have short-sheeted this hospital for many, many years. I am glad, though, that today they have finally listened—but only after far too many sick and injured people have been let down by a government that is preoccupied with greyhounds and forced local government mergers. Sadly, this announcement is based on their political survival and not on the overdue needs of the people of my community—and our doctors say it is only 40 per cent of what is actually needed.
While the announcement today made reference to capital upgrades, real concerns around the recurrent funding remain. According to projections in the 2014 budget, Nepean Hospital could be stripped of up to $467.3 million. I call on the government to now announce the recurrent funding to provide us with the doctors and nursing staff, keep the beds open and also commit to not privatising this hospital as Mike Baird has planned to do with so many other hospitals in New South Wales.
Eight years ago, when I was elected to the Warringah council, I was approached by Rod and Liz Macqueen with the extraordinary vision of turning a vacant block on Collaroy Beach into a world-renowned resort for people living with spinal injury. Thanks to the tireless efforts of so many people in the Collaroy Basin, including Rod and Liz Macqueen, David Hurley, Wendy Harmer, Alan Jones and Greg Pearce, who enabled the Lifetime Care & Support Authority to purchase the lands, this Friday, with my good friend the Premier of New South Wales, Mike Baird, I will be honoured to open Sargood on Collaroy.
In Australia, one person a day sustains a spinal cord injury. Most are young men aged between 15 and 24. The Sargood Foundation gives them an alternative to what can become a bleak reality. It helps people with spinal injuries to get back into the workforce and back into their communities and gives them a chance to socialise with other people. It gives them a life. It gives them confidence. It gives them hope.
By providing training in vocational skills, health and education, Sargood on Collaroy will be a place for people living with a spinal injury to rest, recuperate and learn using the best insights and technologies we have available. This place of healing is a true reflection of an entire community's passion and dedication. From local residents, health-care providers, clubs and businesses to all three tiers of government, everyone has got involved.
Techfugees is a global movement brought to Australia through a joint effort of many exceptionally energetic and proud local start-up community advocates, including Annie Parker, Nicole Williamson and Anne-Marie Elias. Techfugees brings people together to develop creative tech solutions to help refugees settle and build productive lives in their new community.
In early November, they held a hackathon at the Information and Cultural Exchange, in Parramatta, partnering with Settlement Services International, to come up with solutions to problems confronting young refugees. Almost a hundred people attended the event and heard five young refugees—Sarah, Arash, Sayed, Sarah and Dor—tell their stories and experiences of coming to Australia. As discussions rolled out, many themes emerged around language, employment, education and inclusion, and at the end of the event eight solutions were pitched up for support.
Many of the solutions developed at previous events are now operating as tech start-ups in their own right. Take the example of Nirary Dacho and Anna Robson, who met at the 2015 hackathon. They joined together to solve the problems of refugees struggling to get their first local work experience in their new country despite often being skilled workers. Their solution, Refugee Talent, is now a digital platform connecting skilled refugees with companies offering short- and long-term job opportunities. Some of their clients include the Australian tax office, Deloitte and the ABC.
Techfugees will be held next in April 2017 in Melbourne, and I encourage people to get involved in this fantastic initiative.
Earlier today I spoke about the importance of road safety, especially during the summer, school and Christmas holiday period. But the fact is that road safety and being a responsible road user are of critical importance every single day. I know this all too well in my electorate of Boothby due to the tragic death of Mrs Nicole Tucker on 6 October this year.
Mrs Tucker was a dedicated mother. She was driving home after dropping off her 16-year-old daughter when a stolen ute travelling at 160 kilometres per hour crashed into her car. I pay tribute to Mrs Tucker, her husband and two children and her family and friends, who have bravely said that they will remember her as the outgoing, bubbly and caring person that she was. Mrs Tucker was described as an extremely caring mother who put everyone else first and herself a long way second. Our thoughts and prayers are with her family and friends, particularly over the Christmas period.
Mrs Tucker's life was senselessly and tragically cut short by a criminal. Sadly, the circumstances surrounding this tragedy are not unique. I commend The Advertiser,The Advertisercolumnist Mr David Penberthy and his colleague Mr Will Goodings, who on radio station FIVEaa are campaigning to have state laws governing instances of reckless, lawless misconduct on the road strengthened for the safety of our community. We must ensure the safety of our community.
Four of our region's finest rugby sevens talent will kit up for New South Wales and take on the best in the nation. Perth will host the 2016 National Youth Sevens Championships, with the event to be held at the University of Western Australia between 10 and 11 December. Yool Yool and Hunter Ward, who both play for St Stanislaus College and also Orange city rugby union, are two of four country players selected in the 12-man squad. All Saints' College student Jakiya Whitfield and MacKillop College's Teagan Miller are two out of three country players chosen to represent their state for the youth girls squad. New South Wales will be seeking to defend both boys and girls titles it won in March this year, and the Bathurst players are confident of being able to do just that, with state pride being a huge motivator for these very talented touch football players.
The tournament is also an opportunity for Australian selectors to scout out potential prospects for the national side. The four students have dedicated a huge amount of time in training for this tournament, and just being selected for the team is a great honour. This House congratulates these four outstanding sportspeople from the central west, and we will all be cheering them on in Perth next month.
A few weeks ago I had the wonderful opportunity to join with a number of men—and they were mainly men—in the Little Wars Convention that was held out at Lanyon in my electorate. The Little Wars Convention celebrates all things war gaming. It is one of those things where you get the invitation and you think, 'Gosh, how interesting will this be?' But when you go to the event, it is quite extraordinary the amount of effort and time and history that goes into setting up these war games and then actually playing them out. The war games that were featured this weekend were the Punic Wars right through to the Napoleonic Wars as well as World War I and World War II. They also had wars that were taking place in space as well as wars that were taking place in environments that are unknown, so it was a completely abstract concept.
The work that goes into their little figures and villages is just extraordinary. Hours and hours and hours of labour went into little elephants, into little palm trees, into little houses and villages. It is quite extraordinary. I want to congratulate and thank the organisers, particularly Leigh Crutchley and Ian Haidon for including me again this year. It was a great pleasure to see you all again. They went into great detail to explain to me what was actually happening. Thank you again for including me, and thank you again for donating all proceeds to Soldier On.
As Christmas Day approaches, I acknowledge a team of very dedicated volunteers who organise and conduct the Joondalup Christmas lunch in Central Park. The event is open to local residents who have nowhere to go on Christmas Day, have no family nearby, are lonely, experiencing hardship or are otherwise isolated on Christmas Day. On behalf of the parliament, I recognise the outstanding contributions by long-serving chairman, Steve Haskayne, as well as Tracey Haskayne, Jeff and Margaret Fullelove, Barry Sampson, Sue Blackney, Lesley DeGrussa, Ken Wallis, May Murphy, Kim Gallyer, Kylie Sampson, Pauline Sookoll and Jan Gilbert, and their team of volunteers from local churches.
The number of people attending has grown from 250 at the inaugural event in 2008 to 500 guests this year sitting down to a Christmas lunch served buffet style in a decorated outdoor setting, with entertainment, music and activities to provide festive cheer. I have sponsored the event for five years now, and have met a range of people, including senior citizens living on their own, single-parent families and international students living away from their families. The Joondalup Christmas lunch unites our local community by promoting social inclusion. Let us continue this tradition.
Yesterday marked the 75th anniversary of the sinking of the HMAS Parramatta II. The Parramatta II was built at the Cockatoo Island dockyards. It was 81 metres long and 11 metres wide—not much bigger than the Manly ferry. In 1941, Parramatta II's main mission was known as the 'Tobruk ferry run'. It would accompany other ships that were bringing supplies in and taking wounded men out of Tobruk. These operations occurred at night in an attempt to avoid the German ships patrolling the area. On 27 November 1941, on a very dark night, the Parramatta II was escorting a crucial ammunition ship on its way to resupply the garrison at Tobruk. At around 1 am, there was a bright flash of lightning. A German submarine caught sight of both the ammunition ship and the Parramatta II and fired two torpedoes aimed at the sinking of the ammunition ship. It hit the Parramatta II, which sunk just three minutes later. Of the 161 men on board, 137 lost their lives that night. The supplies made it to the besieged Rats of Tobruk.
Harold Moss, the final survivor of the sinking of HMAS Parramatta II, passed away in 2011. Russell Jardine, Bruce Richens and many other dedicated members of the Parramatta subsection of the Naval Association of Australia continue to hold an annual memorial, and I have been privileged to attend many of those over the years. The memorial site for HMAS Parramatta II is in a shady green patch on the banks of the Parramatta River. Yesterday the community gathered to commemorate the lives lost in service to their country.
This morning we saw once again Labor's transactional petty approach to policymaking. Reform of the backpacker tax has been long awaited by the fruitgrowers of Canning. The opposition has tried to slow its passage through the House, has shunted it off to a committee and has hobbled it in the Senate. Even now the government extended an olive branch, a compromise, so that we can get this bill passed for the sake of Australian producers, hospitality and the tourism industry. But Labor is not interested in backing these Australians. Labor would prefer to play politics to see the government bleed. Meanwhile, the Canning fruit growers of Roleystone, Karragullen and Pickering Brook continue to live with uncertainty as they lead into the new year.
The hypocrisy and incoherence is astounding. The opposition spokesman for agriculture held a press conference this morning, sticking by Labor's massive tax cut for workers, at the same time the opposition leader railed in the House about protecting Australian jobs. So which is it: Australians or foreign workers? You need to make up your minds. The opposition has said that we cannot afford a company tax cut for wealth-producing, job-creating, small to medium businesses; yet we can afford a tax cut for foreign workers. One Nation, the Nick Xenophon Team and Derryn Hinch have come together with the government to craft a compromise that satisfies all parties, setting the tax rate at 15 per cent. I suggest the opposition look to their example in future negotiations with the government.
Over the weekend I had the opportunity to witness some amazing New South Wales public schools participating in the Schools Spectacular—an opportunity for talented primary and secondary students to showcase their talents in creative arts. This is an event that brings kids from all over New South Wales together to perform. I would like to mention those in my electorate of Lindsay who were able to perform as a result of their own talents being nurtured through New South Wales public schools, their parents and, importantly, their teachers who support them and coach them. Showcasing their ability in this way builds self-esteem, confidence and resilience in young people.
I am pleased that there were kids from Kingswood High School, St Marys Senior High School, Cambridge Park High School and Glenmore Park High School, along with Nepean Creative and Performing Arts High School, Samuel Terry Public School and Cambridge Park Public School. In particular I would like to mention Brooke Paulley and Elyse Sene-Lefao who were the local vocal featured artists and performed two solos in that show. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate them for their hard work. I would also like to acknowledge Telstra, University of Western Sydney, Teachers Mutual Bank, Seven Network and AEG Ogden for their support, and without whom it would not be possible to have such an event. I would like to again take the opportunity to remind the government of the importance of funding Gonski and school education so events like this and kids like these can be nurtured to their full potential and given opportunities such as these.
Today, on the forecourt of Parliament House, it was my great pleasure to join with my fellow parliamentarians, including the Prime Minister and opposition leader, to link arms with the Rirratjingu people from Arnhem Land. Our joint commitment, our determination, our pledge and our plea was: 'No More'—no more family and domestic violence in Indigenous communities.' Founded by Indigenous leader Charlie King, the No More campaign is being led by elders in communities, empowering Indigenous men to recognise this is an issue for which they must be responsible. Nationally, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women are 34 times more likely to be hospitalised for family violence. In the Northern Territory, the statistics are worse.
The scourge of domestic violence affects all cultures, demographics and communities. That is why combating family violence is a national priority for the Turnbull government. Last month our government outlined a $100 million commitment, including $25 million to fund Indigenous specific initiatives under the Third Action Plan of the National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children
I commend Charlie King and other Indigenous leaders, such as Marcia Langton and Josephine Cashman. For more information on the No More campaign, people can look at nomore.org.au, an incredibly important initiative for our nation.
I rise to speak on behalf of the Blackfriars Parish in Watson, who have organised this petition to advocate on behalf of the family that they have come to accept as important contributors to their community. It is one of the strengths of our system of representative democracy that private citizens can petition a minister directly when they disagree with the result of a ministerial decision. The organisers of this petition describe a humble and hardworking family that are making a valuable contribution to the disability support sector in our city.
I pay my respects to the Blackfriars parishioners and to the many members of the broader community who have joined their cause on behalf of the Ingram family. I acknowledge the value of this earnest and spontaneous expression of the community's shared values. On behalf of Jacquie Cortese, Carmel Lewis, Lucy Esau and others who have written to me about the Ingram family, and on behalf of all the signatories to this petition, I seek leave to table this document petitioning the House of Representatives regarding permanent residency for Mr Clive Ingram and Family, which was found to be in order by the petitions committee.
The petition read as follows—
Document was not available at the time of publication.
Petition received.
Maclean resident Tom Hancock has shown that age is no barrier in athletics. At 80 years of age, he has just won seven medals at the World Masters Athletic Championships in Perth. In the process of winning the seven medals, he broke four world records. He broke the world records in the high jump, discus, shot-put and throw pentathlon. Tom puts his success down to his long love of body conditioning. He started strength and conditioning routines at the age of 15 and has been doing athletics for 60 years. Congratulations to Tom. He is a fantastic inspiration to our junior athletes.
Every year in Shenzhen, China, there is a sailing regatta known as the China Cup. In October this year, the cup was again contested with a fleet of 38 boats representing 25 countries from all over the world. What makes this special this year is that three sailors from Yamba were onboard the winning vessel, Wanhang Longcheer, in the Beneteau. Scott Hinton, Kieran Searle, and Joey O'Keefe were part of the 10-man crew that took out the event for the second year in a row. I congratulate them on their success and wish them all the best in the future.
I rise to thank Kellie Northwood, Colin Ormsby and Carol Sarasa from the Keep Me Posted campaign for visiting my electorate recently to talk to residents and community groups about the impact of the push for people to conduct their affairs digitally—that is, online, not just using their fingers. More and more businesses are imposing fees and restricting access to paper bills and statements, denying their customers an informed and appropriate choice.
Those who attended the forum in Yeronga were worried about the widespread increase of the pay-to-pay practice of charging customers more to receive their bills by mail rather than electronically. An Australian household receives an average of seven to eight invoices per month. With an average cost of two dollars per bill, this adds up to nearly $180 a year. We heard from Kellie Griffiths, manager for St David's Neighbourhood Centre in Coopers Plain, that everyday the staff and volunteers at St David's come into contact with those who struggle to meet the pressures of day-to-day life.
Kelly talked about the concerns some of her clients expressed in this push for online billing. Many said they knew of older people who do not have computers or, if they did have a computer, did not know how to use it properly or were fearful about using the internet. Many mentioned the distrust in giving out their email addresses or losing their independence in having to rely on family members to help them work this stuff out. Kelly also talked about the length of time and the frustration experienced by centre staff trying to organise electronic billing from a local electricity company and wondered about the difficulty that those from non-English speaking backgrounds would experience in trying to navigate and understand difficult systems.
I rise to thank everyone who came to the Margate Festival on the weekend in Margate on the Redcliffe peninsula. There were some heavy showers in the Moreton Bay region in Brisbane on Saturday morning—I was up at about 5 am, running around in my dressing gown, trying to stop some localised flooding!—and I thought the event may be rained out, but it was a very successful event. By one o'clock, all the showers had cleared and there were many local people who came down.
I thank the local people for coming down. I thank everyone who performed on stage at the Margate Festival. I was talking to a very talented young woman, Amy Dooley, who is 15 and who is from Steps Dance Centre. She performed on stage along with everyone from Steps Dance Centre. The Redcliffe City Choir was very good and performed well. There were many sponsors of the Margate Festival including Nick Tzimas from the Golden Ox, Lynn Mather from FMG Hair Salon, Roslyn Page from Silhouette Hair Design and Robert Bakker from RB Lawyers. He is also involved with CIRP, Commerce and Industry Redcliffe Peninsula.
There were three levels of government involved with sponsoring, not just me but also the state member of parliament and the local councillor Koliana Winchester. We all had the opportunity to light the Margate Christmas tree. Thank you everyone. Make sure this Christmas you shop locally. Margate is a great place to live, work and shop.
Wednesday, 15 November was a very special day for my region, with the opening of the $65 million Albury Wodonga Regional Cancer Centre. It was the culmination of a community campaign that began in August 2010 when 1,400 people, clad in yellow ponchos and united in the shape of a heart, gathered on the banks of the Murray River in Wodonga to seek funding for a cancer treatment centre on the border. On Wednesday, high-profile cancer centre campaigner Eric Turner took centre stage, and we were so proud to acknowledge his work. I acknowledge also the work of Jenny Black, the founder of the border cancer support network, and Brave Hearts on the Murray. I acknowledge the work of Dr Craig Underhill, Director of Oncology at Albury Wodonga Health, who first highlighted evidence of a growing gap in cancer survival rates between rural and metropolitan areas. He really played a leading role in getting the centre established. To Lou Lieberman, chair of the board, and all the staff of Albury Wodonga Health: we know how hard and how long you have worked, particularly to balance the idea of a regional cross-border centre, including New South Wales Victoria and the Commonwealth, and make it work. Congratulations and enormous appreciation go to the volunteers. The centre at Albury-Wodonga Health is operated with a public-private partnership with Ramsay health and Genesis Care. Thank you everybody. I really appreciate your work.
Rotary clubs service in many valuable ways. The reward of paying it forward unites men and women of different backgrounds, cultures, religious and political beliefs the world over, allowing ordinary people to do extraordinary things. I can report today that Rotary certainly is paying it forward in my electorate of Bennelong. Last week I had the privilege of attending the primary school leadership awards hosted by the Rotary clubs of Eastwood and Gladesville. Meeting the students, their proud parents and the teachers was inspiring. In an age when young people often seem to be vilified, learning about these students' achievements in leadership was most heartening.
I especially congratulate Jasmine Cochrane for being the year 7 guest speaker. Her advice to those primary school students who were about to advance was absolutely inspiring. Well done to Harrison Bowen, Tamsin Slender, Ray Chen, Emily Clugston, Hannah Lee, Ria Kapoor, Melanie Carlson, Lars Van Uden, Jenevieve Liem, Marcus Della Vedova, Samuel Meguerditchian, Rachel Manley, David Jiang, Tahnee Sparks, Isabella Whabe, Emerick Agahari, Clare Doherty, Owen Eymael, Ryan Dale, Charlotte Anderson, Andrew Tutos, Isabella McGarry, Jack Baker and Olivia Hester. Good luck to all of you as you step up to high school next year. Thank you, Narelle Barker and your fellow Rotarians.
When I ran for Labor Party preselection in 2010, two of the first people whose support I sought out were John and Kathy Bonnett. I remember the conversation in their lounge room. It was gentle and generous and focused on the big issues: the values the Labor Party stood for and whether or not I really believed that music had an important role in the good life. When I left their lounge room, it was with the support of John and Kathy, and without that, I might not be standing here today.
John was born in England and, after migrating to Australia, he served in the Royal Australian Engineers and the Royal Australian Corps of Transport, reaching the rank of Lieutenant Colonel. He was a true believer and a great friend to many in the Labor Party and served as president of the Gungahlin subbranch in the years shortly after its establishment.
Sadly, John lost his battle with cancer on 18 November, dying age 81. He leaves behind his widow, Kathy, and his children and children-in-law, Kevin and Catherine, Jonathan and Kate. He was the proud grandpa of Tatum, the brother of Christine and Linda. He was loved by his extended families in the United States and the United Kingdom. In the immortal words of Emily Dickinson:
Let no Sunrise' yellow noise
Interrupt this Ground
Vale, John Bonnett.
With the death of Fidel Castro, it is tempting to follow the old custom of never speaking ill of the dead. However, I agree with the comments of Professor Carlos Erie, who has written:
If this were a just world, these facts should be etched on Castro's tombstone;
He turned Cuba into a colony of the Soviet Union and nearly caused a nuclear holocaust.
He sponsored terrorism wherever he could and allied himself with many of the worst dictators throughout the world.
He was responsible for so many thousands of executions and disappearances in Cuba but a precise number is hard to reckon.
He condoned and encouraged torture and extrajudicial killings.
He forced nearly 20 per cent of his own people into exile, and prompted many thousands to meet their deaths at sea.
He claimed all property for himself and his henchmen, strangled food production and impoverished the vast majority of his people.
He outlawed private enterprise and wiped out Cuba's large middle class and turned Cubans into slaves of the state.
He persecuted gay people and tried to eradicate religion.
He censored all means of expression and communication.
He establish a fraudulent school system that provided indoctrination rather than education.
… … …
He brooked no dissent and built concentration camps … incarcerating a higher percentage of his own people than most modern dictators ...
… … …
He turned Cuba into a labyrinth of ruins.
As was said about Castro in a letter in the Miami Herald:
He had a peaceful death, but in his final days he should have experienced a lot of suffering; he should have been dragged through the streets of Havana, like Mussolini in Italy, and then hanged.
I rise today to wish the Canberra Refugee Support 15 years Happy Birthday. They were established in 2001 and recently celebrated their 15th birthday at a fundraiser at the Hellenic Club and also, most importantly, farewelled their current president, Geoff McPherson AM, who has been there from the start. His role has been very ably taken over by the new president, Doug Hynd.
Canberra Refugee Support provides an invaluable service here in Canberra. It helps refugees settle into Canberra. It provides them with advocacy services. It also provides them with policy advice. It conducts training sessions and also, most importantly, settlement support. When you are transitioning into a new country, it is vitally important that you have someone there to help you make the transition into that new country and new community.
During all those years that Geoff has been president of Canberra Refugee Support, there have been a number of achievements, and among them are the Calvary Hospital Mentoring Program, the annual CRS Scholarships and the Asylum Seeker Access Card. There is also the significant support that the group gives to the community here. It provides so much to our community, as well enriching our community. Thank you so much to Geoff McPherson AM for your contribution to Canberra.
With Christmas just around the corner, we are truly entering the silly season, because if you are a welfare recipient with a non-attendance report because you have not shown up for your obligatory work-for-the-dole or interview requirements, you will be, as of today, reconnected to your Centrelink payments just before Christmas, no matter what you do. That is right. Twenty thousand Australians, no matter what they do with non-attendance between now and Christmas, will routinely and automatically be fully reconnected to their payments to avoid hardship over Christmas.
If you read the regulations, they stipulate that there must be two working days where you cannot reconnect and get an interview, in which case hardship could be created and therefore we reconnect them. But, over Easter, the department does it again. That is right. Another bleeding heart solo flight with the Department of Employment reconnecting another 16,000 job seekers who do not turn up for work or who do not turn up for their interviews. We can do better than that. We can have a phone arrangement where these people seeking to reconnect can instantly book an appointment and be booked in, know that they have reconnected and have their payments started. But, no, the Department of Employment on this notice that I have here from 2 November, complete with typographical errors, asked jobactive providers to close down, finalise, all of their non-attendance reports. That is the ultimate in a Christmas gift over the silly season for people who do not do the right thing by the Australian people.
It is the final week of parliament for the year, and, as summer approaches, I know that many people in Melbourne and, of course, right around the country are going to be buying presents, attending events, organising parties for their colleagues or eating out with family and friends. I say to everyone here, not just in Melbourne but right around the country: if you are spending money, why not spend it in a way that does some good?
Melbourne is leading the way when it comes to social innovation, and there are great social enterprises around my electorate where the proceeds from your purchases will go to community, social and environmental causes. If you are organising a meal or event in your workplace, why not go to one of Melbourne's great social enterprise venues, like Lentil as Anything, in Abbotsford; Charcoal Lane, in Fitzroy; Kinfolk, in Melbourne; or Feast of Merit, in Richmond?
If you are buying gifts, you could try clothes from HoMie, in Fitzroy, or Hosier Hoodies, in Melbourne's CBD. Handcrafts, jewellery and accessories can all be bought from SisterWorks, in Richmond, or Body Safety Australia, in Cremorne, or you can get other experiences like a gift membership of the Collingwood Toy Library, based at Victoria Park; tickets to events at the Melbourne Food and Wine Festival, featuring great organisations like Yume, Urban Seed or the Stephanie Alexander Kitchen Garden Foundation; or classes at the School of Life in Melbourne.
All of these social enterprises are supporters of the Good Xmas Trail, which works to share great ideas for our end-of-year spending that contribute to causes that make a difference. If you go to www.goodxmastrail.org to find details for these organisations, you will see how you can spend your money this Christmas to do good.
I rise today to inform the House of some good news for the northern part of my Capricornia electorate. Sugar is our second-largest agriculture industry, based around Sarina and Mackay. Sarina is home to Australia's only miniature sugar mill and distillery, the Sarina Sugar Shed. The Sarina Sugar Shed is a wonderful tourist attraction where visitors can enjoy a guided tour to see how sugar is grown, processed, milled and distilled in the unique miniature mill. It is the only distillery in Australia that produces its own syrups to produce a unique alcoholic range of liqueurs based on local sugar.
The centre has taken out three major trophies at this year's prestigious Queensland Tourism Awards. These include gold in the Tourism Wineries, Distilleries and Breweries category, gold in the Excellence in Food Tourism category, and bronze in the Tourism Attractions category. It is the second time the Sarina Sugar Shed has been awarded gold in the Excellence in Food Tourism category.
The Sarina Sugar Shed is a popular agritourism attraction, bringing about 8,000 visitors annually to the town. This has a flow-on effect to employment and contributes to more than $1.5 million of added value directly into our local economy.
I rise to speak about an event that I will be attending this Saturday. This weekend I will be attending, as I have done in past years, to celebrate and recognise the achievements of our students at Vietnamese language schools in my electorate of Oxley. This weekend I will be attending the graduation services at the Trung Vuong Vietnamese Language School, which is based at Darra State School, and also the Lac Hong Vietnamese language school, based at Glenala State High School.
Both of these schools have been operating in my community for decades. They provide a great cohesion for Vietnamese students who are continuing to learn their language and culture, and they provide the diversity that our suburbs are much known for. I would like to recognise the volunteers, the educators, the principals and the parents who give up their time to support their students; in particular, my friend Khanh-Tien Truong, from the Vietnamese language school at Darra, and also Mr Nguyen Vu, who for decades has been providing support and inspiration for many young Vietnamese in our community.
These schools provide a vital link to make sure that young Vietnamese Australians continue the traditions and, more importantly, connect with generations of their family that have called the south-west suburbs of Brisbane home. I am proud to have supported these schools for many years and will do so in the years to come.
Last Saturday night I joined with the Hornsby Rockets tenpin bowling club for their Christmas party and presentation night at the Hornsby RSL. It was a great honour that evening to be formally inducted as one of their patrons. The Hornsby Rockets is a bowling club for people with disabilities and is run entirely by volunteers. Earlier this month the Hornsby Rockets had a fantastic national championship—coming home with 23 medals, seven trophies and achieving first place. The rockets also claimed an able-bodied record at the New South Wales state championships earlier this year. Karina Peters, Mark Milner, Warren Seymour and Nathan Constable knocked down 1,657 pins in a game of teams. It was quite an achievement!
I would like to acknowledge the hard work of the Hornsby Rockets committee members including their president Lesley Constable and vice president Lucy Mandarano as well as Tony McFadden, Anna Peters, Jo Eslick and Annette Seymour. I would also like to make special mention of their captains Amy McFadden, Liz Gosson, Tim Wilson and Nathan Constable. Amy McFadden was the recipient of an encouragement award for supporting other bowlers. Paige Sammut, Jeremy Orr and Nathan Constable tied for third place, with Lauren Kerjan in second place and Louise Pond won the Clark achievement award—which is given to the bowlers who bowl the most number of games on average each week.
At the dinner, I was presented with a book that showcased the team's unique history. I think it sums up the evening by saying they are a team of bowlers who have an extraordinary talent and who always express honesty, great sportsmanship, respect and support for each other.
For many of us Christmas is a time to relax, to spend time with our family and our friends, to have a little bit of a break and to swap presents. But for many Canberra families it is a difficult time. They may have the difficult choice between paying for presents and a Christmas feast or paying the bills. They are faced with that very difficult choice. That is why, in the lead up to Christmas, I am once again asking Canberrans to dig deep and help out.
I have set up a giving tree in my office in Tuggeranong and I encourage Canberrans to drop by and give non-perishable food items. There is a broad range of items, because I have three organisations I am giving to this year. The first is St John's Care, which is based at its church in Reid. The second is the YWCA Lanyon Food Hub. The third is the Domestic Violence Crisis Service. Canberrans, please dig deep and help those most in need during the Christmas season.
In closing, I would like to make a shout out the ACT boccia team, who recently participated in the Boccia Australia nationals. Congratulations to the bronze: All Stars Corena Sheridan, who was team BC1/BC2. Congratulations to the pairs BC4/BC5, who got a silver: David Primmer and James Roe. Congratulations and well done. Thank for flying the flag so proudly for the ACT. I look forward, as you patron, to seeing you soon and celebrating with a big happy photo.
I rise this evening to congratulate Tourism Tropical North Queensland, which is in the final negotiations on a deal for direct flights to a new Chinese destination—and this is fabulous news for us. I thank TTNQ, tourism partners and Cairns Airport for continuing to push the envelope and focus on sustainable tourism growth, particularly in the growing Chinese market. It aligns with the commitment by Prime Minister Turnbull and the Chinese President to jointly designate 2017 as the Australia-China year of tourism.
The tourism industry is growing three times faster under the coalition government than it did under the previous Labor government. New measures—such as a 10-year multiple entry visa for China, a trial of visa applications online in simplified Chinese, and a tripling of gateway capacity between Australia and China—are positioning us well to attract Chinese holiday makers.
Cairns Airport is going from strength to strength, recently celebrating five million passengers in a 12-month period and helping Australia break the national record of welcoming eight million international tourists over the last 12 months. Building on the success of Silk Air's direct flights to Singapore, on 6 December Philippine Airlines will celebrate the first anniversary of its Manila to Cairns return flights. On the 15th, Cairns will welcome Jin Air's inaugural seasonal service direct from Seoul. It is certainly an exciting time for the tourism industry— (Time expired)
I would like to tell you about Moyhu, a beautiful town in the King Valley in north-east Victoria. Moyhu has a population of around 300, but on Monday and Thursday nights over 100 children come from all around the region to the Moyhu and District Youth Club for their amazing gymnastics programs. The club first started in 1943, as a boxing troupe for boys. But today both boys and girls participate in gymnastics classes each week in a Nissen hut that was built in the late 1970s. The club is working towards a new building in the next five years to provide more facilities.
On a recent visit I saw children participating in activities such as balance-beam routines, spinning around the uneven bars, tumbling on the floor, swinging from the Roman rings and vaulting. The energy of the young people and their coaches was an amazing site. I am told that many of the gymnasts are now competing at state-wide events. Well done, and congratulations to the mentors and to the committee, especially to Diane and Kevin Hooper and to Alex, Amy, Anneshka, Charlotte, Donna, Emma, Jacqui, Lily and Sophie, the coaches who achieved the club's vision of encouraging physical activity and participation in our local community and our local sports. But what would truly like to acknowledge is the parents who make it all happen by getting in cars to drive the young people there. And to the young people, it is a fantastic effort. Your grace and your agility—I have such admiration for you. Keep up the good work.
In accordance with standing order 43 the time for members' statements has concluded.
I move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) the 'Declaration of Intent on a Strategic Dialogue' between the Government of Australia and the Government of the Netherlands was signed by Foreign Minister Bishop and Foreign Minister Koenders on 2 November 2016, in Canberra;
(b) the Declaration has been updated from the one signed in February 2014 by Foreign Minister Bishop and the then Foreign Minister Timmermans to reflect current events and increased closeness between our two countries through our shared commitment to achieve accountability with respect to the downing of MH17; and
(c) the Declaration commits Australia and the Netherlands to enhanced cooperation on international security, trade and investment, human rights and development issues; and
(2) welcomes enhanced economic and security cooperation between Australia and the Netherlands.
It is with great pleasure that I rise in the House today to speak on the Declaration of Intent on a Strategic Dialogue between Australia and the Netherlands. The Declaration of Intent on a Strategic Dialogue was signed by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Julie Bishop, and Netherlands Minister of Foreign Affairs Koenders on 2 November 2016. The declaration has been updated, from one signed in February 2014, to reflect current events and the increased closeness between our two countries through our shared commitment to achieve accountability with respect to the downing of MH17. The declaration commits Australia and the Netherlands to an enhanced cooperation on international security, trade and investment, human rights and development issues, and welcomes enhanced economic and security cooperation between Australia and the Netherlands.
The close relationship Australia and the Netherlands is shared and grounded in our common values, including democracy, human rights, free trade and a rules-based international order. It is interesting to reflect that the Netherlands is probably one of the oldest democracies in the world. As somebody who is a first generation descendant of parents who came out from the Netherlands in the 1960s, is a great pleasure to be speaking on this motion.
Earlier this month we were honoured to welcome Their Majesties the King and Queen of the Netherlands during their state visit to Australia. They were accompanied by the Dutch Minister of Foreign Affairs, His Excellency Bert Koenders. The visit provided the opportunity for our Minister for Foreign Affairs, Julie Bishop, to sign the new Declaration of Intent on a Strategic Dialogue, which commits us to enhanced cooperation on international security, trade and investment, as well as human rights and development issues.
More than 300,000 Australians claim Dutch heritage, myself included. This new declaration of intent builds on that already close relationship between Australia and the Netherlands. Looking at my electorate, which covers both part of Logan City and part of the Gold Coast, people of Dutch heritage appear in the top 10 per cent of people who live in those communities—about two per cent of the population in each community.
The declaration highlights the strong political, economic and cultural ties between Australia and the Netherlands. As our fourth largest source of foreign direct investment, we enjoy a healthy two-way trading relationship of over $6 billion annually. But there is the potential for us to do much more.
While we talk about current-day events, the close ties between Australia and the Netherlands have developed through history, from 1606, when Dutch East India Company ship Duyfken first made contact with Indigenous Australians at Mapoon on Cape York, to the migration in the 20th century. Many Dutch migrants moved to Australia after World War II, when the Dutch government actively encouraged emigration to relieve housing shortages and economic distress. We have a shared heritage of values and a strong trade partnership.
In more recent times, the relationship between Australia and the Netherlands has grown quite close in our combined efforts to seek justice for the victims and loved ones affected by the tragic downing of MH17. Our two countries have shared in our grief at the loss of so many people from our respective countries and, together with other grieving countries, we have united in our intention to hold those responsible for this tragedy to account.
With the signing of the new declaration, I am confident that this already close relationship between our two nations will further deepen through close cooperation and collaboration. I commend the Dutch Minister of Foreign Affairs, His Excellency Bert Koenders, and our Minister for Foreign Affairs, Julie Bishop, for their commitment to strengthening an enduring relationship between Australia and the Netherlands. I commend this motion to the House.
Is there a seconder for the member's motion?
Yes, I second the motion by the member for Forde. In seconding the motion by the member for Forde about the Declaration of Intent on a Strategic Dialogue Between the Government of Australia and the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, I recognise that longstanding connection between the Australian people and the Dutch people. I particularly mention the member for Forde with his background in Holland. Also, coming from Brisbane, I note that the Brisbane Roar have connections with the Dutch community and wear the colours of the Dutch community, something that my granddad, with his Irish background, probably would not be as keen on. But modern-day Australia is a mix of many people, and I commend the member for Forde on this motion and his support for football in another capacity as well.
Obviously that close relationship between Australia and the Netherlands is grounded in many of the things that we hold sacred, democracy being a strong connection but also support for human rights and free trade—the Dutch having a long history of being a trading nation—and rules-based international order. And I note that the Dutch have always been prepared to put on a blue beret in support of world peace and have often served with Australian service personnel in parts of the world that are far from Holland and Australia.
Earlier this month, we were honoured to welcome their Majesties the King and Queen of the Netherlands during their state visit to Australia. I note that they were accompanied by the Dutch Minister of Foreign Affairs, His Excellency Bert Koenders. It is all about ensuring that we take every trade and economic opportunity possible with our connections to Europe. I am sure the more than 300,000 Australians who claim Dutch heritage are supportive of that, and this new declaration of intent, as detailed by the member for Forde, builds on this already close relationship between Australia and the Netherlands, a connection that in Queensland goes back to 1606, when the United East India Company ship Duyfken first made contact with the Indigenous people of Australia—the oldest civilisation in the world making contact with some of the world's best traders back in 1606 up at Mapoon.
The other connection, a little bit later, was on 25 October 1616 in Western Australia in Shark Bay, where Dirk Hartog made contact on his ship, the Eendracht, on an island now called Dirk Hartog Island, although the Indigenous people of Western Australia probably called it something else for 30,000 or 40,000 years beforehand. It is a 620-kilometre square island. When Dirk Hartog and a couple of the dignitaries on board nailed a pewter plate to the post, arguably under some law they were making a claim to that land, although I think some British gunboats later down the track might have said that they did not recognise that claim. But there was that suggestion that Dirk Hartog, who had actually been blown off course, was perhaps appeasing some of the paying members of his ship by saying, 'Yeah, yeah—here's your name on a pewter plate.' I think it has actually ended up in a museum in Holland, recognising that connection.
In more recent times the Dutch have been the fourth-largest source of foreign direct investment in Australia. And we still have that healthy two-way trading relationship of over $6 billion. Obviously, there is much potential for us to explore: there is the Dutch-speaking community in Australia and the Dutch heritage, whether that be through people like the member for Forde, which makes connections with Europe. Obviously, we have many products that can be sold into Europe through the ports of Holland.
Tragically, we are also bonded over other aspects, such as looking for the victims who were in the tragic downing of MH 17. But it goes back beyond that to when many Australians opened their doors to the Dutch who had been devastated by World War II. Many took the time and had the courage to get on a ship and come to the other side of the world, and helped to make multicultural Australia a stronger place. I know that I have a very strong Dutch community, and I am sure that this new declaration will build on the already close relationship between our two nations.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) since 2014, Daesh (also known as ISIL) has been carrying out terror campaigns against Christians, Assyrians, Mandaeans, Yezidis, and other ethnic and religious minorities in Iraq and Syria;
(b) these campaigns have taken the form of mass murders, torture, rape, kidnappings, sexual enslavement and other crimes; and
(c) these atrocities constitute war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide;
(2) noting that the United Nations mandated Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Syria has declared that Daesh's actions against the Yezidi people amount to genocide, calls on the:
(a) Australian government to refer to the Daesh atrocities as war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide; and
(b) United Nations and member states to co-ordinate measures to prevent further atrocities occurring in Syria and Iraq and take all necessary action to hold those responsible to account; and
(3) commends:
(a) the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, the Lebanese Republic, the Republic of Turkey and the Kurdistan Regional Government in Iraq, for their ongoing support and efforts to shelter and protect those fleeing the violence in Syria and Iraq; and
(b) those nations that are providing a permanent home for Syrian and Iraqi refugees who are escaping persecution and violence.
In the Middle East we are facing the largest displacement of people since the Second World War. However, in this motion I specifically want to deal with the atrocities committed and the horrific means deployed by Daesh in their efforts to achieve their abominable objectives.
Daesh has engaged in abductions, systematic rape, enslaving women and girls and torture, coupled with the mass murder of civilians, and yet there seems to be a reluctance for these atrocities to be called out for what they really are: crimes against humanity, war crimes and genocide. We have all been shocked by Daesh-inspired attacks on the people of France, Kuwait, Tunisia, Turkey and Saudi Arabia. Here in Australia we have not been immune, with the attacks at the Lindt cafe and the killing of Curtis Cheng outside the police headquarters in Parramatta.
All these are acts of terror in support of Islamic State and its perverted objectives. Daesh has deliberately set out not only to destroy those who disagree with their extreme ideology but to destroy the very evidence of the existence of those who it deems to be infidels—particularly the Christians, the Assyrians, Mandaeans, Yezidis and other minorities. It has destroyed churches, blown up monasteries and desecrated cemeteries.
Daesh is genocidal by its nature, by its ideology and, clearly, by its actions. The systematic destruction of the monuments and artefacts of the Assyrian people, who have been indigenous to the region for over 6,000 years demonstrates the resolve of Daesh to recast history devoid of this ancient civilisation. In the Sinjar, Daesh tried to wipe the Yezidis from the very face of the earth by killing, enslavement, sexual slavery, torture and starvation.
Daesh kills Christians because they are Christians. Daesh kills Yezidis because they are Yezidis. It kills and destroys those who refuse to follow its extreme interpretation of Islam. The United Nations council has condemned the systemic violations and abuses of human rights by Daesh. On 13 March 2015, the Office of the UNHCR reported:
It is reasonable to conclude that some of these incidents, … may constitute genocide. Other incidents may amount to crimes against humanity and war crimes.
The US secretary of state, John Kerry, went further when he said:
In my judgement Daesh is responsible for genocide against groups ... under its control, including Yazidis, Christians and Shia Muslims.
Indeed, in June this year, the UN Commission of Inquiry on Syria concluded that Daesh is committing genocide against the Yazidis. In respect of military action currently on foot in Mosul, the UNHCR reported:
Abductions and forced removals of tens of thousands of people from their homes … effectively using [these] men, women and children as human shields.
They went on to say that 232 civilians were shot for refusing to comply with ISIL's instructions.
Motions similar to mine have already been moved in the United Kingdom, the United States and the Council of the European Parliament, recognising the actions of Daesh as genocide. Given Australia's involvement in and commitment to the Middle East, it is appropriate that we now formally recognise that Christians, Assyrians, Mandaeans, Yazidis and other religious and ethnic minorities from Iraq and Syria are suffering genocide at the hands of Daesh. We call on the UN Security Council to have these matters referred to the International Criminal Court, where the perpetrators can one day be brought to justice.
I am proud of our efforts to assist the Syrian refugees, particularly in taking an additional 12,000 people. But the global community owes an enormous debt of gratitude to Jordan, Turkey and Lebanon for their disproportionate efforts to provide humanitarian assistance and safe haven to the majority of people fleeing the violence of Syria.
I call on the government to do all that is necessary to bring this motion to a formal resolution of the House.
Is the motion seconded?
I second the motion. In fact, I am delighted to support the member for Fowler's motion condemning the Daesh campaign of war crimes and genocide against Christians, Assyrians, Mandaeans, Yazidis and other ethnic and religious minorities in Iraq and Syria and commending those nations that continue to support the people who are fleeing the violence.
Since 2014 the so-called Islamic state, or Daesh, has been carrying out a campaign of terror against various ethnic and religious minorities in Iraq in Syria. There is clear evidence, over and over again now, of mass murders, torture, systemic rape, kidnapping, sexual enslavement and a series of other crimes. As the member for Fowler pointed out, a number of parliaments and government agencies have declared the actions of Daesh to be genocide. These include the United Nations Commission of Inquiry on Syria, the United States Congress, the US State Department, the European Parliament, the Council of Europe, the UK House of Commons and the French Foreign Ministry.
The UN Human Rights Council has also condemned the systemic violations and abuses of human rights and international humanitarian law committed by the so-called Islamic State. On 13 March 2015 the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights reported that:
It is reasonable to conclude in the light of the information gathered overall, that some of these incidents may constitute genocide. Other incidents may amount to crimes against humanity or war crimes.
On 16 June 2016, the UN Commission of Inquiry on Syria concluded that ISIL is committing genocide against Yazidis:
ISIS has committed the crime of genocide as well as multiple crimes against humanity and war crimes against the Yazidis, thousands of whom are held captive in the Syrian Arab Republic where they are subject to the most unimaginable horrors.
Indeed, a series of other reports have come to a similar conclusion.
As the honourable member for Fowler pointed out, there have been motions and resolutions from a range of jurisdictions around the world. I will quote from one or two of them. The United Kingdom House of Commons motion said:
That this House believes that Christians, Yazidis, and other ethnic and religious minorities in Iraq and Syria are suffering Genocide at the hands of Daesh; and calls on the Government to make an immediate Referral to the UN Security Council with a view to conferring jurisdiction upon the International Criminal Court so that perpetrators can be brought to justice.
In a similar manner, there was a concurrent resolution of both the House of Representatives and the Senate in the United States Congress which stated:
That—
(1) the atrocities perpetrated by ISIL against Christians, Yezidis, and other religious and ethnic minorities in Iraq and Syria constitute war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide;
(2) all governments, including the United States, and international organizations, including the United Nations and the Office of the Secretary-General, should call ISIL atrocities by their rightful names: war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide;
(3) the member states of the United Nations should coordinate urgently on measures to prevent further war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide in Iraq and Syria, and to punish those responsible for these ongoing crimes, including by the collection and preservation of evidence and, if necessary, the establishment and operation of appropriate tribunals;
(4) the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, the Lebanese Republic, the Republic of Turkey, and the Kurdistan Regional Government in Iraq are to be commended for, and supported in, their efforts to shelter and protect those fleeing the violence of ISIL and other combatants until they can safely return to their homes in Iraq and Syria; and
(5) the protracted Syrian civil war and the indiscriminate violence of the Assad regime have contributed to the growth of ISIL and will continue to do so as long as this conflict continues.
That resolution was passed by the United States House of Representatives on 14 March this year. Similarly, there have been motions by the European Parliament, which:
Expresses its view that the persecution, atrocities and international crimes amount to war crimes and crimes against humanity; stresses that the so-called 'ISIS/Daesh' is committing genocide against Christians and Yazidis, and other religious and ethnic minorities—
in the region. Similarly, the Council of Europe passed a motion condemning 'in the strongest terms the recent terrorist attacks' and the ongoing activities of Daesh in perpetrating 'acts of genocide and other serious crimes punishable under international law'. As I said, the French foreign minister, Laurent Fabius, said on 25 March 2015:
We are witnessing a true genocide. The Islamic State group in particular kills, enslaves or exiles people who don't think like them.
Finally, to add to the list, John Kerry, the Secretary of State of the US, said:
… in my judgment, Daesh is responsible for genocide against groups in areas under its control, including Yezidis, Christians, and Shia Muslims.
(Time expired)
One of the most terrifying aspects of Daesh's reign in eastern Syria and western Iraq has been this persecution of minorities, particularly the ancient Christian communities that predate Islam in that part of the world and other minorities like the Yazidis. I am going to especially focus on the appalling theology of rape', as The New York Times has called it, and enslavement that Daesh has practised against the Yazidi people in particular. But let's remember some of the other horrifying things that these people have done, particularly to the people of Iraq and eastern Syria.
I think all of us had forgotten the biblical names of Nineveh and Nimrud. I did not even know that there was a tomb of Jonah in Mosul. One of the first things that happened there when they got control of that area was that they blew up the ancient tomb of Jonah, which had existed in that city for thousands of years and which relates to all of our common Abrahamic religions. We all know what Daesh was doing in Palmyra. But it is particularly for the people of that part of the world that I want to express my outrage and support this resolution.
The New York Times, in reporting this particularly ugly activity against the Yazidi people, said:
In the moments before he raped the 12-year-old girl, the—
Daesh—
fighter took the time to explain that what he was about to do was not a sin. Because the preteen girl practiced a religion other than Islam—
his perverted attitude and misreading of his own great religion 'not only gave him the right to rape her—it condoned and encouraged it'. The New York Times said:
The systematic rape of women and girls from the Yazidi religious minority has become deeply enmeshed in the organization and the radical theology of the Islamic State in the year since the group announced it was reviving slavery as an institution … The trade in Yazidi women and girls has created a persistent infrastructure, with a network of warehouses where the victims are held, viewing rooms where they are inspected and marketed, and a dedicated fleet of buses used to transport them.
The article said that more than 5,000 Yazidis were abducted the year before, and 3,100 were still being held, according to their community leaders. To handle them, Daesh had a detailed bureaucracy of sex slavery, including sales contracts notarised by ISIS Islamic courts, and the practice had become an established recruiting tool to lure crazy people from the kinds of societies where casual sex was taboo and dating was forbidden.
Like previous speakers, I am proud of the role that Australia has played. We have legislation acting against people who like to perpetrate the same activities here in Australia. We have passed five tranches of legislation, we have troops advising the people in that area so that the Iraqi forces can capture back and control Mosul. We have proposed—Tanya Plibersek, the Turkish government and even Hillary Clinton, who was unfortunately beaten—a no-fly zone in northern Syria which would have been the most effective way of protecting people from attack by both the Assad forces and by Daesh. Unfortunately it does not seem that that is going to happen now.
I agree with the mover of this motion that we have to pay tribute to Turkey, which has 2,700,000 refugees, to Lebanon, which has one million refugees, Jordan 655,000 and Iraq, in mainly the Kurdish zones, 230,000 people. We have to be consistent on this when these people try to do this in any part of the world, and that includes what the young Daesh and Hamas supporters are trying to do in Israel too—they would do the same to the Jews if they had the power to do it in that part of the world, but fortunately they are able to act very strongly against them. We have to be consistent all over the world, including here in Australia, to act against these people in a legal and measured way. (Time expired)
I commend the motion to recognise Daesh atrocities as war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. Like previous speakers, I also commend the member for Fowler. Terror inflicted by Daesh is a theatre of jihads within the broader violent jihadist movement, and so we must be ever vigilant that new theatres of jihad will continue to emerge as long as there continues to be unrest and conflict in parts of the Middle East and as long as the ideology of violent jihadism continues to attract individuals prepared to use violence.
I spoke in this chamber last week on the member for Canning's motion noting that that these mujahideen, as they term themselves, will follow the conflict to the next theatre of jihad—as those before them have done. I also spoke of the need to revise the conventional wisdom that Daesh could be defeated by military means alone. Assymetric warfare typically describes a conflict situation in which one side has a strategic advantage because they are willing to use tactics that the other side is either unable or unwilling to use. These tactics have no regard for the conventions of warfare—they indiscriminately target individuals and innocents and constitute crimes against humanity
As a woman, I feel compelled here to speak about the disproportionate suffering of women under the hands of the brutal Daesh. The United Nations, among others, has acknowledged that women and children, by and large, are the most affected by war. Daesh's terror campaign includes rape and sexual enslavement, among other crimes. The plight of the Yazidi women who have been enslaved by Daesh, treated as war booty, used and abused, raped and tortured is but one gross example of Daesh's atrocious war crimes. Those few who have managed to escape have told of unimaginable terror—being sold for a mere few cigarettes, beaten if they refuse or resist and threatened with death should they try to escape. Such is the plight of Yazidis and other religious minorities targeted by Daesh
Before 2003, the Christian population in Iraq numbered 1.4 million. Today, it is estimated at 250,000 and an estimated 3,600 Yazidis—mostly women and children—remain missing, thought to be held captive by Daesh.
It is very clear from the first rising of Daesh that their mission was to establish a religiously pure state. Terrorist organisations that have the goal of religious purity are certainly not new. Having studied the history of terrorism and having written a book about it, I do not think it is a reach to say that Daesh is among the world's most destructive forces, prepared to wipe out all those who do not agree with them.
Daesh are also guilty of cultural genocide, eradicating not only the minorities they target but also systematically destroying their history, their language and their historical sites—both Islamic and non-Islamic. They have destroyed several sites across Iraq, looted Mosul Museum, destroyed the 3,000-year-old Assyrian city of Nimrud, and bulldozed the 2,000-year-old fortress in the city of Hatra and the 2,000-year-old Syrian statues in the ancient city of Palmyra, in what UNESCO refers to as cultural cleansing. The destruction of the relics attacks the heart of the nationalist identities of the peoples in Iraq and Syria. It is purposeful—designed to eradicate borders, both real and cultural, in order to conquer and establish a so-called Islamic State.
There is no easy way to defeat this scourge. Simply going in and bombing them is not enough; we need to also focus our efforts on stopping the spread of their ideology. This is a long war, a long battle, and one which has created one of the worst humanitarian crises the modern world has ever seen. We must understand that Syrians and Iraqis fleeing violence are fleeing Daesh. They are fleeing a conflict in which one side will stop at nothing and will do anything with no regard for human life. They are not fleeing a normal war. This is not the kind of conflict where armies fight against each other on well-worn battlefields. This is asymmetrical warfare, where the currency is human lives and the combatants know no boundaries.
I therefore commend this motion to the House and urge the government to work with the United Nations and member states in holding Daesh accountable for war crimes and genocide.
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.
by leave—I move the motion as amended:
That this House:
(1) congratulates the Government on the success of the National Stronger Regions Fund (NSRF);
(2) acknowledges the significant and positive impact that the NSRF is having in rural, remote and disadvantaged regions around Australia; and
(3) notes that the:
(a) Government is investing $125,286,955 in 40 projects around Queensland under 3 rounds of the NSRF; and
(b) NSRF is delivering infrastructure projects to create jobs in regional areas, improve community facilities and support stronger and more sustainable communities across Queensland.
I congratulate the Liberal-National coalition government on the success of its National Stronger Regions Fund. The National Stronger Regions Fund was an initiative of the National Party, led by my predecessor in Wide Bay. The former Leader of the Nationals and former Deputy Prime Minister, Warren Truss, understood the need for the federal government to provide support to local councils and community groups to assist them to build infrastructure in their communities. The National Stronger Regions Fund supports projects that address disadvantage in regions around Australia. These projects are helping to unlock the economic potential of local communities and create jobs.
In Queensland, the coalition government is investing more than $125 million in 40 projects. In Wide Bay, I am pleased to say that the Gympie Regional Council has received $5 million for its new aquatic centre. The new aquatic centre includes a 50-metre outdoor regional competition pool as well as a 25-metre heated indoor pool. I am really pleased the federal government has been able to partner in this project and deliver funding through the National Stronger Regions Fund to assist with the construction of the facility. The new aquatic centre is destined to become a prized community asset. It will be used by families for recreation, and schools and swimming squads for training and competition. It is creating jobs and supporting new investment during the construction phase and will sustain local jobs once it is open. There is no doubt the aquatic centre will bring a real boost to Gympie and Wide Bay.
The National Stronger Regions Fund is also supporting the renovation and refurbishment of Gympie's Pavilion Conference and Reception Centre. The coalition government has allocated more than $548,000 to the project that was brought forward by the Gympie Regional Council. When finished, the new multipurpose conference and events facility will create new business, recreation and social opportunities for Gympie. I thank the Gympie Regional Council for these National Stronger Regions Fund applications, and I look forward to the benefits they will deliver.
In Maryborough the National Stronger Regions Fund is supporting stage 2 of the Fraser Coast Military Trail through a $900,000 commitment from the coalition government. This iconic project tells the story of the ANZAC landing at Gallipoli and the first man ashore, a Maryborough man, Duncan Chapman. The $1.8 million Fraser Coast Military Trail is a project of national significance, and when completed has the potential to draw tourists from all over Australia to Maryborough. The war memorial will tell the stories of courage and bravery, sacrifice and service of our diggers, and will help to preserve the Anzac legend for generations. The project will feature a representation of the cliffs of Gallipoli, information bays and specially-commissioned sculptures. A trench walk symbolising the Western Front and a memorial of the Battle of Pozieres, where Major Duncan Chapman was killed in 1916, will complete this very special and unique landmark project. The Fraser Coast Military Trail tells a story of our region's involvement in the war effort, linking local attractions and new works. It commemorates Wide Bay's significant links to military activities and its training and support services on the home front. I give credit to the support of the Fraser Coast Regional Council, Maryborough RSL and especially Nancy Bates for bringing this unique project forward.
Also in Maryborough, the National Stronger Regions Fund is supporting the extension of the Brolga Theatre. The coalition government has committed $325,000 towards the construction of an all-weather area that will enable the theatre to hold large functions and host an even greater variety of public events. I thank Bill Trevor, Scott Rowe and the Wide Bay Regional Development Australia Committee, for their work in assisting the applicants to develop these proposals that will deliver lasting benefits to Wide Bay communities.
All of these projects are job creating and will strengthen the economy and provide more social and cultural opportunities for people in Wide Bay and visitors to our region. These projects would not be possible without the support of the Liberal National coalition government through the National Stronger Regions Fund.
Is the motion seconded?
I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
I welcome the opportunity to rise today and speak about the National Stronger Regions Fund. It may be that Queensland's disadvantaged regions are benefiting from the National Stronger Regions Fund, as asserted by the member's motion, although I dare say some of my colleagues on this side may have more to say on that point.
As the member for one of Western Australia's most disadvantaged areas, I fail to see how this program has helped my constituents one little bit. The reality is that the outer suburban regions of Perth have been forgotten by the Turnbull Liberal government. A simple glance at the projects funded by this program over the past three years charts the increasing stranglehold that the National Party has on the Turnbull government. In round 1 of the program we saw money flowing to only one suburban area in Perth in need of new infrastructure, Belmont. Round 2 saw infrastructure funded in only one suburb again, in Rockingham. Then take a look at round 3. The outer suburban funding dries up altogether, and the National Stronger Regions Fund becomes the Building Better Regions Fund.
I am certainly not arguing that WA's remote and rural towns should not receive funding under the program. Of course they should, and they do. Nor do I support a regional grants program funding projects in the inner city, like the $2.5 million committed to South Perth in that most recent round of this program, a blatant piece of pork barrelling for the contested seat of Swan. But outer suburban areas are in crisis across the country—particularly in Perth. High unemployment, combined with years of neglect from state and federal Liberal governments has left local infrastructure, like sporting complexes and community hubs, in a state of disrepair.
One perfect example of the hypocrisy in project selection under this program comes in my electorate of Burt. The city of Armadale has been campaigning for funding for a year-round, heated indoor aquatic facility for a number of years now. More than $4.5 million in preparatory work has already been completed by the city for this $26 million project. So when the National Stronger Regions Fund appeared in the budget, the City of Armadale thought it had found the solution and put in an application. They had good reason to think that it would be a suitable project. After all, round 1 of the National Stronger Regions Fund funded a water park in Craigieburn in Melbourne's outer suburbs, and another two pools in the Northern Territory and Queensland. Alas, the city was knocked back in round 2 and it appeared that the residents would be forced to wait another five years until funding could be sourced—right up until an election was called, that is, and the project was funded as an election commitment.
This is a vitally important project for my electorate and grant programs like the National Stronger Regions should exist to ensure that, outside of contested election cycles, local governments and community organisations in our outer suburbs can access federal funding. But, of course, we discovered during the election that the National Stronger Regions Fund would no longer exist as we knew it in this new parliament: it would be replaced by the Building Better Regions Fund, which strips from outer suburban councils and groups an opportunity to even apply for the funding.
So the funding for the Armadale pool through the Community Development Grants, in this context, confirms how blatant a political move supporting this funding was by the government. It was knocked back in round 2 of the National Stronger Regions Fund. The city applied again for round 3—they received no approval for this—and then the government announced it would not be able to fund metro projects. But, miraculously, the government announced funding for the Armadale pool through its once-every-three-years Community Development Grants Program.
We are, of course, grateful that this project has been funded and I do take some credit for applying political pressure on the government leading to that funding announcement. Remember: all of this is at a time when unemployment in the city fringes in my seat is almost triple that of the national rate. In Armadale, we are seeing unemployment at 17.2 per cent. Infrastructure projects provide for young people the employment opportunities that have disappeared in Western Australia as the mining construction boom winds down.
I am regularly contacted by community groups in my area looking for funding grants from the federal government for infrastructure projects. While other programs exist for smaller projects, there is nothing that provides substantial funding opportunities for infrastructure projects that will benefit entire communities. Why should our outer suburbs be put at a disadvantage simply to allow support for the National seats and, further, to support Malcolm Turnbull's prime ministership? The Nationals are buying votes; the Prime Minister is buying votes in his party room; and outer suburbs, like in Burt, are missing out—once again, ignored by a Liberal government.
It is a pleasure to rise in the House and to speak on the coalition's $1 billion National Stronger Regions Fund on the basis that has driven improvements right across the country and has provided support to two very important projects in my electorate of Forde. The National Stronger Regions Fund has been an important initiative to boost the social and economic development in Australia's regions by funding priority infrastructure projects for local communities. In rounds 1 and 1, the program supported some 162 projects across the country.
In my electorate of Forde, I was recently joined by the Minister for Regional Development, Fiona Nash, to announce two very important National Stronger Regions Fund projects. The first was nearly $1 million in funding to establish the AEIOU Logan Autism Centre of Excellence. The project will establish an AEIOU centre at Griffith University in Logan to help service the unmet and vital need for early intervention and support services for children with autism. The centre will also facilitate research, education and training opportunities as well as a resource development for parents, schoolteachers, researchers and students in partnership with key stakeholders.
This National Stronger Regions Fund project will not only help address disadvantage; it will help remove barriers to productivity and help develop education services. This in the longer term, in conjunction with projects such as Logan Together, is designed and aimed at reducing the reliance of those communities in Logan on welfare and allowing those children, when they move into adulthood, to have the skills and abilities to enter the workforce and live out their full potential.
The second project is the construction of family recovery units at Logan House recovery centre. This project was also awarded around $1 million from the National Stronger Regions Fund. Once completed, these units will provide access to drug and alcohol rehabilitation services for parents with young children. As well as providing an economic benefit to my electorate, these projects provide a tremendous amount of support to areas of disadvantage within our region.
These projects would not have been possible without funding support from the National Stronger Regions Fund. I am very pleased that the coalition government will continue this program through the refocused Building Better Regions Fund. The focus on regional, rural and remote areas will ensure smaller councils will not have to compete with the major capital city councils for funding. Regional Australia allows our cities to exist: it supplies their water, food, gas and electricity. There is huge potential for economic growth in our regional areas, which is what the Building Better Regions Fund is designed to assist by providing investment in new opportunities for regional communities.
The coalition government continues to back our regional communities with programs such as the Building Better Regions Fund, and more broadly through our other regional funds. In my electorate of Forde I have seen that, not only through National Stronger Regions Fund but also programs such as the Bridges Renewal Program, the Roads to Recovery Program and blackspot road funding. Any number of those programs contribute to improving my electorate of Forde, and both Logan City and Gold Coast city councils have benefited significantly. I commend these programs and the ongoing stewardship of this coalition government to building stronger communities across our country.
Our nation will rue the day we did not use this period of ultra low interest rates to invest in critical economic infrastructure in the regions and in our cities. We have missed an opportunity to put our people to work, and this is theft from future generations. Failure to invest in infrastructure is theft from future generations.
The government claims to stand for jobs and growth and that jobs and growth are going to come from a $50 billion tax cut for the big end of town. This is simply voodoo economics, which does not work and which is resulting in lower growth and lower infrastructure investment. It is the same old trickle-down approach we have seen from the coalition for years and years, but here we are today with the coalition patting themselves on the back over their feeble infrastructure program.
The facts are that public investment in infrastructure in Australia has been substantially cut by the coalition, whether it is in the regions, the rural areas or in our cities. The big investments that have been happening, even in regional Queensland, have been Labor investments—the Cooroy to Curra investment was predominantly a Labor investment and the gateway north is a Labor investment—because we have not had the sort of investment we should have seen from this government over a period of years. Their attempts to destroy the Clean Energy Finance Corporation is an attack on basic infrastructure when it comes to renewable energy. The facts are these: in the 2015-16 financial year the Turnbull government cut infrastructure investment by nearly $3 billion, that is 35 per cent, on what had it promised in its 2014 budget. That is what I mean when I talk about theft from future generations.
We are passing on an economic blockage to future generations. Of course, this is in sharp contrast to the massive infrastructure investment that occurred under Labor. We doubled the roads budget. We increased the rail budget more than tenfold. We invested in more public transport than every previous government in the history of the Commonwealth put together. Now we have weak global growth, we have weak wages growth and we have weak investment in infrastructure. This is an opportunity lost to our country, because when interest rates are at record lows, that is the time to invest. Indeed, that is the advice of responsible international organisations. They say the way through this period of slackness in the global economy and in economies like Australia's is to borrow. And they argue that that is good economics. That is their advice to the government of Australia. So we need quality investment in both physical and human infrastructure. We need it to lift our productivity and to lift our living standards for the long term.
It is our failure to invest in physical infrastructure and quality education that is leaving a huge infrastructure deficit for our kids. We can only solve this problem of lack of investment in the private sector by investing from the public sector. You only need to glance at the weak wage growth that we have in our community to see the urgent need for a government led program of investment to drive growth in the private sector. That of course is what is being recommended to the government of Australia by the International Monetary Fund.
The cost of capital is at record lows. The International Monetary Fund says that it is actually cheaper to drive your economy, more efficient to drive your economy, when interest rates are low—compared to the equivalent set of public sector cuts that this government is putting in place, which are actually leading to the weaker wage growth, the weaker economic growth in our economy. So, as the IMF has concluded, debt funding physical infrastructure at prevailing low interest rates can lead to faster deficit reduction through higher growth rather than indiscriminate spending cuts across the budget.
So investing in infrastructure is precisely the sort of assertive fiscal policy that our country needs—indeed, that the global economy needs—rather than a reliance on monetary policy, which is failing now to provide the stimulus it once did. Of course when that low monetary policy is combined with a reluctance to deploy fiscal policy, what you get is a slack labour market. It may well be the headline unemployment rate has a five in front of it but hours worked are at their lowest levels ever and the workforce is casualised, so people out there know in their bones that what we need is a boost to demand, which is only in the first instance going to come from a productive investment in productivity enhancing infrastructure which will drive our economy for the future and provide the living standards that we seek for our children.
I suppose it is a very similar pattern that we see in this chamber: firstly, we have a Labor member standing up accusing the National Party of pork-barrelling. We are quite happy to have the Labor Party talking about Nationals pork-barrelling projects in our regions. We know it is not the case but we do like being accused just the same. I suppose it is also par for the course when we have the former Treasurer standing up saying that we need to borrow more and we need to increase national debt. He says if we are going to work our way out of this low economic growth, the best way is to just borrow more money and spend more money.
A government member: Glad he's not the Treasurer.
Well he was the Treasurer and I think he is in that sphere. The Nationals understand that it simply costs more to deliver projects and it costs more to deliver services in the regions than what it does in our major regional cities or in our capital cities. Unless we are prepared to make these additional investments into our communities, then we are always going to have people in regional areas, country areas and remote areas who are going to have less services and are going to live a lesser standard of living because they do not have a government that understands their way of thinking. That is why the National Party and projects like the Building Better Regions Fund and the National Stronger Regions Fund are so important and so critical, increasing the investment from government in areas such as communications.
We understand that in the six years that Labor were in government under the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd years not one government co-investment in communication black-spot towers was made. We had a whole raft of communities around Australia who cannot engage in what they would call normal communications. They cannot conduct their business and they cannot conduct their normal social phone calls anywhere around Australia simply because a Labor Party has no understanding about the need for co-investment.
It is similar with energy costs. Energy costs, currently, in many of the states are going through the roof but we have ideological governments at state level that are simply aiming for a reduction in gas and shutting down coal, leading to increased energy costs around regional Australia. This is having a huge impact again on the cost of energy and on jobs around Australia and around the world.
It is also worth thinking about some of the projects inside and just outside of my region that have been funded through the National Stronger Regions Fund. The first one that comes to mind is Warramunda Village in Kyabram. Warramunda received a fraction under $1 million as part of round 3 of the National Stronger Regions Fund. This investment is primarily going to assist with an $8 million to $9 million investment in a dementia ward. Dementia is something that is becoming more and more prevalent around our aged-care facilities as the people who are coming into our aged-care facilities are getting older and, therefore, there is an increase in the percentage of those residents suffering from dementia.
In nearby electorates we had a $2.4 million investment in the Bendigo Tennis Association proposal. That project has been waiting some four or five years for funding. Again, the local knowledge of the politicians in that area meant they were able to make a good case as to why that project should get up. The Shepparton Art Museum has received $10 million from Senator Nash. It is part of a $40 million build for what will be a world-class art museum for a place like Shepparton, which is desperate to bridge that cultural gap that it as yet has not quite been able to. We are also hoping that the National Stronger Regions Fund will help La Trobe University expand in Shepparton. They are looking for some assistance there. They are very eager to look into the application stage of the National Stronger Regions Fund. If they are able to get that, certainly a contribution will assist in them growing even more nursing courses for the region of the Goulburn Valley.
The National Stronger Regions Fund is now going to offer a greater opportunity because it is not just going to be for bricks and mortar but it is also going to be for opportunities to do with leadership, community capacity building and work in areas other than just building. It is going to be a fantastic program. I hope everybody gets behind it. I want to commend the Deputy Leader of the Nationals, Fiona Nash, for running this program. (Time expired)
It is amazing that when the National Party want to be congratulated for so-called funding projects they will not acknowledge that they have cut funding for infrastructure in Australia. Today I want to address the issue of the chronic cuts and lack of infrastructure funding for my home state of Queensland. We had the member for Forde in here earlier wanting to be congratulated for getting people around his community, but the single one obstacle that is blocking funding for the M1 is the member for Forde. There is money on a table from the state government; money on the table from the federal opposition; money on the table and endorsement and support from the chamber of commerce, by the Logan City Council mayor and the full council, residents and chamber of commerce associations. But the member for Forde refuses to back his community. He refuses to stand up to this government that is chronically underinvesting in Queensland.
I note that we heard the National Party saying that this is all about the regions—and I note the term 'stronger regions'—but we also note that today's motion should acknowledge the $13.2 million National Stronger Regions Fund grant in the member for Warringah's electorate and the fact we are spending $3.2 million in the minister for the environment's electorate of Kooyong. I do not know if there has been a definition change for 'region'—
A government member interjecting—
I will take the interjection, through you, Madam Chair: not a dollar has been spent in the southwest of Brisbane, and that brings me to the issue of infrastructure. For 13 long years under the Howard government, those opposite sat there—year in, year out—and refused to spend a dollar on the Ipswich Motorway. And they have the gall to come in here and lecture anyone else about infrastructure funding. It took a Labor federal government and a Labor state government to deliver billions of dollars worth of infrastructure upgrade.
We have also seen now, finally, the missing piece of the puzzle: the Darra to Rocklea upgrade. Money was set aside back under the federal Labor government, and what happened? The Queensland LNP state government under Campbell Newman ripped it up and refused to fund that project, time and time again, just like Cross River Rail in Brisbane.
But it gets worse. In the case of Cross River Rail, the LNP state government were prepared to fund it, and I am advised that it actually had gone through the cabinet process after the former government led by Julia Gillard and Wayne Swan allocated $716 million for the Cross River Rail project. The media release was written. The media opportunity was organised by the then LNP state transport minister and the then LNP Premier, alongside the government. What happened? This time, former Leader of the Opposition and former Prime Minister Tony Abbott got in the road and refused to support the project. So, of course, the LNP state government under the leadership of Campbell Newman ripped up that project as well, and we are still waiting for infrastructure to be built—a critical piece of public transport infrastructure.
It is just like, in my electorate, the Ipswich Motorway upgrade: it always takes a Labor state government and an activist federal Labor opposition to make sure that these projects are delivered. Because of that commitment made by Bill Shorten alongside me, the member for Moreton and the member for Blair earlier this year, we finally saw action from the coalition. But it should not have to take years and years of years of lobbying. More importantly, it is not about the politicians; it is about the people in my community who have had to sit in traffic week in, week out because this government is refusing to invest. We have seen close to $1 billion slashed from local government financial assistance since the budget of 2014-15. In the 2014 budget, the government promised $8 billion in infrastructure, but we know only $5.5 billion was spent.
I say again that time and time again we hear great, great motions in this chamber, but doing and acting is another thing once we get out into the community. I know that infrastructure is critical, but real investment is needed, and this government has shown no willingness to seriously deliver on the vital funding. To have the audacity to come in here when this government is letting Queensland down on projects like the M1 is sickening. But I will continue to fight to make sure that we hold this government to account. (Time expired)
It is the start of another sitting week, the final one of 2016, and here we are today talking about yet another Turnbull government commitment, with a program which is improving the lives of people in regional, rural and remote Australia. The Turnbull government is committed to building better regions, and the National Stronger Regions Fund, or NSRF, was established upon this government being elected some three years ago. NSRF plays a vital role in driving economic development, and it complements other government policies such as the $50 billion infrastructure plan, which is driving jobs and economic growth throughout regional Western Australia and, more broadly, around Australia.
But we know that those on the other side do not care about regional Australia, so I might just talk slowly so that they might learn a thing or two as I continue with my speech today. NSRF was an election commitment of the coalition in 2013 and has had a profound impact on regional Australia, particularly after the six years of abandonment by those opposite. The program has delivered over $66 million worth of projects across WA, including grants for the Karratha Arts and Community Precinct and the restoration of the Victoria Hotel in Roebourne. The third round of NSRF will deliver over $18 million worth of projects in WA and over $126 million nationally.
In my electorate of Durack, I announced that a number of projects will be delivered across the electorate and supported by the NSRF. The first one I want to talk about is in the Shire of Derby-West Kimberley, which has received $5 million for the redevelopment of the Derby Airport, which will lead to the recommencement of the regular passenger transport service and the construction of a tourism air lounge to enhance tourism in the region. This funding goes to the heart of what the program is designed to deliver, improving regional communities, as I said, with the redevelopment leading to the resumption of commercial flights to and from Derby. This is indeed good news for that town and that region.
Also in the Kimberley, the Kununurra Bushmen's Rodeo Association received over $300,000 for an outdoor multipurpose facility, which will open up the town to host international rodeo and camp drafting events, which is another brilliant outcome for that region. In the Pilbara, St John Ambulance in Port Hedland will have the benefit of a new subcentre, courtesy of over $1.7 million in funding from the NSRF. The project will allow St John Ambulance to cater for increased demand for services in the area and offer improved access to first aid training and equipment.
As I mentioned, the Karratha Arts and Community Precinct project is a project that the federal government has committed $10 million towards. This will improve the liveability of the city of Karratha and the Pilbara region, more generally. Karratha has the largest population of any town in the Pilbara, Kimberley and Gascoyne regions of northern Western Australia. It is a hub through which much of the industry and business of these regions flow through. We need to be encouraging projects that foster the growth of the spirit of the people of Karratha through arts and cultural projects such as this.
In the nearby town of Roebourne, a $2 million grant will help restore the Victoria Hotel. This is an important part of the heritage of the town and the region as a whole, as the hotel was constructed in 1893 and is still standing today—quite something in the Pilbara, I can assure you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Unfortunately, the pub has been closed since 2005 but was purchased in 2013 by the Juluwarlu Aboriginal Corporation. There are now new plans for the pub, which was famously the centre of town and will be again, I have no doubt. This restoration project aims to reveal the sites early 1900s architectural form and will position it as Roebourne's landmark, with retail space, a small business incubator and training facilities. No longer will it be a pub; it will provide very good community facilities.
The rural mid-west town of Cue was also boosted through the latest round of the program, with the town's 1895 state heritage listed building—
A division having been called in the House of Representatives—
Proceedings suspended from 17 : 52 to 18 : 05
With the time remaining, I would like to talk about the last four projects which will be funded thanks to the National Stronger Regions Fund. The first one is the Shire of Moora receiving $900,000 to upgrade the region's major health campus. Another is the Liebe Group, which will now get new premises in Dalwallinu—$616,000. The Shire of Kellerberrin receives $310,000 for the Centenary Park, and the Shire of Narembeen's community precinct will be funded by over $700,000 from the federal government.
I rise to speak on the motion by the member for Wide Bay on the National Stronger Regions Fund. The member says the fund is having a significant and positive impact on rural, remote and disadvantaged regions of Australia. Nothing could be further from the truth, especially in my electorate. While the Turnbull government were handing out funding under the National Stronger Regions Program, at the same time they were starving local councils of funding through the financial assistance grants indexation freeze. Government MPs have supported the decision of their ministers and their government to reduce funding to local government by close to $1 billion since 2014-15.
A government member interjecting—
It's the truth. This is cost shifting at its most appalling, and it hits hard in the regions. The regions need infrastructure and they need jobs. In my region, the unemployment rate continues to grow. Compare these figures from my electorate to the national average of 5.6 per cent: in June this year the unemployment rate in Kurri Kurri and Abermain was 10.8 per cent, in Maitland it was 9.9 per cent and in Raymond Terrace it was 11.5 per cent, almost double the national average—a disgrace! How can this government boast about stronger regions when so many are out of work?
There is one project on the table that would boost many regions along the east coast of Australia, and that is the high-speed rail. A 21st century fast train from Melbourne to Brisbane, via Sydney and Canberra, was introduced to this place by the shadow minister for infrastructure and championed by the Leader of the Opposition. High-speed rail would not only revolutionise interstate travel in this country but also be an enormous boost to the regions, especially to regions like mine, the electorate of Paterson, which straddles the productive lower Hunter Valley and beautiful Port Stephens and is just a stone's throw from the major regional city of Newcastle. With a high-speed rail station in Newcastle, everything in our region would be a great deal closer to everyone along the eastern seaboard. The government should support Labor's call for a high-speed rail authority to get on with planning this incredible and important piece of infrastructure.
Back to the National Stronger Regions Fund: the member for Wide Bay says the fund 'is delivering infrastructure projects to create jobs in regional areas, improve community facilities and support stronger and more sustainable communities'. Maybe in his electorate of Wide Bay and maybe in the leafy city seats of Warringah and Kooyong, but certainly not in Paterson.
My electorate of Paterson missed out on funding under the last round of the National Stronger Regions Fund and that is a great shame. It is more than a shame: it is actually a disgrace, because the project that missed out on federal funding was Maitland City Council's Mount Vincent waste transfer and recycling facility.
The council applied in March for $5.2 million of the $17 million cost of the project under the National Stronger Regions Fund, but found out just in November that it had missed out. The fact that this project missed out leaves a $5 million black hole in a $17 million project. Who will pay for that?
The tip at Mount Vincent Waste Management Centre is near capacity, so this project simply has to go ahead. We have five people moving to the Maitland area every day. It is one of the fastest-growing areas in the state. Who will fund the shortfall? The ratepayers of Maitland? If the National Stronger Regions Fund were really as significant and positive as the member for Wide Bay would have us believe it would have granted the sought-after contribution to Maitland City Council's Mount Vincent Waste Management Centre, but it did not. It is hardly a success story.
I was hoping to get here earlier, to hear the member for Wide Bay speak. But soon afterwards the member for Lilley started speaking and I grabbed the popcorn in my office suite, because it was just hilarious. It was like watching a comedy video. The member for Lilley was exactly the same as the member for Oxley and now the member for Paterson. They just love to throw stones when they actually have absolutely no credibility when it comes to infrastructure.
I looked up some of the facts and, despite the member for Lilley previously being the Treasurer of this country, in the 2010-11 budget Labor estimated that they would spend $6.8 billion—$6.8 billion!—in the 2012-13 year on infrastructure. The actual—how much they really spent—was $3.6 billion, barely 50 per cent. As we know already—other people have referred to this era as the 'post-truth' era, where the Labor Party will not hesitate to tell a filthy lie—they might have zero when it comes to truth but they only have 50 per cent when it comes to delivery of infrastructure.
I was also delighted to hear the furphies around the Queensland contribution to infrastructure from the Labor Party. After all, the person who put this motion is the honourable member for Wide Bay, a great LNP representative and a great Queenslander. In Wide Bay, just like in my seat of Fairfax, and running all the way up the coast either way in Queensland, we have the Bruce Highway. When the Labor Party were in power they committed to $4.1 billion on the Bruce Highway. They never did it—they never do—but they committed $4.1 billion. How much has the coalition committed to Queensland's Bruce Highway? It is $6.7 billion—$6.7 billion!
Ms Swanson interjecting—
And I am delighted to have the uproar of congratulatory messages from the opposition here. Mr Deputy Speaker Hogan, do you know that just within the Sunshine Coast region, where I am, over a billion dollars will be spent on the Bruce Highway in coming years? In only the last week or so we have announced a $181 million concessional loan for the Sunshine Coast Airport. The coalition actually delivers, and that is the contrast.
The National Stronger Regions Fund has been a roaring success. Of course, Labor's equivalent was the RDAF—the Regional Development Australia Fund. When I looked this up I found the Auditor-General's report from 2014, which spoke scathingly of its mismanagement and poor administration. Again, I find this bizarre, that here Labor are, coming in in numbers and trying to bag the coalition's performance on delivery when they themselves actually have none. Three rounds of the National Stronger Regions Fund have been enormously successful: $630 million. And can I say how happy I am that within the seat of Fairfax, the Nambour Heritage Tramway project was a recipient in round 3.
For those who do not know Nambour, it is a town of which I am enormously proud as a member of parliament. In 2003, the Moreton sugar mill closed. It had been running in Nambour for well over 100 years—106 years. That had an enormous impact on the town's economy and on the town's identity. One of the things that the town looked at as a community with their local councillor, Greg Rogerson, was a revitalisation plan, and the heritage tramway was a part of that. Half a million dollars through this National Stronger Regions Fund will help get that tram off the ground or back on track.
I want to pay credit here to Michael Foley. Michael unfortunately left us some weeks ago. He passed away. But I want to pay tribute to Michael today. He was responsible for ensuring the heritage listing of that trail track. I also want to pay tribute to the committee—Paul Moriarty, Peter Clarke, Ron King, Kristen Beckhaus, Rhonda Billet-Haire—the Nambour Alliance and indeed the Nambour community. It is funds like this that the coalition delivers that get regional local communities boosting their economy again, and I am so happy to be speaking today in support of the motion.
I commend the government for investing in the National Stronger Regions Fund, and in particular I am pleased that the government has sought to amend the fund so that the focus is on investment in regional projects in regional Australia, and it is not allocated to metropolitan Australia. Of course, I have no issue with infrastructure spending in our cities, but you only need to travel through regional Australia to realise that regional funding comes in a poor second to spending on metro infrastructure.
I would just like to note for the House my disappointment and my particular concern that, while we had in round 1 $212 million in spending and, in round 2, $293 million in spending, for round 3 only $126 million was spent in this program. We are a very big country, and that is spread very thinly through regional Australia. I am also a little bit disappointed that, of the three rounds and of the total investment by the Commonwealth of more than $600 million, only one project had a Commonwealth investment in my electorate, and that was $9 million for Kangaroo Island.
Just to detail that: in round 2 of the program, the Kangaroo Island Council put in a successful bid for $9 million for an $18 million project to upgrade the island's airport. Kangaroo Island has some of the most expensive freight and passenger costs in Australia. So I and the community of Kangaroo Island are very hopeful that the upgraded airport will deliver on its promise to provide direct access to new markets for tourism and for the export of our niche agricultural products, including seafoods. Kangaroo Island received a quarter of South Australia's allocation over those three rounds. That is just $9 million out of $632 million.
In round 3, there were hundreds of applications, including 48 from South Australia. Four of those projects were selected, with a total value of just over $9.8 million, of which $8.6 million was set aside for a wastewater management project for Peterborough to allow for the growth of industry in the region—a very worthy project. Unfortunately, two applications from my electorate were unsuccessful, including a $380 million bid for the Milang & District Community Association to redevelop the Milang Lakeside Butter Factory and a project by the Mount Barker District Council to build a regional football centre in Mount Barker.
I note, though, that the federal government has reaffirmed its commitment to an election promise to provide $3.75 million towards the $27 million regional sporting hub project in Mount Barker. I may say that Mount Barker is one of the fastest-growing regional centres in Australia. We have a population of 33,000, and we are expected to be 52,000 by the year 2036. So my office is working very hard with the Mount Barker council to secure other funding for this crucial piece of infrastructure, which will boost the economy and will attract elite-level games of AFL and soccer to our Adelaide Hills.
South Australia has an unenviable position of having some of the highest unemployment rates in our country. Just before I entered parliament, I learnt that my electorate had the dubious honour of being one of the top 20 worst places for youth unemployment in Australia, and that was for the first time since records have been kept. Those records were detailed by the Brotherhood of St Laurence. The Adelaide Hills and central region made the list with 16.3 per cent youth unemployment. That was just under the northern suburbs of Adelaide, which are always considered the area of highest youth unemployment, which had 16.4 per cent. In South Australia, the only area worse off than us was the Barossa and the mid-north, which came in at No. 7, with 19.4 per cent. If ever there was an argument for infrastructure investment in regional South Australia to create jobs, those figures detail the need. The government has spent over $600 million on the rest of the country on this fund. With $495 million left and rebranding it as the Building Better Regions Fund, it is my hope that South Australia, and Mayo in particular, will not be overlooked and will receive its fair share.
I would like to detail very quickly one project that my community is particularly passionate about, a freight bypass. We need this to come out from Murray Bridge to take freight north until it gets to Dry Creek. This will increase productivity, bring a lot of jobs to our region and allow for a transport corridor throughout my electorate so that we can, hopefully, one day get some sort of train or O-Bahn infrastructure that we so critically need and that are missing and have been missed for over 20 years. It would also allow trucks to travel around to the north and miss the dangerous Adelaide Hills route down to the city.
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 House:
(1) calls on the Government to:
(a) establish a national inter-governmental taskforce to co-ordinate the response of state/territory and federal government agencies to the perfluorinated and polyfluorinated (per- and poly-fluoro) alkyl substances contamination on and around Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) bases at Williamtown and Oakey, and throughout Australia;
(b) develop a nationally consistent approach for screening and health guidelines, assessments, containment, management standards and remediation protocols for Commonwealth sites and their surroundings that are identified as being contaminated with per- and poly-fluoro alkyl substances;
(c) provide:
(i) a breakdown and schedule of spending of the $55 million allocated from the Defence budget to deal with contamination at and around RAAF bases caused by per- and poly-fluoro alkyl substances;
(ii) transparency into the Government's per- and poly-fluoro alkyl substances interdepartmental committee, including a breakdown of its composition, terms of reference and meeting schedule; and
(iii) a timeline for when, how, and by whom the issue of per- and poly-fluoro alkyl substances will be brought to the COAG; and
(d) inform Williamtown residents when its proposed dialogue will begin on buybacks of properties contaminated by per- and poly-fluoro alkyl substances; and
(2) while welcoming the New South Wales Environmental Protection Agency's lifting of fishing bans implemented as a result of the contamination, calls on the Government to:
(a) ensure income support is available to affected commercial fishers through to March 2017; and
(b) advocate for leniency by lending institutions with respect to business and home loan repayments and lending practices involving properties in the Williamtown investigation zone.
I move this motion today out of sheer anger at the Turnbull government's failure to help the people of Williamtown, people who are stuck in a red zone of contamination caused by firefighting chemicals, known as PFAS, leaching from the RAAF base; people who are worried about their health, their families and their future; and people who have already felt the impact, with elevated levels of these chemicals in their blood, with land that has been devalued and is no longer fit for purpose, with businesses that are struggling because banks will not lend them money, with the stigma of living in a contaminated zone and with anger and frustration at a government that will not deliver. So, yes, I am angry at this government as it sits idly by, failing to deliver on the commitments it made during the election campaign, while my community struggles.
This contamination does not affect the people of Williamtown only. They and the people of Oakey in Queensland are merely guinea pigs, and there are more communities to follow. There are more Defence bases contaminated. At sites throughout Australia, environmental investigations have only just begun. In Williamtown, environmental investigations have been going on for 15 months. Fifteen months might not sound like a long time, but when you are living with it, when you are lying awake every night worrying about the future, 15 months feels like a life time.
This government promised voluntary blood testing, but it took too long, so the community did it themselves. This government promised—the Prime Minister himself promised—to begin a dialogue on voluntary buybacks of properties once environmental testing was complete. Now my community fear that environmental testing will never be complete. My community were promised action. Now they feel they have no choice but to take legal action against Defence for the damage it has done and the losses caused.
We simply do not know if these PFAS chemicals are affecting health in our community. Australian health authorities maintain there is no proven link with ill health, but in the United States DuPont has been found liable for a man's testicular cancer because it discharged these chemicals into waterways. It is the second case in which the company has been found liable, and there are 3,500 more cases to come. I do not say that to be alarmist, nor to challenge the authority of Australian health experts, but the jury is quite literally still out on these chemicals. They have come to the notice of the United Nations Stockholm convention on persistent organic compounds and they have come to the notice of the American courts, and this will continue.
What must occur in Australia and what was committed to by this government is a nationally consistent approach to PFAS chemicals and the communities impacted by them. We must have, as Labor suggested in the first place, a proper intergovernmental independent task force. We must have national guidelines. We must have transparency around government action. We must have support for affected communities.
A remark that is made to me over and over again is: if this were a company that had contaminated the water supply, the commercial fisheries and private property, there would be holy hell to pay, and yet this is our government that has caused this grief. This government must step up. I urge the members of this House to support this motion so that my community in Williamtown, Salt Ash, Oakey in Queensland and the many other communities who are affected and will be affected by PFAS contamination are dealt with promptly and fairly. We cannot wait for the science to be completely known. We cannot risk another asbestos.
I have felt like a lone voice on this issue, such has been the silence from this government, and I note there are no speakers on the Notice Paper today for this. I am now pleased that I have my own colleagues in Labor by my side in the House who have joined me, and we collectively have worked so hard. Gai Brodtmann, the federal member for Canberra, who joins me in the House, has worked so hard; she has had countless sleepless nights alongside me with this as well. The member for Newcastle, who also joins me in the House, has been by our side and her community's side, particularly in relation to commercial fishing. I urge this House: back me, back all the communities in Australia that have been impacted and please support this motion.
I thank the member for Paterson. Is the motion seconded?
I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
I am pleased to advise the chamber that I rise to speak on the motion of the member for Paterson. The Turnbull government certainly recognises community concerns around the potential impacts of what we know as PFAS chemicals. This is a challenge many decades in the making, and it requires a comprehensive and fact-based response.
As a government and for me as the member for Groom—which takes in the beautiful community of Oakey—we understand the impact and the need to respond as soon as practicable. But this is not a simple issue with a simple solution, and it is not just a localised issue in certain locations, such as Williamtown or Oakey. National implications make it even more important that the government gets this right and that it follows appropriate scientific investigation processes to gather the evidence that we need to underpin sound decisions for the long-term future.
I have been engaged with our Oakey community on this issue since before my election this year right through to a meeting between some local landholders and the Minister for Defence Personnel just last week. That engagement will continue in the coming weeks, in the coming months and, in terms of community recovery, in the coming years.
I know Oakey. It is the community where I spent my childhood. We meet in homes, in businesses, in the main street and in public halls, and we will continue to do so until we reach the outcomes that we need. Make no mistake, Oakey residents and landholders are frustrated. They are angry and they are stressed, and understandably so, both in terms of the time required to get the science and basis for future decision-making right and the divisions that have been caused in our local community based on differing views of those impacts and potential solutions.
But I firmly believe the role of government is to focus on the science to develop those answers as soon as possible. Rather than the approach of those opposite, who seek to politicise this issue, the Turnbull government's actions and decisions are informed first and foremost by medical experts. To date, the advice is that there is no consistent evidence that suggests exposure to PFAS causes any adverse human health effects. Whilst this is the expert advice to government, we do understand this offers small comfort to people living in impacted communities.
The government is also on the record as considering the matter of property acquisition and compensation now that the interim health reference values have been established and detailed environmental investigations are concluding. Now would I like to see those answers available today? Of course I would. I know Oakey landholders wanted to see them yesterday. But to ensure the highest prioritisation that the Turnbull government believes that it deserves, the Prime Minister has directed that the whole-of-government task force coordinating its response be moved into the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet to ensure a comprehensive, whole-of-government response is developed with the states and territories. The consultation is essential and I, amongst others, have been critical of earlier consultation by Defence. But now it is now time that we focus on progressing these investigations through to finalisation. We are on track for delivering our election commitments: blood testing, epidemiological study, mental health community liaison officers and remediation. Alternative drinking water supplies are in place in the meantime.
Science and fact are the best approach for strategies to reduce exposure for the community and for management and remediation. To suggest that this should be rushed or that corners should be cut displays a complete disregard for the expertise and resources required to undertake what will be one of the biggest environmental investigations ever undertaken in this country. One thing this government is not going to do is put at risk the integrity of those investigations to meet a politically convenient time frame. It is greatly distressing that those opposite are unashamedly saying that that is what they would do.
The calls for the establishment of a national intergovernmental task force and other approaches are simply playing catch-up with what is already in place.
I rise to support the member for Paterson's motion. This is a very important motion. It helps raise awareness of this issue around the nation and in this place. It is an ongoing issue of contamination of defence and aviation sites around Australia and the impact it is having on those that work on the defence and aviation sites, airports and the residents in and around those places. These particular contaminants or chemicals have been used for years on airports and RAAF bases. These particular substances have the ability to repel oil, grease and water. They have been used in the firefighting foams and chemicals that are used to combat fires. In addition, these foams containing these chemicals have been deployed on fires at traffic and railway accidents and even building fires. So it is not just in those areas but all over the metropolitan, country and rural areas as well.
The foams have been used for nearly 50 years on defence and civilian facilities and in airports in Australia due to their effectiveness in extinguishing liquid fuel fires. Firefighters train on airport facilities with these chemicals or used to train with these chemicals. Thankfully, these chemicals have now been more or less phased out from firefighting foams in Australia. However, these particular chemicals are biologically very stable and resist typical environmental degradation like other chemicals. They stay in the environment for many years and they do not degrade. Significant residual contaminants have been identified at many sites globally, for example, around 49,000 of the world's airports—civilian and military. In South Australia's case, there are three sites: The RAAF base at Edinburgh, Parafield Airport and in my electorate, the Adelaide Airport which is in the middle of the electorate. It is causing quite a bit of angst with residents in and around the electorate of the airport.
In December 2011, Defence added these chemicals to its routine environmental monitoring schedule particularly at facilities where firefighters may have been using them including at Edinburgh and Adelaide Airport. This was a welcome move as was the Senate inquiry into contamination of defence property and CFA training ground at Fiskville. The committee was chaired by Senator Gallacher and brought down its recommendations in November. However, we must remember that over the years many firefighters and workers on these airports were repeatedly exposed to these potentially toxic substances. It is not just firefighters who have been exposed to these chemicals but also support personnel and workers who perhaps are not firefighters but who were involved in working with these foams on and outside of the airports. These workers are not classified as professional firefighters, the ones who were working outside of airports, and are often overlooked. It is important that they also be included in any testing program or future management schemes around this issue.
In the first few weeks after I was re-elected, I was contacted by a constituent who raised his concerns about this very issue. This constituent is a retired firefighter, with 35 years of experience at Adelaide Airport. Many constituents, others and our former firefighters are asking for greater government commitment to develop and implement a testing and monitoring regime for these people. I understand that blood tests have been offered, but only on a voluntary basis. So many people have yet to be tested and may never be tested. It is necessary to fully understand the effects of these compounds on workers exposed to those chemicals.
These workers want answers. They want their concerns addressed and they want to be taken seriously. Many of them are firefighters and workers who have worked at Adelaide Airport. We all understand the monitoring of these substances is still in the early stages. There are many unknowns about the effects of the contamination and the exposure and the inconclusive results from animal testing, but it is precisely the fact that not enough is known that is causing angst with residents and workers. This is leading to fear and mental anguish issues for many involved, including their families.
It is our responsibility to ensure that they are monitored and that their workplaces are safe. We need to continue to monitor and research these sites in order to better understand the effects of the compounds on the workers exposed to the chemicals and, of course, if there is any exposure to the residents in and around the airport. The response to this problem has now been too slow, as we heard from the others. We need action now.
I want to commend the member for Paterson for this motion. It is a very timely motion and I also want to commend the member for Paterson for her tireless and fierce advocacy on this issue. Since she was campaigning, since she was preselected, she has been on this issue talking with the community, working with the community, to get the best results for that community. I want to commend the member for Paterson for her tireless and fierce efforts on this issue.
I never thought I would wish for the Prime Minister to be more discursive. I never thought I would keenly await a word from the Minister for Defence Industry. I never thought I would be checking my inbox on a Friday afternoon, hoping to find a media release from the Minister for Defence as she takes out the trash before the weekend rolls round. And yet, here we are. Here we are—three weeks since the Department of Defence released the preliminary sampling report into the extent of legacy firefighting foam contamination at 12 defence sites around the country. Three weeks have passed and the Turnbull government has not said anything. Not a thing! Three weeks have passed since 12 communities had it confirmed to them that, yes, the local defence base has been contaminated and, no, it is not clear what happens next. Three weeks with no action from this leaderless government.
We on this side of the House will not sit on our hands while those opposite sit on theirs. Labor is doing what it has always done on this emerging national issue and it is leading from the front. The government has just sat on its hands. Labor led from the front when we initiated the Senate inquiry into the contamination at defence and other Commonwealth sites. Labor led from the front when we developed a comprehensive policy response to the issue, and it was the Turnbull coalition government that copied it. Labor led from the front when we called for the establishment of an intergovernmental task force to coordinate a consistent response across the country. The news that the member for Groom mentioned about this interdepartmental task force in PM&C—that is news, member for Groom. Labor led from the front when we supported offering blood tests to residents, and the government copied it.
Labor lead from the front again today in our call for air sampling in the Williamtown investigation zone. We call for it because there are concerns amongst residents that they may have been exposed to contaminants through breathing the dust outside. Considering the ingestion of dust has been recognised to become a low-level source of PFAS exposure, we believe this course of action to be the right thing to do. It is important to note that the Williamtown Human Health Risk Assessment recognised the potential for inhalation of surface soil-derived dust within the investigation area.
The assessment deems the risk it poses to be low and tolerable under the numerous pathway scenarios modelled—but certainty is everything here. When we are dealing with a fast-moving, emerging national issue such as that of PFAS contamination, it is important to bring the community along with us every step of the way. While the scientific literature continues to evolve at this pace, it is inevitable that residents will receive conflicting advice from different sources. It is a recipe for uncertainty at a time when certainty is critical.
It has been three weeks since the release of the preliminary sampling report and since Defence said it will start more comprehensive tests in 'early 2017'. Residents might not have results until 12 months after testing starts, whenever that will be. That is a long time to wait for answers. Labor has called on the government to intervene and accelerate the testing time line. The sooner the Turnbull government acts, the sooner the communities will know the extent of the contamination—and they deserve to know. Communities deserve better than this government, which is overflowing with Defence ministers and sorely lacking in leaders. Not one of the Turnbull government's three Defence ministers has managed to say so much as a word on PFAS contamination. Not one has managed to pierce the uncertainty that has developed since the preliminary sampling report was released three weeks ago—not one word. One party is supporting residents and the other is ignoring them.
Communities are facing uncertainty right around the country. They should not be left to suffer in the Turnbull government's silence. Residents deserve a government that listens to them and responds to them, that says to them: 'We hear you, communities who are suffering.' That says to them: you are not on your own. It says to them: we are here to help. Residents deserve a government that says something to them. Yet, here we are, waiting for a word, and all we can hear from those opposite is the sound of empty chairs.
I thank my colleagues the member for Hindmarsh and the member for Paterson for putting this motion on the Notice Paper,and I also thank them and the member for Canberra for their contributions. I think they have done a very good job of outlining the deficiencies in the way in which the government has dealt with this issue.
I was involved in the first consultation in Katherine some many months ago now and, sadly, apart from me and a couple of local councillors, no-one from the public turned up. That raised serious questions about the engagement of the Department of Defence with the local community on this issue or, alternatively, the lack of information that was made available to them. I do not at all suggest that the people responsible at RAAF Base Tindal were in some way doing the wrong thing. There is no doubt that they were operating on the best information available to them, which is bloody poor information. And we have got to a point, as we have heard, where a report was released some little time ago now about the testing at various sites across the country, and people have been left to wonder. That is the issue here.
I fully recognise that departmental officials who go around consulting on behalf of the government, who are talking to people, do not know the answers to many of the questions. They freely admit they do not know the answers to many of the questions. That is a very positive thing in a way, because they do not try and con people by saying, 'Look, it's okay.' In fact, what they are doing is saying to people is: 'Because of the potential risks, what we want to do is operate on the side of caution and, if, for example, you are drinking bore water from an area which has been tested to be contaminated, we suggest you drink other water, which we will supply.' That is a very profound and good thing to do. But then people ask a series of other questions, such as: 'What do you know about these products?' 'Not a lot.' 'What do you think the medical impacts will be?' 'We don't know.' 'What is the international experience?' 'Well, we're not quite sure of that either.'
It seems to me that this is creating a great deal of uncertainty and concern and, indeed, harm in many communities, as the member for Paterson knows only too well in her own community. In her case, I think it was partly brought about by the stupidity of the department of environment people in New South Wales making a pre-emptive declaration on the land around the base. What they need to be doing is working in partnership with the Commonwealth and not raising fears but being alive to the fact that people's relevant and important concerns need to be addressed. As the member for Canberra said, the next set of testing will take place over the next 12 months. That is simply not good enough. Again, I do not want to somehow mean that the departmental officials are not doing their job; but the fact is that they need additional resources to do the work that is required to satisfy the concerns of people in these communities right across the country. It is very simple: make the resources available, take some responsibility and make sure that the people who are concerned about this have their concerns properly addressed and their fears allayed. If you do not, what you are doing is perpetrating something upon those communities which they do not need and which is not welcome.
And it is not good for government. It is certainly not good for Defence Force officials who are working in communities where they are trying to manage relationships. These are important Defence assets. And it is not only Defence; the civilian community needs to be concerned about the impact of this on civilian airports and in fire and emergency services right across the country. Yet they appear not to be involved in this discussion. It seems to me it is about time we took a whole-of-government approach looking not only across federal government but also state jurisdictions. The Civil Aviation Authority ought to be heavily involved in these discussions because they run airports which have used this firm in the same way the Defence Force has. In one sense, the Defence Force has been on the front foot—although they do not have sufficient information. We need a lot more out of this government. I say to the three ministers: one of you take responsibility, for God's sake!
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 House:
(1) recognises that:
(a) the Strzelecki Track is a vital freight and tourist route connecting Adelaide to the Moomba Gas fields in South Australia's far north-east and South East Queensland;
(b) the route is used extensively by pastoralists, mining vehicles and tourists and is no longer fit for purpose due to pot holes, bulldust and closures from flooding;
(c) it can take more than 12 hours for heavy transport to negotiate 338 kilometres from Lyndhurst to Moomba;
(d) the Track is used by many tourists heading into the heart of Australia and visiting some of the wonders of outback South Australia and Queensland and with a proper standard road there is great potential to grow this industry; and
(e) the Track is also used by heavy transport which supports the exploitation of the Moomba Gas Fields and trucks carrying supplies to, and cattle from, properties and they are totally reliant on this route;
(2) notes that:
(a) the Track cuts through remote and inhospitable country where emergency services are reliant on the Royal Flying Doctor Service;
(b) more than 30 road trains navigate the Track each day carrying vital equipment for the gas industry and thousands of dollars of damage is done to each of these trucks on a daily basis; and
(c) rain can close the road for up to six weeks as it did in 2010 when large sections were washed away or left underwater and on average shuts the road for 45 days a year; and
(3) calls on the state and federal governments to work together in an urgent manner to bring about the sealing of this vital route.
To most people, the Strzelecki Track is just another of the names intertwined with the legends of the discovery and utilisation of the Australian outback. The Birdsville and Oodnadatta tracks and the Old Ghan Railway have become for adventurous tourists part of the list of roads that need to be conquered in their quest to discover the real Australia. And that is a good thing. However, for most Australians they are just names of some forgotten stories of the outback. And while they all have their important economic role to play, it is the Strzelecki Track, affectionately known as the Strez, which provides the supply lines to one of South Australia's, if not Australia's, greatest assets in the Cooper Basin. It is estimated that over the last 40 years around 50 per cent of recoverable free-flowing natural gas has been extracted from the basin. However, it is advances in the extraction of tight gas that have led us to believe that we may have only just scratched the surface and that this resource will provide a very important source of gas for Australia in a carbon constrained world well into the next century.
The Strzelecki Track is 472 kilometres of road between Lyndhurst, at the northern end of the bitumen road network of north-eastern South Australia, to Innamincka, which is another 26 kilometres to the Queensland border. Of this, 45 kilometres is already sealed—in six strips to allow for overtaking. The problem is not only that the Strez is unsealed; on average, it is closed for 45 days a year. In fact, in 2010 it was closed for six weeks. And much of the rest of the time it is simply as rough as guts. It is a 'truck wrecker' adding millions of dollars to the cost of gas production in the basin. While these conditions attract some of the more adventurous tourists, for many others they are simply a barrier to be avoided. Around 30 heavy vehicles a day do the 360 kilometre trip from Lyndhurst to Moomba. These are not town delivery trucks; they are road trains, with delivery loads between 60 and 80 tonnes and up to a dozen axles. However, almost unbelievably, that trip from Lyndhurst to Moomba can take about 14 hours. I think that is an average speed of about 35 kilometres an hour. The trip inflicts a huge toll on the truck in terms of tyres and maintenance. Wrecked suspensions, high wear of all moving parts and significant damage to fragile equipment frequently occurs. It is simply no way to supply a modern industry, and certainly not one that we will continue to rely on so heavily.
In recent years the Queensland government has pushed its bitumen roads further west to the South Australian border, and our road users—whether they be heavy transporters in either the resources or the livestock industries, tourists, junior explorers or locals—find they can drive to the South Australian border on a 21st century road, only to discover that it is only an invisible border between states isolating them from a 19th century solution, the rough as guts dirt track. Simply put: one minute they are on a brand new 21st century bitumen road, and, depending on how recently maintenance grading has occurred, then they are on a 19th century dirt road of very ordinary value.
This presents a new variable to road users. Adelaide to Moomba is 954 kilometres, with 358 kilometres of that being unsealed road. Moomba to Brisbane is 1,501 kilometres, with just 143 kilometres of unsealed road. Increasingly, the heavy transport industry is using the long option. It is 50 per cent further with an extra 500 kilometres, or 1,000 kilometres for a round trip. Once again, this is a very strong indication of the condition of the road. Higher fuel costs, longer hours, more drivers but much lower maintenance costs. It is a very sobering indication of the condition of the road, and the implications for South Australia are clear: the benefits of our assets are being lost to the Brisbane supply line. For this reason alone, it is vitally important for South Australia's future that the track be sealed. Of course, this presents a higher cost option to all those who use it.
But there is much more: increasingly there is every reason to be more enthusiastic about the Australian tourism industry. We are seen as a safe, secure, First World option with incredible tourism assets. This works in our favour for not only international tourists but also our domestic travellers as well, especially those who are repeat customers. An increasing number are looking to explore the unparalleled experience of the Aussie outback. Yes, as I have said earlier, some are looking for the ultimate test of man and machine, but most are not. Most want to see the wonders of the outback and not be left on the side of the road with a broken axle or worse. The wonders of the outback as accessed from the Strzelecki Track are many and magnificent. Cooper Creek; the outback's striking wet lands of the Coongie Lakes; Lake Eyre; the base of the Birdsville and Oodnadatta Tracks; the pathway of the old Ghan; Coober Pedy, the opal capital of the world; and the magnificent Flinders Ranges are all accessed from the Strzelecki Track. The completion of a good road to the Southern Ocean through the South Australian outback would open up huge opportunities in the tourism sector.
In all of this, we should not forget the industry which opened up the outback in the first place: livestock. For livestock producers, shorter and faster routes are far better in getting cattle to market. For those unfamiliar with the livestock industry, the cattle have to be spelled after a long period on a truck. Rough roads are uncomfortable for livestock. These are all added costs and added time. Not only for South Australian producers but also for many properties in south-east Queensland, markets and abattoirs in the south make more sense and should provide bigger and better profits, but it all hinges around having a decent road. We cannot expect these vitally important industries of our outback to thrive if we are not prepared to reinvest in them and provide fit tools for service—in this case, a decent road.
I met recently with Premier Jay Weatherill on this issue, and he assures me the state government is interested. The Strez is, of course, a state road and, as such, any possible project will require them to put their shoulder to the wheel. I stand ready to petition ministers for direct support of the program to seal the Strzelecki Track when the state government produce a request to the federal government.
I have also had a number of meetings with Mark Harrington from the Strzelecki Highway company, which has put in to the state government an unsolicited bid involving a portion of private funding. It is an interesting concept and given the pressing need for this project to be brought on as quickly as possible I am very hopeful that the state government will respond to his proposal as soon as possible.
From my part, I continue to lobby federal ministers. I have a standing invitation, I must say, with the transport minister to travel the Strzelecki Track with me! When I pressed him the other day for a date—and I was thinking mid to late December, before it gets too hot—he had his office staff looked at his diary and he is thinking maybe April, which is a concern, because I think seeing is believing for so many people. They do not really get their head around, firstly, what the Cooper Basin means—around the value of the tourism assets that are in the outback of Australia and in this particular case the outback of South Australia—and then actually understand what a road like the Strzelecki can be like and what a barrier it is to tourism and other operators. Incidentally, I have sat in the Lyndhurst Hotel talking to a number of truckies who have come down the Strz and most of them are pretty appalled at the damage to their trucks. I have to report, sadly, that one truckie said to me, 'Whatever you do don't bituminise the road.' I asked him why and he said, 'If you bituminise the road the big fellers will be here and little blokes like me will get squeezed out.' I said, 'I understand what you are saying, but for the benefit of South Australia and the benefit of Australia, so that these industries can actually contribute in the way that they should to our economy, I cannot agree with you. I think the track needs bituminising, and the sooner the better.'
I Thank the member for Grey and note the passion for his electorate. Is the motion seconded?
I second the motion. I would like to congratulate my South Australian colleague the member for Grey for moving this motion today. He is a very hardworking and passionate local member and also a South Australian. I note also that the member for Barker is here in the chamber with us. All of us understand how important it is to get the South Australian economy back on track to look after our rural and regional areas. This project is very unique, because it has a significant strategic value to the South Australian economy and to the tourism industry, which is critical.
Now more than ever I think we need to be building productive infrastructure in South Australia so that we can start to reverse the very dire economic trends that our state has been suffering from. This project stands as one that will greatly improve road freight transport between South Australia and Queensland, unlocking significant potential to further develop job-creating industries in South Australia. A sealed Strzelecki Track will mean that thousands of head of cattle can she be shipped directly to South Australian abattoirs, creating growth in the food-processing industry. The member for Barker, of course, has in his electorate, in Thomas Foods, one of our most significant abattoirs and processors. Also, the ability for industry to use an all-weather road to and from the Cooper Basin will, of course, improve access to service industries for the oil and gas operations in Moomba and also over the border in Queensland.
Tourism is another industry that will benefit from a road that is sealed. Sealing the 472-kilometre stretch of road will provide a gateway from the Sunshine State to some of the nation's renowned salt lakes and the Flinders Ranges. A sealed track will also make it easier and, importantly, much safer for tourists to traverse remote Australia. We Australians know that you have to be really careful when you are travelling in the outback and we also know that sometimes tourists do not have the expertise to know how carefully you need to treat the outback.
As you can see, this is about much more than construction jobs. It is about a long-term, forward-thinking infrastructure project that will help grow our state's economy in the decades to come. With South Australia's unemployment rate, at 6.4 per cent, unfortunately still being well above the national average, a focus on job-creating infrastructure from the state Labor government cannot come quickly enough. And something that is outside of the CBD for once would also be nice! As someone who represents suburban South Australia and grew up in rural and regional South Australia, I think there is far too much emphasis from this state Labor government on the city centre. It is as if the rest of us do not exist, and quite frankly we have had enough of it. Also, of course, fixing up or bitumising the Strzelecki Track is about improving productivity and safety for those who use the road.
It is quite remarkable that the track is closed for about 45 days a year. Being a dirt road, it does not take much to wash it out and these closures cost the South Australian economy millions of dollars in lost revenue and compound the already-long travel times on the track as well. So this is very much a productivity issue. Sealing the road will considerably reduce time spent travelling for our hardworking truckies. With maximum speeds on the track of only 35 kilometres an hour for road freight it takes over 14 hours to complete. This is a serious productivity issue.
A sealed Strzelecki Track should be travelled in under six hours, I think—is that right, member for Grey?
Yes.
Absolutely. This will, of course, increase productivity and save people money, and we would also of course anticipate that it would stop the track being closed down for so many days in the year—reducing it from 45 days down to 20 or so, which would be a very good outcome. A special consideration is the estimated cost of $500,000 for every day that the road is closed. That is a significant financial impost. Sealing the track will save over $12 million a year.
This, of course, is also a safety issue. For our truck drivers, for our tourists and for people providing services to the mining industry it is really very important. I think that the overall savings to business and government in the operation and maintenance costs are irrefutable.
Once again, I thank the member for Grey for raising this and call on the state Labor government to take note of the prosperity that an upgraded Strzelecki Track will bring to the state of South Australia. Thank you.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this House:
(1) expresses its deepest condolences for the victims of the devastating earthquakes that hit central Italy on 24 August and 30 October 2016;
(2) recognises the:
(a) ongoing suffering and displacement that the earthquakes have caused to the residents of the affected towns; and
(b) courageous and tireless work of the emergency and medical workers, and volunteers to save lives and prevent further tragedies; and
(3) expresses our sincere thanks to the Australian communities who have rallied to show their support and solidarity in the face of this tragedy.
Today I want to take the opportunity to talk about the generosity of the South Australian communities who have rallied together to help the victims of these devastating earthquakes in Italy.
On 24 August a 6.2 magnitude earthquake struck central Italy, reducing three towns in the regions of Lazio, Umbria and Marche to absolute rubble and devastating many other towns and villages. In total almost 300 people died and 400 people were injured.
In the town of Amatrice alone, 234 people lost their lives. The area had hardly settled into this new reality when it was struck by another 6.6 magnitude quake, which hit central Italy on 30 October—the biggest tremor to be felt in the region for 40 years. The second quake was centred near Norcia, around 68 kilometres south-east of Perugia. The area remains devastated and more than 15,000 people are being housed in temporary shelters.
I moved this motion because I wanted to ask this House to express our deepest condolences to the Italian people who suffered so much as a result of these disasters. We grieve for those who lost their lives or who were injured, and for their friends and families; for those who were left homeless or without work; and for those who suffered and who continue to suffer the shock and fear. A massive reconstruction effort will now be needed.
I also want to take the opportunity to thank the many thousands of Italians who donated food, clothes, toys and blankets and who opened their homes to those who no longer had one. They staffed makeshift kitchens, fed people and clothed people in that region. This spirit of generosity was also not just in Italy. Solidarity was certainly felt all the way here in Australia in efforts that certainly have been echoed throughout all around Australia in the Italian communities.
The Marche Club in Adelaide mobilised its efforts immediately to help in any way it could. I attended a fundraiser with the member for Makin, with the whole Italian community in South Australia coming together. Marche is one of the regions severely destroyed in the earthquakes, and the Marche Club immediately set up a fundraising committee called the Adelaide Central Italy Earthquake Appeal. They undertook a massive fundraising effort that included dinners, donations and countless volunteer hours. In a sign of great generosity and friendship, the Greek Orthodox Community of South Australia took the initiative to pass around an extra collection plate at all of their churches for the victims of the Italian earthquake during church services. This simple act collected $5,000, which the Greek Orthodox Community of South Australia decided to contribute to the funds being collected by the Marche Club.
I had the great pleasure of assisting in bringing in the Greek and Italian efforts together. Together with the member for Makin, we held discussions with the Italian ambassador in Canberra, His Excellency Pier Francesco Zazo, at the embassy and the Italian consul in Adelaide, Ms Roberta Ronzitti. Both were very touched by this thoughtful gesture and the friendship between the two communities. We facilitated a meeting between Bill Gonis, the president of the Greek Orthodox Community, and Cathy Papandrea, chairperson of the Adelaide Central Italy Earthquake Appeal. Cathy invited Bill and I to join the fundraising committee for a dinner to officially hand over the money that was raised by the Greek Orthodox Community of South Australia. It was a wonderful evening. It was inspiring to see the goodwill that exists between our wonderful communities in Australia. In total, the fundraising efforts by the Adelaide Central Italy Earthquake Appeal are likely to raise around $100,000. This money will go towards funding a project to help people in some of the worst affected towns in the Marche region.
There are too many people who have contributed to this fundraising effort to single out any one person or group. Instead, I want to acknowledge the sense of generosity, solidarity and friendship that this act symbolises, because this is what keeps us going through difficult times. I sincerely commend and thank everyone who has contributed to these efforts. I would just like to say a couple of words of Italian, and I am sure the member for Makin will correct for me if I do not pronounce them correctly. Grazie per la vostra generosita' e amicizia: your assistance is greatly appreciated and acknowledged. That is for all those people who have volunteered their time to raise much needed funds for the Italian earthquake victims.
Is the motion seconded?
I am pleased to second this motion and commend the member for Hindmarsh for bringing this matter to the attention of the House. He did very well with his Italian and the translation just a moment ago.
All of Italy was in shock on 24 August. It was in physical shock in the central part of Italy where the earthquake and the subsequent tremors took place, but the rest of the country was in emotional shock as a result of what was happening. I will not go through all of the statistics again, because I think the member for Hindmarsh has already done covered the extent of the devastation that occurred on that day—and, indeed, on subsequent days. I understand that even up to a couple of weeks ago there were still tremors being felt in the same region generally. Instead, I just want to make some general observations and comments about what happened in Italy.
Italy is not a country where the people are unaccustomed to natural disasters, be it earthquakes, in particular, or floods or landslides. The records will show that over the years, particularly in the last 100 years, there has been a series of events, one after the other, where people have lost their lives, homes have been lost and many people have been left homeless. The country is quite accustomed to dealing with natural disasters. In fact if we look at some of the statistics in recent years, we find that in 2009 in L'Aquila, a 6.3 magnitude earthquake left 308 people dead, 1,500 injured and 65,000 homeless. On 24 August we saw that happen again, with a very similar numbers. In 1997, so in the last 20 years, another 40,000 people were left homeless and 13 killed as a result of an earthquake in Umbria-Marche region. So the country is accustomed to dealing with crises.
But this particular time I could sense from the news reports I was reading that were coming out of Italy and from people here in Australia who were in regular contact with their family members in Italy that this was quite devastating. I think the devastation was because they knew what happened on 24 August was not necessarily the end of the earthquakes and that they would continue, and I think the scientific advice that was being provided to them was suggesting that that would be the case. Whilst I understand that, at the time, the relief efforts were absolutely fantastic—indeed, the member for Hindmarsh and I met a young man at the Marche Club who had just come from Italy and who had participated in the relief efforts at the time. He talked about the devastation—he had seen it firsthand—and was able to give us a firsthand account of what happened there. It was truly terrific to see everyone pulling together.
One may well say, 'Italy is an advanced country, and I am sure that they can manage to deal with situations like that.' But I believe that when countries like Australia and others stand up and show acknowledgment for what has happened and in turn try to do what we can to give support, it adds a level of moral courage to the people who are back there doing the work. I think that is the importance of what happened at the Marche Club in Adelaide a couple of months ago, when the community came together to raise funds—I do not remember what the final figure was, but it was tens of thousands of dollars—that will be sent back there to help them, as we saw with $5,000 from the Greek community. It is that moral courage to let people know that you are not alone at a time like this. There are people around the world who are happy to stand up and support you in any way they can.
I particularly say that since, in Australia, we have nearly a million people who would claim that their heritage is of Italian descent. Indeed, some 700,000—or thereabouts—Italians have come to this country over the years. Of course, a lot of them are no longer still with us and have passed on. Italian migration largely stopped in 1970, but the children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren of those migrants are still here and still have connections with those regions and the people there. They visit them when they go on holidays back to Italy, and so they are familiar with the country and the connections that they have made.
It is wonderful to see that the Italians who have come to Australia have not forgotten their heritage and have been prepared to stand up at a time of need and support their country in any way they can. Congratulations and well done to all those who have supported this cause, and in particular to the Marche Club for organising the fundraiser in Adelaide. Once again, I thank the member for Hindmarsh for bringing the matter to the attention of the House.
I thank the member for his contribution. The time allocated for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order for the next day of sitting.
I move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) the nbnTM Fair Use Policy is unfair for rural and regional Australia;
(b) rural nbnTM users have restricted data speeds, limits on capacity and have to pay more for a poorer service;
(c) under the nbnTM Interim Satellite Service, rural users had 'off peak' data from 11 pm to 2 pm;
(d) on the new nbnTM Sky MusterTM Satellite Service, the 'off peak' data has now changed to between 1 am and 7 am; and
(e) the consequence of the nbnTM Fair Use Policy is that businesses, students, home workers and farmers have reduced Internet access and pay comparatively more; and
(2) calls on the Government to:
(a) implement the recommendations of the 2015 Regional Telecommunications Review and review the nbnTM Fair Use Policy in light of the impact on rural families and businesses;
(b) maximise the amount of data available under the satellite service; and
(c) revert the off-peak period in the nbnTM Fair Use Policy to 11 pm to 2 pm, to accommodate the realities of rural life.
In the Weekly Times recently, there was a very poignant story of a farmer and a businesswoman and the problems she has had with NBN access:
Bonnie Doon organic lamb and beef producer Carolyn Suggate struggles to divvy up her 40GB monthly NBN Sky Muster download allowance between her farm, work and three data-hungry children.
'My son is about to enter Year 12 and can't use the internet at home for downloading anything substantial,' said Ms Suggate, who has an online beef and lamb business, and is the administrator of the Organic Federation of Australia. 'They talk about the difficulties of remote students, but we're not in the Kimberleys. Imagine telling a city kid that they can't get internet after school?'
Ms Suggate and her family live a 20-minute drive from Mansfield—
in north-east Victoria—
but fall 2km outside of the reach of the local NBN fixed wireless tower.
They have had to sign up to the NBN satellite service, which caps their data allowance at 40GB a month during the NBN-defined peak period of 7 am to 1 am.
'We've got access to another 100 gigs a month, off peak, but that is from 1am to 7am,' she said—
not much use. Not only is data and access a problem but she also talks about the problems they are having with the system:
Since connecting to the NBN satellite system 10 weeks ago, Ms Suggate and her family have experienced an outage a week, most of which last for hours, not minutes.
So we have some problems that we really need to address. As you would know, Mr Deputy Speaker, the telecommunications landscape is changing. Smart devices and online communication are now essential for businesses in Australia, and rural Australians want to capitalise on these innovations. Whether it be for small business, rural education, social connectivity, e-health, remote management of industry, automation on our farms or emergency services, we are beginning to come to rely on the internet and the connectivity it gives us. Many people were looking forward to the NBN and to the better internet access it would provide. However, in my electorate many people are now concerned about affordability and value as they pay twice what their metro counterparts are paying for a limited satellite service. This makes it very difficult for rural businesses to compete.
In bringing my comments to a close, I call on the government to really take heed of the 2015 review recommendations and to move towards a more equitable model of service delivery in regional areas. I call on the government to manage and prioritise demand on NBN satellite services to ensure that satellite, the structure of the NBN Co's fair use policy and the wholesale tariffs minimise the negative impact on rural and regional businesses and users.
Tonight, I particularly want to acknowledge the people of my community. We have heard your call. We are very happy to bring your issues to the government and to the parliament and to continue to work to make this service better for all of us. Thank you.
Is the motion seconded?
I second the motion. I completely support the member for Indi's motion, and I would like to echo her concerns about the national broadband rollout. It is disadvantaging regional and rural communities. I wish to support her push for a review of the fair use policy as it applies to NBN satellite services to ensure equity of internet access for rural people.
The electorate of Mayo was one of the first areas to have the NBN rolled out—in some parts of it, of course—and we have seen that in regional areas there are winners and losers and that we are certainly losing compared to our urban cousins and, sometimes, our immediate neighbours. In my area, the townships of Strathalbyn and Willunga were fortunate enough to have fibre to the home and not to the node, and they were certainly the envy of many other rollouts beyond them. Mayo now has 11,900 premises ready for fibre to the node, with 4,500 connected; more than 5,000 premises will eventually have fixed wireless; and, to date, just under 5,000 premises will have to rely on the Sky Muster satellite service. The result is a disgruntled populace, acutely aware that communities are being discriminated against on the grounds of geography, even if they live just 20 kilometres from the CBD of Adelaide.
When I came into office, the NBN quickly became the No. 1 constituent issue handled by my staff. Initially, we were receiving 30 calls a week about the NBN. This has petered out to around 10 calls a week. That may sound reduced, but we know that many people are not making contact with the office and are just living with the service they are being offered, shrugging their shoulders and realising: 'Well, I guess we live in a regional area. I guess we cannot expect the same as our metro areas.' I think that is fundamentally unfair. Residents and businesspeople were contacting us because they had no-one else to turn to. The NBN Co service providers and their subcontractors, from our communications, did not want to know about the problems. It was always somebody else's problem.
We had a vet clinic that not only did not have internet; they did not have a landline for weeks, because somehow somebody damaged the line infrastructure underground, and nobody—neither their telco nor the NBN—wanted to own the problem.
We have an internet businessman in Bridgewater, 20 minutes from the city. He was originally told that he would be getting fibre to the premises, only to find out last week that this is not going to happen. His immediate neighbour will get fibre to the node, but he will not. And, thanks to geography, he will not get wireless either.
A similar tale affects a medical imaging research company at Piccadilly, 25 minutes from the city, and we have residents in Langhorne Creek, which is pretty flat country, whose area is 3.2 kilometres from a tower, but they cannot get wireless, because of the trees. We have a town with a broadacre farm that needs a 50-metre lattice tower to ensure that 300 residents get wireless. Anyone who lives more than two kilometres away will get satellite, and there is currently a very long waiting list.
Country people are pragmatic, and they understand the economies of scale. However, the NBN is a national infrastructure project akin to the electricity network and the copper telephone networks of previous generations. Due to geography, country people will not have access to a level of service at the same price as the majority of people who live in metropolitan areas. Can you imagine the uproar if, in the middle of metropolitan Sydney, people were offered a mix of satellite and fixed wireless towers and just a very, very small percentage of them were offered fibre to the node?
An honourable member interjecting—
Absolutely. It is not enough to say to regional communities, 'Well, just use ADSL.' There has been limited investment in that resource because of the NBN. Some new residents cannot access ports, because there are none available, and they have been told there will be no upgrade, because of the NBN. Sections of my electorate are also in high-rainfall areas, and in winter copper wiring can be underwater because many of our areas have over a metre of water. That affects the conductivity of the network, and this is going to be an issue that the NBN will have to address.
If you are going to put rural people on satellite because it is cheaper for the government, it needs to be affordable for all. As people in regional areas, we should not be expected to pay more for internet services and receive a slower service simply because we live outside the metropolitan areas. The government really must look as this as an infrastructure project that must be thinking of the next 50 years and not just three years and a budget line.
The time allocated 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.
On indulgence, Deputy Speaker—
Is indulgence given?
Honourable members interjecting—
Yes.
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. On indulgence: as has been reported in the press, I have apologised to a person who has been a respondent in a racial vilification case, which I mentioned previously in this place. I can confirm that I have provided a written apology to this person and have left it at his discretion whether to disclose its contents.
Deputy Speaker, you may recall that an allegation was made in a racial vilification case that a racist phrase was used in a Facebook post bearing this person's name. The person concerned gave evidence accepted by the court that he was not the author of the Facebook post attributed to him. It has been brought to my attention that there are some concerns over references I made in this place on 23 November 2016, in which I described these circumstances as the person's Facebook account being either hacked or subjected to a hacking. The circumstance was that the court received evidence that another person posted the relevant message pretending to be the respondent. I trust this addresses the concerns that have been brought to my attention. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Federation Chamber adjourned at 19:24
asked the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, in writing, on 1 September 2016:
In respect of the Government's election commitment to allocate $2.7 million for the Tweed, Ballina and Byron shire councils to undertake priority local road upgrades, will these funds be allocated in the 2016-17 budget; if so, (a) from which funding program will they come, and (b) what additional funding requirements will be imposed upon the funding recipient for them to receive the funding.
The Minister for Infrastructure and Transport has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:
The Australian Government is currently working with the NSW Government to settle the arrangements for the funding of all new commitments. This includes projects to be delivered by the Tweed, Ballina and Byron shire councils.
(a) Funding for the projects will be provided under the Infrastructure Investment Programme.
(b) All projects approved under the Infrastructure Investment Programme are required to be administered under the terms and conditions set out in the National Partnership Agreement on Land Transport Infrastructure Projects.
asked the Minister for Urban Infrastructure, in writing, on 11 October 2016:
(1) When does he expect (a) work to begin on the Armadale Road duplication, and (b) the Australian Government contribution to this project to be paid to the Western Australian Government.(2) Has Infrastructure Australia undertaken an assessment of this project; if so, when will this assessment be released; if not, why not.(3) Has the Australian Government received a request for funding for an Armadale Road or North Lake Road freeway bridge; if so, what was the nature of this request.(4) Has the Australian Government made any comparative assessment on the impact on traffic of completing the Armadale Road duplication project with and without also constructing a new Armadale Road freeway bridge.
The Minister for Urban Infrastructure has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:
(a) Early 2018.
(b) Australian Government funding is allocated from 2016-17 to 2019-20.
(2) Infrastructure Australia is currently evaluating the Armadale Road business case, which will be released when finalised.
(3) No
(4) The Western Australian Government is responsible for project development works including traffic modelling.