I have received a message from the Senate informing the House of a resolution of the Senate referring the following additional matter to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services.
The message read as follows—
That the following matters be referred to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services for inquiry and report by 30 June 2017:
(a) the development and implementation in the corporate, public and not-for-profit sectors of whistleblower protections, taking into account the substance and detail of that contained in the Registered Organisation Commission (ROC) legislation passed by the Parliament in November 2016;
(b) the types of wrongdoing to which a comprehensive whistleblower protection regime for the corporate, public and not-for-profit sectors should apply;
(c) the most effective ways of integrating whistleblower protection requirements for the corporate, public and not-for-profit sectors into Commonwealth law;
(d) compensation arrangements in whistleblower legislation across different jurisdictions, including the bounty systems used in the United States of America;
(e) measures needed to ensure effective access to justice, including legal services, for persons who make or may make disclosures and require access to protection as a whistleblower;
(f) the definition of detrimental action and reprisal, and the interaction between and, if necessary, separation of criminal and civil liability;
(g) the obligations on corporate, not-for-profit and public sector organisations to prepare, publish and apply procedures to support and protect persons who make or may make disclosures, and their liability if they fail to do so or fail to ensure the procedures are followed;
(h) the obligations on independent regulatory and law enforcement agencies to ensure the proper protection of whistleblowers and investigation of whistleblower disclosures;
(i) the circumstances in which public interest disclosures to third parties or the media should attract protection;
(j) any other matters relating to the enhancement of protections and the type and availability of remedies for whistleblowers in the corporate, not-for-profit and public sectors; and
(k) any related matters.
I move:
That, in accordance with section 5 of the Parliament Act 1974, the House approves the following proposal for work in the Parliamentary Zone which was presented to the House on 30 November 2016, namely: Parliament House security upgrade works—Perimeter security enhancements.
Yesterday, I tabled details of plans to enhance security arrangements at Parliament House. I wish to inform the House now that in accordance with standing order 222(a), the House Appropriations and Administration Committee met on Monday and resolved that the House Appropriations and Administration Committee endorses the Speaker presenting the Group 2 security works for Parliament House to the House for approval when a similar motion is to be moved in the Senate. As honourable members will see from the papers that were tabled yesterday in relation to this motion, the proposed works are for security enhancements, which include a physical perimeter using fencing and landscaping, replacement of framing and glazing at the northern, eastern and western entrances, an additional bollard at the eastern and western entrances and poles for additional CCTV security cameras. Honourable members will see that the details outlining these proposed works are included in the tabling statement.
On 23 November, the committee received a confidential briefing from officers of the Department of Parliamentary Services, which has overall carriage of these building works, and the Australian Federal Police. The briefing provided details of the proposed works and the need for the works to strengthen and further enhance the existing physical security framework here at Parliament House. All enhancements, those already completed and those being proposed today, are the result of advice from our security agencies and are based on many months of consideration. The Presiding Officers regularly receive advice on the security of Parliament House and that advice guides all decisions that we make on the security of this building and its occupants. The funds for all Group 1 and Group 2 works have already been fully appropriated.
Parliament House has always rightly been known as the people's house and the committee was mindful of balancing the security at Parliament House with the open access to Parliament House by all people. Preserving the valuable and unique heritage of Parliament House has been an important consideration for the Presiding Officers as we have worked through the various proposals, and this was also important to committee members. To ensure the moral rights of the late Romaldo Giurgola in the design of Australian Parliament House have been considered, the Department of Parliamentary Services conducted appropriate consultation with the nominated administrator. It is important to acknowledge these works do have an impact on the original design intent of Parliament House. However, it is also important to acknowledge the world has changed since the original design brief for Parliament House was created in the late 1970s. Where possible the measures and comments put forward by the nominated administrator of Mr Giurgola's moral rights have been noted and implemented carefully balancing risk mitigation requirements.
Finally, I would like to advise the House what this package of security measures will not do, following some inaccurate speculation in the past few days. The changes will not impede or change the way that the public enters the building. The public has always entered across the forecourt and through the front doors, and they will continue to do so. The public will also to continue to access the roof this building in precisely the same way, passing through screening and going up to the roof internally via the elevators. And let me dispel the myth that the public can walk right over the top of Parliament House. No-one has been able to walk up the grass and over the top of Parliament House for 11 years, since the existing fences were erected on security grounds in 2005. There will be no changes to the current arrangements for protest action on the authorised assembly area at the front of the building.
As the Speaker, it is my primary responsibility, along with President of the Senate, to ensure the safety and security of all Parliament House occupants, including staff, the press gallery and the one million people, of which 100,000 are schoolchildren, who visit Parliament House each year. I take this responsibility extremely seriously. The committee unanimously endorsed me bringing forward the Group 2 security works to the House. I now recommend that the House supports the motion and agrees to the works, and I move that the motion be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That:
(1) the House:
(a) agree with the recommendation of the report of the Committee of Privileges and Members’ Interests, presented to the House on 28 November 2016, in relation to the request from the Member for Blaxland for a ruling from the House on his claim of parliamentary privilege for material seized by the Australian Federal Police under a search warrant executed on the Department of Parliamentary Services at Parliament House on 24 August 2016; and
(b) rule to uphold the claim of parliamentary privilege by the Member for Blaxland in relation to the material seized under the search warrant; and
(2) the Australian Federal Police be advised of the ruling of the House, and the seized material in the custody of the Clerk of the House be returned to the Member for Blaxland.
Is the motion seconded?
I second the motion.
Question agreed to.
As required by resolutions of the House, I table copies of notifications of alterations of interests received during the period 27 September 2016 to 29 November 2016.
I seek leave to move the following motion:
That the House:
(1) notes that:
(a) in the Budget, the Government blindsided rural and regional Australia with an internationally uncompetitive 32.5 per cent backpacker tax;
(b) the Government dropped the rate of the backpacker tax to a still uncompetitive rate of 19 per cent;
(c) the Government again shifted the rate of the backpacker tax to 15 per cent because of a desperate deal in the Senate;
(d) the Government's desperate deal was rejected by the Senate which instead proposed a compromise of 10.5 per cent;
(e) the Government has refused to accept the Senate's sensible compromise, threatening to allow the backpacker tax to revert to its original internationally uncompetitive rate of 32.5 per cent which will harm the tourism, hospitality and agricultural industries; and
(f) only this morning, the Minister for Finance said "The deal that is on the table for the Senate is a 15 per cent rate; if it's not 15 per cent then it will be 32.5 per cent";
(2) calls on the Government to end the chaos and deal with the backpacker tax immediately by accepting the sensible compromise offered by the Senate; and
(3) therefore, suspends so much of the standing and sessional orders as would prevent order of the day No. 3 relating to the Income Tax Rates Amendment (Working Holiday Maker Reform) Bill 2016 being called on immediately.
Leave not granted.
I move:
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the member for McMahon from moving the following motion forthwith.
That the House:
(1) notes that:
(a) in the Budget, the Government blindsided rural and regional Australia with an internationally uncompetitive 32.5 per cent backpacker tax;
(b) the Government dropped the rate of the backpacker tax to a still uncompetitive rate of 19 per cent;
(c) the Government again shifted the rate of the backpacker tax to 15 per cent because of a desperate deal in the Senate;
(d) the Government's desperate deal was rejected by the Senate which instead proposed a compromise of 10.5 per cent;
(e) the Government has refused to accept the Senate's sensible compromise, threatening to allow the backpacker tax to revert to its original internationally uncompetitive rate of 32.5 per cent which will harm the tourism, hospitality and agricultural industries; and
(f) only this morning, the Minister for Finance said "The deal that is on the table for the Senate is a 15 per cent rate; if it's not 15 per cent then it will be 32.5 per cent";
(2) calls on the Government to end the chaos and deal with the backpacker tax immediately by accepting the sensible compromise offered by the Senate; and
(3) therefore, suspends so much of the standing and sessional orders as would prevent order of the day No. 3 relating to the Income Tax Rates Amendment (Working Holiday Maker Reform) Bill 2016 being called on immediately.
I move:
That the Member be no longer heard.
The question is that the member for McMahon be no longer heard.
Is the motion seconded?
I second the motion. This is Barnaby Joyce's—
The Leader of the House?
I move:
That the Member be no longer heard.
The question is that the member for Hunter be no longer heard.
Mr Speaker, this is a chaotic—
The member for Grayndler will resume his seat. I call the Leader of the House.
I move:
That the question be now put.
The question is that the motion be put.
The question now is that the motion moved by the member for McMahon be agreed to.
I just want to give members a reminder that they need to take their seats for a division and, once I have appointed the tellers, to not be moving seats. I am just going to give that reminder on the last day.
I rise on behalf of the government to bid farewell to the parliament for another year. As the parliamentary year—and, indeed, 2016—draws to a close, it is important that we come together to look back on what has been another remarkable year for our most remarkable country. The level of discourse between our political parties can be vigorous, fierce and, at times, confronting, but the fact that we can put aside our partisan differences to celebrate the year that was is one of the great features of our democracy. Australians are always most inspired—and perhaps surprised—at those moments of bipartisanship in this House. It is when we are at our best.
There was no clearer expression of the strength of our democracy than this year's election. Over eight weeks political parties and candidates of every size and persuasion presented their vision for Australia to the people. 'Mr Harbourside Mansion' was surely the epithet of the campaign. Of course, Bill desperately wanted the title for himself, but like all good socialists he wanted a harbourside mansion paid for by the taxpayer. The campaign was hard fought, but while our political battles can be bruising, we resolve our differences by casting and counting votes, not with guns and violence. I know we all take great pride in the way the Australian people peacefully choose their government. I want to thank the electors of Wentworth for re-electing me this year. It is an honour to represent them for a fifth term, and I am determined to repay their faith in me as their local member and as Australia's Prime Minister.
When I reflect on the parliamentary year, I am filled with optimism. In their wisdom the Australian people elected a parliament that requires us to work together, to talk, to compromise. The decision is proving to be a very workable one. The 45th Parliament is making and passing good legislation for the benefit of all. Since the election we have passed 38 bills, including those that took us to the double-dissolution election: the Australian Building and Construction Commission restoration bill and the registered organisations commission legislation. So, the parliament is doing the job that the Australian people asked us to do.
Internationally, 2016 delivered both change and, in some parts of the world, a depressing lack of change. We have been appalled by the ongoing conflict in Syria and Iraq and the atrocities which continue to be committed by those enslaved by the dark, tyrannical vision of Daesh. We have witnessed with horror the terrorist attacks in Nice and Orlando, and suicide bombings in many countries—Turkey, Pakistan and Iraq, among many others. It has made us all the more grateful that we are such a harmonious society with people of all faiths, cultures and backgrounds living together in peace. Looking around the world, we know how rare it is, and we must never take it for granted. Australia's strengths are our freedom, our diversity and our security. Those attributes are not mutually exclusive; rather, they are mutually reinforcing. This is not to say that we do not face challenges; regrettably, we do. That is why we continue to reform our national security laws, provide our agencies with the powers they need, and secure our border, just as we nurture and celebrate the diversity that gives us strength and unity.
This year saw elections in other countries too, with both Britain's decision to leave the European Union and the election of Donald Trump in the United States leaving pollsters and pundits red-faced. The forces at play and the political systems in those countries are very different to ours, but we must always be aware of what the public expects from its government, from its parliament, from its leaders. Many people are anxious about change or feel that their leaders are not listening, and we should not dismiss their concerns. Across the globe, economies have struggled with sluggish growth and the inevitable challenges associated with technological disruption and the transition from the old to the new. We are at a time in human history where the pace and scale of change is without precedent. Good leaders explain how change can improve lives, consult as they work to minimise the adverse consequences of change, and implement policies that take advantage of the opportunities that change brings, while ensuring that the most vulnerable in our society are not left behind. The focus of all of our attention—and it is the keen focus of my government—is on strong but inclusive growth. Fairness and inclusion are key features of our national economic plan.
Everything we do in this place is designed to secure the future of Australians, and we must never forget that. Travelling our great nation has allowed me to meet many of the people we represent. Their insights and stories tell us so much more than the statistics show. In Tasmania I met with Josef Chromy, a hero of the wine and food business, a great Tasmanian who, at 76 years of age, instead of slowing down, is employing more Tasmanians and exporting more wine to Japan and now China, thanks to our big free trade agreements.
In Western Australia I met young people who will be able to get a foothold in the labour market through our PaTH program. Lee Doherty was there to explain to the kids what a difference it made to his career as a carpenter finding a company like Colgan Industries who were prepared to give him a go and then to hire him.
In South Australia I heard about a very happy dad who said that our focus on innovation and our massive investment in the defence industry meant that his son, a young maths and science whiz-kid, will now have the opportunity to get a great job in Adelaide. He will not have to move somewhere else, as his father had always assumed. We are going to build the most sophisticated machines, the most sophisticated ships and submarines, in the world, right on that young engineer's doorstep.
In Canberra eight-year-old Ayesha helped me spread the word about the National Disability Insurance Scheme, which is going to help give kids like her the best start in life.
It has been a privilege to meet so many people—tens of thousands of everyday Australians, all around the country—who shared with me their hopes, aspirations and challenges. It makes me so proud, as I know it makes all honourable members proud, to see the way we rally together. We are an egalitarian nation who will each other to succeed, who feel deeply the pain of a friend or neighbour when they are struck by violence or tragedy. So many people shared their stories with me so that I could be a better leader, and each one stays with me.
Domestic violence survivor Ann O'Neill told me about the night her estranged husband destroyed her world when he murdered their two children. Incredibly, she has risen from this unthinkable crime, showing courageous advocacy so that others may be spared her pain. That was one of so many stories I heard that galvanised me still further to rid this nation of domestic violence, of violence against women and children. As we know, while not all disrespect of women leads to violence against women, that surely is where all violence against women begins.
At the Teal Ribbon breakfast in Parliament House, Anne-Maree Mulders spoke so bravely about her diagnosis of ovarian cancer and how, still numb with shock, she pulled out a red texta and an envelope and started scribbling down the doctor's words, words that would change her life and that of her family. As a parent, my heart broke as she spoke of her fear of leaving her boys. But, through our research into cancer, we are hoping to beat this disease and others like it so mums like Anne-Maree can grow old, as we all hope to do with our children and grandchildren.
Young carers Jayden and Sandy, from Western Sydney, told of the heavy burden of each raising their siblings and looking after their mums while trying to finish high school and being a breadwinner. These amazing people, not much more than children really, received $3,000 Young Carers Bursary Program scholarships. They are truly heroes of our community.
Serge Oreshkin, whose son Victor died in the MH17 tragedy, I met by chance on the street, and we embraced. I could feel his pain. He asked us not to forget Victor or the 38 Australians we lost in that shocking attack. Serge, we remember Victor and all the victims and their families, and we continue to work with our international partners on the next steps to secure the prosecution of those who fired that missile.
No two days have been the same. One day we are in the House debating legislation; the next I am at the Birdsville Hotel, on the edge of the Simpson Desert, chatting to locals alongside a wall of well-worn Akubras, with great company, cold beer and a curried camel pie.
Representing our nation overseas gave me the chance to meet Australians having a go around the world, like Nick and Andy Stone, whose new cafe is booming, bringing decent coffee to all New Yorkers. More recently, in Lima, I met former constituents of mine Greg and Chad, whose company, Chimu, now employs 70 people and is the market leader in Latin American and Antarctic travel experiences.
Of course, there is always plenty of advice about how you can do your job better, some of it from unexpected quarters. A young boy I met in Ceduna was full bottle on our tax system and told me we were taxing his father too much. Never let it be said that I do not take advice. In October, we delivered a tax cut to middle-income Australian taxpayers.
I got a hug and this friendship bracelet from Lulu Demetriou, a young patient at Sydney's Children's Hospital recently. She is one of a number of kids there who face extraordinary challenges—she is in remission from cancer—and who we are determined to help, with our commitment, which we announced there, of another $20 million to the Zero Childhood Cancer initiative. I have been brought to tears a few times in this job, and I admit there were some more that day. I am wearing Lulu's bracelet, and it reminds me, if I ever need reminding, that what we do here is about the future of our nation, about the future of people like Lulu, our children and grandchildren.
Some of my most memorable experiences in 2016 have been with Indigenous Australians—bright-eyed Indigenous students at the Melbourne Indigenous Transition School; AFL Cape York House in Cairns; the Fregon school in the Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara Lands; the Sydney community of La Perouse demonstrating the resilience of Indigenous people; the long walk with Michael Long to the MCG to recognise the importance of reconciliation; and of course the Kenbi land settlement, which finally recognised what Larrakia people have always known, that those lands were always Larrakia land.
This year we have made some progress on our journey towards constitutional recognition of our First Australians. There are now five Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians in the parliament, and I want to thank them all, as I know the Leader of the Opposition does, for their wisdom and support. We are committed, the Leader of the Opposition and I, to this important change to our nation's founding document.
Every year, we urge each other to be kinder and gentler in this place. I do not mind being labelled idealistic for hoping that we will be in 2017, but perhaps a more realistic goal is to vow to speak more plainly and with more candour to the Australian people. They are wearied of the political games, the sense that politicians say one thing and could easily mean another and that our promises are throwaway lines with the shelf life of a carton of milk. The Oxford dictionary has declared 'post-truth' its international word of the year, but let us do all we can to ensure post-truth politics has no place in Australia. If we promise to be bound by our words, we will be much more careful in choosing them.
It is important at this time of year that we pay tribute to the extraordinary Australian Defence Force men and women, especially those who are overseas serving our country with pride and with honour. They defend our freedom and our values and they keep us safe here at home. I was honoured this year to visit our troops bravely and professionally serving in Afghanistan and Iraq. Many will not be at home with their families this Christmas. We remember them especially at this time of year, but we are always grateful. For their sacrifice, we honour them.
In the Centenary of Anzac we know that the best way to honour the diggers of 1916 is by supporting the service men and women, the veterans and the families of 2016. We are doing so with new mental health services, action to prevent suicide, and the Prime Minister's Veterans' Employment Initiative that will ensure Australian businesses and the public sector better recognise and take up the remarkable and unique experiences and attributes of our veterans. I acknowledge the bipartisan support that has had. Richard Marles was present at the launch at Kirribilli House and has undertaken to continue to support it when he, in due course, becomes Prime Minister!
We also thank everyone who continues working through the Christmas break. It is important to acknowledge the efforts of the nurses, doctors and all of those in our fire, police, ambulance and other emergency services. We are the land of droughts, fires and flooding rains, and an Australian summer is a time when those emergency service workers, most of them volunteers, will be standing between us and our homes and the worst that nature can fling at us.
Of course, we in the parliament are very grateful to those who work so hard behind the scenes. They often arrive before dawn has broken and many are also the last to leave. They are the enablers of our democracy. In particular I acknowledge the hard work of the Clerk David Elder; the Deputy Clerk Claressa Surtees; the Serjeant-at-Arms James Catchpole; the parliamentary security guards, who have been busier than normal over the last 24 hours; and all of the attendants. I acknowledge the work of the House Table Office, of Catherine Cornish, Richard Selth, Glenn Worthington and their staff, and of the House Parliamentary Liaison Office, of Anne Dowd, Tim Moore and Suzanne de Smet. I also thank all of those who look after us in the dining room and at Aussies—and, of course, we should not forget those who come here late at night and keep the parliament clean.
I thank the Chief Government Whip, Nola Marino; the deputy whips; you, Mr Speaker; your Deputy Speaker; the Second Deputy Speaker; and the Speaker's panel. I thank David Belgrove, Anne O'Connor and Sue Clamour from the legislative team of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, who support the parliamentary business committee, and Peter Quiggin and his staff from the Office of Parliamentary Counsel.
It would be remiss of me not to thank the members of the fourth estate, the esteemed members of the parliamentary press gallery. While we may not always agree—indeed, we rarely do—a free press is as vital a part of our democracy as the work we do.
We can also now remember and honour former serving members we have farewelled this past year. Some we wished well in their retirement and some we bowed our final farewell to. Seven former members died in the year, including former Speaker Bob Halverson, Allan Rocher, former minister Rex Patterson, Bob Charles, JohnSiddonsand Bruce Goodluck. We also farewelled many MPs and senators, those who retired or were defeated. They have all served Australia well. I particularly note Warren Truss, former Deputy Prime Minister and Leader of the Nationals; Philip Ruddock, the Father of the House; and the former trade minister Andrew Robb, who set us up with those three enormous free trade deals during his time.
I want to thank all of my team in the coalition. In particular I want to thank the Deputy Prime Minister, Barnaby Joyce; the Foreign Minister and Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party, Julie Bishop; the Deputy Leader of the Nationals, Senator Fiona Nash; and, of course, the Leader of the House, the indefatigable and ever good-natured Christopher Pyne. Barnaby and I are so lucky to work with such a dedicated and energetic team. I thank my staff and all of the staff of serving MPs and senators. You make all of us look good, or at least better than we probably deserve to look, and your hard work does not go unnoticed by us. I thank my close protection team from the Australian Federal Police. I know they enjoy public transport as much as I do!
Above all, I want to thank Lucy and my family for their support. They are: my daughter, Daisy; James; our third grandchild who arrived in August, little Alice, a sister for Jack; my son, Alex; and his wife, Yvonne—they are bringing their daughter, Isla, to stay in Sydney over the holidays so that we are all together for Christmas. We may need to get another baby seat for the car. I will put that on my to-do list for when parliament rises. There is nothing better than kids around at Christmas.
I extend my gratitude to the families of all parliamentarians. We are the volunteers, but our families are the conscripts and we could not do this job without the support and love of our families. I urge all honourable members each time over the summer break someone asks them to set the table, to do the dishes, to play yet another round of backyard cricket, to mind the kids while the other half heads out for the night or to spend the day with the grandkids—to ensure their ongoing availability to serve in this place—to comply and to do so with a very big smile.
On that final piece of advice, I wish everyone a very enjoyable break. Bill, on behalf of Lucy and my family I wish you, Chloe and your family a very merry Christmas. May it contain all the excitement that you all can handle, but also some rest. I suspect 2017 could be even more exciting than 2016.
I wish the Australian people, who we represent here and who are uppermost in the minds of all we do, a very happy Christmas, safe and family-filled holidays and a 2017 filled with peace and love—love for our families and friends and, above all, for those who are lonely, isolated or brought low by poverty or illness. Whether we are of any or no faith, this is the Christmas season. The message Jesus brought was one of unconditional love. We will be at our very best when we reach out without judging, as the member for Sydney and I have often done at Graham Long's Wayside Chapel, to those who most need, especially at this time, our love and our generosity.
Thank you, Prime Minister, for that address. Mr Speaker, thank you for the service you and the others who occupy that chair give this parliament, and I include in that list the redoubtable member for McEwen. You have all well and truly earned a break. Perhaps only honourable members with experience as primary school teachers or in riot control could understand what you go through every day between 2 pm and 3.10. I want to thank the Prime Minister for his good wishes and to extend the very best from Chloe and I to Lucy and your family this Christmas.
I wanted to take this opportunity to reveal a national secret. Behind closed doors, we actually get on quite well—at least, I have to say, I thought so till I saw the PM's outing this morning, but I am sure we will resume felicitations as soon as parliament stands! In fact, I recall one meeting when the Prime Minister actually asked me if there was some way we could be nicer about each other in public. I said, 'We could swap jobs'—I thought I was pretty agile, really! I did discover there is a limit to Malcolm's commitment to innovation. The Prime Minister and I actually have more in common than people realise. We are both married to brilliant women. We have both battled the member for Warringah. We have both grown up wanting to help run the AWU and join the Labor Party!
In this place, in the battle of ideas, even in the fiercest fighting it is only ever words that are exchanged. So, this summer, we will no doubt pause and think of those who face real dangers and place themselves in harm's way in Australia's name. We acknowledge our troops serving in the Middle East and their families back here, who also serve; and our emergency services personnel, fighting fires and floods and preventing crime and saving lives. For their sake, and ours, I hope they have a quiet Christmas. Then, of course, there are many who will serve us this Christmas who do not wear a uniform. I think of the Australians who will not spend Christmas at home but will instead be up early or working through the night this holiday season, indeed relying upon penalty rates to provide for their families. Our nation runs on the efforts of all of these modest heroes.
Mr Speaker, 2016 brought us triumph and tragedy, joy and sadness, and the Prime Minister has spoken about some of these most movingly. I recall on the Great Ocean Road the families and volunteers alike who had to leave their tables set with Christmas lunch to either flee the fires or fight them. In Western Australia, there were the children from Yarloop Primary School, who started their year with an evacuation when lightning strikes began a blaze that claimed two lives and many homes. In the face of fire or when the floodwaters hit the Hunter or the Territory, Australians responded with kindness in another's trouble and courage in their own.
On the world stage, we celebrated our Olympians and Paralympians in Rio, and the record-setting Oscar success of the rebooted Mad Max. We mourned for the LGBTI people murdered in Orlando because of who they are and who they loved. We stood in solidarity with other nations that have felt the toll of terrorism and we have rededicated ourselves to meeting these challenges here at home. We have farewelled irreplaceable characters: Max Walker from the very wide world of sport—
Avagoodweekend, Mr Walker!
My friend Mr Broadbent—I acknowledge him. And there was, of course, my very good friend Bob Ellis, whose words will live long after him, who passed. Of course, from the beaches of the shire to the streets of Footscray, we cheered the underdog and enjoyed the fairytale football story.
Nobody in this chamber needs to be told how hard this job is on our families. There are those Saturday night goodbyes, trying to help with the homework from the other side of the country, the netball games, the plays and the concerts you miss, the re-immersion you do when you return from these long parliamentary sittings and the re-acquaintance with your family. None of our partners or our children asked for a spouse or a parent in public life, but they live with it—they live with us—and we could not do it without them. To Chloe, Rupert, Georgette and Clementine, thank you for your love, your support and your patience. I cannot wait for our Christmas together.
From my family to the Labor family, I am lucky and proud to serve in a caucus of all the talents—and I am pleased that there are many more of you here to thank this year than last! In particular, I want to acknowledge my leadership group. My outstanding deputy leader—Tanya, you know how much I value your counsel, your support and your leadership. Thank you. There is our leadership team in the Senate, starting with the formidable Penny Wong, light-years ahead of her opposite number and light-years ahead of whoever replaces him, whenever that happens. There is the always calm Don Farrell, who has been such a welcome return to the parliament. And I must acknowledge the one-of-a-kind Stephen Conroy, who can be very proud of the 20 years he served our party, this parliament and our country. I want to thank our shadow Treasurer, who has ensured that our party leads the policy debate and sets the agenda, particularly on housing affordability but on many other fronts. Then there is the member for Watson, who carries the day for Labor in this chamber—whether or not the government turn up or go home! There is the member for Jagajaga, who knows more about social policy than any think tank or Liberal frontbench in this country. There is the chief whip, Chris Hayes, and our deputy whips keeping order.
For all of us—my talented shadow ministers and backbenchers—we are here in the service of a movement as well as a cause. To every member of our great party, from National Secretary Noah Carroll and his predecessor, George Wright, to the tens of thousands of true believers who made calls and handed out on election day, I say thank you.
In 2017, our people deserve a parliament capable of rising above narrow, self-seeking sectional interests. In 2017, Australians deserve a parliament capable of raising the standard of living and opportunity for all Australians. For a country built on the ideal of a fair go, the stubborn, persistent presence of inequality in our prosperous society is a national wrong.
It is a challenge to us next year in this parliament to use our parliament more intelligently to elevate politics, to make this a more pluralist, more democratic, more representative place, to include more people who are too often left out, ignored, dispossessed or forgotten. I speak of the First Australians and I speak of many more. I speak of the survivors of violence. I speak of farmers doing it hard on the land. I speak of people trapped by insecure work. I speak of women denied genuine equal treatment. I speak of Australians living with disability or Australians living in poverty not being able to have an equal share of the Australian dream. Marginalising our fellow Australians only weakens our society. We can never condone the complacency that another Australian's misfortune is someone else's responsibility. Our duty next year is to gather Australians in to leave no-one behind. Those who would make fairness too difficult make the splintering of our society too easy.
I say to our brothers and sisters in the trade union movement: on this side of the House we know the effort you make to improve the lives of working people. We know the battles that you undertake to lift the living standards of ordinary Australians. We will never accept the calumny and the ignorance which says that somehow unions do not have a place in our society and that their work is not important. Fringe groups and fads may come and go, but solidarity is forever.
Speaking of unshakeable loyalty, I want to thank the press gallery. In our long travels together this year, I often missed the news and could not read the clips. I discovered that the less I saw of your work the more I enjoyed your company. I want to give a special shout out to the snappers and the camos who, while their colleagues snoozed and boozed, ran alongside me in the tropical Townsville heat and the chilly Canberra dawns. In fact, they often sprinted ahead of me while carrying cameras—which was quite demoralising!
Speaking of my running buddies, I want to thank all the members of the AFP who work to keep us safe, especially the detail who served with me on this year's campaign trail. Their professionalism is second only to their sense of humour. I also thank the members of 34 Squadron who carried us safely around the country with such unfailing courtesy and kindness, particularly to my family. On the ground we count on our COMCAR drivers. I want to thank the COMCAR drivers across Australia, but I would like to give a special shout out to my drivers in Melbourne, Steve Smith and Peter Taylor, who are so patient with all the jokes, questions and noises. They are also very good at putting up with my kids and, more significantly, my staff.
On a sitting day this building is crowded with visitors, from the tourists and schoolchildren in the galleries above to all of us who crowd the coffee queue. But it is the permanent residents of this building who allow us to do our job: the clerks and chamber attendants—and I acknowledge Luch, amongst others; the Hansard reporters; the drafting and tabling officers, whose quiet diligence ensures that the only disruptions in this place are the ones we cause ourselves. To Dom and the team at Aussies—the most powerful unsung monopoly in Australia!—thank you for keeping us fed and fuelled. To everyone in security, 2020, broadcast, catering and the gym, thank you for your service. Of course, I want to thank the Parliament House cleaners, particularly the cheerful souls Maria and Joy, who give me that last bit of crucial insight before question time each day.
Having thanked the people who clean up the mess, I want to turn to those who cause it—my staff. None of us in this place could survive without the people who work for us. In case any of us are in any doubt about that, they tell us every day. My electorate office and my personal staff work incredibly hard. They make a lot of sacrifices almost always without recognition. I am very grateful to work with so many people who I can laugh with at the end of the day.
I have one final reflection, though, Mr Speaker. On 30 October this year, in a moment of unthinkable horror, a Brisbane bus driver was set on fire and killed while still behind the wheel. As the flames spread the fire trapped 11 of his passengers in the back of the bus, unable to access the front door. The smoke was getting thicker, panic was setting in; imaginable, really. But a Brisbane cab driver who just happened to pull over for a haircut came to their aid. Selflessly, heroically, behaving in a manner in which we all hope we would do but we wonder if we could, he ran towards the burning bus, kicking in the rear door and helping 11 frightened people to safety. That cabbie's name was Aguek Nyok. Just over 10 years ago he came to Australia as a refugee from South Sudan. When he saw the flames that afternoon he ran towards the smoke and the screams. He did not stop to ask where the people on the bus were born. He did not pause to question the god that they were praying to for rescue. He saw his fellow human beings in mortal danger and he saved their lives.
Aguek was born 13,000 kilometres from where we sit. But on that day he showed us all the spirit of Australia—the spirit of courage and compassion, the sense of community we revere. How lucky were we that that refugee came to Australia. How lucky were those 11 people this Christmas, and their families, to have Christmas together because of that refugee. The ideals and qualities that inspire us in this place he demonstrated in the service to the Australian people.
In 2017, let us all be guided once again by those great Australian values. Let us strive to prove worthy of the people, to prove worthy of the country, to prove worthy of the privilege we have to serve. Let us strive to prove worthy of the people who call Australia home.
Merry Christmas, everyone. I thank the House.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Agriculture and Water Resources Legislation Amendment Bill 2016 and its companion bill, the Excise Levies Legislation Amendment (Honey) Bill 2016, build on the agriculture and water resources portfolio's progress to reduce unnecessary regulation and to improve legislation so that it is clear, easy to read and easy to understand.
The Department of Agriculture and Water Resources administers nearly 100 pieces of primary legislation, some of which date back to the 1980s. Not all of this legislation is now required and not all of it is clear and easy to understand.
This bill will amend 13 portfolio acts to cease four redundant statutory bodies, remove unnecessary regulation, improve administrative efficiency and make technical amendments. It will also repeal 12 acts that are redundant or no longer required and re-introduce legislative measures that lapsed when the parliament was prorogued in April 2016.
The bill will benefit portfolio industries by removing unnecessary regulation and streamlining administrative practices.
For example, the bill will amend fisheries management legislation to remove an unnecessary administrative burden on the fishing industry. Currently, permit holders need to complete an application form each year to apply for a new permit. The amendments will allow the Australian Fisheries Management Authority to grant existing permit holders a new permit without the need for them to complete a new application. This is a simple improvement but one that will lessen the burden for fisheries permit holders each year.
Current legislation requires meat exporters to have a licence to export meat by-products such as skin, hide and tallow. The bill will remove this requirement. As these products are not for human consumption, an export licence is not needed.
The bill will also make amendments to improve government efficiency, including ceasing four statutory bodies. These bodies are either redundant or their functions can now be undertaken in other more efficient ways.
For example, the Statutory Fishing Rights Allocation Review Panel was created to review decisions during the reforms to statutory fishing rights. The amendments will transfer the merit review functions of the review panel to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, the AAT. Due to the majority of the reforms now being completed, any work that would previously have been undertaken by the review panel can now be more appropriately performed by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.
Amendments in the bill will also address concerns raised by the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances about the appropriateness of the delegation of the secretary's general rule-making powers in theFarm Household Support Act 2014. The provision that allows the delegation of the secretary's general rule-making power will be removed.
To streamline administrative practices, the Illegal Logging Prohibition Act 2012 will be amended to ensure that the process of retaining a seized item during an investigation process is efficient and practical. The delegation will be amended to enable inspectors, who are appointed under the legislation, to make applications to an issuing officer to retain items seized during an investigation.
Under current legislation, some of the portfolio's industry bodies are required to provide the agriculture minister with certain corporate documents, which must be tabled in both houses of parliament. To reduce unnecessary duplication and to maintain consistency, where industry bodies already make the same, or similar, information publicly available, the relevant legislation will be amended to remove the tabling requirements.
The bill will reduce complexity and improve readability of numerous acts. For example, consistent with current legislative drafting practice, about 40 pages of text of an international fisheries treaty will be removed from fisheries legislation. This will simplify the act and remove the onerous process of making legislative amendments should there be any changes to the treaty.
The Department of Agriculture and Water Resources continues to identify portfolio legislation that is redundant or no longer required. The bill includes 12 acts for repeal. These acts relate to laws covering agricultural and veterinary chemicals, the national residue survey, export charges and quarantine fees, rural adjustment and meat and livestock and wool industries. A number of these acts date back to the mid-1980s and early 1990s.
This bill supports the government's commitment to maintaining proper housekeeping of Commonwealth legislation and will assist portfolio industries by reducing unnecessary regulatory burden and helping them to understand the regulations that apply to them. Overall, the bill will achieve improved and more efficient regulation in the agriculture and water resources portfolio.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Excise Levies Legislation Amendment (Honey) Bill 2016 is a companion bill to the Agriculture and Water Resources Legislation Amendment Bill 2016. Together, the bills aim to reduce unnecessary regulation and improve legislation so that it is clear, easy to read and easy to understand.
The Excise Levies Legislation Amendment (Honey) Bill 2016 will amend the Primary Industries (Excise) Levy Act 1999 to remove an obsolete provision whereby a buyer may give to the seller a certificate of the buyer's intention to export honey.
The bill will also make mirror amendments to the National Residue Survey (Excise) Levy Act 1998 to remove an obsolete provision whereby a buyer may give to the seller a certificate of the buyer's intention to export honey.
Participants in the honey industry no longer issue, receive, or rely upon either of these certificates when selling to a buyer who intends to export the honey. The changes will not alter the amounts of levy or customs charges collected in relation to honey.
The Australian Honey Bee Industry Council supports these amendments.
During the 2015-16 financial year, Australian honey producers exported almost 4.5 million kilograms of honey valued at over $45 million.
Although these are minor amendments, it is another example of the government's commitment to ensuring administrative practices are streamlined and efficient and that agricultural industries are clear about the regulations that apply to them—especially to honey.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
In 2014, the government fulfilled our election commitment and commissioned an independent review into Australia's competition framework: the Harper review. The Harper review was the first 'root and branch' review of Australia's competition laws for 20 years. Professor Ian Harper and the review panel consulted extensively with businesses, consumers, regulators and legal experts and found that the operation of section 46 was a concern for many.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank Professor Harper and his team for their efforts and due diligence in producing the Harper review.
Schedule 1 to this bill amends section 46 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010, the misuse of market power provision, to better target anticompetitive conduct, better support procompetitive conduct, and simplify the provision.
The current section 46 prohibits corporations with substantial market power from taking advantage of its power for one of three specific purposes related to damaging an actual or potential competitor or preventing them from competing.
In its final report, the Harper review concluded that the current section 46 fails to adequately prevent the misuse of market power and is not reliably enforceable, for two key reasons.
Firstly, the current section 46 requires that a corporation 'take advantage' of its substantial market power. This is a poor test for distinguishing competitive from anticompetitive conduct. It permits a corporation with substantial market power to engage in highly anticompetitive conduct, merely because a corporation without substantial market power could commercially engage in the same conduct. The test does not recognise that conduct that is not anticompetitive when undertaken by a corporation that does not have market power can be anticompetitive when undertaken by a firm that does. This leaves a significant loophole in section 46.
Secondly, the current section 46 only prohibits conduct if the corporation acted with the purpose of damaging an actual or potential competitor. The Harper review found this focus to be inconsistent with the overriding policy objective of the act, which is to protect competition and not individual competitors. The reforms in this bill recognise that it is the competitive process that drives corporations to supply better goods and services and offer lower prices to consumers, and it is the competitive process that our competition laws need to protect.
The failure of section 46 to adequately prevent the misuse of market power allows anticompetitive conduct to slow the entry and expansion of new and innovative firms, delays the entry of new technologies into Australia and impedes economic growth in the long term.
The Harper review recommended amending section 46 to address these problems and strengthen the misuse of market power provision, by refocusing on conduct with the purpose, effect or likely effect of substantially lessening competition. The government acknowledged the importance of this issue for businesses and consumers, and conducted a lengthy consultation process on a range of alternatives before concluding that the recommendation of the Harper review represented the best option to reform the law.
As amended, section 46 will prohibit corporations with substantial market power from engaging in conduct that has the purpose, effect or likely effect of substantially lessening competition in markets in which they directly or indirectly participate.
The amendment is specifically designed to minimise any uncertainty involved with changing the law, by using existing competition law concepts such as 'substantially lessening competition' and by providing anticompetitive and procompetitive factors to guide consideration of the purpose, effect or likely effect of conduct.
As a result of this reform, section 46 will better target anticompetitive conduct and better support procompetitive conduct. Section 46 will be more reliably enforceable and promote strong competition in Australian markets, benefiting both consumers and the economy.
This reform is an important step to ensure Australia has the best possible competition framework to support innovation, enhance competition and boost economic growth and jobs. It is a key part of the government's response to the Harper review, which is all about increasing choice and delivering better services for consumers.
An effective misuse of market power provision is an important and necessary part of competition law, particularly for Australia's more than two million small businesses which make up more than 97 per cent of all businesses.
While there are some in this chamber who would prefer to keep the current drafting of section 46 and not see Australian businesses able to compete on a level playing field, this government recognises that reforming competition law is one of the best options we have to lift long-term productivity growth and generate economic benefits that can be shared by everyone.
The reforms in this bill will more effectively focus section 46 on the long-term interests of consumers, improving the law's clarity, effectiveness and force. They will provide another tool for regulators to ensure Australian businesses can flourish; new and innovative firms can enter new markets and expand; new technologies can be introduced into Australia; and consumers can receive the best quality products at the lowest price.
Most importantly, this reform will ensure the focus of the law is on protecting the competitive process to the benefit of consumers; it is not about protecting individual competitors or a particular group of businesses.
These amendments will make markets work better for the benefit of all Australians and help to lift our long-term productivity growth. They will ensure that all business can compete on a level playing field, rewarding innovative and dynamic businesses that provide the best services at the lowest cost. This will benefit households by giving them more choice and better value products and services.
Schedule 2 to this bill makes consequential amendments to repeal the telecommunications-specific anti-competitive conduct laws in divisions 2 and 3 of the act. With the amendment of section 46 and the development of competition in telecommunications in the past 20 years, these rules under part XIB are no longer necessary or appropriate.
Following the proposed amendments, any misuse of market power in the telecommunications sector will be managed by the same general competition laws applying to other sectors of the economy, and which will be strengthened by the enhancements being made to section 46.
The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission supports these amendments and retains other extensive powers to deal with other competition concerns in telecommunications.
Full details of the measure are contained in the explanatory memorandum.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I am pleased to introduce the Therapeutic Goods Amendment (2016 Measures No.1) Bill 2016, which amends the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989.
A number of the measures in this bill support the recommendations made by the Expert Panel Review of Medicines and Medical Devices Regulation about improving key aspects of the regulatory scheme for therapeutic goods.
The reforms reflect extensive consultation undertaken by an expert panel led by Emeritus Professor Lloyd Sansom AO, a distinguished educator, researcher and policy adviser in the health and pharmaceutical sectors. Professor Sansom was assisted by Mr Will Delaat AM and Professor John Horvath AO.
The review found that the Therapeutic Goods Administration is well respected internationally and benchmarks well against overseas regulators. However, it also identified areas for improvement, particularly in relation to providing industry with more flexible and timely pathways to market; enabling patients to access new medicines and medical devices faster; increasing collaboration with overseas counterparts to minimise regulatory burden; and enhancing post-market monitoring of the safety of products.
The purpose of this bill is to make a number of such changes that will enable members of the public to have access to medicines and medical devices more quickly, while continuing to maintain high standards of safety and efficacy which the public expects, as well as decrease the regulatory burden on industry and on medical practitioners.
The bill includes measures which support the introduction of new expedited pathways for the marketing approval of certain medicines and medical devices, by providing a regulation-making power to set out the details of the new pathways for priority review. The detail will be set out in the regulations and will include, for example, the criteria for goods to utilise these pathways, how to apply, what fees may apply et cetera. Such details will be the subject of extensive consultation with industry and other relevant stakeholders before any such regulations are made.
Expedited pathways for the registration of certain new medicines are intended to facilitate earlier access for patients with serious and life-threatening conditions who have unmet clinical need. Expedited review processes will also be available for certain medical devices that are identified as novel, such as a device which represents a use of a breakthrough technology and also meets the criteria of addressing an unmet clinical need. The criteria for these pathways are currently being developed in close consultation with consumers, health professionals and industry.
Recognising that some important new medicines will be available to patients at an earlier stage, the medicines and medical devices review recommended that the current post-market monitoring framework in Australia be enhanced through a more comprehensive monitoring scheme for medicines and medical devices. The bill supports the implementation of this measure by enhancing compliance requirements for medicines sponsors.
The bill supports another review recommendation to allow certain kinds of variations that do not impact the quality, safety or efficacy of medicines to be made through notification. This approach is similar to practices adopted overseas. The bill provides for regulations to identify what are likely to be low-risk, straightforward changes to product details.
The bill also contains measures to support the review recommendation to allow easier access to certain unapproved therapeutic goods by health practitioners through notifying the TGA rather than by requiring pre-approval.
The bill provides for regulations to be made to allow Australian companies to undertake conformity assessments of the manufacture of medical devices in Australia, rather than the TGA or overseas-based assessment bodies being the only ones able to do such assessments. The precise nature of these details will be the subject of extensive stakeholder consultation before any regulations are made.
The bill also provides for regulations to prescribe time periods within which decisions in relation to listed complementary medicines must be made.
These timeframes would be the subject of industry consultation before being implemented in regulations. This change removes a barrier to bringing innovative products to market—statutory timeframes provide a degree of certainty and allow sponsors to plan for the rollout of a new listed product containing the new ingredient.
The bill provides review and appeal rights for sponsors seeking approval for the use of a new ingredient in listed medicines.
The bill includes measures to support the intent of other review recommendations in relation to consolidating TGA advisory committees. A number of minor amendments in the bill aim principally to achieve greater consistency between the regulation of different types of therapeutic goods and to reduce health risks to the public.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That the requested amendments be not made.
I move:
That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
"the House calls on the government to recommend an appropriation from the Governor-General consistent with the request from the Senate."
Last night, the Senate made perfectly clear that they agree with Labor that it is time to stand up and protect our TAFE system. Today, the government has the opportunity, belatedly, to get on board. This is too important for us to ignore. What we know is that the measures within this bill will rip $7 billion out of our vocational education sector. That is something that the government agrees with, that the government states. But what they have not done is said in any way that they will help to protect quality providers, that they will stand up for the not-for-profits who will be hit hard and, most importantly, how they will ensure that this does not have a further and a devastating impact on our TAFE sector.
We know that TAFE is the backbone of our system and that TAFE, along with the innocent students, has suffered the most in recent years from Liberal cuts and mismanagement at both the federal and state level. Today, Labor stands here and says enough is enough. Last night in the Senate the crossbench stood with us and said enough is enough. Because the truth is that a new national partnership is due at the end of next June in order to outline how TAFE will be supported—how the government will ensure that they do not have to cut more courses, lose more teachers, close more classes and campuses. But this government is not even committing to putting a new national partnership in place.
In fact, just a couple of weeks ago the assistant minister, when asked about it, said, 'Well, if you want more money, you better go and speak to the Treasurer.' Well, no, Assistant Minister, that is actually your job. Your job is to go and speak to the Treasurer and make sure that there is a strong national partnership in place that will support our vocational educational sector. But if you do not want to do your job, that is fine because the Australian Labor Party, and now the Senate, are going to stand up and demand that it be done nevertheless. We stand up and demand that TAFE be supported until a new national partnership is in place and there are appropriate funds flowing towards our TAFE providers.
We know that TAFE has not been part of the VET FEE-HELP problem. Over 95 per cent of the quality complaints to the Australian Skills Quality Authority about quality relate to providers outside of TAFE. Public providers, including TAFE, in fact make up less than five per cent of complaints. TAFEs also have significantly higher unit completion rates than some of the private providers, at 77 per cent versus 59 per cent, so we know there is a clear indication that the TAFE system is not responsible for the dodgy practices that we have seen unfold under this government. TAFE is not responsible for the rorts that have been allowed to waste millions and millions of taxpayer dollars. Yet, TAFEs will be hit and hit hard, as well as other providers, if this government does not stand up and take action.
We have some dire concerns about the implementation of these reforms. We have said to the government that we will not stand in the way of the reforms to VET FEE-HELP—in fact, they are based on our policy. But, we have warned them that they need to get the course list right and they need to make sure that they also have the correct caps in place, and we do not do not think that they are there. That is why our leader, the Leader of the Opposition, wrote to the Prime Minister calling on him to intervene and make sure it is right, because we are here on the last sitting day and, just now, the government is trying to get support for legislation that they want to see come into place on 1 January. We are saying, if you want to put this in place on 1 January, you must join with Labor and make sure that TAFE is protected. You must stand up and you must make sure that there are protections in place, particularly for not-for-profit providers, but for all of those quality providers who are going to be hit and hit hard.
The really sad thing about this is the government knows that there will be quality providers who are going to be hit hard as a result of these measures, but they are not prepared to do anything about it. Just a couple of weeks ago, Minister Birmingham said, 'I am sorry for innocent parties who are caught up in the reforms that are being put in place.' Well, sorry is not good enough; sorry is not good enough for our TAFE system, sorry is not good enough for a vocational education sector. Labor will stand up and fight for these reforms, and the Senate has joined us. The government must now get on board.
I second the motion. The question is: why does this government not like TAFE? Why does this government not put its faith in TAFE and properly fund TAFE? As the shadow minister outlined, there is a national partnership that needs to be negotiated. It needs to be delivered. It is critically important that this government actually does the job of governing. Unfortunately, I think the chaos that reigns within this government is stopping it from getting on and doing the business it needs to do—that is, protecting TAFE; that is, recognising the important role that TAFE has in our training and education system. What we know is that under the watch of this government, we saw sharks in the VET area really attack the VET system. The credibility of the VET system really was undermined on this government's watch. What did the government members do? They sat on their hands and did nothing. Member for Sturt, do you not want to hear this?
I move:
That the Member be no longer heard.
The question is that the member be no longer heard.
The original question was that the requested amendments be not made. To this the honourable member for Adelaide has moved as an amendment:
That all the words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
"the House calls on the Government to recommend an appropriation from the Governor-General consistent with the request from the Senate".
The question now is that that amendment be agreed to.
As someone who has worked in the vocational education and training sector—
The member for Cowan will resume her seat. The Leader of the House?
I move:
That the question be now put.
A division having been called and the bells being rung—
Dr Aly interjecting—
The member for Cowan does not have the call. No-one can hear you. Resume your seat. There is a division.
An opposition member interjecting—
Whoever that was, I can remind you that there is still 30 seconds to be ejected under 94(a). The question is that the question be now put.
The question now is that the amendment be agreed to. All those of that opinion say 'Aye'—
Honourable members: Aye.
To the contrary 'No'—to the contrary 'No'?
Honourable members interjecting—
Okay. I think the ayes have it. The noes have it?
Opposition members interjecting—
Members on my left will cease interjecting. I am going to put the question again.
Mr Burke interjecting—
No, no, I am sorry; I am entitled to put the question when there is confusion. The Manager of Opposition Business knows that.
Honourable members interjecting—
I am putting the question again. The original—
Mr Speaker, on a point of order: you gave the division—you called the division. You announced it. You asked, 'All those against?' Not one member of the House voted no.
No.
You paused and then called it in favour of the ayes, and not one member of the House objected to that call. That does not constitute confusion.
I am going to address this matter. Where there is confusion my intention is to put the question again. We have had this happen before. The Manager of Opposition Business has made his point. I did not restate the entire question. I did when the bells rang, but I did not restate the question.
Mr Snowdon interjecting—
The member for Lingiari is not going to sigh and moan in the chamber. He can do it in his office. Let me warn the member for Lingiari now: if he is going to sigh and moan when I am addressing the House he might as well just go back to his office, because I will cause more of it. I did not state the full question. Manager of Opposition Business, you have made your point, but I did not state the full question. You can spend a lot of time on this, and I appreciate you might want to—
Yep!
I think that is a very apt confession at Christmas time. I am now going to state the amendment and what the amendment was. I am going to then call and see whether a division is required. The original question was that the requested amendments be not made. To this, the honourable member for Adelaide has moved as an amendment:
That all the words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
"the House calls on the Government to recommend an appropriation from the Governor-General consistent with the request from the Senate"
The question is that the amendment moved by the member for Adelaide be agreed to.
The question is that the requested amendments be not made.
I move:
That the amendments be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Today, I introduce a bill to amend the Corporations, Terrorism Insurance and Income Tax Assessment Acts.
This bill has the complementary objectives of maintaining trust and confidence in the financial system, while also promoting entrepreneurialism—and it does that across three fields.
First, it will provide greater consumer protection for retail client moneys held by financial services licensees in relation to over-the-counter—or OTC—derivatives. This will better meet community expectations of consumer protection.
Second, it will limit the requirement to make public the disclosure documents given to employees under an eligible employee share scheme and lodged with the Australian Securities and Investments Commission.
And third, it provides clarity that the terrorism insurance scheme administered by the Australian Reinsurance Pool Corporation covers losses as a result of a declared terrorist incident using chemical, biological or other similar means.
In addition, this bill makes changes to the Income Tax Assessment Acts of 1936 and 1997 to include six new organisations as deductible gift recipients and to provide ongoing tax relief for assistance payments provided to eligible New Zealand special category visa holders who are impacted by disaster events in Australia.
Let me take you through the contents of this bill in some detail.
I will start with terrorism insurance.
Schedule 1: Terrorism Insurance Act 2003
The bill includes an amendment to the Terrorism Insurance Act 2003.
The amendment clarifies the existing provisions to ensure the terrorism reinsurance scheme operates as originally intended, that is, to provide insurance against a declared terrorist incident, including when carried out by chemical, biological or other similar means.
Schedule 2: employee share schemes
This bill also introduces a measure fulfilling the government's commitment to make it easier for start-up companies to provide incentives to their employees through an employee share scheme, or ESS.
In many cases, under the current law, companies wishing to utilise an ESS must provide a disclosure document to their employees that complies with the Corporations Act.
These documents contain information about the business so that employees are properly informed about their interests.
Under the current law, the company must also lodge these documents with ASIC, who then places them on the public register.
This is discouraging certain small companies and start-ups from implementing an ESS because it could result in the release of commercially sensitive information.
As part of the National Innovation and Science Agenda, we committed to removing the requirement for eligible ESS disclosure documents lodged with ASIC to be made available to the public.
This legislation will amend the Corporations Act so that disclosure documents for ESS will not be made public if all the companies in the group are unlisted, have been incorporated for less than 10 years and have an aggregated turnover of less than $50 million.
This legislation removes an impediment to entrepreneurialism and helps start-ups attract skilled employees at a time when they may be cash-poor. This will benefit both start-up companies and their potential employees and contractors.
Schedule 3: DGR specific listings
Schedule 3 to this bill amends division 30 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 to add six entities as deductible gift recipient specific listings: The Australasian College of Dermatologists; College of Intensive Care Medicine of Australia and New Zealand Ltd; The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Ophthalmologists; Australian Science Innovations Incorporated; The Ethics Centre Incorporated; and, for a five-year period, Cambridge Australia Scholarships Limited.
Organisations may be specifically listed by name in the tax legislation only in exceptional circumstances where they also provide broad public benefits to the Australian community.
The Australasian College of Dermatologists trains and provides continuing professional development to dermatologists, supports scientific research, is an educator about dermatological matters and an advocate for the field of dermatology.
College of Intensive Care Medicine of Australia and New Zealand Ltd cultivates and encourages high principles of practice, ethics and professional integrity in relation to intensive care medicine practice, education, assessment, training and research.
The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Ophthalmologists trains and develops ophthalmologists. Through continuing professional training, education, research and advocacy, it leads improvements in eye health care and facilitates the improvement of eye health care internationally, particularly in relation to indigenous populations.
Australian Science Innovations Incorporated organises, fosters and promotes Australian participation in the International Biology, Chemistry, Physics and Earth Science Olympiads and related activities, as well as engaging in other activities designed to encourage science excellence in secondary education.
The Ethics Centre Incorporated's core objective is to relieve the significant distress faced by those struggling with complex ethical decisions and the personal and community suffering resulting from unethical behaviour.
Cambridge Australia Scholarships Limited is established and located in Australia and widens access to the University of Cambridge for outstanding Australian students from all backgrounds.
By obtaining deductible gift recipient status, these entities will be able to attract additional public financial support for their activities, as taxpayers can claim an income tax deduction for certain gifts to deductible gift recipients.
Schedule 4: ex gratia disaster recovery payments
Schedule 4 to this bill make amendments to theIncome Tax Assessment Acts of 1936 and 1997to provide ongoing income tax relief to ex gratia disaster assistance payments made to eligible New Zealand special category visa (subclass 444) holders.
The Australian government gives eligible individuals adversely affected by a disaster event a helping hand by providing disaster recovery payments or income support allowances. At this difficult time, it is important that these payments are not subject to tax.
Exempting disaster recovery payments from tax, or providing a rebate for income support allowances, maximises the value of the payments for people whose lives are affected by a disaster event. It also ensures that the payments are treated in the same way as disaster assistance payments made to Australians.
Providing ongoing tax relief will provide recipients with certainty that their payments will be free from tax, or that a rebate is available. This will remove one concern from individuals who have been affected by a disaster event.
Schedule 5: client money
Honourable members may recall that, in introducing this bill, the government is not only implementing a commitment set out in our response to the financial system inquiry, we are also responding to a view, long held by ASIC, that the current regime provides inadequate protection for retail client moneys.
We know that trust and confidence in the sector have been diminished by the actions of some industry participants.
Once diminished, one has to work hard to restore them.
This government is prepared to work hard.
This bill is just one part of our agenda to ensure that Australia's financial services regulatory regime can inspire confidence and trust.
And we have consulted extensively on this measure.
While views differed on the best approach to protecting client money, most stakeholders agreed that the regime as it currently stands is inadequate.
And that is why we are working to foster an environment where consumer protection matches the level of risk as it is understood by the client.
Let me explain.
Currently, Australia's regulatory arrangements governing the use of client money by OTC derivatives providers put retail clients at risk of losing their money in the event of the licensee's insolvency.
If client money relating to a derivative, or a dealing in a derivative, continues to be allowed to be used by financial services licensees to meet various obligations, which they themselves have incurred, confidence in our financial system will continue to be undermined.
Once client money has been withdrawn from client accounts by the licensee, it is no longer protected.
Instead, clients are exposed to higher levels of risk, particularly counterparty risk, and they might consequently be unable to recover their money if a licensee becomes insolvent.
Compared to experienced OTC derivatives traders, retail clients (who are usually mum-and-dad investors or small businesses) often have less experience and may not understand or be able to evaluate the risks associated with their client money being used to meet the licensee's own obligations.
Certainly, for the vast majority of financial products and services, the client money regime already prohibits licensees from using client money and client property for their own purposes—in other words, most of the time, client money is held on trust for the client.
In those cases, client money is returned to clients if the licensee becomes insolvent, rather than being added to the pool that is distributed among all the licensee's creditors, in accordance with the insolvency laws.
By pursuing these reforms, we are closing a loophole, which will ensure that all retail client money is protected, in accordance with the same standards.
Honourable members, the reforms I introduce today will better protect client money provided for retail derivatives by ensuring that retail client money must be held on trust for the client.
The reforms do not ban licensees from hedging or prevent them from managing their own business risks.
Indeed, licensees are required by law to have adequate risk management practices in place.
But licensees' risk management practices need to be self-sustaining—they cannot continue to facilitate their own risk management by placing retail client money at risk. And I appreciate that many licensees already choose both to hedge with their own money and respect clients' expectations that their money will be segregated and held on trust.
These reforms also provide ASIC with the power to effectively monitor the limitations on the use of derivative client money by enabling ASIC to make client money reconciliation and reporting rules.
The financial system is certainly more resilient than before the global financial crisis.
Nevertheless, I agree with the financial system inquiry's conclusions that, while consumers are ultimately responsible for the consequences of their financial decisions, they must be treated fairly and ethically.
Furthermore, the regulatory regime should engender confidence and trust in the system—because reduced trust represents a barrier to consumers engaging with the Australian financial system and blocks investment in Australian businesses.
That is why the government has already introduced a number of measures to improve consumer protection within the financial system. We have established a register of financial advisers that allows consumers to verify the credentials of financial advisers and be confident that they are appropriately qualified and experienced.
We are progressing reforms to lift the professional, educational and ethical standards of financial advisers who provide advice on more complex financial products to retail clients.
And, we are progressing reforms to life insurance advice remuneration structures, which are important steps towards addressing concerns that remuneration incentives are affecting the quality of advice provided to consumers and encouraging the unnecessary turnover of policies.
Full details of the measures are contained in the explanatory memorandum.
In closing, I note that these reforms represent necessary and valuable changes to the current regulatory environment, both for the treatment of client moneys and the disclosure requirements for employee share schemes.
Not only will they deliver significant benefits to consumers, start-ups and employees, they will also help maintain trust and confidence in the financial system.
I commend this bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
We all recognise the 21 Australian federal leased airports are critical infrastructure assets to our nation's productivity and economic growth. Since privatisation, airport lessee companies have invested significant capital, in the order of billions of dollars, and our airports currently directly employ over 120,000 people across Australia. This is a product of sound government policy and robust and strategic long-term planning by airport operators.
I am proud of the significant progress our airports have made since privatisation in delivering high-quality, economically beneficial investment decisions that respond positively to the current and future needs of the aviation industry and maximise the benefits to the Australian economy and communities.
I am particularly proud of the management of our airports and I recognise their efforts to better integrate and facilitate balanced and coherent planning outcomes with the state, territory and local governments who have responsibilities for planning and infrastructure provision in the areas surrounding our airports.
The government regulates planning and development on our airport sites through the Airports Act 1996. Under the Airports Act, all federal leased airports (except Mount Isa and Tenant Creek) are required to prepare a master plan every five years to establish a strategic direction for efficient and economic development at the airport as well as prepare major development plans for specific major on-airport developments.
The Airports Act sets out the required content of each plan and prescribes the public consultation process an airport lessee company must undertake prior to the plan being submitted for ministerial consideration. On average, the current legislative process requires an airport lessee company to expend significant resources and it can take the company two years on average to develop each plan.
Certain aspects of these processes are generating inefficient outcomes for industry as well as imposing unnecessary and onerous administrative and compliance costs. I also recognise on-airport developments are not immune to fluctuations in the marketplace and the economic climate.
The measures contained in this Airports Amendment Bill 2016 will fine-tune existing regulation and streamline policy intentions; it will not significantly shift policy or regulatory oversight. It reinforces the government's commitment to implement measures consistent with its deregulation and productivity agendas. The bill offers a more proportionate and efficiency based regulatory approach that reduces administrative and compliance costs for operators. It also creates regulatory certainty for industry and maintains appropriate and effective regulatory oversight.
This bill can be considered in three parts.
Part 1 proposes two key changes to the existing master plan process, the first of which is to implement a differential master plan cycle to enable federal leased airports, other than the major airports of Brisbane, Melbourne, Perth, and Sydney (Kingsford-Smith), to submit a master plan every eight years instead of every five years.
All federal leased airports are currently required to prepare a new master plan every five years irrespective of the operational, administrative, resourcing and financial capacity of individual airports or the level of impact their operations have on the community. Implementing an eight-year master plan cycle for secondary and general aviation airports, will minimise the impacts of these factors.
I also recognise that implementation time frames of various components of the master plan, including key airport infrastructure projects and other aviation and non-aviation developments, the ground transport plan and environment strategy, generally extend beyond the current five-year submission cycle. Therefore, this amendment aims to enable longer term planning at these secondary and general aviation airports.
It is worth noting that this amendment will not change the current situation for Sydney West airport; it will maintain a five-year cycle along with the other four major federal leased airports, once the airport is operational.
The second change is to mandate the inclusion of a new Australian Noise Exposure Forecast in each new master plan. While the Airports Act currently sets out an Australian Noise Exposure Forecast must be included in a master plan, it does not specify the Australian Noise Exposure Forecast must be renewed for each new plan.
The Australian Noise Exposure Forecast is a computer generated descriptor of aircraft noise widely used by state, territory, local governments and land use planning agencies for long-term planning and development arrangements around airport sites.
Therefore, the government maintains it is essential each new master plan contain the most up-to-date information to facilitate integrated, balanced and coherent planning outcomes and to inform incompatible and sensitive land uses from encroaching too close to airports.
Part 2 of the bill relates specifically to the monetary trigger for a major development plan.
Major development plans are required for each major airport development at federal leased airports, excluding Tennant Creek and Mount Isa. The Airports Act prescribes the circumstances which trigger a major development plan, including a monetary trigger, for certain development where the cost of construction exceeds $20 million.
In 2007 the Airports Act was amended to increase the monetary threshold from $10 million to $20 million due to ongoing increases in building costs since the act came into effect. Further increases to the construction activity costs and inflation since 2007 have resulted in an increased number of on-airport developments unnecessarily triggering the requirement for a major development plan.
Having regard to changes and conditions in the construction industry costs since 2007, and the economic and marketplace conditions, this bill proposes to increase the monetary threshold from $20 million to $35 million.
The bill also proposes the monetary threshold be reviewed and revised via legislative instrument every three years; having regard to changes in construction activity costs and associated indexations to ensure the monetary trigger accurately reflects and keeps pace with economic and marketplace conditions.
The bill proposes an additional legislative instrument to clarify the type of construction activities that should and should not be included when calculating if a project triggers the monetary threshold for a major development plan. For example, airports must include costs of base building fit-out in its calculations. Base building fit-out includes the internal cladding to finish off the base building prior to tenancy fit-out. However, the airport is not required to include tenant specific fit-outs and tenant supplied items. This instrument will remove any confusion for industry and ensure a consistent costing application across all federal leased airports.
Part 3 of the bill relates specifically to major development plan processes.
The first amendment imposes a new 15-business-day statutory decision time frame within which the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport must consider applications from airport lessee companies for reduced consultation periods for major development plans, with such applications deemed approved if there is no ministerial decision within this time frame.
This amendment will not impact the prescribed requirements for public consultation, however it will provide industry with certainty about the ministerial decision time frame, which could then be accounted for in the airport's planning process.
The final amendments proposed in this bill relate to substantial completion of an approved major development plan.
The Airports Act currently requires an approved major development plan to be substantially completed, unless otherwise specified in the approval, within a maximum of five years with only one option for the minister to extend the period by up to a further two years.
While the majority of approved major development plans are completed in the prescribed time frame, on rare occasions some larger or more complex developments, such as a new runway, may be subject to unforeseen delays and exceptional circumstances beyond airports' control. As a result, achieving a substantially complete status may require more than the standard seven-year time frame.
Where an airport is committed to substantially completing an approved major development plan, the airport should be given the opportunity to do so without the threat of legislative penalty. Therefore, the bill proposes to remove the restriction on the number of times the minister may extend the time frame for substantial completion.
In rare circumstances a project with an approved major development plan may become unviable due to exceptional and unforeseen circumstances beyond the airports' control. For such instances, where the project has not commenced, the bill proposes the airport can notify the minister of its intentions of not proceeding with the approved major development plan without the threat of legislative penalty.
These amendments recognise that airports would have already expended significant financial and administrative resources to have a major development plan approved. Therefore, these amendments will minimise regulatory uncertainty for airports and industry and ensure an efficient and streamlined process.
The bill also includes:
On a final note, I would like to acknowledge our airports are nationally significant infrastructure assets that keep us connected to each other and connect Australia to the world. They continue to play a major role in driving the economic development of Australia as enablers of commerce and trade, and the social and economic benefits they provide to all Australians should not be understated.
This bill is yet another example of this government consulting with and responding to the needs of industry to achieve better regulatory outcomes for all.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
It is important that the government's transport security regulatory activities remain effective and fit for purpose in an evolving security environment
The bill I present today, the Transport Security Legislation Amendment Bill 2016, will ensure that the transport security regulatory framework remains responsive to changes in the security environment.
The Aviation Transport Security Act 2004 (which I will now refer to as the aviation act) establishes a regulatory system to safeguard against unlawful interference with aviation. This regulatory system aims to prevent conduct that threatens the secure operation of aircraft and airports. It is continually reviewed to ensure it mitigates current threats and that the Australian public is provided with safe and secure air travel.
As part of this continual review process, we are introducing measures at Australia's major international airports to mitigate what is known as the insider threat. Airport workers such as baggage handlers, caterers, cleaners and engineers have special access to passenger aircraft so they can carry out their important roles. However, there is potential for this access to be exploited, either willingly or through coercion, to facilitate an attack against a passenger aircraft.
Serious international security incidents targeting aviation, such as the bombing of Metrojet flight 9268 in Egypt on 31 October 2015 and the attempted bombing of Daallo Airlines flight 159 in Somalia on 2 February 2016, have highlighted the continuing threat to the global aviation environment, in particular, the insider threat. There is growing concern about the insider threat among the global aviation community, and the Convention on International Civil Aviation, to which Australia is a signatory, places obligations on states to have measures in place to address this threat.
The Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development (my department), in consultation with the aviation industry, has developed a new model for strengthening airside security at Australia's nine major international airports to address the insider threat and to ensure Australia meets its international civil aviation obligations for airside security. These measures introduced through the bill are part of a broader suite of regulatory amendments that give effect to the model's three components, those being:
The bill will introduce regulation-making powers into the aviation act that will enable people, vehicles and goods to be randomly selected for security screening when they are inside an airside area or zone at security-controlled airports. This complements existing provisions in the act that provide regulation-making powers for the screening of people, vehicles and goods before they enter an airside area or zone.
Together, these provisions will give airports the ability to decide the best way to implement security-screening controls for their airside areas. For example, for airports with few airside tenants, it may be more efficient and cost-effective to apply screening controls at all airside entry points. However, for airports that host large numbers of airside tenants, each with their own access point into the airside area, it will be more practical and cost-effective to apply screening controls only at some access points, and to complement this with mobile screening patrols inside the airside area.
Separate to the strengthened airside security amendments, the bill also makes further amendments to the Aviation Act and amends the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Act 2003(which I will now refer to as the Maritime Act) to allow the secretary of my department to delegate his powers in these acts to lower level APS employees. This will give the department greater administrative flexibility and capacity to manage predicted industry growth, particularly in a changing security environment.
The amendments will remove the references limiting delegations to Executive Level 2 APS employees, allowing the secretary to delegate to lower level employees. The amendments will not expand the statutory powers of the secretary in the acts. The proposed changes will ensure the government has the ability to make quality decisions while managing industry growth and responding to the changing security environment.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Superannuation Amendment (PSSAP Membership) Bill 2016 (the bill) enables members of the Public Sector Superannuation Accumulation Plan (PSSAP) who move to non-Commonwealth employment to choose to remain a contributory member of PSSAP.
The PSSAP, which was established on 1 July 2005, is the current default fund for new Commonwealth employees and employees of prescribed Commonwealth entities. As a fully funded accumulation scheme, the PSSAP provides more modern, flexible superannuation arrangements than the older Commonwealth defined benefit superannuation schemes, all of which are now closed to new members.
At present PSSAP members are unable to remain as contributory members when they move to non-Commonwealth employment. They must either maintain multiple superannuation accounts or consolidate their superannuation by moving the monies in their PSSAP account to another superannuation account. Both of these options involve additional administration costs for the member. For members who decide to maintain multiple superannuation accounts, these additional costs are ongoing.
The changes in the bill address this issue by enabling PSSAP members who move to non-Commonwealth employment to maintain contributory membership. These persons will form a new subcategory of ordinary employer-sponsored member of PSSAP, referred to in the bill as 'former Commonwealth ordinary employer-sponsored members', and their new employers will become 'designated employers'.
The changes will better align PSSAP with superannuation schemes in the superannuation industry, which commonly enable members to remain contributory members when they change employment. They are also consistent with broader government superannuation reforms and initiatives to lower the costs that members incur for the administration and management of their superannuation accounts.
The bill places some restrictions on maintaining contributory PSSAP membership. A person must have been a Commonwealth employee or office holder for a continuous period of at least 12 months. They must also be engaged in non-Commonwealth employment in respect of which their employer has a superannuation guarantee obligation.
Those who move from Commonwealth employment to certain other roles with the Commonwealth—for example, service with the Australian Defence Force—will not be affected by the changes. They will continue to be subject to the Commonwealth superannuation arrangements specifically established for persons in these roles.
2 The bill commences on the earlier of proclamation or six months after royal assent. This flexibility will help to ensure that Commonwealth Superannuation Corporation, the trustee of the Australian government's main schemes, has sufficient time to arrange necessary changes to the PSSAP systems before the new arrangements take effect.
Overall, the changes are important to maintain contemporary Australian government superannuation arrangements that are in line with those in the broader superannuation industry. They support workforce mobility and complement broader government initiatives to reduce the administration costs borne by members of superannuation schemes.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Australian Chancery Project Paris, France—Base Building Refurbishment, International Energy Agency Tenancy Fit-Out.
The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade proposes to undertake the base building refurbishment and an integrated fit-out of the area leased by the International Energy Agency within the Australian chancery complex in Paris. The Australian chancery in Paris accommodates the permanent missions to France, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation and the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development.
Built in 1977 the chancery has approximately 11,215 square metres of net lettable area of which 5,650 square metres is being utilised to accommodate Australian government operations and functions. The surplus space of 5,565 square metres has been leased to the International Energy Agency since 1996.
The International Energy Agency lease is due to expire in April 2017, and a new lease for their future office accommodation needs is being negotiated on commercial market terms for a further 12 years.
A precondition of the International Energy Agency's future occupation of the tenancy in the chancery is a refurbishment of base building services and an integrated fit-out of their tenancy. The proposed works include base building refurbishment and fit-out of the International Energy Agency leased area to provide an efficient, modern and functional accommodation that includes office facilities, an auditorium, conference rooms and improved amenities.
The project is valued at an estimated $27.73 million and includes all costs associated with the fit-out such as builders' costs, consultant fees, furniture, fittings and equipment, contingencies, and escalation allowance. Subject to parliamentary approval of the project, the fit-out works is expected to commence in mid-2017, with completion expected by mid-2019. I commend the motion to the House.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Australian Embassy Project, Washington, District of Columbia, United States of America.
The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade proposes to construct a new Australian Embassy in Washington DC in order to maintain a presence in the heart of the Washington diplomatic precinct. This proposal will provide a contemporary chancery that distinctly defines and showcases Australia's physical presence in Washington DC. It will provide for the Australian government's existing operational requirements as well as for future foreign policy, defence and security, intelligence, development, trade and economic cooperation objectives and needs. The new Australian embassy will be purpose-built and will showcase Australian architecture and engineering design. The building will provide a contemporary facility incorporating ecological sustainable designs and conform with appropriate work, health and safety regulations.
The existing embassy was constructed in 1967 and the building and services are at the end of their useable life. The general running of the embassy is subject to significant business continuity risks that could compromise critical core functions for the Australian government. The proposed works include a fit-out of a temporary chancery, the demolition of the existing chancery and the construction of a new chancery. The project is valued at an estimated $236.9 million and includes fit-out of temporary office accommodation, demolition, construction of the works and all other related elements such as design consultant fees, project management, supervision and site office expenses.
Subject to parliamentary approval of the project and following design development, the temporary accommodation fit-out works is expected to commence in the second quarter of 2018, with completion and occupation expected by the first quarter of 2019. Demolition followed by construction of the new chancery is expected to commence in the second quarter of 2019 and be completed and occupied in the first half of 2022. I commend the motion to the House.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Proposed fit-out of new leased premises for the Department of Immigration and Border Protection Headquarters Project.
The Department of Immigration and Border Protection proposes to undertake a fit-out and refurbishment of new and existing leased premises at 5 and 6 Chan Street and 45 Benjamin Way, Belconnen, and at 3 Molonglo Drive, Canberra Airport Precinct, in the Australian Capital Territory. The project is driven by the expiration of current leases, targeted Commonwealth efficiencies and the need for appropriate accommodation designed to enhance Immigration's capability across all areas of business. The new fit-outs will give Immigration a new work place that is innovative and fit-for-purpose.
The Department of Immigration and Border Protection has a substantial presence in the ACT and this will continue when the department is consolidated from 12 buildings into four buildings. Immigration will substantially reduce the amount of office space it holds in the ACT by approximately 14,000 square metres. The proposed works include new workstations, offices and meeting areas, specialist operations areas, new security systems, advanced technology in conference rooms, training and video conferencing facilities, including the Australian Border Force College, and new multiuse, non-denominational rooms and amenity areas.
The estimated cost of the fit-out is $257.39 million, excluding GST, and covers all costs associated with the delivery of the project, including provision for contingencies, cost escalation and professional fees. Subject to parliamentary approval, the fit-out is expected to begin in early 2017 with staged completion scheduled from mid 2018 to early 2021. I commend the motion to the House.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Proposed fit-out of new leased premises for the National Disability Insurance Agency and the Department of Human Services, Geelong, Victoria.
The National Disability Insurance Agency and the Department of Human Services propose to undertake an integrated fit-out of new leased premises in Geelong, Victoria. The NDIA and DHS currently have a substantial presence in the regional centre of Geelong and are currently located in a number of buildings across the city. The proposal will deliver considerable operational efficiencies for both agencies through the co-location of staff and the consolidation and rationalisation of leases. Operational savings will also be achieved through the implementation of high-energy efficient technologies in the new building. The development of the building will have a positive impact on the local community, providing commercial lettable space as well as office accommodation, increasing employment opportunities in the region and stimulating business activity.
The estimated cost of the fit-out is $27 million, excluding GST, and includes all costs associated with the fit-out such as builders' costs, consultant fees, furniture, fittings and equipment and workstations. Subject to parliamentary approval of the project, the fit-out is expected to commence in April 2017 with completion by mid- to late 2018. I commend the motion to the House.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Proposed Melbourne Immigration Transit Accommodation Project, Broadmeadows, Victoria.
The Department of Immigration and Border Protection proposes to undertake construction works and upgrades to the Melbourne Immigration Transit Accommodation facility in Broadmeadows, Victoria. The proposed works will provide a level of amenity consistent with the features of existing Australian immigration detention centres that accommodate high-risk detainees. The proposed works include 140 high-security beds, adequate amenities, capacity to separate cohorts within compounds, and sophisticated and suitable security infrastructure. The estimated cost of the construction works is $29.07 million, excluding GST, which covers all costs associated with the delivery of the project, including associated decommissioning, civil works, in-ground services, information and communication technology, fencing, lighting, security, landscaping, preliminaries, consultant fees and contingency. Subject to parliamentary approval of the project, construction is expected to commence in March 2017 and be completed by October 2017.
I commend the motion to the House.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Proposed Yongah Hill Immigration Detention Centre Hardening Project at Mitchell Avenue, Northam, Western Australia.
The Department of Immigration and Border Protection proposes to upgrade the Yongah Hill Immigration Detention Centre facility located in Northam, Western Australia, to make it suitable for increased numbers of high-risk detainees. The Yongah Hill facility is not fit for purpose to manage high-risk detainees, as it was largely designed to accommodate a low- to medium-risk case load. The proposed upgrades will provide a level of amenity consistent with the features of existing Australian immigration detention centres that accommodate high-risk detainees. The upgrade includes 120 high-security beds, adequate amenities, capacity to separate cohorts within compounds, necessary civil works and suitable security infrastructure. The estimated cost of the construction works is $27.43 million, excluding GST, which covers all costs associated with the delivery of the upgrades. Subject to parliamentary approval of the project, construction is expected to be undertaken in two phases commencing in March 2017, with completion expected by March 2018.
I commend the motion to the House.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Seaward Village—Proposed upgrades to housing for Defence families at Seaward Village, Swanbourne, Western Australia.
Defence Housing Australia, on behalf of the Department of Defence, proposes to undertake upgrades and construction of housing for the Australian Defence Force at Seaward Village, Swanbourne, Western Australia. This multiphase project involves the upgrade of existing dwellings. It will significantly improve the quality of housing at Seaward Village and will offer a standard of amenity commensurate with other DHA houses around Australia. The upgrades will provide safe, functional, cost-effective, energy-efficient dwellings designed to be suitable for the local climate and of a style consistent with the character of the site and other comparable Defence housing. The estimated cost to deliver the project is $48.3 million, including GST. This includes all development and delivery costs, including management, design fees, temporary facility costs, construction costs, furniture, fittings and equipment, contingencies and an escalation allowance. Subject to parliamentary approval, phase 1 of the upgrades and construction is expected to begin in May 2017, with completion of all phases expected by May 2020.
I commend the motion to the House.
Question agreed to.
I have received two messages from the Senate informing the House of the appointment of senators to certain joint committees. As the list of appointments is a lengthy one, I do not propose to read the list to the House. Details will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.
I present the report of the Publications Committee sitting in conference with the Publications Committee of the Senate. Copies of the report are being placed on the table.
Report—by leave—agreed to.
I present a replacement explanatory memorandum to the Statute Update (A.C.T Self-Government (Consequential Provisions) Regulations) Bill 2016.
I present the explanatory memorandum to the bill and I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Criminal Code Amendment (High Risk Terrorist Offenders) Bill introduces a framework into part 5.3 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code that will provide for the continued detention of high-risk terrorist offenders serving custodial sentences who are considered by a court to present an unacceptable risk to the community.
The bill has had the benefit of consideration by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security (PJCIS). The government has accepted all 24 recommendations of the committee, and all states and territories have indicated their support for the government amendments, now made in the Senate, arising from that and from further consideration of the bill. The government again thanks the states and territories for their partnership in this way in protecting the community against terrorism.
I also acknowledge with gratitude the valuable bipartisan work of the committee, very ably chaired by Michael Sukkar.
Terrorism poses a serious threat to Australia and its people. There have been 24 counterterrorism operations since September 2014. Across the jurisdictions, there are a total of 17 terrorist offenders serving a custodial sentence and 40 people currently before the courts.
While a majority of states and territories, as well as international counterparts, including the United Kingdom and New Zealand, have enacted postsentence preventative detention regimes dealing with high-risk sex or violent offenders, there is no existing Australian regime for managing terrorist offenders who may continue to pose an unacceptable risk to the community following the expiry of their sentence.
Law enforcement agencies can seek to rely on control orders to manage the risk of terrorist offenders upon their release from prison. However, there may be some circumstances where, even with controls placed upon them, the risk an offender presents to the community is simply too great for them to be released from prison. This is a significant public safety issue.
Commonwealth, state and territory governments are committed to ensuring that Australia's counterterrorism framework remains responsive to the evolving national security threat.
At a Council of Australian Governments meeting in December 2015, leaders agreed to develop a nationally consistent postsentence preventative detention scheme to enable a continuing period of imprisonment for high-risk terrorist offenders.
At a COAG meeting in April, states and territories agreed in principle for the Commonwealth to lead the process of developing a postsentence preventative detention regime that could apply uniformly across all jurisdictions.
On 5 August, the Attorney-General, Senator Brandis, met with state and territory attorneys-general to discuss the issue. The jurisdictions agreed in principle to the creation of a national postsentence detention regime on the terms of the Commonwealth draft bill. Subsequent to this meeting, all jurisdictions agreed to the provisions of the bill in accordance with the Intergovernmental Agreement on Counter-Terrorism Laws, which underpins the existing referrals of power on counterterrorism matters by the states to the Commonwealth.
The Commonwealth considers that the new framework has a sound constitutional foundation. Out of an abundance of caution, however, the Attorney-General has asked the states to enact amendments to existing referrals of power relating to part 5.3 of the Criminal Codeto make explicit that state support extends to the postsentence preventative detention regime.
The regime is modelled closely on existing state and territory postsentence detention regimes for high-risk sex or violent offenders. The government thanks the jurisdictions for the collaborative spirit in which this bill has been developed.
The object of the bill is to ensure the safety and protection of the community by providing for the continuing detention of terrorist offenders serving custodial sentences who pose an unacceptable risk of committing a serious terrorist offence if released into the community upon the expiry of their sentence.
The bill will enable the Supreme Court of a state or territory to make two types of detention orders against a person. The first is a continuing detention order, which will enable a person to be detained in prison for up to three years. However, further applications may be made, and there is no limit to the number of such applications. An order can only be made against a person who is currently imprisoned and serving a sentence for specified offences under the Criminal Code, including offences related to international terrorist activities using explosive and lethal devices; serious terrorism offences or certain foreign incursions and recruitment offences.
The second type of order a court may make is an interim detention order, which can last for up to 28 days. An interim detention order will be available in circumstances where the terrorist offender's sentence or existing continuing detention order will end before the court has had the opportunity to determine a continuing detention order application.
The bill contains significant safeguards to ensure respect for the rule of law. Only the Commonwealth Attorney-General may make an application for a continuing detention order to the Supreme Court of the state or territory in which the person is currently imprisoned. The court must be satisfied to a high degree of probability, on the basis of admissible evidence, that the offender poses an unacceptable risk of committing a serious terrorism offence if the offender is released into the community. A serious terrorism offence is an offence in part 5.3 of the Criminal Code that carries a maximum penalty of seven or more years of imprisonment. The court must also be satisfied that there is no other less restrictive measure that would be effective to ensure community safety.
A continuing detention order is appealable and must be reviewed every 12 months. Furthermore, a person must be at least 18 years old when their original sentence ends and cannot be accommodated or detained in the same area of a prison as persons serving ordinary sentences of imprisonment except in certain circumstances.
This government has worked and will continue to work closely with the states and territories on this important scheme to protect the community.
Commonwealth, state and territory governments are committed to ensuring that Australia's counterterrorism framework remains responsive to the evolving national security threat.
Countering terrorism is a priority for all Australian governments. We greatly appreciate the ongoing partnership with states and territories in protecting the community from terrorism.
This bill forms part of the government's comprehensive reform agenda to ensure Australia's counterterrorism framework is effective in keeping the Australian community safe. I commend the bill to the House.
Leave granted for second reading debate to continue immediately.
The Criminal Code Amendment (High Risk Terrorist Offenders) Bill 2016 is the sixth bill to be introduced since September 2014 making changes to national security and counterterrorism laws. Throughout the Abbott and Turnbull governments, Labor has been steadfast in its principled approach to national security legislation. Labor's bipartisan stance on national security has not wavered.
Through the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, Labor has worked with the government through a series of very complex and sometimes controversial bills. That committee worked well in the last parliament and is working well in this parliament. I commend the secretariat of that committee for their very hard work over the past few months.
Just as we are committed to our bipartisan stance on national security, so we are committed to ensuring that any new bills do not unnecessarily encroach on the rights and freedoms that Australians have a right to enjoy. This is an especially important consideration when we are faced with a bill such as the Criminal Code Amendment (High Risk Terrorist Offenders) Bill 2016, which is unprecedented in this country and indeed in the Western world. This bill introduces a framework into part 5.3 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code that provides for a continuing detention order regime for high-risk terrorist offenders who are considered by a state or territory supreme court judge to represent an unacceptable risk to the community. Put simply, it allows convicted terrorists who are judged not to have been rehabilitated to be kept in jail beyond their sentence.
The bill was introduced into the Senate on 15 September 2016 and immediately referred to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. The committee received 18 submissions, including from the Australian Human Rights Commission, the Law Council of Australia, civil liberties groups and Muslim organisations. A public hearing was held, and the committee tabled its report on 4 November 2016.
This bill was closely scrutinised during the committee process. A concerted effort was put into ensuring that this bill has adequate protections in place to ensure that it strikes the right balance between keeping Australians safe and protecting people's rights and freedoms. Labor was particularly concerned to ensure that adequate and correct advice had been received as to the constitutionality of the bill given the breakdown in relations between the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General at that time. The precedent set in the case of the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Allegiance to Australia) Bill 2015, where the Attorney-General misled the committee as to the nature of the Solicitor-General's advice, must never be repeated. That is why Labor sought confirmation that the Solicitor-General had given advice on the constitutional validity of the final form of this bill and not an earlier draft. The committee recommended that the government seek advice on the final form of the bill, and we are pleased that the government has obtained that advice from the acting Solicitor-General, Mr Thomas Howe PSM, QC.
The committee made 24 substantive recommendations directed to improving oversights and protections in the bill. The government has now agreed to implement all of the recommendations. A number of amendments to the bill have been secured which implement extra safeguards and aim to strike the appropriate balance between protecting individual rights and community safety. This includes ensuring that terrorist offenders subject to continuing detention order proceedings have access to legal representation and receive a fair trial.
We recognise the extraordinary nature of this bill. That is why it is important that there are a range of review mechanisms, including a 10-year sunset clause and a review of the regime six years after its passage. There should be no assumption that the kinds of measures contained in this bill will become a permanent feature of Australian law.
It was important to ensure that the bill was properly targeted at terrorist offenders. The bill no longer includes treason or offences relating to publishing recruitment advertisements among the offences that would make an offender subject to the continuing detention order regime.
Expert witnesses will play a central role in continuing detention proceedings. The committee has ensured that both the Attorney-General as applicant and the offender as respondent to any application can bring forward their preferred experts and that an expert can be appointed at any time by the court.
The main elements of the proposed continuing detention order regime are contained in schedule 1 to the bill. Schedule 1 proposes to insert a new division 105A into the Criminal Code, comprising six subdivisions from A to F. Proposed subdivision A includes the object of the bill and definitions of key terms. The object of the bill is outlined in proposed section 105A.1 as:
… to ensure the safety and protection of the community by providing for the continuing detention of terrorist offenders who pose an unacceptable risk of committing serious Part 5.3 offences if released into the community.
Proposed subdivision B provides that a continuing detention order has the effect of committing 'the offender to detention in a prison for the period the order is in force'. An order may be applied to a person if the person has been convicted of a serious terrorist offence.
In the original version of the bill, a continuing detention order could be applied for against a person who had been convicted of the offence of treason. Treason may include causing the death of or harm to the Sovereign, the Governor General or the Prime Minister; levying war or doing acts preparatory to levying war against the Commonwealth; instigating a person who is not an Australian citizen to make an armed invasion of the Commonwealth or one of its territories; materially assisting enemies at war with the Commonwealth; or assisting countries engaged in armed hostilities against the Australian Defence Force. The Law Council of Australia raised concerns that these offences are not necessarily comparable to the other terrorism related offences proposed for inclusion in the bill. The committee accepted this proposition and also noted that no person has been prosecuted in Australia for treason since the end of the Second World War. The committee was concerned to ensure that the scope of offences is rightly limited to terrorism-related activities and did not consider that the inclusion of treason is necessary or appropriate. The PJCIS recommended that treason offences be removed from the scope of the bill.
Proposed subdivision B also includes provisions about how a person who is detained in prison under a continuing detention order must be treated. In summary, an offender: must be treated in a way that is appropriate to his or her status as a person who is not serving a sentence of imprisonment, subject to reasonable requirements surrounding prison management, security and good order, the safe custody or welfare of the offender or any prisoner, and safety and protection of the community; and must not be accommodated or detained in the same area or unit of the prison as persons serving sentences of imprisonment except in certain defined circumstances.
Some submitters to the committee inquiry on the bill were concerned that it might not be possible for these matters to be achieved and that this may result in continuing detention being punitive, in breach of Article 15.1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The requirement that offenders be detained separately to convicted persons is a safeguard that the United Nations Human Rights Committee viewed as necessary to improve similar Queensland laws that were considered by the UN committee in Fardon v Australia and Tillman v Australia. This was also acknowledge by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights in its report on this bill.
The PJCIS therefore considered that standards for housing arrangements should be agreed and implemented across all jurisdictions and that urgent attention must be given to ensuring that conditions of detention for offenders are appropriate and consistent with Australia's human rights obligations. The committee recommended that it be provided with a timetable for implementation of this issue by 30 June 2017.
Proposed subdivision C includes provisions about how a continuing detention order can be made. The Attorney-General or his legal representative may apply to a Supreme Court for a continuing detention order not more than six months before the end of the terrorist offender's prison sentence. The application must include certain information and a copy must be given to the offender within two days, subject to certain exemptions.
A number of submitters to the committee were concerned to ensure that crucial evidence that will be relied on during these CDO proceedings not be withheld from the offender. The Law Council of Australia indicated that secret evidence provisions undermined an offender's ability to obtain a fair trial. However, the Attorney-General's Department in the supplementary submissions clarified that secret evidence is not to be permitted. The committee recommended that the bill be amended to make explicit that an offender is to be provided in a timely manner with information to be relied on in an application for a continuing detention order.
Proposed subdivision C also includes provisions about the appointment of relevant experts, the assessments conducted by relevant experts and experts' reports. A 'relevant expert' is defined as a person:
… who is competent to assess the risk of a terrorist offender committing a serious Part 5.3 offence if the offender is released into the community …
The court may make a written continuing detention order under proposed 105A.7 if, following receipt of an application, it is:
… satisfied to a high degree of probability, on the basis of admissible evidence, that the offender poses an unacceptable risk of committing a serious Part 5.3 offence if the offender is released into the community—
and it is:
… satisfied that there is no other less restrictive measure that would be effective in preventing the unacceptable risk.
The court must have regard to a number of factors in forming its opinion about the level of risk posed by the offender. A number of submitters raised concerns about the bill requiring the court to appoint experts and then make judgements as to the admissibility of the experts' evidence. There are questions also around whether a specialised body of knowledge exists in relation to the prediction of a terrorist offender's likelihood of reoffending. Some submitters also called for the development of a risk assessment tool.
The prediction of future terrorist offending for the purposes of continuing detention order proceedings is of a very different nature to the current schemes in Australian jurisdictions which provide for post-sentence controls to manage sex offenders and violent offenders. There were questions raised about whether diagnostic tools can be used to assess terrorist behaviour in the same way that they are used to assess high-risk sex offenders which fall within a range of diagnostic categories that can be used by psychiatrists and psychologists to predict future risk.
The Law Council of Australia raised the issue that there are likely to be challenges to the qualification of people who may be called to provide expert opinions and that this may put courts in an inappropriate position of ruling on objections to the admissibility of evidence from experts whom the court itself has appointed. In response to these concerns, the committee recommended that the bill and the explanatory memorandum be amended to make explicit that both the Attorney-General, as applicant, and the offender, as respondent, will be able to bring forward their preferred relevant expert, or experts, and that the court will then determine the admissibility of each expert's evidence. A court may also appoint a relevant expert at any time during continuing detention order proceedings.
The period of the continuing detention order must be no more than three years. However, there is no limit on the number of successive continuing detention orders that may be made. The committee recognised that it is possible for a person to be held for a prolonged period beyond their sentence if successive continuing detention orders are applied for and granted by the court. Labor members of the committee were concerned to ensure that appropriate rehabilitation opportunities and programs will be made available to offenders.
Labor strongly believes in ensuring access to justice, and this includes ensuring that people have access to appropriate and adequate legal representation. In its submission to the inquiry, the Australian Human Rights Commission referred to the High Court's judgment in Dietrich v The Queen, noting that Australian law:
… has recognised the inherent power of the Court to stay criminal proceedings where an accused person does not have legal representation and where legal representation is essential to a fair trial.
The committee recommended that the bill be amended to provide that the court has the explicit power to stay proceedings for a continuing detention order and that the court be empowered to make an order for reasonable costs to be funded to enable the offender to obtain legal representation. This is an important step towards ensuring access to justice.
The new bill includes a requirement that the committee complete a review of the regime after six years and that the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor be required to complete a review of the regime after five years. It is of concern that the important position of the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor is presently vacant. To deal with this, the committee recommended that the government appoint a new monitor as soon as possible. We look forward to the government following through on their commitment to do so. That commitment is of course contained in the government's acceptance of the recommendations of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security.
We are very pleased that, through bipartisan negotiation, this bill now contains a number of safeguards and review mechanisms to ensure that an appropriate balance has been achieved between keeping Australians safe and protecting people's rights. I commend the bill to the House.
I rise today to speak on the Criminal Code Amendment (High Risk Terrorist Offenders) Bill 2016. As a member of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, I congratulate the committee chair, the member for Deakin, Michael Sukkar, for his great work, and also the deputy chair, who shares a boundary with me, Mr Anthony Byrne, the member for Holt.
The sad reality in my electorate of La Trobe, in south-east Victoria, is that in recent times we have had the awful situation of young people getting involved in violent extremism. There have been a number of arrests, including for attacks against police—and I will go into that further on in my speech. The first thing we want to do when it comes to this sort of situation is to try to do everything we can—and this legislation is obviously tough legislation—to prevent young people entering into that world of violent extremism. We had a program in my electorate called MyHack, and I congratulate Abdullah Alim, who is now the Western Australian Young Person of the Year, who ran the program in my electorate so well. It is a fantastic program. I recognise in the House the member for Cowan, Dr Anne Aly, who is an expert in the prevention of violent extremism. This is an outstanding program and needs to be run right across the country.
Terrorism is a concern we unfortunately face regularly in Australia now, and we cannot sit back and allow our legislation not to evolve with the problem that is evolving. I thank all the law enforcement officers—from the Australian Federal Police, the state police, the joint task force and all those members involved—for the work they do in making Australia such a great please to live. Sadly, we have had a number of terrorist attacks—three in New South Wales and one in Victoria. We have narrowly escaped 11 since September 2014—which, again, is due to great intelligence and great police work. As a former Victorian police officer and also involved in the counter-terrorism unit, I cannot give enough praise to those members who have protected us for so long.
One of the most awful planned attacks was for an attack in Melbourne this past Anzac Day. The plan was to stab and shoot police officers and members of the public. I remember how alert the police were at Anzac Day services and how concerned they were for their own safety. One of those charged was Sevdet Ramadan Besim, 19 years of age. After his plan was foiled, he pleaded guilty to a plot to run over and then behead a police officer before using his gun in a rampage. In the Victorian Supreme Court in September 2016, Besim was given a 10-year jail sentence, and must serve at least 7½ years before he is eligible for parole.
There were also advanced plans to kidnap members of the public in Sydney and Brisbane and then behead them on camera and release the footage—absolutely shocking. Two schoolboys, who were allegedly preparing for a terror attack in Sydney's south-west, with police alleging they had links to Islamic State, were arrested and refused bail in October 2016. There was a plan to detonate bombs at a Mother's Day running event. There was also the plan to target government buildings, including the Garden Island Navy base and the Parramatta Court House. Again, the targets are regularly what we call the green and blue—the police and defence.
This is a real concern that we must take seriously. One way to take this threat seriously is to support this amendment to part 5.3 of the Criminal Code Act 1995. I also congratulate Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, who has led the charge on this legislation. This amendment inserts a new regime which will enable the court, upon application by the Attorney-General—and I acknowledge the great work he has done on this along with Minister Keenan—to make an order for the ongoing detention of high-risk terrorist offenders serving custodial sentences.
The bill will enable the Supreme Court of a state or territory to make two types of detention orders against a person. The first is a continuing detention order, which will enable a person to be detained in prison for up to three years. An order can only be made against a person who is currently imprisoned and serving a sentence for specified offences under the Criminal Code, including offences related to international terrorist activities, using explosive and lethal devices, treason, serious terrorism or foreign incursions and recruitment. Sadly, we have people travelling overseas and getting involved in terrorism and endeavouring to come back to our country.
The second type of order a court can make is an interim detention order, which can last for up to 28 days. An interim detention order is only available in circumstances where the terrorist offender's sentence or existing continuing detention order will end before the court has had an opportunity to determine the continuing detention order application—which is obviously very important.
Now, I see that there may be public concern about this around whether this amounts to being able to keep someone detained indefinitely. My simple answer to this is: no, it does not. The orders available under this bill are time limited. An order for continuing detention can be made by a court only for a maximum period of three years, although there is no limit on the number of orders that a court can make in relation to a person. The court must review an order for continuing detention every 12 months. And a court's decision to issue a continuing detention order, or a decision to affirm the order upon review, can be appealed.
Adding to this, the bill contains significant safeguards to ensure respect for the rule of law. For example, only the Commonwealth Attorney-General or his legal representative may make an application for a continuing detention order. The court is the decision maker and must be satisfied to a high degree of probability, on the basis of admissible evidence, that the offender poses an unacceptable risk of committing a serious terrorism offence if the offender is released into the community. This is saying that the person in jail refuses to be rehabilitated and, if they are released into the public, there is a high probability they will get involved in a terrorist attack—which I am sure, Mr Deputy Speaker Vasta, you would be horrified to hear.
Some may ask why this is necessary. The object of the post-sentence preventative detention regime is to ensure the safety and protection of the community by providing for the continuing detention of terrorist offenders serving custodial sentences who pose an unacceptable risk of committing serious terrorism offences if released into the community. This takes into account those who we know, through intelligence, have been radicalised in prison. There are so many people radicalised in prison, going back to the days of Richard Reid, the shoe bomber who was radicalised in Manchester prison. I had the great pleasure of going to the Victorian Police's Echo Taskforce, who look after the outlaw motorcycle gang members, presentations about the concerns in Barwon Prison in Melbourne, where you have violent extremists being patched over to the Mongols Motorcycle Club. The great news is that immigration minister Peter Dutton, strongly supported by the Prime Minister, put in place the need to have the ability to deport these people who are dual citizens. It is simply not worth the risk of allowing someone we know has terrorist inclinations back into society, because they may commit an act of terrorism. We just cannot take that chance.
At present, once a sentence of imprisonment has been served, convicted terrorists re-enter the community regardless of the risk they pose. It is important to remember that post-sentence preventative detention schemes are not new to Australia. In fact, the majority of states and territories, as well as international counterparts, including the United Kingdom and New Zealand, have enacted post-sentence preventative detention schemes for dealing with high-risk sex or violent offenders. New South Wales and South Australia, like the UK and New Zealand, have schemes which cover both sex offenders and violent offenders, while other states have schemes limited to sex offenders, but there is no existing Australian scheme that provides for post-sentence preventative detention of convicted terrorists.
To date we have had to rely on control orders for monitoring convicted terrorists and terrorism suspects upon their release from prison. These can include reporting requirements to police stations, the provision of fingerprints, restrictions on leaving Australia and prohibition from communicating or associating with a number of individuals. This is simply not good enough. With control orders it is very difficult to follow terrorist suspects. You cannot do it 24 hours a day. When I say 'terrorist suspects', I mean those who have been released with no sign of being rehabilitated. It is the equivalent of releasing a convicted terrorist and saying, 'Be good,' when we know that that specific person still has inclinations towards committing acts of terrorism. If we can preventatively detain sex offenders and violent offenders, there is no reason why we should not be able to do the same with convicted terrorists in order to protect our society.
This bill forms part of the government's comprehensive reform agenda to ensure the safety and protection of the community and it follows other legislative measures that have kept Australia's counter-terrorism framework responsive, effective and efficient. This is not an issue we can afford to drag our feet on. I strongly urge all states and territories to agree to these amendments, as this is very important right across the country.
I would also like to raise an issue that I have been greatly concerned about, even back in the Howard days—what is known as preventative detention. That is where a person is detained by police under preventative detention orders. This is completely separate to what we are talking about at the moment. The police have that person 'on ice', in policing terms. They cannot ask the person any questions regarding the activities they may have been involved in. If the police need to interview that person, they must be released and arrested under part IC of the Crimes Act. I have been greatly concerned about this since it was initially introduced. In relation to the evidence that this is not effective, there has never been a Commonwealth preventative detention order taken out. We have always relied on the states. To me, this is not good enough.
We saw the awful incident with Lindt Cafe in Sydney and we know—and I have previously spoken about this and I highly commend this—that New South Wales have gone down the UK path and have what we call a pre-arrest detention, where they can interview the person in custody. This is something which I know the Victorian state Labor government is dragging its feet on. This is something we need to ensure goes right across the country. The great concern I have is that you can have a person in preventative detention in a police interview room not being asked any questions yet that person has specific knowledge—for example, they know that, once a co-offender involved in a terrorist attack becomes aware that the person in custody got picked up, they will carry out a terrorist attack. To me, that is totally unacceptable and must be changed, and I have had so many frustrations about this over the year. Luckily, we have never had this situation occur, but it is one that I have spoken to the AFP about. No-one can guarantee that it will not occur. Today I strongly recommend the Criminal Code Amendment (High Risk Terrorist Offenders) Bill 2016 to the House.
I call the honourable member for Cowan, and I welcome her to the 45th Parliament.
I support the proposed Criminal Code Amendment (High Risk Terrorist Offenders) Bill 2016, with the implementation of the recommended amendments. I also commend the PJCIS on the work that they undertook of thoroughly examining the bill and the improvements to it in the form of 24 substantive recommendations. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank my colleague on the other side, Mr Jason Wood, the member for La Trobe. I had the pleasure of working with Mr Wood in this area before I entered the parliament and I would like to take this opportunity to commend him on his dedication to this field and to recognise the wealth of experience he brings to this parliament through his former role in law enforcement.
I note that the bill proposes a continuing detention order regime for high-risk terrorist offenders who are deemed by the court to present an ongoing risk to the community. I also note that the PJCIS made reference to proposed subdivision C, which includes provisions for the appointment of so-called 'relevant experts' to conduct and provide assessments about the likely ongoing risk presented by detainees, defining a 'relevant expert' quite loosely as a person who would be 'competent to assess the risk of a terrorist offender committing a serious offence under Part 5.3 of the Criminal Code' if that offender were to be released into the community. The PJCIS rightly recommends that the definition of 'relevant expert' be clarified and that each party be able to bring forward their preferred relevant experts.
Apart from the relative lack of expertise in Australia, it is also pertinent and utterly important to raise my concerns about this bill's absolute lack of a framework—any framework—for assessing the risk of reoffending in terrorist cases. There is no terrorist profile, and throughout history all attempts at profiling who is likely to become a terrorist or who is likely to reoffend among terrorist cases have come down to being able just to categorise some very broad demographics. It is generally accepted that terrorist behaviour can be seen as some form of equation which consists partly of cognitive radicalisation, which is the internalisation of extremist or radical beliefs; behavioural radicalisation, which is the acceptance of violence as a means of furthering those beliefs or the cause related to those beliefs; and, importantly, opportunity, which is the opportunity to carry out violent acts.
In addressing the bill today, the Minister for Justice, Mr Keenan, correctly pointed out that it is important that our counterterrorism framework remains responsive to the threat, and I would certainly agree with him. So I think it is very important that we continue to assess the changing nature of the threat and the changing nature of terrorism. What we are seeing, and what we have been seeing over the last five years in particular, is not what we were seeing five or 10 years ago. The cognitive and behavioural mix, in terms of terrorist behaviour, has changed. Most importantly, the opportunity factor in the equation has also changed.
Nowadays, opportunity to commit a violent or terrorist act does not rely on the ability and capacity of groups to form and communicate. Opportunity is as low tech as having access to a knife or a gun—or, indeed, any kind of household implement. In assessing risk, it is vastly more important that we take that into account and, in forming risk assessments, particularly around whether or not a detainee is likely to pose an ongoing risk to the community should they be released into the community, that we take that opportunity aspect of the equation into account.
Labor takes a bipartisan stance on all national security legislation. Our priority is to keep Australia safe. To do that we need a measured, effective and smart approach, with programs and policies that actually work. While this bill has been given the proper scrutiny and now properly targets terrorist offenders—no longer including treason or some of the other offences that were in the original bill—it would be remiss of me if I did not also speak to the urgency of other counterterrorism measures beyond legislative amendments that only impact a small number of people and are limited in the immediate impact they have on our ability to counter terrorism.
This government has promised several million dollars for countering violent extremism, which is the preventive aspect of counterterrorism. The government's much-lauded directory of services has not materialised, so we continue to operate in an environment where there are no programs, no support and no intervention. We have a situation now where we will have terrorist offenders being assessed with no robust assessment framework, in the absence of any robust expertise and, if released, with no programs for ongoing assessment and monitoring.
Before I entered this parliament I researched every single deradicalisation program in the world—those that occur in prisons, in the community and in specialised facilities. Best practice says that no deradicalisation program works without ongoing support, ongoing monitoring and ongoing programs. I must also mention that Professor Hamed El-Said, who is a much-lauded international expert in this field from Manchester Metropolitan University, has recently written an article about deradicalisation in Australian prisons and makes the point that there is need for further rehabilitation programs in Australian prisons.
In concluding, the substantive changes that have been brought to this bill clearly demonstrate that Labor is not just committed to ensuring that all Australians are safe and secure but, importantly, that we are also committed to ensuring that programs, policies and legislation actually work; that they actually target terrorism, they actually have an impact and they are actually effective. No more is this evident than in the fact that this bill, without the amendments that were largely pushed by Labor, would be ineffective, insufficient and simply unable to address the ongoing threat of terrorism. In saying that, I commend the bill in its current form.
I want to commend much of what has been said by previous members and, particularly, the member for Latrobe, who, as a part of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Security and Intelligence, of which I am chair, contributed greatly to our deliberations of this legislation. Let there be no mistake, today is testament to the fact that the committee I chaired has provided a ringing endorsement to this legislation—an absolutely ringing endorsement. What was provided to us by the Attorney-General, of course with the imprimatur of the Prime Minister, was an A-grade piece of legislation in an extraordinarily difficult area. Yes, there are regimes around various state jurisdictions that relate to post-sentence detention, most particularly for sexual and violent offenders, but for the federal government to extend post-sentence detention, very importantly in our view and thankfully the view of this parliament, to terrorist offenders is something that many thought was so difficult, so hard that it was not worth pursuing. But it took our Attorney-General and Prime Minister to absolutely put their stamp on this legislation and I want to thank them for showing that leadership because nothing is more important—and this is said in a very glib way in this parliament, but nothing is more important—than the safety and security of our citizens.
We are dealing with a phenomenon now, a phenomenon of terrorism—home-grown terrorism in many cases—that we have struggled to react to, not just us in Australia but we have struggled to react to it throughout the Western world. The old thinking, very reasonably, was that you did the crime and you did your time, and then you left incarceration. What we have seen time and time again, not only in Australia but throughout the world, is that many terrorist offenders, due to the ideological beliefs that they hold, go into jail with that insidious ideology and they leave even worse. They are not rehabilitated in prison. They leave even worse. They leave posing an even greater threat to our society, an even greater threat to honest, ordinary men and women in our society. We have seen it time and time again here in Australia—those instances where a terrorist offence occurs and people like my parents, ordinary Australians, would say, 'How come we weren't able to stop them? It seems so obvious that that person was radicalised. It seems so obvious that that person was embarking on a path of destruction and seeking to hurt fellow Australians.'
In a sense, this regime is a last resort; it is a backstop. It is a last resort for the worst cases of terrorist offenders who, with a high degree of probability are determined by a court—not the government, not the Attorney-General but determined by a court—to be such a risk to our society that they must continue to be detained. I think the vast bulk of Australians will applaud this parliament today. I am very pleased that when this piece of legislation came before the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security that our committee was able to reflect the views of that community. In the process of reviewing the legislation, we received 18 submissions, if I recall correctly.
One of the things that struck me was that, perhaps, there is still a segment of our society—quite a scary segment in my view—who disagree with legislation, extraordinary though it is, as sensible as this. We have just heard comments in this Senate from the Greens, who have opposed this legislation. We had submissions from the Council for Civil Liberties, who said under no circumstances could they ever support a post-sentence detention regime. We had representatives from the Muslim Legal Network, who effectively said the same thing: 'Under no circumstances, even if we knew somebody was very likely to seek to do fellow Australians harm.' Even then, they would not support this regime.
So I want to thank members opposite. I particularly want to thank my deputy chair, the member for Holt, for his counsel and great support during the review we undertook. Indeed, I want to thank most of the members of the committee for the wonderful work they did in ensuring that we were able to come up with 24 recommendations. May I say, yes, there were 24 recommendations, but in most cases those recommendations, in my view, were just performing a function that our committee should, which is just another pair of eyes. We sought clarification of certain aspects of the explanatory memorandum and we, in a sense, had only a handful of substantive amendments, which I think is a great credit to the Attorney-General.
The biggest amendment that we proposed, which our community unanimously presented, was that a 10-year sunset clause be placed on this legislation. My view—public view and private view—is that this phenomenon of terrorism, this phenomenon of individuals who, unfortunately, are beyond redemption and beyond rehabilitation, will not go away in 10 years. This will be with us for a lot longer than 10 years.
The committee felt that a 10-year sunset clause was a sufficient period of time to, in a sense, develop through the working group all of the additional work that will need to be done before applications for continuing detention orders can be applied for; a period of time where we can examine how the regime is working. In that 10 years there will be a body of evidence and, hopefully, a body of cases where we have successfully been able to detain terrorist offenders and then we can examine the legislation to see where it may need to be changed. I do not think this is a problem that will go away in 10 years, but the committee felt that that was very necessary.
I want to make some broader comments in relation to the conduct of the committee's inquiry, which is of course relevant to the legislation before the House. It is extraordinarily important that the PJCIS is a bipartisan committee. Each and every day, we are dealing with legislation that goes to the most fundamental aspects of the safety and security of Australians. It is so important and, to date, the composition and membership of the committee has supported that endeavour of bipartisanship. But in the process of this review, there has been some unfortunate conduct from the shadow Attorney-General of leaking information from the committee and speaking to the media inappropriately. I think the shadow Attorney-General has conceded that he regrets that conduct and I would hope that in future, noting that he does regret the way he has acted in some parts of this review, we can get assurances from him that he will live up to the standards of the other members of the Labor Party who sit on that committee. In the conduct of this review, he did not live up to those high standards. That is a very important point, that as a committee we are together as a parliament. We are not there as partisan warriors for one side or another. We are not there with a blind hatred or a single-minded focus on trying to destroy our political opponents. We are there to review legislation that will keep Australians as safe as possible. I think this legislation does that. I am very pleased to be supporting this legislation.
Another aspect of the review which took a lot of the committee's attention was around those who questioned the need for a post-sentence detention regime because we have control orders, which are where our security agencies, in effect, monitor and keep a very close eye on particular individuals and groups. The public evidence from the Australian Federal Police and other agencies is that control orders are extraordinarily expensive both from a human resource perspective and from a financial perspective. Many, many millions of dollars are required to keep an eye on a high-risk terrorist offender in the community. Even when a control order is in place, and with all that cost and all those resources, we cannot provide the community with a 100 per cent assurance of protection. The greatest and saddest recent example is that of the terrorist offender in France who slit the throat of a priest on the altar, killing that priest and injuring two other people. That person was subject to a French version of a control order. He was wearing an electronic bracelet on his ankle. He was being monitored by the police. But being monitored did not prevent him from being able to detain, kidnap and, ultimately, commit a ghastly terrorist act.
This post-sentence detention regime is the best way that this parliament can say with absolute certainty, 'That individual is so dangerous we are going to keep them detained, and we can provide the community with a 100 per cent assurance that that person will not be able to harm anybody for as long as they are detained.' That also means that instead of our security agencies spending vast amounts of resources, human resources and financial resources, in monitoring those individuals and groups, they can put those resources into other important endeavours to keep our society safe. It is not just a matter of throwing more money at it, as was the evidence from the public hearings. The skill, intelligence and human resources within the AFP are stretched and if we did not act to ensure that these types of terrorist offenders are detained, then we would not be doing them a service and we would ultimately be jeopardising the safety of our society.
On the last sitting day of the year this should be a very proud day for everybody in this parliament, perhaps minus the Greens. I want to commend the opposition for supporting this legislation. This is an area where it is so important that we maintain bipartisanship, and we have done it today. This is very hard, novel legislation and the fact that we have been able to do it and do it in a timely fashion, as requested by our security agencies, who said, 'We want this as soon as possible,' is a great testament to the parliament. But, most of all, I want to thank the Attorney-General and the Prime Minister for giving the committee their imprimatur for this legislation. It is hard but they have delivered it today. I look forward to the implementation working group over coming months developing the framework that is going to make sure that this is not just good legislation in principle, not just good legislation that sits on a shelf somewhere, but legislation that can be used practically by our security agencies to keep the worst terrorist offenders behind bars. That is the way in which we can give Australians a categorical assurance that those individuals will not do our society harm. I commend this bill to the House.
It being almost 1.30 pm, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour.
Today I would like to bring to the attention of the House a little-known disease afflicting some people in our communities. This condition is gastroparesis.
One of my constituents, Denis Turner, has worked tirelessly to raise awareness of this disease. His daughter Jacinta was working as a registered nurse when she thought she had come down with a stomach bug that stumped her doctors. Jacinta now relies on a liquid diet to receive any sustenance.
There are an estimated 125,000 gastroparesis sufferers in Australia, the majority of whom have no underlying cause for the disease. There are a small percentage of patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes who experience chronic gastroparesis.
There is no cure for gastroparesis. The current goals of treatment are to relieve symptoms. Treatment focuses on dietary modifications; control of blood glucose in patients with diabetes; and the use of prokinetic and antiemetic agents, either alone or in combination. Most of these treatments are based upon clinical experience as experimental evidence to support these interventions is lacking.
Last year, the family of Tasmanian Emily Pickett raised enough money for the Rotary Club of Devonport's application for a grant for gastroparesis research to be accepted by the Australian Rotary Health research foundation. Only very recently the scholarship was taken up by a PhD candidate at the university of Western Sydney school of medicine to look at how dietary modification could possibly alleviate the symptoms of gastroparesis. I welcome this good news, as it gives hope to the thousands of sufferers in Australia.
Western Australia has a game-changing opportunity with the potential of nonstop direct flights between Perth and London or Europe. We must make sure this opportunity is not lost. Do not underestimate just how popular these flights will be with WA travellers and inbound holiday-makers and business travellers, and how important this will be for our WA economy. Nonstop Europe flights would make Perth a real option for so many more travellers to WA. Perth could also become the gateway to Europe for Australian travellers from across the country looking to slash their travel times.
Perth Airport and Qantas have different ideas about how to make this happen—Terminal 1 or Terminal 4. They need to negotiate this impasse quickly. I welcome the news that the Premier of Western Australia has met with both Perth Airport and Qantas. His leadership as Premier and of the tourism portfolio and his commitment to creating jobs and promoting our state is tireless.
I absolutely see the merits of Qantas adding this international service to their domestic terminal operations. The whole point of a nonstop flight from Europe to Perth is the high-speed international connection and seamless transition to domestic flights. Taking passengers between airports by bus is not an option.
Perth Airport has a responsibility to get this right for their shareholders—particularly the Australian people, who, through the Future Fund, hold a 30 per cent share in the airport. All involved must work towards an outcome on this issue. The Parliament of Australia is watching closely, and if the parties fail I will call for an inquiry into their failure.
I wish to speak to the people of the vibrant electorate of Lalor today: to those who are feeling the effects of the service cuts being implemented and driven by this chaotic, divided and divisive government; to those in the community sector and in education; to those relying on welfare; to those needing complex health solutions; to young people involved in the Green Army or looking for or continuing to work; to those looking at their pensions and superannuation accounts; to businesses looking at employment plans—all of us living with the uncertainty this government has visited on us since the election in 2013. To you all I say: we in Labor will continue to fight and to seek to influence on your behalf.
I wish you all a happy and safe summer and a Merry Christmas, and I implore you all, my neighbours and friends, to do what we have always done in Lalor: look to each other with friendship; look one another in the eye and offer your hand; look out for each other; look after each other. And I will see you all back in the electorate. Merry Christmas, Mr Deputy Speaker.
I would like to take this opportunity to wish a very Merry Christmas to the electorate of Flynn and to my parliamentary colleagues in this House. This time of the year always leads to reflection on the year that was, and 2016 has been a very interesting year and possibly the fastest time I have spent in parliament—or so it seems.
A big 'Thanks' to my constituents for electing me to be their representative in Canberra for this third term. To be elected, I relied on the tireless support of my family, friends, supporters and staff. The parliamentary staff here in Canberra have been outstanding.
I will be fighting to see deliveries for Flynn as to telecommunications, aged care and roads. These are the three big-ticket items for Flynn, but there are others like jobs and job security.
I wish all in Flynn a merry Christmas and a happy New Year with plenty of rain. Enjoy your time with your family, and please shop locally.
Like many in this chamber, I am counting the hours until I can head home, because Christmas has arrived in my community. There are so many carol nights, concerts, pageants and festivals it would be impossible to attend them all, but I would just like to highlight a few.
On Kangaroo Island, the Kingscote kindergarten is hosting its annual Christmas Tree Festival concert in the Kingscote Town Hall tonight. I wish I could be there.
We have carols in Penneshaw and a parade in Kingscote, carols by candlelight in Victor Harbor and carols at Port Elliot, and the South Australia Police band is holding a Christmas concert in Goolwa. The townships of Victor Harbor, Goolwa, Mount Compass and Strathalbyn will hold their pageants, while Normanville on the coast will hold a New Year's Eve parade, for something different. I will be attending the Mount Barker pageant this Saturday and I am looking forward to the Woodside and Lobethal pageants as well.
Every year we have more than 60 people coming to a very special event that I would like to mention. It is very close to my home. It is the Lights of Lobethal festival. We have people coming from all over Australia to visit our lights and our living nativity play put on by the local churches, featuring real sheep and a real baby in the manger.
I would like to thank all the volunteers in my community who will organise these special events that bring so much joy to so many this season, and I invite everyone in South Australia and, indeed, Australia to come to Mayo and enjoy our festive events this season.
I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the Bethesda Lutheran Church in Beenleigh on celebrating, over the weekend, the 150th anniversary of the first Lutheran divine service in the Beenleigh district, led by Pastor Hausmann. The milestone was celebrated at a service last Sunday, and I was honoured to attend this special occasion. The service was attended by many from our local community and included the lighting of a unity candle to mark special events by the Lutheran church right around Australia.
The Bethesda Lutheran Church in Beenleigh has a proud history. Originally, it was actually three separate churches that eventually formed the one church. Today it provides a number of services to our community, including youth Sunday school, home Bible study groups, a women's fellowship and, most importantly, pastoral care for our community. Many in our community have been supported and assisted by those involved with the church over the last 150 years.
I would like to thank all concerned for the time and effort they put into working with our local community to help make it what it is today. I celebrate their proud history and I wish them all the best for the next 150 years and, hopefully, longer.
Today I would like to take the opportunity to celebrate the life of John 'Curly' Nixon, a Northern Territory resident who is gravely ill. Curly is an iconic figure in the history of Labor movement in the Northern Territory, and, indeed, many would say he is the heart of it.
He was born in 1929 and arrived in Darwin in 1949. He served in Korea and then came back to the Northern Territory. He went to work in Alice Springs and became a delegate for the North Australian Workers Union, and then moved to Darwin where he became president of the Waterside Workers Federation and of the Trades and Labor Council of the Northern Territory, which is where I got to know him.
He has been a fixture for all of my life in the Northern Territory, which is now over 40 years. He was a fixture at annual conferences of the Labor Party, fearlessly calling members to account, including chief ministers and ministers—it did not matter who. He was never afraid to speak out and he was a man of great opinions. In the 70s I worked closely with Curly. He was the president of the Trades and Labor Council and I was the assistant secretary. He campaigned hard for land rights and against uranium mining. He was always leading the struggle for workers' rights and the rights of minorities.
He is a wonderful family man. His wife, Jenny, and his three children—Susan, Kath and Tracey—are by his side. I hope he lives to see me again; I would like to talk to him before he goes. I want to commend to the House his great contribution to the life of the Northern Territory.
On the last sitting day for 2016, I extend to my electors my best wishes for a merry Christmas and a happy and prosperous new year.
I also thank my staff for their work this year. Barbara Morris, my diary manager, has had a rough trot, having undergone bypass surgery. I am pleased that she is now well on the road to recovery and I look forward to her coming back full time. Rae Hurley stepped into Barbara's shoes and has done a fantastic job of running the diary and helping me look to after the Wide Bay constituents. I also thank Ali Hammond for ensuring that constituents' enquiries and needs were addressed. Rebecca Kuhn is leaving my team at the end of the year to take up a position in the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development. My loss is Ministers Chester and Nash's gain. I thank her and know she will make a great contribution to her new department. I also thank Simon Kelly for his helpful advice and dedicated service to Wide Bay, which extends well beyond the wage he is paid.
To the Parliamentary staff—the attendants, cleaners, librarians and researchers, hospitality, security, and COMCAR drivers, I thank you and wish you all a happy Christmas.
Finally, if you are travelling on the roads, please drive safely. As a former police traffic accident investigator, I know the horror, trauma and tragedy that crashes bring.
To friends and colleagues, have a happy Christmas, and best wishes for 2017.
I rise to speak about the regulation which I proposed last week in this parliament about dangerous air pollution coming from cruise ships at White Bay. The regulation will now be implemented as a result of the announcement by the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport today through the Australian Maritime Safety Authority. I welcome Minister Chester's announcement. All cruise ships berthed in Sydney Harbour will be directed to adhere to a strict 0.1 per cent limit on sulphur content in the fuel they use to reduce pollution.
Since becoming the federal member representing Balmain at the July election I have met repeatedly with departmental officers and Minister Chester to insist on a solution to this longstanding problem. Balmain residents have been fighting for more than five years for proper protections against cruise ship emissions. Last Sunday I addressed a meeting at Clontarf Cottage of Balmain residents who have been affected by emissions from Cruise Ships in White Bay for many years. I gave a commitment to those residents that if the government had not issued a directive to fix this problem by the end of this parliamentary sitting week I would introduce a private member's bill that I had drafted to force through this overdue environmental protection.
I thank the minister for working with me in a bipartisan fashion to achieve this outcome for the community. This order will achieve the precise protection the New South Wales government had previously sought to enact for berthed ships. (Time expired)
The 2016-17 Melissa Price Mid West Basketball Competition tipped off last month in stellar fashion. Teams from right across the Mid West from towns such as Mount Magnet, Morawa, Mullewa and Mingenew participated in this summer's maiden round. The alcohol and drug-free competition has grown by leaps and bounds from its first round last season, when it had only three new teams on court. Over 220 people spilled into the Mullewa Recreation Centre, with a record amount of children watching the day's festivities. Thirty women and 90 men pulled on a jersey throughout the day.
Congratulations to Who Care, who defeated Mount Magnet in a nailbiter in overtime in the women's. Mullewa defeated reigning champions Mount Magnet by one point in a thriller in the men's—a great achievement by the Mullewa boys, who knocked off a very worthy opponent in Mount Magnet, who were previously undefeated.
Locals from across the mid-west are looking forward to the second round of the season on Sunday at the Mullewa Recreation Centre, starting at 9am. The competition has become a massive highlight for hundreds of people throughout the mid-west. I am very proud that there are a number of Indigenous players—men and women. It is only made possible by the dedicated hard work of mental health worker Glen Fleeton from 360.
With the time remaining, I would like to take the opportunity to wish all the good people of Durack a very happy and merry Christmas. May we see them in 2017, and may they have a very happy and prosperous 2017.
On this last day of parliament I want to take this opportunity to thank the many people who have helped me be standing here today. There are many in my team, there are many across Canberra, there are many volunteers. I cannot acknowledge all of them, but there are a number that I do need to acknowledge today. First up, I want to thank my fantastic team. Madeleine Firth, who is no longer with us as she is over in Scotland at the moment, worked with me for three years and was an exceptional media adviser and an exceptional chief of staff. Madeleine, we hope you stay warm over the Christmas break. To Alicia Turner, who has been with me for two years, thank you so much for the work you do. To Victoria Robertson, my new chief of staff, it is great having you on board. To Steph Brimson, thanks so much for managing the diary this year. Thank you to Cameron Amos for working on my media, and to Eric Mandl, who has just recently joined us. Most importantly, thank you to the volunteers—to Helen, to Jack, to Annalyse, to Martin, to Despina, to Benjamin, to Jasmine, to Jack, to Llois, to Mitchell, to Aimee, to Jen—to Karl Maftoum, whose campaign I worked on and who worked very tirelessly on my campaign, and to Dave Smith, who was our second Senate candidate. It was great working with him. Thank you to all the other volunteers who doorknocked, who letterboxed, who worked with me on mobile offices and who came to my community forums. Most importantly, I want to thank the people of Canberra for electing me to serve you for the next three years, and I wish you all the best for a safe and happy Christmas with your families. I will be looking forward to advocating for you in 2017.
I am pleased to come into the parliament today to speak about the direct impact that federal government assistance is having on Whyalla steelmaker Arrium in my electorate. I am pleased to advise that the Iron Knob mining area work is underway, which is the installation of a new beneficiation plant—or a wash plant—which will enable Arrium to accelerate the processing of low-grade iron ore and to enrich it at both the Iron Baron and Iron Knob mining areas. The purchase of these plants was made possible by the coalition government delivering on its election commitment and providing a loan of $49.2 million. Most pleasingly, I must say, is that $25 million of the $49.2 million has been invested with local contractors, including for the electrical and mechanical work, crane hire and earthworks. That is a real shot in the arm for Whyalla, and very welcome. Minister Hunt has continued to pursue good outcomes for Arrium. At the moment we are working with four potential buyers. The money that the federal government has invested goes toward not only the beneficiation plan, but the 70,000 tonnes of rail that has been ordered by ARTC being installed at the moment, generating a further 60 jobs in the installation of that rail. This is all adding to the momentum that government can supply in this space. As we talk to the potential buyers, we are also looking at different areas that the federal government may be able to assist to make the operation more profitable. (Time expired)
Today is the first day of summer, and over the course of summer millions of Australians will flock to our beaches and enjoy our nation's natural beauty. But the Australian summer brings increasing risks. With climate change a looming threat and scientists telling us of increasing threats of extreme weather events over summer, I ask all Australians to remember the work of our wonderful volunteers who keep us safe during the summer period—in particular, the 170 surf lifesavers who volunteer their time to keep us safe on our beaches each year. Over the course of last year about 200 people drowned on the Australian coastline, but not one person drowned between the red and yellow flags on Australian beaches, perfectly highlighting the value of that volunteer service to our wonderful community. I also ask people to spare a thought for the SES and the volunteer bushfire services, who, unfortunately and doubtlessly, will be busy over the summer period. We thank them for their service to our community. I ask all Australians, when they are travelling to the beach, to enjoy our wonderful coastline, to heed the warnings and advice of our volunteer lifesavers and always swim between the red and yellow flags. If you are going rock fishing, make sure you go with someone else, wear a vest and tell people where you are going. Have a safe summer, and thank you, once again, to our wonderful volunteers.
I am angry, and that does not happen often. It is about my local fuel prices, and many of my Gilmore residents are angry too. Peter says:
Once again Nowra is stuck in the high price cycle for petrol and for far too long. Shellharbour has unleaded petrol for $1.02 a litre and Barrack Heights $1.03 a litre, good old Nowra $1.36 a litre and it seems like forever. Oil is about $45 a barrel, so once again why doesn't fuel in Nowra go up and down like other areas instead of just up?
Yet in recent press articles the ACCC's statement that petrol prices are down in the last quarter and drivers are getting a good deal flies in the face of the reality for Gilmore drivers. Please tell me what parallel universe the analysts and data collectors of the ACCC are working in. For three years I have been encouraging residents to do the right thing and direct their complaints to the ACCC. Nowra, in particular, has several recorded time and price graphs that show a flat line, usually high, but in other towns they fluctuate. Surely this should raise a red flag. There are simply no viable, timely public transport routes in my community. This means many people living in my region are doubly impacted by hefty petrol prices and isolation from services—a mighty hit on the household budget. I have been advised that the ACCC will look into this matter. I do not believe it. I will be organising a petition in my region. We will get everybody involved. This apparent supply cartel affects residents, independent distributors and business in general. (Time expired)
I am very proud to have been elected as the member for Solomon, and I thank my team, I thank my colleagues and I thank Territory Labor. But, most of all, I thank the constituents of Solomon who voted for me, and I will continue to work for all the people of Darwin and Palmerston next year. Over the past few months I have been fighting to make sure the government delivers on its promises—the much needed PET scanner and the Palmerston Hospital. I have been calling for the reinstatement of our deputy commissioner for veterans affairs, and working on the establishment of a veterans centre. I have been promoting tourism and the million-dollar barra competition. I have been campaigning for a sensible and competitive backpacker tax, and, hopefully, we can get that agreed upon today. I have also joined the jobs task force, been appointed deputy chair of the Industry, Innovation, Science and Resources Committee, and I am proud to be the secretary of the historic Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander caucus committee, with my colleague Malarndirri McCarthy. I am very well aware of the responsibilities of my position, and I would like to share some Christmas cheer from the Top End with all honourable members. Craft beer aficionados know about the craft beer trail. For too many years there was a gap in that trail, in Darwin, but I am proud to say that we now have the Six Tanks Brewing Company, who opened their doors in Darwin. You can now have a great craft beer in Darwin, and I welcome all honourable members to the Top End to sample some of our great craft beer. Merry Christmas.
Another year draws to a close, and traffic in Melbourne is worse than ever before. Thanks to the reckless decision of Daniel Andrews and Bill Shorten 18 months ago to cancel the contracts for the East West Link, you can be sure that traffic will be worse again this time next year and again the year after that. Report after report continue to confirm what residents in my electorate already know—the Eastern Freeway is the most congested and costliest stretch of road in Victoria. Without decisive action, congestion in Victoria will soon cost our Victorian economy $9 billion in lost productivity. Labor's decision to spend more than $1.2 billion of taxpayers' money not to build the East West Link will be the albatross that hangs around their necks for years to come. I want to assure residents and businesses in my electorate that our campaign to build the East West Link will be back in 2017, stronger, bigger and louder than ever before. I also want to remind them that we still have $3 billion on the table from the federal government for the completion of this crucial project, and it is high time that Daniel Andrews, Bill Shorten and the Labor Party got out of the way and allowed us to spend the money to build the East West Link and alleviate traffic congestion in the wonderful state of Victoria.
'Our whole lives are on this street,' is what Margaret, Kevin, Craig and Janet told me about their home in Warrane, in my electorate. Earlier this year they had been told by the state Liberal government and Housing Tasmania that they would have to move before Christmas because their home of more than 50 years was going to be demolished. They were told, 'The property has been a good long-term home but it is now at the end of its lifespan'—a pretty callous letter to receive in the mail. They came to see me, and of course I took this up with the state Liberal government and the state minister. Disappointingly, I heard back that the government and the housing department were not going to change their position—that this family, who had lived in this home for more than 50 years, and had raised a family there, were going to be evicted just before Christmas, and their house, their home, was going to be demolished. I took this up again with the minister on many occasions, but it took me going to the local media and talking to a local newspaper—who of course were very interested in this story—to actually get a response from the state housing commission and the state government. Finally, the family have now heard that their home will not be demolished. I am so pleased to get this fantastic result for Margaret and Kevin. I am so happy that they will be able to stay in their home this Christmas. I wish them and all of my constituents a very Merry Christmas indeed.
This chamber sometimes feels like a bit of a footy field, where the grandstand for the losing team seems to get louder and louder by the day. This often happens in footy games, when the grandstand tries to compensate for lack of performance on the field. The big thing is, though, no matter how loud or how out of control they get, you just have to look at the scoreboard. It is a scoreboard that says that the coalition has governed for about 14 of the last 20 years and won six of the last eight elections. I have been wondering about this. Is it because the Australian people want to see a team here in Canberra that delivers, that actually gets stuff done? I am talking here about our 25th consecutive year of growth. I am talking about $11 billion of budget repair. I am talking about our borders remaining secure. I am talking about half a million Australians receiving an income tax cut. We have also seen the passage of the Registered Organisations Commission bill and the passage of the ABCC bill. It is wonderful to be on this side of the House, with real people who know how to run an economy and run a country.
Before the parliament rises, I want to say a few words about my friend Con Sciacca. Con is a much-loved member of our Labor family—a mentor, a friend, a source of wise and fearless counsel for many in this chamber, in the other place and in Queensland Labor. For 15 years, in two different stints, he served in this place as the member for Bowman, as a shadow minister under Kim Beazley and as a greatly respected Minister for Veterans' Affairs under Paul Keating. His work on Australia Remembers, I think, will be remembered for a very long time.
Con is one of those people who succeeds in everything they turn their hand to, from politics to business and the law. But success has never changed him. Right now Con is doing it tough. He has got a struggle ahead with his health, but he is a fighter and he is blessed with a loving wife, Karen, a beloved daughter, Zina, and a granddaughter, Grace, whom he simply adores. These strong women are with him, and I want Con and his family to know the whole Labor Party are with him. Too often in our busy modern life we do not take the time to tell people how much they are admired, how much they are loved. Con, we know you are a fighter. We know you are fighting hard. We are with you and your family all the way.
Today I want to pay tribute to Pavo and Heidi Walker from Walker Seafoods Australia. Pavo and Heidi operate their Queensland tuna-fishing business of four vessels, 39 crew and a shore based processing, packaging and management team out of Mooloolaba on the Sunshine Coast. As one of the best fishing ports in the nation, Mooloolaba is becoming a desired location for innovative and sustainable fishing companies. Since 2002 the Walkers have steadily grown their business into the biggest tuna-fishing company on Australia's east coast. They have the highest catch rates and quota holdings in the fishery, due to their relentless pursuit of excellence and focus on the quality that is demanded by the Japanese, American and Australian markets.
Walker Seafoods Australia is known for producing a high-quality, export-grade product, and Heidi consistently tells me that business is so good that they are struggling to meet demand. As soon as the catch is whipped off the boats for processing, a large percentage is quickly packaged and sent on its way to Brisbane Airport, destined for cafes and restaurants in Tokyo, Boston and Los Angeles. The Walkers' business thrives on being ethical and sustainable. After investing four years and $350,000, they became the first tuna fishers in the country to earn the international gold standard for seafood sustainability, the Marine Stewardship Council certification, for yellowfin tuna, albacore tuna and swordfish. Walker Seafoods Australia is a great small-business success story. These are exciting times on the Sunshine Coast, the small-business capital of the nation.
In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Today the President of the National Farmers Federation has called on the government to adopt Labor's position on the backpacker tax, stating: 'Do the deal today. Do what it takes to get a deal done.'
Honourable members interjecting—
The minister for agriculture and assorted others, including the Leader of the House, will cease interjecting. I cannot hear the question. The Leader of the Opposition will begin again.
My question is still to the Prime Minister. Today the President of the National Farmers Federation has called on the government to adopt Labor's position on the backpacker tax, stating: 'Do the deal today. Do what it takes to get the deal done. Do the deal. Do a deal.' Is the Prime Minister seriously going to inflict a 32½ per cent backpacker tax on rural and regional Australia because he is too arrogant to sign up to Labor's sensible compromise?
One thing the Leader of the Opposition could not do very well is play poker. He could not stop smiling as he laughed at the foolishness of his question. The sheer satire of presenting Labor's latest position as Labor's policy. Labor only a few hours ago were wanting to have a tax of 10½ per cent. Now they have swung in behind Senator Lambie on their policy agenda. As for the National Farmers Federation, the Deputy Prime Minister can address the House.
The NFF have never, ever said to adopt Labor's position.
Ms Butler interjecting—
In fact, you should actually go out and correct the record because the NFF have never said we should adopt Labor's position.
Ms Butler interjecting—
The member for Griffith is warned.
Yet this is another example of the character of the person who wishes to be the future Prime Minister of Australia. It shows yet another example of how we cannot trust the Leader of the Opposition. It shows us yet another example of his lubricious, vexatious form of politics. He does it with a swarmy smile on his face. He thinks it is all a big joke. He thinks it is all a big joke, like what they did to the live cattle trade. One big joke is probably what they are going to do to the horticultural industry. This is the contemptuous approach of the Labor Party. When they talk about it it is all about a number. They say it must be a number. I can tell you what you have moved. You have moved from 10½ per cent to 13 per cent—that is, 2½ per cent. We have moved from 32½ per cent to 15 per cent—17½ per cent. Yet all the time all you try to do is destroy. You are a wrecker. You want to destroy. You are not worthy of the highest office. You completely and utterly mislead this House time and time and time again. Well the Australian people are watching you with your swarmy looks, your swarmy little press conferences and your smile. It is all just a joke. It does not matter. It is just other peoples' jobs. And at the heart of this, what is it? What does he stand behind? He stands behind having a worse rate for Australian workers—
Ms Catherine King interjecting—
Australian workers actually discriminated against—
The member for Ballarat is warned.
Are these the earnest actions of a former trade union leader? Is that who you are? Is that what you have become? Do you stand by that? Do you stand by every word of what you have just said in that question? Do you, Leader of the Opposition? I challenge you to say, 'I stand by every word that I just said.' Tell us that what you just said was the truth.
Honourable members interjecting—
The member for Franklin is warned.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister update the House on the government's achievements? How are those achievements, including reinstating the Australian Building and Construction Commission, delivering stronger economic growth and benefiting hardworking Australians?
I thank the honourable member for his question. Here on the last day of the parliament in 2016 the government is delivering on its national economic plan. We took our plan to the Australian people, to the election, and we won. Central to our plan was restoring the rule of law in the building and construction sector—eight per cent of GDP, 1 million Australians working in it, 300,000 small businesses—that has been terrorised by a lawless union defying the courts and defying the fines, which had been cut by two-thirds by the Leader of the Opposition when he was the employment minister. The Leader of the Opposition, when he was the employment minister in the Gillard government, rolled out the red carpet for the CFMEU—not like Bob Hawke, who stood up to the lawless elements of the building industry and deregistered the BLF. The Leader of the Opposition defends the CFMEU just like he defends Craig Thomson, Kathy Jackson and Cesar Melhem, his hand-picked successor. This is a man who has hand-picked two Labor figures—one, Cesar Melhem, who is being investigated for corruption right now and who has gone into the Victorian parliament—
Honourable members interjecting—
Before I call the Manager of Opposition Business, the level of interjection is far too high. The member for Chifley will cease interjecting. Member for Chifley, just keep your lips together and don't move them—just for five minutes. The member for Rankin is warned. The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order.
Mr Speaker, on direct relevance, the Prime Minister should be able to make three minutes on his own achievements, and, if he cannot be relevant for three minutes on his own achievements, it says it all.
The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. The Prime Minister has the call.
I can understand why the member for Watson would be ashamed of the way in which the Leader of the Opposition has been so careless of the rule of law that not only did he choose Cesar Melhem to succeed him in the AWU; he supported him going into the Victorian parliament and then hand-picked Kimberley Kitching into the Senate, who was recommended for investigation for prosecution by the DPP for fraudulently filling in other people's right-of-entry forms, in defiance of safety conditions. And the Leader of the Opposition has not once stated how he satisfied himself that those findings by the Heydon royal commission were wrong. He has not been able to satisfy himself of that; he does not care. He does not care about the two million members of trade unions. He does not care about the lawlessness in the construction sector.
We do. We have stood up for those members. We have stood up for the workers in the construction sector. We are restoring the rule of law, just like we protected tens of thousands of owner-drivers from the Transport Workers Union when we abolished the RSRT, just like we protected 60,000 volunteer firefighters from a takeover from another militant union. The Labor Party of today is a wholly owned subsidiary of militant trade unions. The only parties that stand for their members are the coalition.
My question is to the Prime Minister. On the backpacker tax, the Prime Minister has gone from zero per cent to 32½ per cent, then to 19 per cent, then threatened 32½ per cent again, then to 15 per cent, then threatened 32½ per cent again—and every time he said it was his final offer. When will the Prime Minister accept Labor's sensible compromise of 13 per cent? Prime Minister, it is time to end the chaos.
The Leader of the Opposition has been described as a 'representative of the foreign workers union'. What he has been standing up for today is Labor's policy that foreign backpackers should pay less tax than the marginal rate of Australians working alongside them picking fruit. That is their policy. They want them to pay 10½ per cent; now they have upped it to 13 per cent just in the last few hours, following the policy leadership of Senator Jacqui Lambie.
When the Leader of the Opposition was a minister in the previous Labor government, he introduced the arrangements for Pacific islanders to come to work in Australia as seasonal workers, and it was a generous scheme designed to give them a tax break so they would only pay 15 per cent tax and they would be able to come to Australia, do seasonal work and remit money back to their families in some of the poorest countries in the world. The average household income per capita is around $1,650. These seasonal workers were remitting about $5,100 on average each for their six months time here. They are paying 15 per cent tax—that is their tax rate.
What the Labor Party is now proposing is that foreigners from Germany, from Norway—from some of the richest countries in the world—should pay less tax than Pacific islanders do. And now they are still going to pay less tax than Pacific islanders do. So that is the position of the Labor Party. Foreign backpackers from some of the richest countries in the world pay less tax than Australians, and they even pay less tax than Pacific islanders working here as part of an aid exercise designed to enable them to remit money to their families in their communities in some of the poorest countries in the world.
The Labor Party has no principles; it has no consistency; it has no values. It will not stand up for the people of the Pacific Islands. It will not stand up for Australians. All the Leader of the Opposition seeks is the briefest, most transient political gain—all politics, no principle, no substance.
Before I call the member for Maranoa, it is fitting that I inform the House we have present on the floor of the chamber the former member for Maranoa and former Deputy Speaker, the Hon. Bruce Scott. Welcome back, Bruce.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources. Will the Deputy Prime Minister explain to the House how the government's achievements support the hardworking Australians in the agricultural sector? Is the minister aware of any threats to the sector's ongoing success?
I thank the honourable member for his question. He knows more than most about how important it is to have a successful workforce in regional areas and how that workforce is complemented by people from overseas; we never want them to be replaced by people from overseas. Therefore, it is very important that we negotiate for a backpacker tax rate—a backpacker tax that came about by reason of the decisions of the former Treasurer, the Hon. Wayne Swan, and then was enforced by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. We now have the dilemma of trying to make sure that we get through a rate that is both fair for Australian workers and attracts people. It is incredibly important as we are dealing with what we have at this moment. It is this smarmy, derisive, obstinate approach from the Labor Party that is doing nothing but divide people up—divide Australians up.
You are starting to get a line on the Leader of the Opposition. You are getting a clear line on the type and the character of the person when you look at Chiquita Mushrooms and what happened to the Australian workers there; when you look at Clean Event and you find out what happened to the Australian workers there; when you find out about Senator Kimberly Kitching and how she was brought in against the wishes of so many others. You start to understand the character of the Leader of the Opposition when you see what he did to former Prime Minister Rudd and when you see what he then did to the next Prime Minister, Gillard. You start to understand the character of the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Maribyrnong, when you see what he is doing with the backpacker tax rate, because who is the person who is worse off after their rate goes through in the paddock? Either picking cherries, picking mangoes or working behind a bar, who is worse off? Well, it is the Australian worker. It is the Australian worker who has been let down by the former representative of the Australian Workers' Union. And who is the second person? Well, it is the people from the Pacific Islands. We can understand why we would look after them. They are doing it tough. We need to help them.
Who is the Leader of the Opposition helping? Well, it is the person from Paris. Why does he do that? Because of the political effect. In his swarmy, lubricious way he says, 'This scores a political point. This is worth it.' And he sits there with that Cheshire grin. He is grinning across the table because he does it. And the member for Hunter is smiling. Oh, you are so clever! You are so clever with the damage you have done. You do not care about Australian workers. You never have cared about Australian workers. You are so inside the beltway. That is all this is about. You are a disgrace in what has happened today when you should have shown that you could turn around, when you should have shown some ticker. You should get that grin off your face. It is not funny at all.
The whole point of what you are doing to the Australian horticultural industry is exactly what you did to the Australian live cattle industry. You are an absolute disgrace.
I would like to inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon the former member for Hinkler, Mr Paul Neville, and the former member for Gilmore, Jo Gash. Welcome back to you both.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
) ( ): My question is to the Treasurer. Last week, the Treasurer declared that there was no room for compromise on a backpacker tax of 19 per cent. Today, the Treasurer shouted that 15 per cent was a line in the sand. Is this the Treasurer's final position or just his latest? Why doesn't the government negotiate with the Senate the same way the Prime Minister negotiates with the hard Right of his party room and just give in?
I thank the member for his question. The 32½ per cent non-resident tax rate was set by the member for Lilley. And in the 2015-16 budget the government introduced a measure that sought to legislate that rate—
The Manager of Opposition Business, on a point of order. You will need to state the point of order.
I want to seek leave to table the measure from the 2015 budget which does not have the member for Lilley's name on it.
The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. The Manager of Opposition Business—
Ms Henderson interjecting —
The member for Corangamite—I recognise the voice—will cease interjecting. The Manager of Opposition Business well knows two things: (1) he will not interrupt under a frivolous point of order to seek to table a document; (2) he certainly will not do that when it is a document that is already a paper of the parliament.
The member opposite clearly does not understand the point. The non-resident tax rate was set by the former government at 32½c. This government, in the 2015-16 budget, sought to introduce a tax rate for those on 417 and 462 visas at 32½ per cent to recognise them as non-residents; the non-resident rate of 32½ per cent being set by former Treasurer, the member for Lilley.
That 32½ per cent—that measure—was taken to the last budget and it was actually taken to last election not just by those on this side of the House but by those on that side of the House. The member opposite who asked the question put it in his forward estimates that the legislated tax rate would be 32½ per cent—he put those in his numbers. They had exactly the same position as the government. We were going to defer it for six months to come to a point of resolution. Now, the government in this last six months honoured that commitment by working through with our good members to come to a fair and reasonable position at 19 per cent, which represented the parity position—indeed, better—in the pocket for backpackers if they worked in Australian as opposed to working in other places. Now, in the spirit of compromise, in order to secure the support of those in the other place, we compromised to 15 per cent. That is the seasonal worker rate—the headline rate for seasonal workers at 15 per cent. That is an entirely reasonable position.
Those opposite on this issue have just been playing political games with the livelihoods of people in rural and regional communities. They have treated this like political sport. They have sniggered and they have jeered, and they have congratulated themselves and they have got all very excited. But the fact is the government has been implementing its election commitment to resolve this issue in a reasonable and practical way. Those opposite are playing political sport on this issue. Even what we have seen today has been a continuation of the games. The government has a reasonable position on the table. Those opposite should grow up and support it.
My question is to the . Frydenbergs are known for integrity, honour and incorruptibility. Assure us that you will not follow your predecessors' path to perdition. Minister Anderson rejects biofuels and now works for an oil and gas company. Vaile works for an oil and gas company. Ferguson works for two oil and gas companies. Macfarlane heads the Queensland Resources Council. To quote AMA atmospheric health expert Professor Carney: more people die from motor vehicle emissions than motor vehicle accidents. A healthy lung, the lung of a Sydneysider. Minister, will you consider a health-safe, cheap, guaranteed-reliable, home-grown fuel supply—biofuels—or are you just another oil puppet?
I thank the honourable member for Kennedy for his question. Remember how the last time I got a question from him I burst out in laughter and he left the chamber. But I do thank him for those compliments without passing judgement on my esteemed former colleagues.
I know how passionate the member for Kennedy is about the biofuel industry. Indeed, he introduced into this parliament in February this year a piece of legislation wanting to see a national mandate of five per cent by 2019 and 10 per cent by 2022. We know that in Queensland and in New South Wales there are mandates. In Queensland, it is three per cent and in New South Wales it is six per cent.
The Commonwealth's position on the biofuels industry—which we support—which makes up about one per cent of the overall energy mix today, is that we do not support mandates, because of the impact that that may have on innovation and customer choice. But we do support the biofuels industry in many other ways. We have spent some $1 billion over the last 10 years. We have done that through a fuels scheme and we have done that through a grants scheme. But our focus from 15 July has been on the excise system, looking at the energy content. Under the transitional arrangements, the excise on ethanol and biodiesel is now about 2.6c per litre, or 6.6 per cent of that of petrol and diesel. By July 2020 and 2030, excise on ethanol and biodiesel will respectively be 33 per cent and 50 per cent of that of petrol and diesel.
I know the member for Kennedy is concerned about energy security. I know that he wants a lower emissions future and I know that he has pointed to the spare capacity in places like Dalby, Nowra and Sarina. So I confirm for the member for Kennedy that the coalition is absolutely committed to the biofuels industry. We are helping it through the excise system. We do not support the mandates which are currently in existence in New South Wales and Queensland.
I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon, in the front row, the three winners of the My First Speech competition. On behalf of the House we extend a very warm welcome to you.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer update the House on Australia's progress in reducing the deficit, arresting debt and protecting Australia's AAA credit rating? How does a strong budget support a growing economy that creates new jobs and lifts real wages for hardworking Australians?
I thank the member for Bonner for his question and for his commitment, along with the commitment of all those on this side of the House who are doing everything we can to ensure Australia's is in the strongest possible fiscal position to ensure that we retain the AAA credit rating for this country. That is why in our budget we brought down both savings and revenue measures, but particularly savings. The vast majority of those are in savings on payments measures to ensure that the budget could return to balance. The projection for that is for it to return to balance in 2021.
So far, since the election of the coalition government in 2013, under former Prime Minister Abbott and Prime Minister Turnbull, we have been able to cut the real growth in expenditure from 4.2 per cent—where it was when those opposite, the Labor Party, sat on the Treasury's benches—down to 1.6 per cent. That is a dramatic reduction in the growth in real expenditure, which is the way that you get your budget under control. In addition, we have had success not just in putting these measures as part of our budget plan that we took to the last election but also in these measures being legislated through this parliament, with more than $20 million already legislated through this place and the other place—all demonstrating the effectiveness of this government to work with the 45th Parliament to get the job done.
There are alternatives to that, and I understand that the shadow Treasurer said today:
What we do—
referring to the Labor Party—
is we announce our policies as we go. And what we do is we make sure our bottom line is better than the government's. If you look at our policy announcements in total, our bottom line is better than the government's.
So I thought I would have a look at their bottom line, as per the Parliamentary Budget Office and what they took to the last election. They said that they were going to increase taxes by $13.9 billion. I know how excited they are about taxes, and that is a high level of excitement—$13.9 billion in extra taxes on the Australian people; $100 billion in more taxes over the next 10 years. But they also wanted to increase spending by $30 billion. So the net position that they took to the last election, when you add the public debt interest onto those expenditure figures, is $16.6 billion in a higher deficit.
Those opposite think that a higher deficit, higher taxes and higher debt is the way to protect our AAA credit rating. Those opposite are a AAA threat to our AAA credit rating, because their fiscal policies just do not add up. Their addiction to higher spending and their addiction to higher taxes result in an addiction to higher deficits and higher debt. That is not the way to bring our budget back to balance. I ask those opposite to support the government's economic plan for fiscal repair that we are putting through this parliament and stop blocking it. (Time expired)
My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. Is it seriously the government's position that it would rather inflict a 32.5 per cent tax on rural and regional Australia than accept Labor's sensible 13 per cent compromise offer?
I thank the honourable member for his question. Just to know the honourable nature of the honourable opposition, I want to quote exactly what the National Farmers Federation said and then place it clearly before the Leader of the Opposition and see if he wishes to correct the record after misleading the House. The National Farmers Federation said:
To be clear: we continue to support 15% as the best policy outcome, but outcome of today cannot be 32.5%. We need 2 #getitdone.
So I ask, in reflection of the statement—and the question by the Leader of the Opposition, in the first instance—which was brought to his attention by part of my answer: is he going to correct the record or is this yet another indication of the person we have? The same person who knifed Prime Minister Gillard, the same person who knifed Prime Minister Rudd, the same person who let down the workers at Chiquita Mushrooms and the same person who let down the workers at CleanEvent is the same person who is now going to have Australian workers discriminated against in favour of overseas workers. That is the policy of the Australian Labor Party, which once upon a time used to represent labourers. But there are not many labourers in the Labor Party these days.
What we have is this swarmy, lubricious approach—this process of playing a game with regional Australia. It is the same sort of approach they used when they brought about the closure of the live cattle trade. We have negotiated from 32½ per cent down to 15 per cent. We have moved 17½ per cent because we believe it is right. We have showed how we are going to pay it as we go along. But what we have is the Labor Party starting at a rate of 10½ per cent. Why? Not because they believe in it and not because that is the rate they took to the last election—they did not; They took 32½ per cent to the last election.
What they wish to do is to create discontent, to destroy, to wreck and to bring the show down. That is what it is about here. They are led by a person who is not worthy to be the Prime Minister of Australia. That is the character assessment. Even the questions that he asks are not the truth. What are we going to do? Are we going to sit here? We have the opportunity for him to show some dignity, some political ethic. If we are prepared to move from 32½ per cent to 15 per cent, is it not too much for him to do the right thing by this afternoon and get this thing resolved?
I ask the Deputy Prime Minister to table the transcript he claimed to be reading from. If he is not willing to, I am happy to seek leave to table the transcript that the Leader of the Opposition earlier quoted from.
Mr Fitzgibbon interjecting—
The member for Hunter will cease interjecting.
I am happy to table it.
I thank the minister.
My question is to the Minister for Defence Industry representing the Minister for Employment. Will the minister outline how industrial relations reform will help restore the rule of law on building sites across the country and ensure unions are run for hardworking Australians and not for union leaders?
I thank the member for Forrest for her question. This week the government has passed two signature pieces of legislation: the Registered Organisations Commission bill and the Australian Building and Construction Commission bill. These are signature pieces of reform of the industrial relations architecture in Australia. They will improve the way unions are run and organised through the Registered Organisations Commission so they operate on behalf of workers and not corrupt union bosses. They will restore the rule of law on building and construction sites in Australia through the ABCC.
It is very important that misbehaviour in unions be reported to the appropriate authorities. The Fair Work Commission has had a hotline for some period of time on which misbehaviour can be reported. The Registered Organisations Commission will, of course, have a very similar hotline. It is important that when people have information about a particular union leader—
Mr Dutton interjecting—
that they do not keep it in the family, as the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection says, but, in fact, ensure the Fair Work Commission and now the Registered Organisations Commission have that information. We on this side of the House would like to know, and I think the Australian public would like to know, what information the member for Isaacs had, for example, that caused him to advise the Leader of the Opposition not to support Kimberley Kitching for the Senate. We know, from the trade union royal commission, that Kimberley Kitching was doing the right of entry tests, including the safety tests, for union officials so they could pass and go onto worksites. We know that she used to summon other staff with a megaphone to her office—
Mr Danby interjecting—
The member for Melbourne Ports is warned.
which sits uneasily with the Labor Party's pretence of egalitarianism, but, nevertheless, apparently she used to do that, bizarrely.
A government member interjecting—
Exactly, with a megaphone. But what was it that so exercised the member for Isaacs's mind that he threatened to resign if Ms Kitching was put into the Senate by the Leader of the Opposition? Obviously it was a very serious matter.
So certainly the Kitching affair goes to the judgement of the Leader of the Opposition—there is no doubt about that—and his fitness to be the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister, because he overlooked the advice of people like the member for Corio, former Senator Conroy and the member for Isaacs. It also goes very much to the character of the member for Isaacs, the person who wants to again be the Attorney-General of this country. It goes to his character not only that he threatened to resign from the frontbench because of the inappropriateness of Kimberley Kitching but also that he did not resign. Why did he not resign? Why has he not resigned when he promised to resign? What kind of character has he shown to the Australian public that he made such a serious threat and then did not follow through with it? The member for Isaacs should come to the dispatch box and explain.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister seriously going to let the parliament rise for the year without fixing the mess of the backpacker tax?
I thank the honourable member for his question. The real issue here is the integrity and the character of the Leader of the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition a moment ago stood up in the House and said, 'The President of the National Farmers Federation has called on the government to adopt Labor's position on the backpacker tax.' In fact, the NFF have tweeted and continued to say through the day on Twitter, 'We continue to support 15 per cent as the best policy outcome.' They have urged the Labor Party and all of the others in the Senate to support the 15 per cent outcome. So what the Leader of the Opposition did was, knowing full well—
Ms Collins interjecting—
The member for Franklin will leave under standing order 94(a). You have been warned twice.
The member for Franklin then left the chamber.
The course of compromise, the responsibility for resolving this matter, falls on all senators and all members, but particularly it falls on those of us in government and those who seek to be in government, such as the Leader of the Opposition. We have compromised from our position of 19 per cent to 15 per cent. We secured the support of the National Farmers Federation. As they have been saying consistently, they call on other parties to support that sensible position. What the Leader of the Opposition did was misstate the position of the National Farmers Federation in the House today.
My question is to the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection. Will the minister update the House on the importance of ensuring the effective management of the 457 visa program and on how this demonstrates that the government is serious about protecting Australia's borders?
I thank the member for Mackellar for his question and for his interest in this very important issue. The Turnbull government has created 500,000 jobs and we are very proud of the fact that we put Australian workers first. The whole idea of the 457 worker program is that we put Australians into jobs, and if we cannot put Australians into jobs we allow the employers to look for workers from overseas to fill those jobs.
The Leader of the Opposition, before the last election, said that he wanted to put workers first. He was out there constantly saying, 'I'll put workers first.' This was his mantra. But, as it turned out, when he was the employment minister he did a secret deal with fast food outlets, including McDonald's, to fill hundreds of positions in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane and elsewhere with foreign workers, displacing local workers. So this Leader of the Opposition cannot be taken at his word. We also know that this Leader of the Opposition was out there at the time of the free trade agreement with China saying that it was a terrible thing. The CFMEU had instructed him that it was a terrible thing for Australian workers, and he was against ChAFTA. ChAFTA created many jobs and great trade opportunities for our country. But when the Leader of the Opposition was the employment minister he did another secret deal, bringing 850 Chinese workers into a mine in Western Australia. Again, the duplicitous nature of the Leader of the Opposition was exposed.
His colleagues know this because this is the way that he has conducted himself during his adult working life. Kevin Rudd knew it and Julia Gillard knew it, and many of those people behind the Leader of the Opposition have been doublecrossed by this Leader of the Opposition as well. But it gets worse for this Leader of the Opposition, because, again, he is claiming that he will be the champion of the workers and that workers will come first. But, in a classic own goal, he has introduced a bill into parliament this week in an attempt to try to play some political game around tightening the 457 visa program. His bill actually weakens the integrity measures of the 457 program.
All I would say to Australians who are really perplexed about this Leader of the Opposition is: he cannot keep a line from lunchtime to Lateline. That is what we know about this Leader of the Opposition. He does not have the ability or the integrity to stand up and be a leader of this nation, and that is why he has failed the fundamental test when it comes to protecting our borders. During the last election, this Leader of the Opposition had 26 of those who are sitting behind him chanting the same words that we heard those protesters chanting in this gallery yesterday, and for that he should stand condemned. (Time expired)
My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the Prime Minister's previous answer. Is the Prime Minister saying that the following words were not said by the president of the NFF on Sky News in an interview with David Speirs. Ms Simson, president of the NFF, said:
Do the deal today and do what it takes to get the deal done. If 13 is the rate that is going to fly today, well, look, you know, we don't want to leave here with 32½. But I need to be consistent in this, and we've always called for 15—
Speirs interrupted:
Yeah, yeah, but if it needs to be 13, just do it.
Simson, president of the NFF:
Do the deal. Do a deal.
Is the Prime Minister saying that did not happen?
Honourable members interjecting—
Members on my right.
What this shows is the utter inability of the Leader of the Opposition to tell the truth.
Members on my right.
I was talking earlier today about post-truth politics. This is what is called 'truthiness'. It used to be a satirical term used by Stephen Colbert where people say things that are sort of true but not really true.
Ms Plibersek interjecting—
The member for Sydney.
What the Leader of the Opposition is doing is thoroughly misrepresenting the National Farmers Federation.
Ms Plibersek interjecting—
The member for Sydney.
Of course they want us to get a deal done. But what the Leader of the Opposition said was—
Mr Dreyfus interjecting—
The member for Isaacs.
The Leader of the Opposition said that the president of the National Farmers Federation has called on the government to adopt Labor's position on the backpacker tax—and, in fact, that is exactly what they are not doing. Let's look at one tweet they have got here:
Clock ticking to avoid #BackpackerTax. … Tell them 15% is competitive & fair!
Ms Rowland interjecting—
The member for Greenway.
To be clear, we will continue to support 15 per cent as the best policy outcome.
Ms Rowland interjecting—
The member for Greenway is warned.
Mr Speaker, they are full of fun! What is it like being led by somebody who has no regard for the truth at all?
Mr Perrett interjecting—
The member for Moreton will leave under standing order 94(a).
It is absolutely why both the Rudd and the Gillard camps did not challenge the Leader of the Opposition. He cannot trust himself. He indicted himself with his own question. He is incapable of distinguishing between fact and fiction. He will only tell the truth when it is in his interest to do so. The National Farmers Federation would love to see this resolved. So would we. What is the position they recommend? It is 15 per cent. That is their view.
Ms Keay interjecting—
The member for Braddon.
That is what they are recommending. They are urging Labor and the crossbenchers to support 15 per cent, and he knows it.
Ms Keay interjecting—
The member for Braddon will cease interjecting.
But it does not suit him, because he is reckless about the truth. The Leader of the Opposition will say anything.
My question is to the Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment. Will the minister update the House on how the Korea-Australia Free Trade Agreement is giving new export opportunities for Australian businesses and creating jobs for hardworking Australians? Is the minister aware of any risks to these opportunities?
I thank the member for Forde. Like others on this side of the House he is passionate and has a strong desire to see businesses in his electorate benefiting from the preferential market access that the coalition has been able to deliver. In fact, on 12 December 2016, it will mark two years since the Korea-Australia Free Trade Agreement, or KAFTA, came into force and since then we have seen numerous businesses significantly increase their exports. The fact is that KAFTA is gifting opportunities for Australian exporters and this side of the House is very focused on maximising those opportunities and driving Australian jobs as a result. If you take, for example, Reid Fruits. Reid Fruits have increased their cherry exports to Korea 30-fold as a direct result of the agreement.
Speaking of cherries and speaking of gifts, and given that it is Christmas, I thought it might be a good idea to have a look around at all of the Christmas trees that are in the building, and I noticed that there was a CFMEU Christmas tree. And there was, in fact, a number of gifts under this CFMEU Christmas tree. The first gift was a gift for the AWU; the gift of the Cleanevent agreement, which saw Australian workers and waiters lose many of their entitlements, because the Leader of the Opposition wanted to trade them away. The second gift that was under the CFMEU Christmas tree was a gift from the plumbers union. We know the Labor Party are very fond of gifts and gift cards this time of year—they were actually using gift cards to pay for Labor Party memberships. There was another gift under the CFMEU Christmas tree; a gift for Sam Dastyari. Senator Dastyari got an all-expense-paid trip. There was another gift as well, a gift for the Leader of the Opposition; a formerly undisclosed $40,000 gift from Unibilt for campaign workers. And we know the Leader of the Opposition loves Christmas gifts. That is the reason he has already given a gift to Senator Kitching. Now, we all hope we receive a gift—and had the member for Isaacs actually follow through on his word and resigned—but we have to keep waiting for the time being. And, of course, the biggest gift of all was the gift for the Australian Labor Party: $11 million from the CFMEU under the CFMEU Christmas tree.
So what we know is that while the Leader of the Opposition pretends to be Santa Claus to the people of Australia when he is outside this House, the fact is that when he is in this building the only gifts he is interested in are gifts for the CFMEU and the Australian Labor Party. I did notice that there was actually one more gift under the CFMEU Christmas tree. It was a gift for the former member, Craig Thomson. Ho Ho Ho, Merry Christmas!
Before I call the Leader of the Opposition I remind all members to refer to members by their correct titles. That does include senators. Senators should be referred to as senators. I should have pulled the Leader of the House up. Senators need to be referred to by their correct titles as well. I noticed the Minister for Trade and Investment pulled himself up on that but I just make that point to the House.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Since being elected Prime Minister, the Prime Minister has been willing to back down on everything that he has ever believed in. Why won't he back down on the backpacker tax and fix this mess before parliament rises today?
Government members interjecting—
Members on my right. The member for Hughes.
I thank the—
The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. On this last day, I am not going to go right through the longstanding practice with regard to Prime Ministers referring questions to ministers.
Mr Burke interjecting—
Manager of Opposition Business will cease interjecting.
I thank the Prime Minister for the opportunity to respond. Those opposite have asked about the backpacker tax and what is important to understand, as I was referring to in my earlier response in the House, is why the rate is at 32½c. I go back to the 2012-13 budget that was delivered by the member for Lilley. In that budget it refers to the fact that the then Labor government will adjust the personal income tax rates and thresholds that apply to nonresidents' Australian income. From 1 July 2012, the first two marginal tax rate thresholds will be merged into a single threshold. The marginal rate for this threshold will align with the second marginal tax rate for residents—that is, 32½ per cent. That is what it said in the 2012-13 budget. And what the government had sought to do—given that case law had demonstrated that backpackers were nonresidents for tax purposes, which is the standing arrangement under the case law now—is that the 32½ per cent rate, set by the member for Lilley under the Labor government, is the rate of tax that they will pay.
Dr Chalmers interjecting—
The member for Rankin has been warned.
We sought to introduce that in the legislation and, as those opposite at the last election also promised to do by setting that 32½ per cent rate in their forward estimates, but we then sought to compromise and worked to an arrangement that was reasonable and fair and we put forward 19. That was not accepted by the One Nation party and others, and we came to a reasonable position on 15 per cent, which is the seasonal-worker tax rate—at 15 per cent. That is what we have put forward. Now those opposite, first of all they wanted zero. Then, they wanted 10½. The member for Lilley set it at 32½ and now they have come up with a rate of 13. And I will tell you that one thing they did on none of this is that they did not support or put forward any way that these measures could be funded—they did not support the passenger movement charge increase and they spoke against the changes on superannuation when it came to backpackers. So what they were saying is that they wanted foreign workers to pay a lower rate of tax and they wanted to send the bill to Australian workers. That is what they wanted to do. They wanted a higher tax rate on small business, they wanted Australians to continue to pay higher rates of tax, but they wanted foreign workers to pay a lower rate of tax. The government has put a very sensible and reasoned proposition on the table. Those opposite, as a result of their failure to come and see what is a reasonable position, will ensure that the member for Lilley's 32½ per cent rate lives on and on and on.
My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. What will be the consequences for rural and regional Australia of a 32½ per cent backpacker tax?
He leads with his chin. Every time you let him off the leash, he gives you problems; he gives you big problems. So I am going to quote from Fiona Simson again. Here it is—this is 1.28 pm, 1 December; that is pretty close: 'Incorrect; 13 per cent is your position, Mr Fitzgibbon. I support,' says the president of the NFF, '15 per cent or a rate that parliament decides. I urge parliament to get the job done.' So this is it—
Mr Shorten interjecting—
Once more, we have the Leader of the Opposition in here and on his first question he has said something which does not reflect the truth of what was said. Yet, still, he sits there with that smarmy look on his face and says, 'I can get away with it,' because it is all a game for the Labor Party. It is all a game about what happens in regional Australia. It does not matter what happens to those people. It does not matter what happens in the regional towns. It is just the numbers. It is just so they can blow the show up. It is all about them blowing the show up. It is the same type of person that follows the trait, and that is how the same person could let down the workers at Chiquita Mushrooms. That is how the same person could let down the people at Cleanevent. That is how the person could do a deal at the backdoor with McDonald's. It is the same way he actually made sure he got rid of Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and then he got rid of Prime Minister Julia Gillard, so he could get himself into that chair. It was always about the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Maribyrnong. It was always about him—and here is his class 1 clown friend.
The member for Hunter on a point of order.
Relevance, Mr Speaker. I asked him about the consequences for rural and regional Australia of a 32.5 per cent backpacker tax. He has made no mention of it.
Government members interjecting—
Members on my right will refer to people by their correct titles. The Treasurer.
Mr Morrison interjecting—
Ms Plibersek interjecting—
We are all waiting for you both.
We are trying to correct the rate of tax that was brought about by the Australian Labor Party under the then Treasurer Wayne Swan. We have approximately two hours left to do it. And we are looking into the heart of the Labor Party. Do they honestly believe in the Australian Labor Party, the party of shearers, the party of farm workers? Do they honestly believe that it is morally right that a person from Paris is going to have a tax advantage over Australian workers? Do they honestly believe that? Have they travelled that far from their base? Is it that far in the past? Has it just turned into a political game? Don't they think it is rather absurd that the National Party has to be doing their job in the protecting Australian workers in getting a fair deal?' The reason the National Party have to protect Australian workers to get a fair deal is because the member for Maribyrnong is only worried about one job and it is his job, and he is willing to walk over prime ministers, he is willing to walk over Chiquita Mushroom workers, he is willing to put in Senator Kimberley Kitching. He is willing to do anything just as long as he is in that seat.
Before I call the next question, I just need to inform the House I accidentally called two from my left, when the member for Grey had jumped. So I am going to take from my right to make it up.
My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Energy. I know the minister is aware that South Australians have the most expensive and unreliable electricity grid in the nation and last night, again, 200,000 people were plunged into darkness. It is imperative we quickly locate alternatives to supplement our baseload capacity and there has been considerable interest in building renewable energy platforms with storage in the Grey electorate. Can the minister report on the state of the South Australian electricity market and opportunities for the future?
I thank the member for Grey for his question and acknowledge his deep concern about the state of the electricity markets not just in South Australia but right across the nation. In South Australia and indeed in his electorate, there are some of the most energy intensive users in the country, including BHP at Olympic Dam, Nyrstar at Port Pirie, Arrium at Whyalla and, of course, Yumbah Aquaculture, which is an abalone farm in Port Lincoln which employs more than 20 people which has seen its electricity bills increase by more than half a million dollars in last year alone.
In South Australia what has happened has been a disaster. Mid this year, we saw the wholesale electricity prices jump in one day from $500 to $14,000 per megawatt hour. We have seen a huge reliance on intermittent generation, namely solar and wind. More than 40 per cent of South Australia's power comes from solar and wind and an overreliance on the interconnector from Victoria. We have seen a blackout where 1.7 million people lost their power. We saw gridlock on the roads. We saw that people were kept in their homes and we saw major energy users lose their power. This is a disaster and we just had another wake-up call yesterday because at 1.15 this morning 200,000 South Australians lost their power, and BHP lost their power for four hours.
'We know this is a big experiment'—the words of Jay Weatherill, a big experiment that clearly has failed. Even BHP has said, 'The challenge is to reduce emissions and grow the economy which cannot fall to just renewable alone.' That is our message: the decision by the Labor Party to join with the Greens to immediately phase out coal-fired power stations is going to cost jobs, cost investment and compromise energy security. It has been criticised by people like Graham Richardson, criticised by Keith De Lacy, criticised by the Grattan Institute and many others who are watching the Labor Party leave behind the blue-collar workers in pursuit of green votes in the city. Only the coalition can be trusted to manage this transition. Only the coalition can be trusted to pursue a realistic renewable energy target. Only the coalition can keep the lights on. Only the coalition believe in keeping blue-collar jobs in our regions and not pursuing those green votes in the city like those opposite.
My question is to the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Counter-Terrorism. Will the minister update the House on the government's efforts to keep Australians safe from the threat of terrorism?
Can I thank the member for Tangney for that question and the interest that he takes in national security matters and has taken in the time that he has been here in the House. As he knows, we are very committed to doing all that we can to ensure the safety of the Australian people. Over the past 2½ years, largely as a result of events in the Middle East, the security situation in Australia has deteriorated. As a result of the events in Syria and Iraq, our response has been to make sure that we have done everything we can to secure our security here in Australia. We have worked internationally with our partners, particularly in South-East Asia, and of course we should be very proud of our service people over in the Middle East destroying this terrorist organisation at its source.
Since September 2014 when the terrorist alert level was raised in Australia, we have had 55 people charged as a result of 24 counterterrorism operations. Currently we have 40 people before the courts for terrorism related offences, seven of whom are juveniles. We have also had four attacks in Australia during this period and, because of the great work of our counterterrorism authorities, we have stopped a further 11 attacks.
We have worked with those authorities over the course of the past 2½ years to ensure that they have the powers and the resources that they need to do this job of keeping us safe. During that time, we have passed six tranches of significant counterterrorism legislation through the parliament. We have also invested a further $1.3 billion in the ability of these agencies to do their job.
Today the government has passed through the Senate the seventh tranche of legislation: the high-risk terrorism offenders bill 2016. As members know, this bill strengthens the ability of our security agencies to continue to detain somebody if they have committed serious terrorism offences and, at the expiry of their sentence, they have not been rehabilitated and their release into the community would present a significant danger to the Australian community.
We are not going to allow people who have not been rehabilitated in prison to be released and then go on to harm our fellow Australians. We have worked very closely with the states and territories on making sure that this bill passes, and I would like to congratulate the Prime Minister and the Attorney-General for the work that they have done in ensuring that this bill has gone through with the agreement of all of the Australian jurisdictions.
This government's first priority is to ensure the safety of the Australian people, and, over the past 2½ years, we have worked with our agencies, we have learnt the lessons from their operations and we have done what is required to keep the Australian people safe.
My question is to the Treasurer, and I refer to the Treasurer's claim in question time that a 32½ per cent backpacker tax was introduced in the 2012 budget. If that is true, why was no revenue raised from backpackers' tax in 2013, 2014 or 2015?
Ms Henderson interjecting—
Mr Irons interjecting—
The member for Corangamite and the member for Swan.
Isn't the real truth that this government introduced a 32½ per cent backpacker tax in the 2015 budget?
I thank the member for his question. The change to the non-resident tax rate of 32½ per cent was introduced by the member for Lilley, given, as case law has demonstrated, backpackers are nonresidents for tax purposes. The revenue that was put in that budget for 2012-13—to go to the member's question—was $19.3 billion in 2012-13, $22.2 billion in 2013-14, and $22.2 billion in 2014-15 and $25.2 billion in 2015-16.
The Treasurer will resume his seat. The member for McMahon on a point of order?
On direct relevance, Mr Speaker: the Treasurer should admit that none of that money came from backpackers in Australia!
The member for McMahon will resume his seat. The Treasurer has the call.
Ms Henderson interjecting—
The member for Corangamite is now warned. The Treasurer has the call.
The 32½ per cent rate which applies to nonresidents, as a result of case law applies to backpackers—that is what the tax office has said very clearly in their own statements. And the non-resident tax rate which now applies was set by the member for Lilley, and he claimed more than $80 billion in revenue in that budget. Now when it became clear that this is what had transpired, the government sought to give certainty to these arrangements, and we still seek to give certainty to these arrangements, and those opposite continue to frustrate by coming up with any rate of tax that they can pull out of a lucky-dip bag with other senators on the crossbench. That is not the way to run a tax policy. We heard earlier that the shadow Treasurer just makes up policy as he goes along and then he says, 'Well, we try and make sure that it costs less than what the government does,' and we know that his plan for Australia is a budget deficit which is $16.8 billion higher, and that is after he has stripped away the company tax cuts to small and medium-sized businesses—that is after he has put more taxes on hardworking Australians who want to go and save for their future and invest for their children.
The Treasurer will resume his seat. Just before I call the Manager of Opposition Business, there has already been a point of order on relevance. Is there a point of order on—
Mr Speaker, I am seeking leave to move the following motion—
No, the Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat.
I am seeking leave.
No, he can seek leave at the end of the Treasurer's answer.
I have been given the call—
No, I did not give you the call. No, the Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. No, we are not going to operate that way. I could have very easily just not called the Manager of Opposition Business, given there had already been a point of order. I asked if there was another point of order.
Mr Burke interjecting—
No, I am not going to give you the call.
Mr Dutton interjecting—
The minister for immigration will cease interjecting. The Treasurer will conclude his answer and then I will give the call to my left.
The point I was making is that those opposite are proposing a higher level of deficit—$6.8 billion more—and that is after they have increased taxes on hardworking Australians who are investing for their future, after they have ripped tax cuts away from small businesses, with some 22 employees on average, some 100,000 of them, who want to get access to the instant asset write-off, who want to get access to a tax rate of 27½. I note those opposite get very excited about the tax rates for foreign workers in New Zealand, but when it comes to the tax rates for businesses in New Zealand, at 28 per cent, they think that Australian businesses should pay more. That is what those opposite think. They think that Australian businesses should pay more tax, so that that mob opposite, if they were ever to become elected to the Treasury benches again, could spend more, raise the deficit more, increase the debt and be the absolute AAA threat to our AAA rating. (Time expired)
I seek leave to move the following motion:
That the House:
(1) Notes that on the backpacker tax the Prime Minister has:
(a) gone from zero per cent to 32.5 per cent;
(b) to 19 per cent;
(c) threatened 32.5 per cent;
(d) then to 15 per cent;
(e) threatened 32.5 per cent again; and
(f) been unwilling to accept the sensible compromise put forward by the Labor Party; and
(2) therefore, condemns the Prime Minister for preferring to hurt rural and regional Australia and the tourism industry with a 32.5 per cent tax rate instead of accepting a sensible compromise.
Leave not granted.
I move:
That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Manager of Opposition Business from moving the following motion forthwith:
That the House:
(1) Notes that on the backpacker tax the Prime Minister has:
(a) gone from zero per cent to 32.5 per cent;
(b) to 19 per cent;
(c) threatened 32.5 per cent;
(d) then to 15 per cent;
(e) threatened 32.5 per cent again; and
(f) been unwilling to accept the sensible compromise put forward by the Labor Party; and
(2) therefore, condemns the Prime Minister for preferring to hurt rural and regional Australia and the tourism industry with a 32.5 per cent tax rate instead of accepting a sensible compromise.
It is extraordinary that they would rather punish Australia—
I move:
That the Member be no longer heard.
The question is that the Manager of Opposition Business be no longer heard.
Is the motion seconded?
Seconded. This is Barnaby's greyhound—
The member for Hunter will resume his seat. I call the Leader of the House.
I move:
That the Member be no longer heard.
The question is that the member for Hunter be no longer heard.
The question is that the motion be agreed to.
I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
For the information of honourable members, I present a schedule of outstanding government responses to reports of House of Representatives and joint committees, incorporating reports tabled and details of government responses made in the period between 5 May 2016, the date of the last schedule, and 30 November 2016.
The scheduled read as follows—
THE GOVERNMENT ' S RESPONSE TO THE SPEAKER ' S SCHEDULE OF OUTSTANDING GOVERNMENT RESPONSES TO REPORTS OF HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND JOINT COMMITTEES
AS AT 30 SEPTEMBER 2016
Circulated by the Leader of the House
The Hon Christopher Pyne MP
29 November 2016
Notes
1 The date of tabling is the date the report was presented to the House of Representatives or to the Speaker, whichever is earlier. In the case of joint committees, the date shown is the date of first presentation to either the House or the Senate or to the President or Speaker (if presented earlier out of session). Reports published when the House (or Houses) are not sitting are tabled at a later date.
Documents are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable members earlier today. Full details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.
I move:
That leave of absence be given to every Member of the House of Representatives from the determination of this sitting of the House to the date of its next sitting.
Question agreed to.
I wish to update the House following yesterday's events when question time was interrupted by a group of protesters in the public gallery. I made the decision to suspend proceedings yesterday as a last resort in what were clearly extraordinary circumstances. As I noted yesterday, our purpose here is to conduct the business of the House, which we were prevented from doing for a period of time while those people who were disrupting the House were removed from the gallery. The actions yesterday of those people who prevented the House from conducting its business also prevented all other visitors in the galleries from observing their parliament and their representatives at work, as well as those watching and listening to the broadcast from outside the chamber.
We all want members of the public to be able to visit this building and observe the work of the House of Representatives in person. Of course, there is a balance between the rights of people to access the galleries and the need for the House to be able to operate and conduct its work without interruption. Yes, we are a robust democracy, but let me say that this will never give licence to a vocal minority to shout down elected representatives, damage this building, violate the democratic rights of other people wishing to view proceedings and, to be quite frank, alarm and frighten many visitors, including schoolchildren who I know were inside and outside the chamber yesterday, as they are every sitting day.
Yesterday I indicated that a thorough investigation would be undertaken. I can advise the House that this investigation has commenced. Amongst other things, the investigation will cover procedures for security screening of people attending the public galleries, ticketing procedures for question time and procedures for non-ticketed attendees. I have spoken with the head of the Department of Parliamentary Services, Mr Rob Stefanic, and as a consequence of those discussions, we will also look into security response procedures and capacity within the building. The President of the Senate and I are currently considering all aspects in relation to cost recovery for the damage that was done to the chamber and any possible charges.
I want to make a final statement on some protest activity that occurred this morning at the front of the building. Members will be aware that earlier this morning two protesters accessed the Queen's Terrace and unfurled a banner on the facade of Parliament House. A further 13 protesters entered the forecourt pond and poured red-coloured dye into it. The protesters in the pond eventually left after requests by the Australian Federal Police. The protesters who abseiled from the facade removed the banner and lowered themselves, again after a direction from the Australian Federal Police. I am advised that the ACT police are considering charges in respect of the protesters who abseiled from the facade.
As a final word, I wish to thank the officers of the Parliamentary Security Service and the Australian Federal Police who removed the protesters yesterday and today in such a professional and orderly way. I thank members for their time. I will update members on outcomes of the investigation as appropriate.
Mr Speaker, on indulgence, on behalf of the government I thank you very much for your very firm and clear response and for launching the investigation that we discussed yesterday in this place following the incident. We look forward to the updates as they come to hand here.
I thank the Leader of the House.
Mr Speaker, on indulgence, joining the Leader of the House, the opposition thanks you for the way you have kept us updated and for the actions that have been taken so far. We once again reiterate our support for the staff of the parliament who were placed in a particularly difficult situation.
I thank the Manager of Opposition Business.
I have received a letter from the honourable Leader of the Opposition proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:
The Government's year that has harmed Australians.
I call upon those honourable members who approve of the discussion to rise in their places.
More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—
December is the time of year for making lists and checking them twice. That is certainly what the member for Warringah is doing this Christmas. But he is making a list in three columns. He is not doing his Chrissie cards; he is counting the numbers.
At the end of the year, I thought we should put together a list of the government's star performers. It is a Melbourne Cup field of failure, but there are certainly a few stand-outs. There is the Treasurer. He reminds me of Brick from the film Anchorman. Do you remember? He is up there shouting loud noises into the microphone while he waits for someone to tell him what is going on. He was rolled on negative gearing by the minister for immigration and rolled on superannuation by Senator Bernardi, and the first piece of legislation he brought into the 45th Parliament had a $100 million counting error. But, to his credit, he did put forward a very strong anti-unicorn policy this year.
Then, of course, there is the Minister for Foreign Affairs, everybody's loyal deputy. Does anyone in Australian politics put any more time and effort into their one dorothy dixer a week? All those late nights rereading Mark Latham's book; all that preparation for one little segment—she is the Liberal equivalent of Media Watch.
Speaking of women and leadership, let's talk about that great champion of gender equality, the Deputy Prime Minister. Remember what he said when he was asked this year about getting more women into parliament? He said, 'I've got a good track record,' and then he gave us a few examples, and I quote, seriously: 'Scotty Buchholz, although I must admit he's not a woman, Matt Canavan, Danny O'Brien'—that is Danny with a 'y', Mr Speaker—'They're three people who've gone through my office.' That is the modern National Party for you: postmodern, gender-blind, ready for Federation.
Of course, there is the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection. He is the fun one in the group—thin-skinned and easy to roast. You might remember his little outing with the boom mike or, as he calls it, the high-water mark of his comedy career. I would like to say more, but the last time I quoted him in this place he went off on a national sulking tour. Every day, the minister for immigration was out there attacking me for reporting what he said. I finally understood how it feels to work at Fairfax or The Guardian.
A lot of us in this place have children, and we all know they get very excited on Christmas Eve—jumping all over the place, determined to stay up late and wait for Santa. But for the parents of Australia I have got good news; I have found the solution: the Minister for Urban Infrastructure. Three minutes of him at the dispatch box and you and your kids will be out like a light!
There are a lot more who deserve a mention. There is the Minister for the Environment and Energy, the only person who thinks that getting coal for Christmas is a reward; and the Minister for Revenue and Financial Services, who in the morning opposed our reforms to negative gearing because they would push prices up and—wait for it—in the afternoon opposed them because they would push prices down. Then, of course, there is our old friend the Leader of the House, who in just a few sitting weeks has managed to break a 50-year-old record by losing votes on the floor and break a 115-year-old record by having the government vote against itself. To be fair, not only is he dragging down the government in the chamber but the member for Corio tells me he is dragging down the ratings on Pyne & Marles.
But you really cannot go past the filler in every political stocking, the gift that keeps on giving: Senator George Brandis. I tried to make a list of the Attorney-General's top five blunders this year. Suddenly it was a top 10 and that was just for November. I mean, you would need a $15,000 bookcase to document this Attorney-General's failures. What is this government's agile and innovative solution to the worst Attorney-General in the history of the Commonwealth? Make him an ambassador. He is being promoted out. Only in this government the more you fail, the more you get promoted. London is calling and amongst his colleagues I understand it cannot come soon enough. But you have got to give the Prime Minister some credit or at least a sense of humour. For 80 years the British government sent us the prisoners they considered beyond redemption—the sweepings of their society—and, in one fell swoop, Australia will get its revenge!
The reality is that this Prime Minister and his government are finishing the year just the way they started: divided, compromised and sharpening their weapons for civil war. Look at the mess they keep making of this backpacker tax, a debacle from day one. There has been no consultation, no modelling and no idea. It is an ambush of regional Australia, of agriculture and of tourism. The government's economic plans are not worth the paper they are printed upon. They lob things up, they pretend they are set in stone and then they crumble. Now they cannot swallow their pride, admit they got it wrong and help out the regions. Are we really meant to believe this Prime Minister, who has given up on everything he believes in? Remember he was the champion of marriage equality and the champion of climate change? You name it, he was the champion—he was the champion of the ABC. Now he cannot move for two per cent, and no doubt, whatever they work out, this backpacker tax has been a debacle and it shows the government are not capable of governing.
When you look at it, this is a Prime Minister who always caves in to the bullies on the back bench. He is the pawn at the front of the chessboard; the member for Warringah is the king on the back bench now. His colleagues, Liberal and National, have worked him out. They know the Prime Minister is so weak, so focused on his own survival and so desperate to keep his job that they can tweak his tail and get whatever they want. Every time he sells out, he sells Australia short. This Prime Minister, barely a year ago, came to office with the highest approval ratings in a political generation, and after a year plus of coalition failure he had an unprecedented opportunity to set a new direction for this nation. The nation hoped that, when he rolled the member for Warringah, perhaps we would see a different sort of politics and a new economic direction. They hoped that he would take real action on climate change. They hoped that he would put the climate deniers and the flat-earthers back in the box. They hoped he would deliver on marriage equality, to end the injustice in this country that denies one group of citizens a right extended to all the others. They hoped he would undo the damage of the 2014 budget, with the cuts to schools, the cuts to hospitals and the cuts to pensions and families. Instead of fixing these problems, he has made them worse. Instead of a new direction, he has doubled down. It is the same unfairness with the new extravagance—the same cuts to the vulnerable and the same punishment for working and middle-class families. But he can find $50 billion for a tax cut for corporate Australia and he can find money for a tax cut for millionaires. He has a plan that punishes Australians who cannot afford it and rewards those who do not need it. It is the failed, flawed experiment of trickle-down economics—the same old conservative nostrum of survival of the fittest, of dog eat dog. It is an ideology which says that, if you fall behind, you get left behind, the worst possible approach to a changing economy.
The very way he has conducted himself in this backpackers tax debate highlights the true weakness at the core of this government. In his heart of hearts, he knows that Labor's move from 10½ per cent to 13 per cent involves a more modest move from them from 15 to 13, but here is my prediction: this is a government that would rather look at the politics than the policy every time. It is clear that you could simply bridge this difference for a very small amount. My prediction is this: the government would rather go to the fringe dwellers in the Senate than deal with Labor. This is a government that says we should all work together. But every time there is an opportunity to work with Labor it is more committed to its opposition to Labor than it is to the good government of this country. The only thing that unites the government is its furious opposition to Labor and the rights of people to join unions. There is nothing else which unites the government except its dislike of Labor. At the core, this is a government motivated by hate, not hope, and by fear of the future rather than an optimism about what we can accomplish together. This is the government which, at the end of 2016, is marked by its desire to fight Labor than to govern Australia.
In every question time since the government got elected all they have done is attack us. They never talk about their dreams or their hopes or aspirations for Australians. We on the other hand know what is important in this parliament, and it is not the people who sit here; it is the people who elect us. We will make sure in 2017 that we will stand up for working and middle class Australians, and that we will stand up for their jobs, their education and their health care. We will do this and more.
Six hundred and sixty seven billion dollars—that is right; that was the debt trajectory that the Labor-Greens left this nation. We have been working very hard to deliver sensible, rational economic policy. We have been trying to deliver a budget surplus, but every time we initiate budget savings they tend to block them, even ones that they had proposed themselves. We are trying to keep our AAA credit rating intact. Yet, the actions of the opposition are putting our credit rating at risk. They promised to keep John Howard's Pacific Solution, only to dismantle it and then see more than 50,000 illegal boat arrivals and over 1,000 deaths at sea. They gave away our border sovereignty and cost us $14 billion.
We have been working hard across all arms of parliament and government to try and effect budget savings to fix the budget mess. We are pulling every lever that we can to grow our economy. We have invested record amounts in health, education and infrastructure. This year in health alone over $74 billion is being spent. They cut $6 billion out of Medicare when they were last in government and they tried to take $400 million out of medical research. We have seen record investment in health. Another $4 billion is budgeted to be spent over the next four years in Medicare, along with another $2.9 billion in hospitals. That is capped at a 6½ per cent growth. We still have activity-based funding. And the PBS is funding over 1,200 new medicines that account for over $4½ billion.
The other side seems to have selective amnesia about their failures. They forgot that Australia never forgets. They have forgotten about all the public policy fiascos that they had—the pink batts, the school halls, the cash for clunkers and the live cattle exports debacle. That was one of the biggest failures of public policy ever. They destroyed the whole economies of northern Australia. They devalued property and put people out of work. People lost their assets. When cattle flooded into southern markets, it dropped the value of cattle in southern markets, as well. Every effort has been put in to try to fix the budget mess that we have inherited. With free trade deals and expanded export markets, we have a booming cattle trade now.
With the NBN, they spent $6 billion over six years with only 50,000 customers to show. In the last four years, 3.2 million people have been connected. There is over one and half million customers. With major infrastructure spending, there have been multibillion-dollar investments in the Pacific Highway and Bruce Highway. We have restored $2 billion that was taken out of the Pacific Highway, and it is being completed all the way to the Queensland border. We have tax cuts for middle-income earners, stopping them from going up into the second-highest tax bracket. We have small business tax cuts down to 27½ per cent. We have accelerated depreciation for farm equipment, fencing repairs and fodder storage. We are putting record funding back into the construction of new dams. That is $2½ billion. Work is being done to get the Rookwood Weir improvements done. The Chaffey Dam extension is being completed. Money has gone into the Macalister Irrigation District. We have the Inland Rail at $839 million into the budget and activities going there. We have work on the Toowoomba range crossing. We are boosting investment in all parts of regional Australia in our Building Better Regions Fund and the jobs and investment funds across the country.
We have addressed the lawlessness and the malfeasance in the registered organisations commission bill, and the ABCC bill has been passed, which will get proper governance back onto building and construction sites. Restoring the rule of law in the building and construction industry will help everyone across Australia—not just the people trying to build a building. For people who want to rent space, their leases will be cheaper if buildings are cheaper. The same is for first-home owners. Buying buildings that are expensive to build is the net result of inefficient and ridiculous work conditions that put the costs of everything up.
You cannot have amnesia and put in an MPI like this when you see all the abject failures and all the obstruction that has gone on with trying to get our budgetary position back into the black. A lot of people on the other side make out that they care, but, most times, I think that they just cannot count. A budget is a difficult thing to do if you are not prepared to make the big cuts that you need to make to bring down spending—spending that is projected to go to $660 billion if you do not change the budgetary items. That is the critical thing. Those opposite are not prepared to take any hard decisions. They want to act like Father Christmas and talk about spending more, but the presents at the bottom of the Christmas tree are just giant, big IOUs for our future generations.
Initiating savings measures is not being mean and nasty; it is being responsible. The things that we have done over the last year have been done to try to get the budget back in order. There is the NBN. Probably the biggest issue that I get questions on in my electorate relate to the delayed rollout of the NBN. Finally, we have the NBN rollout. Having 50,000 people signing up each month was nirvana when those opposite were administering it, but now it is happening in reality. As I said, 3.4 million people in Australia can now connect to the NBN, and there are over 1½ million paying customers. We have got the Sky Muster satellite up and we have got the second one that has just been launched. When that is up there will be excess capacity. In the health budget, we have runs on the board. There was a cut of $6 billion out of the health budget when the other side was governing, and we have put $6 billion into both hospitals and Medicare in this last funding arrangement. And then we see the wonderful list of over 1,200 drugs that are now on the PBS courtesy of strong budget management.
Eventually, someone has to pay—and it is usually the government. But the other side seem to think that they are helping people by borrowing more money without any plan to ever pay it back—and they compare our nation's finances to basket cases overseas that have so much debt that they are never, ever going to be in a position to pay their debt off. The infrastructure that we are delivering on the Pacific Highway, on the Bruce Highway, on inland rail and on dams is going to grow the economy. Just the dams work will allow over 2,000 new people to work in agriculture in Central Queensland. But we have to get it done. That is why we are taking our budget responsibility so seriously.
You can have 10 minutes of comedy gags from the Leader of the Opposition—he must have a good speechwriter because he got a few laughs—but this is serious business.
Mr Rob Mitchell interjecting—
I am not a comedy man; I am just dealing with the facts. You can belittle the place by having one-liners, but we are trying to get our budget back in the black so that our children and their children are not saddled with mountains of debt. You have to realise that changing the budget narrative is something that you will never accept. Like I said, the Christmas present for our children should not be a massive IOU; it should be sensible government making sensible decisions to deliver a sound economy that will employ more Australians and get our nation back to the prosperity it should have.
I can assure you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that I have no props with me today! In question time today, the Prime Minister was asked a question about delivering on the government's plan, and he used the few minutes that he had available to him to have a go at us on this side—as he does in answer to every question. It really was disappointing to think that we have a Prime Minister, elected just this year, who cannot even find three minutes worth of achievements to talk about in question time on the last parliamentary sitting day of this year.
He talked about his plan. Let's have a look at the achievements of the Prime Minister's plan. He talked about jobs and growth all through the election—'Never been a more exciting time to be alive.' So far this year we have lost 100,000 full-time jobs and we have octupled the deficit. The previous member who spoke talked about the economic rigour of those opposite and the fiscal discipline of those opposite. Well, the 2015-16 budget deficit blew out eightfold—from $4.7 billion to just under $40 billion. I did not think that I would ever get the chance of using the word 'octupled' in the parliament, but I get to use it because they have octupled the deficit.
They have cut $30 billion from schools. This is perhaps the thing that disappoints so many people most about the Prime Minister and about the old Malcolm Turnbull they knew. When we used to ask the old Malcolm Turnbull about schools, he would say, 'I went to school with David Gonski'—wink, wink, nudge, nudge, 'I am going to fully fund our schools, because I am on a unity ticket with the man who came up with the Gonski school funding reforms.' But, no, those cuts of $30 billion have stayed. There are 130,000 fewer apprentices than we had when Labor left government.
So what instead have those opposite focused on? They have focused on the big issues, haven't they? They have focused on repealing 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act—because it is so important that people have the opportunity of being bigots whenever they want. They have focused on the ABCC—treating a million Australians as though they are guilty until they can prove that they are innocent; building workers being treated worse than drug dealers, as criminals. And then there is the $200 million on a wasteful and divisive plebiscite.
But they are not the only achievements of this government. There is the guns for votes scandal. There is Tony Abbott stalking Malcolm Turnbull—the member for Warringah stalking the Prime Minister. There is the Prime Minister taking orders from the Minister for Immigration and the far Right of the Liberal Party. There is the Bob Day vote scandal, where the government were taking votes from someone they believed was improperly elected to the Senate. There is the Attorney-General being prepared to give away hundreds of millions of Commonwealth taxpayers' dollars to his mates in Western Australia. There is the Attorney-General versus the Solicitor-General, with the wrong one resigning. There is the Attorney-General appointing 37 people to jobs worth well over $300,000 a year without any proper process before the election. Ironically, there is the Attorney-General calling other people 'very mediocre'. There is the Treasurer introducing legislation, with great fanfare, with a $107 million black hole in it. There is the foreign minister sending 23 public servants to Paris for a conference on cost cutting. I can give her a clue about where she can start with the cost cutting. There is the education minister who spent $10 million on an advertising campaign that government legal advice says might not have been legal.
This is the first majority government in more than 50 years to lose control of the House of Representatives. Today they twice forgot to vote in divisions, despite the fact that they were already in here for a previous division. They were sitting there and they forgot to vote. This is a government that let the Senate run out of legislation to debate. This is a government that, for the first time since Federation, voted to condemn itself. This is a government that set aside $300 million to tackle ice and so far has not spent that money on frontline services, while cutting existing services like the Haymarket clinic, in my electorate, that was already serving drug- and alcohol-affected homeless people. This is a Prime Minister who has lost control of his party, has lost control of his parliament and has got no plan.
I find this is an interesting topic: the government's year that has harmed Australians. Let us reverse that. Within our economy we have changes that have to occur because of the years of expenditure and spending, yet I do not see an opposition that is prepared to come to the table and negotiate compromises that will allow our economy to grow and flourish—not to be put at risk by a potential AAA rating. Leaders within teams show their colours by their capacity to sit and listen to solutions—to work through the issues that confront all Australians. The decisions we make in here are important. I want to acknowledge the leadership of the Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull. Teams are cohesive and there is the capacity for difference of opinions, and those differences are often manifested by individuals who take up a stance on behalf of their constituents. I do not have an issue with that, as long as they continue to play for a greater outcome that is to the benefit of this country and to all Australians.
When we look at the successes we have had, we go from the minutiae through to significant changes. Those minutiae can be things such as, at the end of October, a record 1,161 Australians and their families benefiting from a lifesaving transplant through the generosity of 409 deceased organ donors and their families, a further 203 living donors saving lives through live-kidney or partial-liver donation, and thousands more becoming tissue donors. When we consider every initiative that every minister of this government has put into place, including the reforms by my colleague Minister Ley, they are significant reforms that are beneficial to all Australians. But at times I hear the carping that goes to issues that are contradictory to the reforms that we need.
Don't mention the carp!
I know that you like to carp, Joel. I get that and I understand why you do it. Let me also say that each of us in here should work towards the changes that are needed for the benefit of this nation. The Turnbull government is doing that. With every issue we bring in, we are finding that Labor could have dealt with some of these issues.
The member made a point on education. Education is critical, but if you do not have the money in a fiscally responsible environment, then you run the risk of a AAA rating in this nation. If Labor wants to do that, then in a sense they are those who are harming Australians. The work that we have done and continue to do will be for the benefit of all. We have seen Australia secure its 25th consecutive year of economic growth. Our growth is faster than every G7 economy. That has meant that we have been able to enjoy the lifestyle that we have had. We have protected Medicare, contrary to what Labor has said. We have protected Medicare, primary health care and made over 2,000 medicines cheaper.
We will continue to focus on the needs of Australians. The Turnbull government will take that leadership regardless of the opposition that we get from those on the other side, who could, on some of these critical issues, stand up and work with us. Ultimately, it is not about Labor or Liberal; it is about the way in which we make decisions that benefit all Australians. We have simplified private health care and we have improved mental health services—a very key and critical area. There are many successes within each of the portfolios that should never be overlooked.
This government is committed to its plan, to the tasks ahead and to the challenges that lie before it. We have seen Labor not support the backpacker tax. They had a chance to sit, compromise and reach a solution, but instead they opposed. This goes to the jobs of people who work within the agricultural sector. The contribution they make to our economy is critical.
I finish by saying that there is much that this government has done successfully. It will continue to work in that way to strive to improve the quality of life for every Australian that we serve. We will continue, within the work that we do, not only to work within a team but also to contribute to the way in which debate occurs. (Time expired)
I move:
That the business of the day be called on.
Government members interjecting—
Mr Taylor interjecting—
Order! Members on my right. The member for Hume. I am trying to address the House. The question is that the business of the day be called on.
I move:
That business intervening before order of the day No. 3, government business, be postponed until a later hour this day.
The question is that the motion moved by the Treasurer be agreed to.
I understand it is the wish of the House to consider the requested amendments together.
I move:
That the requested amendments be not made.
The government has been working assiduously now for some time to ensure that we can legislate the measures to provide certainty for the taxation arrangements in relation to backpackers. We gave a commitment to this measure at the last election. As I noted in the House today, those opposite made the same commitment at the last election, that following the election we would work to come to an arrangement which would see the backpacker tax issue resolved by the end of the year, and on this last day of the sitting year this government has honoured the pledge we made at the election. We put forward 19 per cent to ensure that we could have these measures resolved in a budget-neutral way. And in the spirit of compromise, to honour our commitment and for this government to continue to get on with doing the job, we have been able to conclude an arrangement with senators in the other place to ensure that the taxation arrangements for backpackers will be set at 15 per cent. And what I said outside of this place is the government will not be returning these measures back to the Senate until we can be assured that the 15 per cent rate will be passed in the other place. I table a letter which gives that very assurance that the 15 per cent rate will be supported in the other place. I table that letter for the convenience of the House.
Who is it from?
I am happy to tell them who it is from, and I am happy to take the interjection. The government has been able to secure an agreement, not only with the members of the One Nation party on this issue, not only with the members of the NXT party on this issue but we have also, once again, been able to achieve an agreement with the Greens.
Opposition members interjecting—
And it reminds me that on 2 December last year we were also able to achieve an agreement with the Greens when those opposite engaged in another wrecking job, that time on multinational tax avoidance. This time last year they did not want to vote for the government to make sure multinationals paid their fair share of tax. So we worked with the other place to get an outcome while they voted for multinationals to avoid tax.
Ms Plibersek interjecting—
The member for Sydney might want to be here for an upcoming division.
On this occasion, those opposite wanted foreign workers to pay an even lower rate of tax than Australians were on average paying and backpackers coming from Europe to pay a lower rate of tax than what would be paid by those seasonal workers from the Pacific. Their belligerence has been rebuffed by the Senate today in the senators agreeing with the government before this message could leave this place to go to the other place to ensure that the matter could be dealt with. The government, once again, has been able to get this thing done in the 45th Parliament. We got things done—you are going to interject, are you?
The member for Grayndler.
Mr Albanese interjecting—
The letter has been tabled.
Hand it over.
Come on, this is getting petty. The Treasurer has the call.
Mr Albanese interjecting—
The letter has been tabled; it is there.
The government have been able to get things done, once again, in the 45th Parliament. We have passed the income tax cuts for middle-income Australians. We have been able to pass more than $20 billion in measures and this will take it to $21 billion when this passes the other place. We have been able to pass the ABCC and ensure the Building and Construction Commission comes back on the watch and deals with the militant union thugs that those opposite call 'the side of the angels'. We have been able to pass the registered organisations act. Since our re-election, this government have been getting the job done and those opposite have proved once again that it is all politics.
On this the last sitting day of the term, the House is being given a very special opportunity to see the special mix of arrogance and incompetence that this Treasurer holds and to see the dysfunction at the heart of this government. The Treasurer has just announced a deal. He tabled a letter on Treasurer's letterhead. The letter on Treasurer's letterhead is signed by Senator Di Natale of the Greens. The Treasurer just gave us a stirring address. He talked about the ABCC; he talked about many things. He did not mention the fiscal impact of the deal he has just done. He did not mention the impact on the budget. He did not mention what it will cost the budget. I feel obliged to inform the House that this Treasurer has done a deal which gets a higher tax rate and makes less money for the budget. That is what this Treasurer has committed to do. Guess what? It gets better: the government could have accepted an offer for a 10½ per cent tax rate. They said: 'No, that'd be too expensive. That'd cost too much.' So we offered another compromise. In the spirit of compromise, we offered 13 per cent. But, no, that was going to cost too much. So what the Treasurer has done is he has done a deal with the Greens to water down the measure on superannuation and to spend $100 million extra on Landcare, which will cost the budget more money than doing a deal on 13 per cent would have done or doing a deal on 10½ per cent would have done. It takes a very special mixture of arrogance and incompetence.
I served in parliament when Peter Costello was Treasurer. I have seen arrogance in a Treasurer. But what I have not seen is this mixture of arrogance and incompetence in a Treasurer. This Treasurer is so full of himself, so refusing to accept reality. The Australian people are entitled to ask: how much do they have to pay for this Treasurer's arrogance? How much is his pride worth if the Australian people have to tolerate a deal which has a headline rate much higher than New Zealand's, which will mean that we remain uncompetitive? But he was so determined not to give in. He is a big tough guy. He is so determined not to give in to this side of the House that he does a deal with the Greens, which is worse for the budget than a deal with us would have been. This is what this incompetence has led us to.
This is the coalition of the unwilling. We have One Nation; next, the Greens, the Liberals and the Nationals; and what do you get as a result? You get a worse budget deficit. That is what you get with this coalition of the unwilling. Congratulations, Treasurer. Congratulations on doing this deal. You have managed to do a worse deal for the taxpayers, a worse deal for farmers, a worse deal for the tourism sector and that is how you finish the year of achievement. We are more than happy for you to keep ongoing, because more of this sort of achievement, more of this sort of incompetence, more of this sort of arrogance will see this government's reputation worsen even more. You might not have thought it was even possible, but we will see this government's reputation sink even further. If this is the big idea, the big initiative to save this Prime Minister's leadership, we will have more of it. I do not think it is going to work. I think the deputy leader of the Liberal Party is quite happy with this deal, because I think when she takes over the Prime Minister and the Treasurer will be sitting up the back. I suspect that is what is going to happen. And so they should, with this special mixture of arrogance and incompetence which the Australian people have not seen before.
I move:
That the question be now put.
The question is that the requested amendments be not made.
Mr Speaker, you just said that the question was—
Oh, sorry. No. I thank the member for Melbourne. The question is that the motion be put. I thank the member for Melbourne.
The question now is that the requested amendments be not made.
The Manager of Opposition Business?
It was difficult to hear. Are we dealing with a bill that is on the Notice Paper?
Tax bills do not require to be on the Notice Paper.
That is right. I had difficulty hearing the Clerk; I have just got the procedure in front of me. The Clerk might just do the first reading again. The Manager of Opposition Business?
I have not had a chance to check on the table. Do we have copies for all members of the bill that is now before the parliament?
Copies are at the table, I understand.
Under standing orders, we have to be able to have copies of the bill.
The Manager of Opposition Business will not go a bridge too far. The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat.
Ms Collins interjecting—
The member for Franklin has already been ejected under 94(a). I am not going to have a rolling discussion with members. The Manager of Opposition Business has made a reasonable request. The adequate number of copies that are here each day will be provided. If he goes a bridge too far—
Mr Burke interjecting—
I am facilitating that; it is a reasonable request. We will just pause and perhaps have some quiet, polite conversation for a minute or so.
Mr Speaker, do crossbenchers get a look at the bill?
The member for Kennedy does not have to sort of wave his arm around; he can just resume his seat for a second. The bills are now on the table. If the member for Kennedy or any other member wishes to get a copy—there are more copies being made—they are not hand-delivered to the member for Kennedy; they are at the table. That is the way it works. That is the way it has worked the whole time he has been a member of parliament.
The Manager of Opposition Business, on a point of order.
Can I just suggest, to deal with the challenge that we have at the moment—
No. I am not trying to cut the Manager of Opposition Business off, but we now have the regulation number of bills. I have insisted upon the explanatory memorandum, even though that is not a requirement, so we are ready to proceed.
None of you seem to be!
The Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science will cease interjecting.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Superannuation (Departing Australia Superannuation Payments Tax) Amendment Bill 2016 amends the Superannuation (Departing Australia Superannuation Payments Tax) Act 2007 to lower from 95 per cent to 65 per cent the rate of tax on superannuation payments applying to working holiday-makers after they leave Australia. As part of the government's working holiday-maker reform package, parliament previously agreed to amend the Superannuation (Departing Australia Superannuation Payments Tax Act) 2007 to increase to 95 per cent the rate of tax on superannuation payments to working holiday-makers after they leave Australia. That increase helped to ensure that the government's working holiday-maker reform package was fully offset. As a result of the negotiations with Senate crossbenchers and the Greens around the passage of the legislation to implement a 15 per cent tax rate on the income of working holiday-makers, the government has agreed to lower the rate of the departing Australia superannuation payments tax for working holiday-makers from 95 per cent to 65 per cent. The new rate of tax introduced by this bill will apply from 1 July 2017. The decision to lower the rate of the departing Australia superannuation payments tax for working holiday-makers from 95 per cent to 65 per cent is estimated as a cost of revenue of $55 million over the forward estimates. This change will lower the overall level of taxation that applies to working holiday-makers. It is part of the government's package to lower to 15 per cent the rate of tax applying to the income of working holiday-makers. This is a good outcome for working holiday-makers and the employers that rely on them as a valued source of seasonal labour. This measure, together with the other measures the government has agreed to, will be fully offset in the MYEFO, and full details of the measure are contained in the explanatory memorandum.
The minister has concluded his second reading speech. Is leave granted to continue the debate? The Manager of Opposition Business.
No, Mr Speaker. Under standing order 142, I move:
That the debate be adjourned.
As it is with every other bill in this place.
The question from the chair was, 'Is leave granted to continue the debate?'
I have refused leave, and moved that the debate be adjourned.
No, I have the next step after leave is refused.
Leave not granted.
I call the Treasurer.
I move:
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the resumption of debate on the motion that the bill be read a second time being made an order of the day for a later hour.
The question is that the motion moved by the Treasurer be agreed to.
We are now suspending standing orders because the Treasurer wants to debate a bill that nobody has seen, that he has provided no notice of, and he wants to find a way of pushing it straight through the parliament right now. On every other bill, when was the last time that anyone here can remember the government coming in to introduce legislation with only one copy when there are 150 people in the room who are meant to exercise a vote? They seem to have worked out that if they get a letter from Senator Di Natale, that is all that they want, and every other member of the parliament, including their own backbench, gets no say in any part of this deal. I bet this one has not gone through their own party rooms. I bet those on the backbench were not brought into consideration the way Senator Di Natale was. I bet those opposite, in the chaos that has engulfed this parliament today, cannot remember another occasion when we have had the Treasurer come in and look blankly when asked, 'Do you have copies of the bill?'—where we all stood around like we were in some sort of dining room having a conversation while we were technically in the middle of parliamentary debate.
I do not know, for those opposite, when the last time was that this House was mocked and dealt with in such an incompetent fashion by a minister. But let us not forget: maybe it is because, as of today, he only became the Minister representing the Treasurer. Earlier today he was the Treasurer, until he handed over his letterhead, and now we discover the Treasurer is in the other place; the Treasurer is in a different party! Remember a few years ago, when the man who is now the Treasurer used to hold up pictures of the leader of the Greens, and he would say, 'This isn't who you should listen to'? Well, now he has given them his job! He has given Senator Di Natale his own job as Treasurer!
The incompetence and the chaos that we have seen this week in the House of Representatives is like nothing else. The government have broken record after record since the last election. Imagine if they did not have a strong working majority! Imagine if 'the Fixer' were not leading this strong campaigning machine! Imagine the sort of mess that they would be in if that were the case. We are now seeing this parliament finish the final week in the same way they finished their first week. In their first week, by the time we got to the end of it, some of them had gone home, and we took control of the floor of the House. Then, a few weeks later, they were losing votes not because they had gone home but because the Minister for Revenue and Financial Services stayed! They started losing votes because they were still here!
Now, today, we get the bizarre situation where it never occurred to the Treasurer that anyone else might want to look at the legislation, where it never occurred to the Treasurer that, once he had his little letter across, co-signed, and had handed his job over to Senator Di Natale, that was not the end of the matter. Now they come in without any opportunity for their own backbench to know what they have signed off on with the Green political party. You can imagine the party room of those opposite discovering it in a moment today. This is why people should be given a chance to reflect on it. This is why we should be given a chance to do what we do with every other piece of legislation, which is to allow a level of scrutiny, to allow a situation where each party can look carefully at the legislation—and I can tell you there are a whole lot on your own side, Treasurer, who are going to want to look pretty carefully at this legislation, because the Treasurer has come up with a deal that costs the budget bottom line, that makes it negative in terms of what was otherwise on offer, on the table. At the same time as doing that, he has put himself in a situation where he thinks he can ignore the interests of every other member of the parliament, including the members of his own party—because all he needs is Senator Di Natale.
Does anyone think that, when the member for Warringah walked into this chamber, the significance was lost on him of the fact that we have a Treasurer who shares his job and his decision-making with the Australian Green political party but does not let his own party room know what is going on? Does anyone think the member for Warringah will not know exactly the significance of what we have right now in front of us? After all the arguments that we used to hear from those opposite about how horrific it was to have any sort of an agreement with the Green political party, they have turned full circle, to this level of arrogance from this particular Treasurer—and I say 'this particular Treasurer' because who knows, by election time, who will be in that job? We know who will not be—we know which jobs will change—but who knows who will be in that particular job by the time we get to the next election? But for that Treasurer, of all people—it was not good enough for that side of the politics, earlier in their time in government, when they cut the deal with the Greens for unlimited debt; now they are willing to take a worse fiscal offer, which would harm the economy by having a headline rate that is not internationally competitive. They would do so because the government could not bear to have a situation where they could take a constructive offer that was on the table from the Leader of the Opposition. They could not bear to do that.
So we end up in a parliament which has become a complete farce. The Leader of the House used to make the comment: 'If you can't manage the parliament, you can't run the country.' No-one has ever failed more in managing the parliament than this Leader of the House. There have been moments when you look at the Leader of the House and you can see he has got in his head, 'It's not me; it's the people around me.' But the problem is: the people who are around him are people like the Treasurer. What possesses someone to think they can walk in with a piece of legislation that no-one has seen and just put it through the parliament, ask for leave, and it is not going to become a problem?
Arrogance and incompetence.
As the shadow Treasurer says, arrogance and incompetence. Lots of people on that side have one or the other, but the Treasurer lands both.
With that letter that the shadow Treasurer had, you could see the Treasurer, when he said, 'Oh, I'll table it'—and then looked at it and sort of did and sort of didn't. Maybe he just did not realise that, when you table a document, you are meant to hand it over. Maybe that had not occurred to him. But I will tell you what should have occurred to him. The Labor Party is not going to have a situation where this mob think they can bring in legislation without anyone having a chance to look at it, without anyone being able to read it, and think somehow that will be a rubber stamp. They might have managed to get the Green political party to be a rubber stamp for them. They may well have some of their own backbench who are willing to be a rubber stamp for them. But you will not find the Labor Party being a rubber stamp in this place. You will not find a situation where the Labor Party is willing to throw out the standing orders of this place because the Treasurer wants to. The Treasurer put the Speaker of the House in an absurd situation today, an impossible situation. We had the parliament sitting in session, in the middle of the debate, in complete silence. No-one said a word.
It was a nice change!
It was a nice change after that question time, yes. You are absolutely right.
The Treasurer's best speech, I thought—making more sense than normal, actually!
This is true! But it is arrogance or incompetence. You can pick from the interjector which one each person falls into. But what the Treasurer has tried on in the parliament today is outrageous.
There has been a system in this House for 100 years or so that you introduce a bill and then you adjourn the debate to give people a chance to work through the implications of the amendment. Of course the amendment is an amendment to a bill of many pages, and you need to be able to work through the full implications of it. You need to have the scrutiny and you need the parties to be able to consider it. That is called proper governance. That is the idea, and those opposite do not have a clue. The Treasurer has tried to con the Australian people, to con the parliament with this, and the Labor Party will have nothing to do with that. Can you imagine the Hansard? There will be page after page that will be blank. There will just be page numbers at the bottom, which will be easier for the Hansard editors than what they have to do when the Deputy Prime Minister stands up—I will give them that. But we have been placed in an impossible situation. The parliament should not stand for the con that the Treasury is trying to get away with right now.
I move:
That the question be put.
The question is that the question be put.
The question is that the motion be now put.
The question now is that the motion to suspend standing orders be agreed to.
The chaos and dysfunction continues, and the special incompetence of this government remains in play. Come March, I will have been here 21 years and this is the first time I have been asked to debate and vote on a bill that does not exist! It is certainly the first time I have had to sit idle, the first time I have seen the House stall for 10 minutes or more, while the government gets its act together. This is dysfunction writ large.
Let us go through a little history here. This is not the first iteration of the backpacker tax, it is not the second iteration and it is not the third iteration: this is their fourth attempt to get this right, and they still cannot get it right. It takes a very special genius for a government to decide that the best way to stem the bleeding of backpackers from a country is to put a tax on them for the first time. 'Oh, we're losing backpackers. Our growers and farmers and tourism operators can't get backpackers. I've got an idea: we'll slap a 32.5 per cent backpacker tax on them.' That takes a very special sort of genius. It also takes a special sort of genius to impose a 32.5 per cent backpacker tax without any consultation with the sectors affected and without any modelling of either the impact on backpackers, on farmers and on tourism operators or, indeed, the second-round effects and, therefore, the impact on the broader economy. Why was all this so? It was so that this government could rake an additional $540 million over four years out of our backpackers—at a time, as I said, when we were losing backpackers at a rate of knots.
Today we saw an even more special act of genius from this government: we are going to have a higher, more uncompetitive backpacker tax headline rate in this country. It will be 15 per cent rather than the 13 per cent or, indeed, 10.5 per cent that it could have been. But they are going to raise less money, with the commitment to Landcare. By the way, they are saying they are going to put an additional $100 million into Landcare, but since the 2013 election they have ripped at least $300 million out of Landcare. That takes a very special sort of genius as well.
The important thing about the backpacker tax is the headline rate. This fiction that a backpacker sitting in Ireland is going to look at the tax rate, get his calculator out, look at the award wage in Australia and then have a look at the award wage in New Zealand is just that: it is a fiction. But I make this very important point: yes, the wage rate is lower in New Zealand, but so too is the cost of living. This is the part of the equation which those on the other side conveniently decided to leave out of the report. They included the headline tax rate. They included the wage rates in Australia and New Zealand. But they failed to mention the cost of living—and they failed to include that for a very good reason, which is that it would have run against their case.
While the Deputy Prime Minister is here, I will remind him that the savings they were attempting to make in this package are less than he is spending to pork-barrel by moving the APVMA to his own electorate. He should scurry out of the House as I speak. He should be ashamed of himself. He is wasting taxpayers' money for his own electoral fortunes in his own electorate of New England. What a disgrace! Let me talk for a moment about the impact that is going to have on our farming sector. We have a double whammy here today. We are going to get a higher headline backpacker tax rate, which is going to render us uncompetitive. At the same time, he is spending nearly $30 million moving the APVMA to his own electorate, which is going to decimate that organisation and cost our farming community at least $190 million every year thereafter. That is the priority of this Deputy Prime Minister. That is the priority he gives to our farmers and farming communities. He must know that this backpacker tax is going to hurt those farmers and those communities.
There is one element of this package that has not yet been discussed in this place. When the government belatedly announced what I will call the 19 per cent package, it also boasted that there would be a new integrity measure. 'Don't worry. We've got a new integrity measure which enhances this package.' What was that integrity measure? The government was going to require all employers engaging backpackers to register with the Australian Taxation Office.
This was a good idea, because backpackers, when they came to Australia, were going to be able to check the ATO register and see whether the prospective employer was registered, which would give an indication that that was a reputable employer who was going to pay them correctly, tax them correctly and, of course, not exploit them in any way. But, in the dirty deal the government did with Senator Leyonhjelm, that register will now be a secret. That register, designed to be a guide for backpackers, will now be a secret. What a disgrace that is! They have just thrown the integrity measure that they boasted about completely out the window.
Now let me deal with this fiction that they keep peddling in this place about the member for Lilley. Forever and a day we have had a tax rate for non-residents in this country. For a long time it was 29 per cent and at some point—I think in 2012—it was increased to 32 per cent. I think that was because the tax-free threshold was dramatically increased by the Labor government. But the 32 per cent never applied to backpackers. It has never applied to backpackers. As the shadow Treasurer pointed out during question time, no revenue from that measure was derived in the 2012-13 years because, when we were in government, backpackers did not pay tax. There is only one government in the history of this nation that has applied a tax on backpackers, and that is the government of those sitting opposite.
I remind the House that when Joe Hockey delivered his budget speech in May 2015 he boasted about this measure. He said, 'I'm announcing tonight a great new initiative which will see Australian workers put on a level playing field. We're going to tax backpackers 32½ per cent. And we are such good economic managers, it is going to raise $540 million over four years'—without any concern whatsoever about the impact that would have on our farming communities and our tourism sector. It was a little bit slow gaining some traction—something I might go into a bit later—but, by mid-election campaign, the government realised that they were in trouble. They realised that the 32.5 per cent backpacker tax rate was not sustainable and would cost them the election.
So what did they do? They announced, 'We'll have a review. Don't worry; we're going to have a review,' sending a false message to farmers: 'Don't worry; there will be no backpacker tax after the election. Trust us; we'll fix it'—and I see the fixer here with us. They said, 'We'll fix it; don't worry about it.' But they kept spending the money. They kept spending the $540 million—no, it was $500 million actually; they forwent the $40 million because they deferred the tax from 1 July 2016 to January 2017. In other words, they were walking both sides of the street: sending a message to farmers and tourism operators that they would abolish this tax post-election but spending the $500 million of revenue from it during the election campaign—partly to pay for some of the Deputy Prime Minister's boom dollars.
I am not making this up. We have Senate estimates transcripts which show the reason the Deputy Prime Minister was so wedded to the 32.5 per cent tax. He gave it a huge rap post the 2015 election. I remember him talking to Leigh Sales about putting Australian workers on a level playing field and what a great idea it was. But, of course, that attitude changed. Then of course the 19 per cent was a great idea—'We're going to be internationally competitive.' Mathias Cormann, the finance minister, was backing it in as late as Monday, saying, '19 per cent is as far as we will go. That is our last bid; no changes.' But now Barnaby Joyce, the Deputy Prime Minister, tells us that 15 per cent is the right rate. But we have Senate estimates proof that the Deputy Prime Minister has been hooked on this revenue because he wants it to pay for his boom dollars in his white paper, including one that I have already spoken about; the move of the APVMA to Armidale—again putting at the fore the interest of his own electoral fortunes.
I remind members that, when the Deputy Prime Minister announced this APVMA move, he was in deep trouble in his own electorate. Tony Windsor was running against him. He knew that Tony Windsor was a threat and he also knew that, while Tamworth is a stronghold for him, Armidale is a completely different story. Armidale is a university city and a very progressive city. Barnaby Joyce, the Deputy Prime Minister, knew that he could not beat Tony Windsor without doing something special in Armidale. 'I've got an idea,' the Deputy Prime Minister told himself, 'I'll uproot this agency, spend $28 million of taxpayers' money and move it to Armidale, in my electorate'—a stroke of genius on his part.
When the Deputy Prime Minister began to come under pressure from the Prime Minister about the controversy of this move, he agreed or the Prime Minister forced him to have a cost-benefit analysis done on the relocation of the APVMA. We know when that cost-benefit analysis was delivered to the government, but for months we had to fight for it. The Deputy Prime Minister refused to release that cost-benefit analysis—and, having finally secured it, we know why. We know that it shows that the costs of the move far outweigh any benefits, and the benefits are miniscule and the benefits are only in Armidale. There is no benefit to Canberra; there is no benefit to our farmers; there is no benefit to the broader nation; the only benefit is in Armidale. Despite the fact that it is going to cost farmers so much every year, he is clinging to it. He is determined to do it.
Let me tell you something about the APVMA. The APVMA regulate the chemicals and veterinary medicines our farmers use—crop sprays are the best example. Farmers need their chemicals. It is all about their productivity. They cannot do their work without crop protection. The APVMA are an organisation already under pressure, like any government agency. They are always under pressure and can never keep pace with the work of approving, re-approving and auditing farm chemicals et cetera. Their almost 200 staff are highly trained professionals—regulatory lawyers and regulatory scientists. They are people who live here in Canberra and have their children in Canberra schools. The staff were surveyed. They were asked how many were prepared to move to Armidale. Ten per cent are prepared to move to Armidale. How long will it take to rebuild this workforce? This is not a job for someone who has just passed their undergraduate degree. These are people who have done serious postgraduate work and trained on site in the APVMA for this very specialised regulatory work. So the workforce is just going to collapse, and that is why the government's own cost-benefit analysis concluded that this is going to cost our farmers a couple of hundred million dollars, not just in one year but every year from here on in, until they rebuild that workforce, which Kareena Arthy, the CEO of the APVMA, has suggested will take seven years. The minister's own cost-benefit analysis says it will take at least five years. That is a long time for farmers to be waiting.
Here is a very important point. The government keep going on about their free trade deals—their preferential trade deals. We began all those trade deals. The Labor Party own those trade deals, but what we would never have done is overreach on their benefits. The Deputy Prime Minister stands at this dispatch box most days and says, 'Our food exports are growing.' What he does not tell you is that our food imports are growing faster as a result of those deals. That is the fact of the matter. The benefits of those trade deals have indeed been modest, largely because of all the technical barriers that remain in place. It is all right to get the tariff down over time, but, if you cannot get the health protocols and you cannot deal with the technical barriers, you do not have a hope. You are not going to get the benefit you were anticipating.
But there is something else the APVMA does—and this is why I am making this point about these preferential trade deals. The APVMA plays a role in the data provided to determine the maximum residue levels in our food products. In other words, if you are spraying some apples with a chemical and you are exporting them to China, the Chinese want to make sure that they have not been contaminated by the chemicals. If you cannot get that data to the Chinese process then you do not have any exports. The undermining of the APVMA is going to severely impact on our food exports in this country, more so than any benefits that would be accrued from the free trade agreements. These are the priorities of this government.
I go back to 19 per cent. It was going to be it. It was going to make us internationally competitive. It was the answer to all these problems. We were inundated with the national farmers federations of the world saying: 'You have got to wave through 19 per cent; the deal has been done.' If we had taken the NFF's advice, the backpacker tax would now be 19 per cent. I have to say, I have been disappointed with the performance of the National Farmers' Federation in the course of this debate, being the flag bearer for a 19 per cent tax which was clearly not competitive. Again, the headline rate is what is important here. When backpackers are thinking about the long haul ride to either New Zealand or to Australia, they look at New Zealand at 10 per cent and Australia at 19 per cent. It is pretty obvious what decision they are going to make. But the National Farmers' Federation not only championed 19 per cent but attacked the Labor Party for not waving it through.
Then of course the coalition decided in another stroke of genius that they would insist on making the 19 per cent package budget-neutral. This is the way they do policy over on that other side now. They say, 'We need $540 million so we will have a 32.5 per cent backpacker tax. But when we back down on 32.5 per cent and go to 19, we will have to find another way of raising some money.' So they do two things. First of all, they rape and pillage the superannuation accounts of backpackers. We now have a system in this country where the employer pays nine per cent as super into an account for a backpacker and the Australian Taxation Office—it has changed today and I will get to that—takes 95 per cent of it back. It is a tax on farmers, a tax on employers. What was the other measure? 'Contrary to all of our promises, we will increase the passenger movement charge, the old departure tax.' The link between the two, I do not know.
Mr Albanese interjecting—
I thank the member for Grayndler. As the member for Grayndler says, there just is not a link. So what do we say? Those opposite are proposing to bring a bill to parliament with not one backpacker tax measure in it but three tax measures—one to rape and pillage the superannuation accounts of backpackers and another to increase the passenger movement charge. So of course we say, as we always say in this place, 'You have got a bill with three taxation measures in it so we will send it to a Senate committee.' Of course we would. 'No,' they said, 'You cannot do that. This has been going on for 18 months.' Yes we know. The backpacker tax debacle of those opposite has been going on for 18 months. But now, having announced a review during the election campaign and delivering a final outcome not until October, they tell us that it has got to go through both houses of parliament in a week. Everyone in the this place knows that that just does not happen here. Unless there is some national security bill, a measure important to our national security, that just does not happen here. So we reasonably said, 'No, we will study this in a Senate inquiry.' But we made the important commitment that whatever the outcome, we would have this bill done and dusted before we leave this place for Christmas and of course that is what is exactly what is happening here today.
But we now know why they did not want us to have a Senate inquiry. They did not want us to have a Senate inquiry, because they knew two things. They knew that Treasury officials would be forced to admit that no economic modelling whatsoever was done on the backpacker tax. The other thing they knew is that growers in particular would line up to tell senators that 19 per cent is too high, and line up they did, particularly in Tasmania, where they have been screaming about the impact of this backpacker tax on their businesses. So we now know why they did not want a Senate inquiry.
They had their Senate inquiry, and of course, as I said, we got here this week and it could only be 19. They said the modelling showed that we can be internationally competitive at 19. And then of course, on Monday morning, it suddenly became 15 per cent. No logical reason was put forward as to why it should be 15 per cent, as was the case at 19—except one; that is right. It is the same rate as the Seasonal Worker Program—that is, the program that allows Pacific islanders to come here to work and repatriate that money back to the people in their homes.
Just let me address that for a moment. Comparing them, if you will excuse the pun, is like comparing apples and oranges. The Seasonal Worker Program is a foreign aid program. It is a way for Australia to assist those people living in those Pacific islands. We give them, in effect, a subsidy to come here, an opportunity they would not otherwise have, to work.
The backpackers are a much different thing. In that market, we are competing globally for the work of those backpackers. There is one thing that has not been contested in this place by anyone—which is a good thing—and that is that, because of the seasonal nature of the work, the surge nature of the work, we need backpackers to get the fruit off those trees and those grapes off those vines. So we are competing for backpackers. It is much different than the Seasonal Worker Program. And, by the way, the superannuation arrangements for those under the Seasonal Worker Program are completely different. In some cases—I think in PNG and Kiribati—the tax rate is actually zero.
The government has not given any explanation or any rationale as to why it is going to 15, but we did give a rationale for the new rate we were prepared to strike this morning. Why were we prepared to move? It was apparent, given the Treasurer's press conference this morning, that he was digging in, and someone had to show some leadership. We certainly did that. Why 13? It aligns with the withholding tax rate used in the harvesting award. Horticulturists been telling me for many months now: 'Fight for 13 because 13 is the withholding tax we take from Australian backpackers who may or may not get through the tax-free threshold, so align it with that.' Given that it was apparent that we needed to move this morning and we needed to show some leadership, and given that a number of horticulturists again this morning rang me to say, 'Look, we're really worried that the government's digging in on this; go for 13,' we decided that the appropriate thing to do would be to fill the vacuum, show some leadership and back a 13 per cent backpacker tax.
That was entirely rejected by the Treasurer. Why was it rejected? Why was it rejected when we could have had a 13 per cent headline rate, which is obviously more competitive internationally than 15 and which would have cost less? This is appalling. What the government are saying is that they would rather get into bed with the Greens than be seen to agree with the Labor Party. More particularly, they would rather leave a higher headline rate than admit that once again they got it wrong. They are putting their own pride in front of the interests of farmers in this country.
This will not be forgotten by people in the horticulture sector in particular, and the members for Dawson, Mallee, Capricornia, Flynn, Gilmore, Page and Barker, as well as many others, will find themselves having to explain themselves in the coming months and, indeed, the coming years, as I fear farmers will continue to struggle to secure backpacker labour. Why do I fear that? I will go back to where I began: backpackers were falling off even before Joe Hockey announced his 32.5 per cent tax. Our reputation has been damaged. The word has spread: 'The Aussies don't want us. They've put this big tax on.' It will take a long time for that to filter back out of the system, a long time for that damage to be undone. They were falling off before then; they will continue to fall off. The word will be that the tax is still in place, regardless of the headline rate, and there will be ongoing problems. I will be reminding the members, including the member for Mallee, that their farmers will be holding them to account for that.
Another point that no-one has really made in this debate is about consumer food prices. We are going into Christmas, and the growers cannot get their product to market. Why? Again, because this has been going on for 18 months. Even if we fix this problem today, it will be many, many months before it has any effect. But the problems we are experiencing now began 18 months ago, so what happens? I am sure the member for Riverina understands the concept of supply and demand.
I do.
He does; I am relieved. When growers cannot get their fruit, for example, off the trees and supply falls while demand remains constant, then prices go through the roof. It is not going to be a very happy Christmas for those consumers shopping for their cherries and strawberries and the like for Christmas dinner, because they are going to find themselves potentially paying a lot more as a result of the damage done by this government over the course of the last 18 months. They will know who to blame, because we will make sure they understand whose fault this is.
One minute to go!
I appreciate the 30 minutes, The Fixer. I should turn to him, because I think the South Australians are most concerned about the backpacker tax. South Australians are concerned about the Murray-Darling Basin Plan and they are worried about the backpacker tax. I welcome the fact that the Leader of Government Business is with us in the House and talking with the member for Dawson no less, who must be feeling very, very nervous about going back to his electorate and explaining why he did not fight for a lower headline rate on the backpacker tax.
Not one go, not two goes, not three goes—no; four goes at getting this right. But of course they still have not got it right. Again, it takes a special genius to end up with a higher headline rate than is necessary, but to also spend more money and give up more revenue. That takes a special kind of genius. So when the member for Riverina gets to his feet—is he getting to his feet?
A government member: Yes.
Very good. He might care to share with us how he is going to explain this to his constituents. (Time expired)
The shadow agriculture minister and member for Hunter has asked me to explain how I am going to explain this to my Riverina farmers. Batlow cherry and apple packer, Greg Mouat, needs eight backpackers to knock on his door within a fortnight or else his cherries will pass their prime. 'We'd be completely stuffed without backpackers', Mr Mouat said. He is from Batlow. I used to represent Batlow, from 2010 until the electoral boundaries were changed this year. He is a very, very good man. He said: 'It's up in the air. I don't know if they're going to arrive or not given it's taken so long to make this decision.' Of course he is right. I am glad that it has been resolved in a 'sensible and fair way', as the National Farmers' Federation has pointed out. 'You have to remember, we're dealing with a perishable product which doesn't stop ripening if it's not picked,' Mr Mouat said. 'We'll start cherries in the next fortnight and then we'll move into hand thinning apples for a number of weeks, then we'll pick apples in mid to late February through to the end of April.' Mr Mouat 'could swallow' a 15 per cent tax on backpackers. That is what he said. But he labelled the government's original 32½ per cent as 'ridiculous'. Mind you, that was the member for Lilley's originally, the 32½ per cent. Mr Mouat said Labor's current 10½ per cent alternative was playing politics—merely playing politics.
What we have seen today is a timely breakthrough, because we are on the very last day of parliament sitting for 2016. We could not let the tax go through at 32½ per cent. We know that. It would have done so much damage to the Riverina, to the central west and, indeed, to the Australian economy. Regional small businesses need a mobile labour force who can pick fruit, who can process meat and who can pull beers in pubs at the drop of a hat—absolutely. Backpackers will still come, apples will still be picked at Batlow, grapes will still be picked at Griffith, and pubs right throughout the Riverina and right throughout regional Australia will be staffed.
The member for Hunter went on a lot about the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority moving to Armidale. He also talked about our decentralisation policy. There is nothing wrong with having a decentralisation policy. I am pleased that the Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation is moving to Wagga Wagga. That is going to bring anywhere between a dozen and 21 jobs to my home town. I am pleased that the Grains Research and Development Corporation is moving to Dubbo, in the member for Parkes' electorate—I am glad he has joined me in chamber—as well as to Toowoomba, with other offices in Adelaide and Perth. Decentralisation is at the core of what the Nationals do, but so is also making sure a fair deal has been struck on this backpacker tax issue.
You only need to go to the comment piece written by David Crowe in The Australian on 29 November where he said:
Labor, which had adopted the 32.5 per cent rate in its own election costings, saw an irresistible opportunity to cause trouble. Its position was irrational.
And its position was irrational! We started with the Labor tax rate of 32½ per cent, we put money on the table to review Labor's rate and we have arrived at 15 per cent—having to find savings to do so. The government did not wish to be belligerent, but this is important policy. We could not have left this place—the member for Lyne knows this—and left this at 32½ per cent. We could not. We agreed to move to 15 per cent, and then, at the eleventh hour, we had this ridiculous situation in the Senate where the Labor Party, along with some other senators, tried to blow the show up. Labor has one objective, and that is to wreck the show; to try and take some sort of small semblance of victory out of what has been yet another disastrous year for them.
The member for Maribyrnong and Labor have demonstrated once again that they are more interested in playing base political games—absolute low-level political games—that seek to create chaos and uncertainty for farmers and undermine the budget than delivering real outcomes in the best interests of Australians. That is what this is about. It is about delivering outcomes for Australians. I do not and cannot understand why Labor is so against the rural sector. I do not and cannot understand why Labor has such a bad record when it comes to not sticking up for regional Australia. Take a look at some of the things that have happened just in my time in parliament that Labor has wrought upon regional Australia: the live animal exports, the carbon tax, the mining tax and failing to act when the Asian honey bee incursion occurred. There were so many things. Labor did not spend one cent on mobile blackspot towers. The Murray-Darling states non-deal—it was an absolute disaster for our regions, particularly those river communities which rely on the triple bottom line approach. Labor never wanted to know about it. It was an absolute buyback. It was an absolute disaster, the amount of water that was bought out of the Murray-Darling system, out of the Murrumbidgee, out of the Murray, out of northern New South Wales and out of southern and western Queensland to prop up what Labor was trying to prop up, an environmental outcome for the Murray-Darling system at the expense of farmers and at the expense of social and economic implications.
This bill before us, the Superannuation (Departing Australia Superannuation Payments Tax) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2016, this sensible resolution that is before us, is so important. One of the most important roles I have in parliament is to stand up for the regions and to fight for the Riverina and the Central West. As the Minister for Small Business, I appreciate and understand and acknowledge that of the 15,000 small businesses in the Riverina, in my electorate, a third are farmers, and many of those farmers use backpackers. Right across the regions and across the nation, many of our small business people are tireless, hardworking farmers. They will be very satisfied with this outcome—15 per cent, as the National Farmers Federation said, is a fair and just resolution. I commend it to the House.
What we are seeing here is government by chaos. The backpacker tax fiasco has gone from being a problem to a major problem to a chaotic problem to a farce. It reached farce today when we had a joint statement on the letterhead of the Treasurer from the new coalition: Scott Morrison and Senator Di Natale. You pick up a few things when you have been in this place a while. When the Treasurer attempted to table the letter but then had a look at it and put it back on the dispatch box and did not really want to table it, you knew that he had botched it.
The reason that has happened is that it is such policy on the run, just like the legislation that is before us now, the Superannuation (Departing Australia Superannuation Payments Tax) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2016. This is legislation whereby we heard, as the Manager of Opposition Business indicated, silence in this chamber. The Hansard will appear with a couple of blank pages, because we had no copies of the bill that was before the House, no copies of the explanatory memorandum and no consultation with anyone about this deal that had been done. What a hopeless deal it is, from the government's own perspective. The backpacker tax has become the backtracker tax. Today, this deal costs $155 million of backtracking by this government on its economic record, where it purports to say that it is interested in fiscal responsibility. It is no wonder it has increased the debt—the deficit has increased by eight times from what it was. Remember that this government said prior to the election that it would have surpluses every year into the future, but it just gets worse.
How it got here will provide a study for public policy makers and academics in how not to do proper evidence based policy. There was the grand announcement in the 2015 budget that they were going to raise over half a billion by introducing this new backpacker tax in 2015.
Backtracker tax!
At that stage it was the backpacker tax. That was before the backtracking that occurred on the backpacker tax. It is the case that this is policymaking that would suit Dr Seuss, frankly, in the way that it has been done. They announced it with fanfare: they were geniuses! But they had not consulted the farming sector and they had not consulted the tourism sector, so they did not bring any legislation. It was still there. So what happened was that backpackers and young people in Europe, Asia, the United States and Canada were getting information, via their newfangled smartphones and the internet, about this whack that was coming on in terms of taxation arrangements and we saw dropping numbers of backpackers visiting Australia.
During the election campaign, having gone through the 2016 budget, the government decided that they would defer the implementation of this tax. Some 18 months later they finally introduced the legislation. There were 18 months of uncertainty for the agricultural and tourism sectors. They then resisted the Senate inquiry to consult people about processes. When they did that they said that it was urgent. After having waited 18 months all of a sudden it was urgent. At that inquiry the agricultural and tourism sectors put forward the argument that this tax was not in the interests of those sectors and not in the interests of the economy.
We have had these absurd arguments. The first absurd argument we have had only in the last few days is that somehow this was something to do with a decision by former Treasurer the member for Lilley. That is just a farce. The budget papers show that backpackers indeed were paying zero tax. In 2015 Treasurer Joe Hockey said that he was introducing this new measure to raise additional money. That was the point of it. It was going from zero to 32.5 per cent. We hear people like the member for Riverina say, 'We had to oppose the 32.5 per cent,' but it was their idea, their initiative. They then decided that they would change it to 19 per cent. They had no economic modelling but said it would raise less additional revenue—again them acknowledging that this began in 2015.
In order to make up for what they saw as a shortfall of this short-sighted policy they said that they would change the super arrangements so that 95c in every dollar would go straight back to the government. That was a tax not on backpackers; that was a tax on employers, which would go straight into government coffers. The change they are making here now belatedly is to 65c in the dollar, at a cost to the budget of $55 million over just three years.
They then introduced the passenger movement charge—a $5 increase. They had the same process that they had for the backpacker tax before it became the backtracker tax: they rang the major airlines on the day that the announcement appeared in the paper to let them know, just in case they did not have access to the internet at Qantas, Virgin and other major airlines. So you had this $5 charge being put in that was totally unrelated. So the agricultural sector was being hit but the tourism sector was being hit twice. It was being hit with fewer backpackers coming here, backpackers who largely work in regional Australia and who bring more money than they earn and who spend it in the communities where they are working. That is what they do.
Now we have had in the last 24 hours the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and the Deputy Prime Minister actually insult people from Germany and France who come here to make a contribution. What sort of idiocy is that? 'We do not want rich backpackers coming here from Germany and France'—completely absurd. People who come here make a contribution and spend more money than they earn here. And, what is more, when they come back with their families in a few years time they will stay not at the hostel but at the Hilton and they will spend even more money. And when they go back to Germany and France and that region, the whole time they are showing people the photos of their experiences in Cairns, Broome, Mount Isa or Gladstone—
Ms McGowan interjecting—
Or in the electorate of Indi. They become advocates for Australian tourism, and they create jobs.
But then, because they lost the vote in the Senate on the Passenger Movement Charge Amendment Bill 2016 on Wednesday night, on Thursday as the bells were ringing they went into the chamber and handed the One Nation senators a draft amendment that they had had done up for a five-year freeze that we know from a ruling from the Speaker of the House of Representatives just this week is not worth anything at all. We are a sovereign parliament, and we are talking about a tax increase that in July the government promised not to do. They promised a freeze for this term, as we did, because we know that it is counterproductive tax. At the end of the day, if you discourage people from coming to Australia, if you discourage that economic activity, you end up in a worse fiscal position. It is counterproductive. So you have that, but it is worse. It is not just that they promised it at the election. After this election, unlike after the 2013 election where they forgot to appoint a tourism minister, at least they did appoint a tourism minister. He stood at the dispatch box and said that increases to the passenger movement charge would choke the golden goose that is the tourism industry. That is what he said two weeks before the government announced this tax increase. He was not even consulted about the decision that was made. He was on his way to the Middle East when the cabinet made this decision. The five-year freeze is a farce and the senators in the other place were conned on that issue.
Then you had the announcement of a so-called deal—it was all done days ago—for a 15 per cent backpacker tax. So the 'backtracker' tax had gone from 32.5 per cent to 19 per cent and then down to 15 per cent. This time they were really serious. There were to be no more negotiations. Victory was had. 'Mission accomplished,' said the Treasurer. And yet today we have a complete failure of leadership. So obsessed are those opposite with not being cooperative with the other major political party, the Australian Labor Party, that they prefer to enter into an arrangement that costs the budget $155 million, when we had said we that we would cop 13 per cent because that aligns with the withholding tax in horticulture that applies to those Australian backpackers for whom it is unclear that they will meet the income-tax-free threshold. That $155 million is $100 million more than they would have to spend otherwise, and they are in an arrangement with the Australian Greens and One Nation. This is the mob who, with their genius strategy of the double-D election, helped recreate One Nation earlier this year. But now, instead of having an arrangement that would have minimised the differential impact on the budget, they have a $155 million hit to the budget and a Treasurer who is reduced to the humiliation of having Richard Di Natale, the leader of the Australian Greens, named on a joint release on the Treasurer's letterhead. It is completely absurd.
What we have seen with this, the whole way through, is a whole lot of misinformation. You have had the absurdity of saying that Australian workers would be taxed at a higher rate than foreign workers. This is the mob that does not seem to understand that it was Labor that tripled the income tax free threshold to $18,200, thereby taking a million Australians out of the tax system. If Australian workers earn the same as your average backpacker, guess how much tax they will pay? Zero; not a dollar. And yet, those opposite have continued to engage in this misinformation. This has been absolute chaos from the government. They have had at least five positions in the last month, after having had one position for 18 months that has caused distress and concern in the agriculture and tourism sectors. This government should stand condemned for this chaos.
I move:
That the motion be put.
The question is that the motion be put.
The question is that this bill be now read a second time.
Bill read a second time.
Is leave granted for the third reading to be moved immediately?
Leave is not granted.
I move:
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the motion for the third reading being moved without delay.
This government does not want the—
The member for McMahon will resume his seat.
I move:
That the member for McMahon be no longer heard.
The question is that the member for McMahon be no longer heard.
The question is that the motion moved by the Treasurer be agreed to.
I move:
That the question be now put.
The question is that the motion be put.
The question now is that the motion moved by the Treasurer be agreed to.
I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Well, now that we have the bill and explanatory—
I move:
That the question be put.
I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Now that we have the bill and explanatory memorandum—
I move:
That the question be now put.
The question is that the motion be put.
The question is that this bill be now read a third time.
Bill read a third time.
The Speaker has received a message from the Senate informing the House transmitting a resolution agreed to by the Senate relating to the establishment of a joint select committee on government procurement. Copies of the message have been placed on the table for the information of honourable members. I do not propose to read its terms, which will be recorded in the votes and proceedings and in Hansard. The Senate requests the concurrence of the House in this resolution.
I move:
That the House concurs with the resolution of the Senate relating to the establishment on a joint committee on government procurement and that a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this resolution.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That the amendment be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
I have received the following message from the Senate:
The Senate transmits to the House of Representatives the following resolution which was agreed to by the Senate this day:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) confidence and trust in the financial services industry has been shaken by ongoing revelations of scandals, which have resulted in tens of thousands of Australians being ripped off, including:
(A) retirees who have had their retirement savings gutted,
(B) families who have been rorted out of hundreds of thousands of dollars,
(C) small business owners who have lost everything, and
(D) life insurance policy holders who have been denied justice,
(ii) it is clear from the breadth and scope of the allegations that the problems in this industry go beyond any one bank or type of financial institution,
(iii) the Australian Labor Party, the Australian Greens, crossbench, Liberal and Nationals parliamentarians have supported a thorough investigation of the culture and practices within the financial services industry through a Royal Commission, which is the only forum with the coercive powers and broad jurisdiction necessary to properly perform this investigation,
(iv) Australia has one of the strongest banking systems in the world, but Australians must have confidence in their banks and financial institutions, making it necessary to sweep away doubt and uncover and deal with unethical behaviour that compromises that confidence, and
(v) the case for a Royal Commission into misconduct in the banking and financial services industry has only become stronger over time; and
(b) the Senate calls on the Government to request His Excellency the Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia issue Letters Patent to establish a Royal Commission to inquire into misconduct in the banking and financial services industry, including their agents and managed investment schemes.
The Senate requests the concurrence of the House in this resolution.
I move:
That consideration of the message be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
Mr Speaker—
I move:
That the question be now put.
Mr Speaker, you have not read it out, but I understand the motion you have referred to is the one relating to the banking royal commission. I move:
That all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
'the message be taken into consideration immediately.'
I second the motion.
I move:
That the question be now put.
Question agreed to.
The question now is that the motion moved by the Manager of Opposition Business be agreed to.
I move:
That the question be now put.
The question is that the motion be put.
The question is that the motion moved by the Leader of the House be agreed to.
Proceedings part published from 09:30 to 19 : 00
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Bird ) took the chair at 10:08.
I rise today to acknowledge the great work done by WEstjustice in my electorate. WEstjustice is a group of community legal centres that provides free legal help to people in the western suburbs of Melbourne. Like Labor, WEstjustice believes in a just and fair society where law and its processes do not discriminate against vulnerable people, and where those in need have ready and easy access to quality information and advice.
Beyond their client work they also find time in the face of extremely limited resources to undertake important research. Two weeks ago WEstjustice released a report authored by Catherine Hemingway titled Not just work: ending the exploitation of refugee and migrant workers. They met with a number of individuals and groups from settlement agencies, community legal centres, Victoria Legal Aid, law firms, unions, universities, government agencies and other community organisations to prepare this report. They received over 100 surveys from community workers and newly arrived people from refugee communities. This report documents the widespread endemic exploitation of migrant workers in Australia. The WEstjustice report found widespread abuse across numerous industries, including hospitality, retail, construction and care work; incidents where two workers were paid one salary between them and where some workers were paid as little as $8 an hour; and that workers who complained were fired.
Current systems are failing to stop the abuse and exploitation of these vulnerable communities. This exploitation not only damages vulnerable workers, but undermines the workplace relations framework. Businesses that do the right thing are undercut by those breaking the law. These laws are being routinely broken not just by dodgy subcontractors, not just as one-off exceptions, but as the norm. We have seen it with Pizza Hut, 7-Eleven and now Caltex. We all saw the appalling footage recently of a staff member at 7-Eleven being taken over to the store ATM and being made to withdraw money so they could hand cash back to their boss. As Bill Shorten, the Leader of the Opposition, told the chamber on Monday:
This is not an oversight or an exception, it is a business model.
This is not just confined to newly arrived and refugee workers. Exploitation in the workplace affects wages growth for all of us. Targeted services and legal reform are urgently required, and funding is urgently required. The Not just work reportwas undertaken by an average of just one full-time employee. Community legal centres face a 30 per cent funding cut on 1 July 2017, which will see many centres having to close their doors to clients. The Productivity Commission found that for every dollar invested in community legal centres $17 is returned to the community.
Sustained funding will ensure that important work and research like this continues. My congratulations to everyone at WEstjustice, and especially to Catherine Hemingway and Denis Nelthorpe, for continuing to raise awareness of this issue and continuing to shine a spotlight on this very important issue that affects all of us in our community in Melbourne's west.
It is a wonderful time of year, the end of the year: a time to reflect on how things have gone in our respective communities, and on the Gold Coast, I think, we can look back with considerable pride. The Commonwealth Games looms larger than life, of course, in 2018 and there is no better opportunity for the Gold Coast to showcase what we have got to the world. It is wonderful to see the affordable ticket pricing that was announced a few days ago, and I know locals will turn up in droves to support the competition.
This government has provided $147 million to these games, which I think is tremendous. The real value, of course, of this investment is the local infrastructure that we have been able to provide through this federal funding, like the Coomera Indoor Sports Centre and the Gold Coast Hockey Centre. It is important to have a central hub for the games, but we need new infrastructure like this in our communities and it has been great working with my parliamentary colleagues on the Gold Coast to deliver it. Lots of new residents are coming to the Gold Coast in droves. Pimpama and Ormeau are the fastest-growing suburbs in the country, 45 minutes from Brisbane and about half an hour to Surfers Paradise. In Coomera alone there are 13,000 residents, with an expectation of 20,000 in five years and an incredible 60,000 in the next 20 years, so delivering this world-class infrastructure is so important.
The government has funded the second stage of the light rail with a $95 million contribution which has allowed this vital project to go ahead. Since the light rail began in 2014, there has been an increase in public transport patronage of more than 25 per cent and punctuality and reliability of 99.99 per cent, so it is no surprise that there have already been millions of passenger trips. Having stage 2 connect Helensvale in my electorate right through to the light rail ending currently at the hospital connects the light rail to the heavy rail. It is a great coup and a great series of investments by this government in the electorate of Fadden on the Gold Coast.
We have also been able to partner with our respective levels of government in the provision of $10 million from the Commonwealth to get exit 54 on the M1 upgraded—which will be opening very soon—which will cut down access time for parents getting kids to school and provide easy access to Dreamworld and other businesses in the area. We have funded up to $30 million to get Thor: Ragnarok filmed on the Gold Coast in my electorate, and I was lucky enough to visit the set, which at that time employed almost a thousand people. That company's estimated Australian spend on the film was $220 million.
There have been some disappointments. Rocky Point Sugar Mill's fire was terrible, and I feel for the owner, Bill Heck, and the mill's workers. I have spoken about the heart-rending issues in Dreamworld, although I am pleased to see it opening on 10 December for the first time since the tragedy. I look forward to being there to support all of those staff and all of those great businesses involved, and wish Dreamworld well.
I rise in this place to tell you a tale of desperation, devastation, corruption and endless fail. For it was the sitting before Christmas where not a member of government was stirring, not even a Nat; where dirty deals and political tactics were made without a care in the hope that crossbencher votes would be there. For what a joke this government's first six months have been; to lose control and have members of their own vote against them has never been seen. This government sits across from me with worried brows and frowns because Labor is leading from opposition and making them look like clowns. But I heed this warning to the government now: regional Queensland will not continue to be ignored; this we vow. The northern region is suffering with issues of jobs and water and cuts to health whilst this government keeps ignoring us by giving their city mates their focus and wealth. As this newly elected member in Townsville, I will continue to be a strong voice until the Prime Minister hears these issues and makes a wise choice. With one of the highest unemployment rates, a promised stadium was made. However, we are yet to see a signed MOU, causing jobs to be delayed. Yet again Townsville was neglected when a list of regional jobs packages were named. Our community was again disappointed, and this government is to be blamed. Then there are the cuts to health and Medicare, and they are trying to lie and say these cuts are simply a scare, but when your GP costs and prescription rates rise it becomes pretty obvious who is telling the lies. And what about the backpacker tax bill of an outrageous 32.5 per cent. Many thanks to our colleagues, the independents and Greens, who lobbied strong with Labor for the per cent to descend. And then they tried to tell us, 'Oh no, we're all for gay rights,' yet they failed to understand the equality plight. For the pleb was officially made dead and the country rejoiced, except for the conservative right-wingers and Barnaby Joyce.
There is also the reality of their cuts to aged care soon to follow, and that really is too hard to swallow because we should be looking after our pensioners and those of retirement age instead of unfair taxes to their super and sending them into a rage. Further to this point, how does one think that our seniors can access government services that are being computerised? It seems pretty obvious to me that they have no clue and their policies are simply being improvised. Oh—about the NBN debacle rort: it is clear that this government needs to be taught that the NBN would open regional communications. And oh—how I could not forget their cuts to education. We need to invest in our future and that starts with our students. Through supporting our teachers with Gonski, this would be prudent. The list of failings by this government is endless. They must be grateful that my speaking time is about to be suspended. For in the regions this government is proving to have a disconnect and they need to realise that their cuts and lack of action hold true effect. But mark my words: by the next parliament sitting, I had better see some action on the regions; otherwise, I will be wreathing.
I thank the member and assure the rest of the House that they do not have to rhyme their entire delivery.
I rise to talk about the very serious issue which now confronts the Gold Coast following the very myopic decision of the Queensland state Labor government to, in many respects, water down—almost to the point of being ineffectual—the very strong anti-bikie laws that the former LNP Newman government implemented. The simple fact is that those laws absolutely changed Australia's perception of the Gold Coast, after having endured for too many years issues such as shootings at the Robina Town Centre, the ballroom blitz at the Royal Pines Hotel and of course—the genesis of the Newman government's antibikie laws—the Broadbeach brawl.
I am incredibly disappointed that the Gold Coast community is now threatened with the potential of the criminal motorcycle gangs coming back into the Gold Coast. The fact is that the Gold Coast's lifeblood is the Australia's tourism industry. We rely on international and domestic tourists to provide employment to thousands of Gold Coasters. There was not a single bigger issue for the Gold Coast than the fact that the city's reputation was utterly smeared and destroyed by the lawlessness of criminal motorcycle gangs. Stepping up to the challenge through powerful and effective laws, the former LNP government changed the composition and the reputation of the city so that tourists felt safe visiting the Gold Coast. The question needs to be asked: why on earth is the Palaszczuk Labor government making this change? There is not a problem now; there is a solution. Unfortunately, we see the same approach from Queensland Labor as we see from federal Labor. When we had no problems with our borders it was, of course, the federal Labor government that created a problem by changing our border laws.
Now we see the exact same thing in Queensland. We had a situation where we had no problems with bikies, and now the Queensland Labor government is watering down the laws so that the drug-peddling criminal organisations of the criminal motorcycle gangs are once again having the red carpet rolled out for them in the Gold Coast. The simple fact is that I will always stand up for my residents, I will stand up to bikies and I will stand up to the watering down of tough laws which help to change the perception of our city, help to make sure that Gold Coasters are secure in their employment and tourism and help to make sure that our city's reputation is not held to ransom by organised motorcycle gangs. I can only hope that in the passage of time the state Labor government sees the folly of its ways.
I rise today to pay tribute to Barton's much-loved odd couple, Daryl Burge-Lopez and David Dawson. Both are incredible assets for Labor and for the broader community, and they are almost inseparable—and almost always disagreeing with each other. Daryl and David were recently awarded the McKell Medal in New South Wales. This medal recognises their long and dedicated service to the Labor movement, but they are not simply excellent volunteers and campaign contributors; they are part of the incredible St George community.
David joined the Labor Party in 1984 when he was secretary of the New South Wales Union of Postal Clerks and Telegraphists. Since he retired, David has worked in every local election campaign, helping fill booth rosters, standing on prepoll and doorknocking. I did not meet David until my campaign for Barton, but his reputation preceded him. I now know him as a mentor.
Daryl, too, has a long association with the party, having first become active in the sixties. He is known as an enthusiastic but very effective campaigner. His work on polling booths is something to be believed. Anyone who worked on the Barton campaign will remember Daryl braving the very difficult Hurstville prepoll and reporting back every day, not always optimistically. Daryl's real strength is his ability to stand up in the face of aggressive and in many cases inappropriate campaigning as he did almost every single day on the Hurstville prepoll during the election. The tactics used by the Liberal candidates in the area were unacceptable and often dishonest, accusing me and Labor of some very unsavoury things.
Daryl and David are examples of the true strength of our community in Barton. They are devoted to making our community better and they show up and give their all. While Barton and the St George region have seen many local and federal members, Daryl and David have been with them all, and they provide their full, invaluable support to incoming MPs.
Barton's odd couple are part of the furniture in Barton and Kogarah. There is not a former or current Labor member in the area who is not thankful for their counsel and their assistance. I certainly know that the local state members, Chris Minns, Steve Kamper, Shaoquett Moselmane and Sophie Cotsis can attest to that. I am pleased to take this opportunity to recognise these two and pay tribute to them not just as a new MP they have assisted but on behalf of our entire community for their continued contribution. Daryl and David, I look forward to our next campaign together.
We have all heard of Y gen., a name for a particular generation, but today I am giving an introduction to YGON. It stands for Your Gilmore Opinion Network. It is a plan for community members to get involved in sharing their views on important questions that are related to legislation or just ideas to make things better. The official launch of YGON will be on Saturday, 10 December between one and four at Harry Sawkins Park in Nowra. This event is free of charge and is partnered with the Touched by Olivia Foundation. They will have a sausage sizzle. There will also be family activities such as face-painting, a jumping castle and the Shoalhaven Zoo to You. I invite Gilmore residents to come and participate.
Talking about participation: I really must congratulate a number of people who are or will be celebrating their contribution to the improvement of the lives of very special people. This Saturday, 3 December is the International Day of Persons with Disabilities. Kiama Municipal Council has developed great strategies across the municipality for those suffering from dementia. This gained them a disability award this year in Parliament House. They won the Excellence in Community Partnerships Award. I could not have been more proud of their achievement.
This special day is designed to celebrate the progress made in breaking down barriers, opening doors and creating an inclusive society for those with a disability. Slice of Life Australia has always been a stand out organisation. Karen Anstiss was the founder of this enterprise and has grown it from a hospitality training and service provider for hearing impaired to a cafe style catering and full disability employer and branching out to a vegetable growing enterprise and also a second-hand clothes boutique, each enterprise employing young people with a disability.
Annette Pham is a fierce advocate for the introduction of Changing Places amenities blocks. Many a minister in this House knows of her work. Yumaro, in Moruya, is a stand-out operation for Gilmore. It is new to my electorate. I have spent time with Mark Brantingham and his superb team at the centre of operations, where they rightly showcase their business enterprise. They have shared a vision for disability housing for their clients, and are well on the way with a co-funded grant from us to build that accommodation. They also received a grant for stronger communities to fulfil more business activities. Budawang School and Havenlea are making considerable inroads for the children attending their schools. Jess is one of their graduates, and she was at Surfing for the Disabled. A huge congratulations to the staff, parents and helpers at all these special places.
I have to say, though, that the community in the Ulladulla region will be excited to hear that the Jindelara stronger regions grant has been confirmed. This was a project that has been about five years in the making. With steady and consistent fundraising they have gain $358,000 to go towards that project and complete it. Brian Thompson: well done.
On Saturday, 3 December another local hero, Brendan Aulsebrook, will captain a ship taking disability people out to Jervis Bay Wild to look at dolphins and maybe whales in Jervis Bay. I hope they have a fabulous time. Congratulations to all. (Time expired)
I rise today to table a petition regarding mobile blackspots in Haynes and Hilbert, in my electorate, which has been found to be in order by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Petitions. I was contacted back in July by one of my constituents, Blake Foster, who lives in a brand new property in Haynes in the south of my electorate. Haynes and Hilbert are two rapidly growing residential areas in Perth's south-east, which itself is one of the fastest growing regions in the country. Mr Foster could not use his mobile phone in his house. He had not even a single bar of reception. And this problem is replicated in almost every one of the more than 250 homes in Haynes, across every network.
In the 21st century, every person deserves mobile reception—it is not a luxury; it is a necessity—even more so as landline connections slowly become a thing of the past. That includes those who live in remote areas. We have to be realistic, this is a big country and not every square inch will have coverage. But this blackspot is particularly galling for residents in Haynes, as they live just 30km from the Perth CBD.
Honourable members interjecting—
The noise is too loud!
And it is even more worrying for Mr Foster and his partner, Danielle, because she is pregnant, and not being able to use a phone at home is a serious concern for their young family. Worse still, these parts of the south-east are highly bushfire prone, and emergency services alert systems rely on mobile phone reception.
Haynes is eligible for funding for a mobile base station under the Mobile Black Spot Program as a locality on the outskirts of Perth. So I wrote to the Minister for Communications on 3 August this year, asking that any request for funding from a mobile operator for a base station to service Haynes be considered as a priority. I also wrote to Telstra, asking that they consider building such a base station. Almost four months on and the minister is yet to even be bothered to respond.
So alongside the state member for Armadale, Dr Tony Buti, I have been out collecting signatures for this petition, and I am happy to see that more than 120 people have added their voices to our call for the Turnbull government to stop ignoring telecommunications in Haynes and Hilbert. This problem is only going to get worse as more and more people move in to this beautiful new residential area. We need industry and government to step up and build the infrastructure needed to ensure that our outer suburban communities have the same access to basic utilities as those in the inner city.
This petition makes the same request to the minister as my letter. I hope that the weight of community support behind the petition compels the minister to stop ignoring the people of Haynes and Hilbert and afford the highest priority to a new base station in the area. I might add that if it were not for the disastrous delays in rolling out the NBN then we would at least have some communication in the area, but we haven't, thereby making it even more important that this request is heeded by the government.
The petition read as follows—
To the Honourable the Speaker an Members of the House of Representatives
We, the undersigned, express our concern at the lack of mobile phone reception in Haynes, Hilbert and surrounding suburbs, which is undermining the ability of residents in this rapidly growing area to participate fully in the 21st economy and increases risk to safety in these bushfire-prone areas, where mobile phone communication is essential.
We therefore ask the House to call on the Minister for Regional Communications to ensure Haynes, Hilbert and surrounding suburbs are of the highest priority for the consideration for funding in the next round of the Federal Government’s Mobile Black Spot Programme, and to call on the Minister to write to national mobile network operations to request proposals for funded base stations in this area in the next round of the Mobile Black Spot Programme.
from 121 citizens
Petition received.
I would like to bring to the attention of the House a very important initiative in my electorate and throughout the Gold Coast that is putting young people on the road to a rewarding job and raising awareness of the value of apprenticeships.
As the local federal member and the Assistant Minister for Vocational Education and Skills, I was honoured to launch the GC101 campaign on Monday 14 November. This was an initiative of Australian Apprenticeship Support Network provider, BUSY at Work. The campaign coincides with the end of the school year, targeting those finishing year 12, and aims to get 101 young people into an apprenticeship by Christmas. Local employers who have not taken on an apprentice before, or who have not taken one on for many years, are being actively encouraged to get involved, and the response after just 2½ weeks has been very encouraging. We are very hopeful of achieving the target, and there is a very good chance we may even exceed it—which is great, and fantastic news for the Gold Coast. It is a great example of what can be done when the business community gets behind a very worthwhile and important campaign like GC101.
As I mentioned, apart from getting young people into jobs and on the way to a rewarding career, GC101 is also helping to raise the status of vocational education and training and the many opportunities it offers. Many people would not know that there are over 450 career options available through apprenticeships. It is not just the traditional trades like plumbing and carpentry or hairdressing—you can take an apprenticeship as a construction shot firer working in the mining industry or make your way into the IT sector, where you will find many jobs of the future. University is not for everyone, and through this campaign many more people on the Gold Coast are now aware that apprenticeships and vocational education offer a desirable and valued pathway to a job and career.
I commend BUSY at Work and my local business community in McPherson, and more broadly on the Gold Coast, for their efforts to make the GC101 campaign a success. As the Assistant Minister for Vocational Education and Skills I would like to see similar campaigns rolled out in other electorates around the country. Helping a young person to transition from school into a fulfilling career is one of the most rewarding things we can do as members of parliament and, when you combine that with a campaign that makes the wider community aware of the great opportunities provided by vocational education, it is a double win. I certainly encourage all of my colleagues here in federal parliament to get on board to do what we can to make sure that the young people of Australia have an opportunity to take up fulfilling jobs through vocational education.
It is with great pleasure that I rise this morning to pay tribute to my incredibly hardworking colleague and friend, Amber-Jade Sanderson, who is a member of the Legislative Council for the East Metropolitan Region located in Morley, which is in the northern end of my federal electorate of Perth. Not only is Amber-Jade an incredibly hardworking Upper House member of our state parliament she is also the candidate for the state seat of Morley in the upcoming Western Australian state election.
As far as local and active go, they do not get much harder working or much more local than Amber-Jade, who grew up in Morley and went to school in Morley. She went to John Forrest Senior High School, and I am told her tales of a misspent youth include hanging around and spending time at the local shopping centre, the Morley Galleria, which those in my electorate will know very well; as well as at the Morley bus station, which is right alongside it. Amber-Jade is now raising her own family, with children Chloe and Hugo, in Dianella. Happy birthday to Hugo, who has just turned one.
Amber-Jade has devoted her entire life to fighting for those most vulnerable in our community, with a particular focus on those who work in the disability care sector. Amber-Jade was elected to the Upper House in 2013 to represent the people in the East Metropolitan Region and since that time, four years ago, she has been flat strap getting things done for residents in the northern suburbs. To name but a few of her achievements so far, she has spent the last four years getting clean water for residents in Noranda and she has brought together small businesses in Morley, making sure that they have every opportunity to thrive and promote themselves, and to employ others in the community.
Amber-Jade has been tireless in holding the government to account over the privatisation of the Midland hospital and the lack of available services there, together with the Liberal Party's broken promise in relation to Royal Perth Hospital. Amber-Jade has put together a plan with Mark McGowan to improve public transport in the Morley area, with Metronet, and to combat traffic congestion.
She continues fighting alongside myself and others to make sure that we get better internet in Noranda and Morley. I have already spoken in this place in relation to the steps being taken to mobilise the community to finally get them the national broadband network that they so desperately deserve and need.
Overall, Amber-Jade is working tirelessly with residents in the Morley and Noranda areas to improve their lives and make them that little bit better. Amber-Jade could have stayed in the upper house, but she has done an incredibly brave thing to put herself forward. She will resign her position there to contest the state's seat of Morley. She is hitting the ground running, she is working hard, she is with a united team and she is by far and away the best representative for the state seat of Morley.
Before I call the member for Deakin, if no member present objects, three-minute constituency statements may continue for a total of 60 minutes. Being no objection that will happen. I call the member for Deakin.
Earlier this week, I had the great pleasure of attending the New Colombo Plan Scholarship 2017 presentation dinner here at Parliament House. The New Colombo Plan is a signature initiative of the coalition government. It aims to increase the knowledge of our region in Australia by supporting Australian undergraduates, aged between 18 and 28, to study and undertake internships throughout the Asia-Pacific region. So far the program has supported Australian students to study and intern in 32 countries including India, Mongolia, Fiji, Taiwan, Nepal, the Cook Islands and many, many others.
The program provides a limited number of year-long scholarships each year as well as flexible mobility grant funding to higher education institutions to help them develop their own overseas exchange programs. Each year, since the commencement of the program, I have been pleased to meet many of the wonderful and talented students from the Deakin electorate who have been fortunate enough—perhaps 'fortunate' is not the right word given their hard work—and have been able to receive New Colombo Plan scholarships. I say to every single one of them: this is a once in a lifetime opportunity for them.
This year at the Parliament House dinner that I referred to earlier I got to meet Daniel de Waard, who is one of 105 students from across the country to receive a scholarship for the program in 2017. Daniel is a Ringwood local who is studying at Monash University. Through the New Colombo Plan he will have the chance to study at the National Taiwan University and intern with a Taiwanese semiconductor company. I want to take this opportunity to congratulate Daniel and wish him all the best with his future studies and his endeavours in representing Australia, because that is what he will be doing when he interns next year.
I would also like to take this opportunity to recognise and acknowledge a couple of previous students from the Deakin electorate whom I have been fortunate enough to meet and have received scholarships under the New Colombo Plan. In 2016 Iain Payne, also from Monash University, under the scholarship studied in Nepal and studied at the Kathmandu School of Law in the field of law and development. In the 2015 intake, Deakin local Sam Williams, an arts student at Monash, received a scholarship to the Tribhuvan University in Nepal to study society, culture and anthropology whilst also interning with the International Nepal Fellowship. These students have been wonderful ambassadors for our country. I am very proud to be part of a government that conceived this idea and I look forward to it continuing into the future.
The Ipswich Motorway is a vital link supporting the Queensland economy. It forms part of the national land freight network providing connectivity for industry to the Acacia Ridge intermodal facility, the major industrial area of Wakool and the Brisbane markets at Rocklea—in the member for Morton's electorate—which are the state's largest fruit and vegetable markets and a major centre for produce on the east coast.
The section of the motorway is over capacity with 93,000 vehicles on average each day, including up to 12,000 freight vehicles. Numbers are increasing each year at an average of four per cent. Significant congestion on the Ipswich Motorway between Rocklea and Darra is severely impacting Queensland's productivity and economic activity, including freight movements.
This was a major election issue in the seats of Blair, Moreton and Oxley, and I was proud to campaign on this issue to see that local residents have improvements, particularly with public transport; I was proud to campaign for commuters, who are bearing the brunt of these delays. In the report released today from the RACQ—the latest Travel time report—I am sad to say that the Ipswich Motorway, particularly between Harcourt Road and Oxley Road, has figures dropping down to some of the slowest motorway freeway sections in Queensland. In fact, Infrastructure Australia has identified this section of the motorway as one of the most important projects to be fixed in this nation.
But we know that when it comes to infrastructure LNP governments, at state and federal levels, simply do not deliver. We saw that with the Ipswich Motorway; through the neglect over the Howard years where, for 13 long years, not one dollar was spent on the Ipswich Motorway. It took the election of a Labor government, working hand in glove with the then state Labor government, to spend billions of dollars to ease congestion on that motorway. And now I am calling on this government to make sure they honour their agreement and commitment of $200 million, matched by the state government of $200 million. I am pleased to see that work at the state level has begun, where we will see the motorway upgraded from four lanes to six lanes, seven new bridges and major culverts—including higher bridges at Oxley Creek to improve flood immunity—new southern service road connections from the Rocklea industrial precinct to the Oxley commercial retail areas, and new traffic signals.
This is a vital piece of infrastructure that needs to be upgraded, and I am pleased to report to the House that work has begun. But I will keep advocating to ensure that my local residents, as well as the residents in the electorates of Blair and Moreton, continue to have access to infrastructure to make sure that they can get around the communities a lot more easily than they can currently.
I rise today to speak about Western and south-western Sydney. Whichever way you look at it, this region is becoming a city in its own right. There are about two million people living west Parramatta now—that is a big population—but we are only just starting to think about this as a city in its own right, alongside Parramatta and the CBD to the east.
Every day, about 300,000 or 400,000 people are travelling from Western Sydney to the east to get to work, and this east-west movement in the morning and west-east movement in the evening is a major challenge for commuters and for planners. Anyone who battles their way down Narellan Road every day, as I often do, understands the enormous importance of the investment we are making in this area, including the $3.6 billion Western Sydney roads package.
The medium- to long-term fix, however, is to create more jobs close to where people are living in the west and the south-west. Much of the planning towards these jobs and the new industries that will create them will happen through the Western Sydney city deal and, alongside it, the Western Sydney Airport. It was great to hear the Prime Minister on ABC's 7.30 last night talking about the priority of delivering city deals, and the government is focused on making our cities a lot more livable. We are progressing well on our first three city deals, with MOUs signed with three governments in Queensland, New South Wales and Tasmania. Despite what we just heard a few minutes ago from the member for Herbert, an MOU was signed with the Queensland government on 10 November. She needs to keep an eye on what is going on in her local area.
A lot of government initiatives have come and gone; city deals have not. In the UK, they have actually built up momentum, not lost it, because they are solving the fundamental problem: how do you actually get the different levels of government and the private sector focused on delivering what a city needs? Transport hubs have always been at the centre of city development. We are seeing, in all of the great cities of the world, that airports are now huge generators of growth, and so it will be with Western Sydney Airport. It is a great disappointment to me that many of those opposite do not support the jobs and growth that would come from building an airport in the west of Sydney. We recognise that not all of the jobs growth for Western Sydney is going to come from the airport, but it will be a critical catalyst for growth. I look forward to meeting with the mayors of the member councils of the Western Sydney City Deal region next week to start important planning and goal setting. The deal will be one of the first in Australia. The opportunities it will unlock in terms of jobs, housing accessibility and affordability and improved lifestyle for residents will be unprecedented.
My electorate office staff have been fortunate enough to present the Mayo Community Service Awards at local schools in my terrific electorate in the last two weeks while I have been in this place. The award is conferred upon year 12 students who have shown exceptional commitment to both their schools and local communities. They are students who have demonstrated a keen interest in social justice and shown great leadership potential. The students to whom the awards have already been presented include: Amy, from the Eastern Fleurieu School in Strathalbyn; Scott, from St Francis de Sales College in Mount Barker; Shayla, from Willunga High School; April, from Birdwood High School; and Lily, from Heathfield High School. Under the same criteria Stacey, from Victor Harbor High School, was awarded the Year 8/9 Leadership Award. Several other schools will soon present the Mayo Community Service Award. While I cannot yet disclosed the winners, the schools are: Cornerstone College in Mount Barker; Investigator School in Goolwa and Victor Harbor; Kangaroo Island Community Education; Mount Barker Waldorf School; and Yankalilla Area School.
My congratulations go out to all of the young community leaders in Mayo. Year 12 is an incredibly stressful time for students and their families, and I am glad that this time is over for them. To all of the year 12 students graduating across my electorate, I have a Neil Gaiman quote for you:
Now go and make interesting mistakes, make amazing mistakes, make glorious and fantastic mistakes. Break rules. Leave the world more interesting for your being here.
Thank you. Again, congratulations to all of my schools. You have done a terrific job and I look forward to seeing you in the coming months and years.
I wish to say something about the importance of the defence industries in Brisbane. The coalition government remains committed to not only a strong Defence Force in the interest of service personnel; we are equally committed to the many businesses and small business operators who provide to them. Even in what is a relatively small electorate geographically speaking, Brisbane has about 100 local businesses who supply or are contracted to the defence forces. First and foremost, these small businesses and large businesses are a source of local employment. Critically though, they are also businesses at the cutting of technology and advanced manufacturing, meaning that they provide high-value and highly skilled jobs in our local economy. Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull's decision to put the defence industry at the centre of our economic plan was the right decision. The government's mission is straightforward. We are determined to use the defence dollar to drive a high-technology, advanced-manufacturing future.
Yesterday, the government released the preliminary findings of the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare study Incidence of suicide among serving and ex-serving Australian Defence Force personnel 2001-2014. The figures released are the first accurate, robust data produced on the incidence of suicide among serving, reserve and ex-service populations. The study found that, between 2001 and 2014, there were 292 certified suicide deaths amongst people with at least one day of ADF service since 2001. And every suicide is of course a tragic reminder that we need to do more.
We know that one of the key factors in reducing the number of suicides among veterans is ensuring that they are financially secure and have the dignity of meaningful employment. That is why it is so important that the government announced the formation of the Industry Advisory Committee on Veterans' Employment—a group of leading Australian business people who will consider how to mentor ADF personnel and translate ADF skills into the private sector.
I also want to touch on the social and economic benefits of the defence white paper and how that will deliver for Brisbane. The government will increase defence spending by $29.9 billion over the next decade to deliver the strategies and plans set out in the 2016 white paper. Locally, the white paper's Integrated Investment Program will bring an additional half a billion dollars of investment to Brisbane over the next two decades.
A key part of our white paper was to outline greater collaboration with the innovative private sector. That means many local businesses will also benefit from this announcement. Almost 100 local companies in Brisbane will directly benefit from this closer collaboration. They include: Spring Hill Tech Company; Absolute Data Group; Advanced Composite Structures Australia, based in Eagle Farm; Explosive Protection Equipment, based in Fortitude Valley; and reconnaissance company Insitu Pacific. We are committed to supporting veterans and a strong Defence Force.
I wish to pay tribute to two giants of the Coogee community and surf life saving, John and Margaret Lemarseny, who passed away recently. John 'Lemo' Lemarseny showed a keen interest in surfboard riding from a young age. In the 1950s, he and his best mate and later champion paddler Ted Cahill would sneak into the Coogee surf club early in the morning to use the boards in the surf—until they were eventually caught by club captain Kevin Grant. After giving them a dressing-down, Kevin suggested that the pair put their skills to good use and join the club. The rest is history.
A giant of the surf, and a Coogee legend, Lemo would dominate surf boats throughout the seventies, eighties and nineties. A powerful and skilled sweeper, Lemo took the Coogee reserve grade crew to a gold medal at Blacksmiths Beach in 1972. He also swept the crew to branch, state and Australian gold medals in the open boat in 1982, winning the Aussies at Moana. That crew went on to represent Australia in the test series against New Zealand, and Lemo was given the honour of being the Australian club captain. He was a fearless competitor who would charge head-on into any surf, no matter the size or power. He was particularly well known for his skill and bravery on a wave ski whenever massive swells were breaking around Wedding Cake Island off Coogee. Every Sunday, no matter what the conditions, he and his mates Crazy and Shortie would head out and catch waves off Wedding Cake Island.
Lemo was president, club captain, boat captain and a life member of Coogee. He was a very well-known local legend who will be sadly missed. He was also a person who personified the motto 'Work hard, train hard, play hard'. He was a bit of a larrikin who loved a beer and was renowned for his parties at Coogee. Paul Leary told the story of a day when they were coming home from a surf boat carnival. The crew were in the boat while it was being towed across Sydney Harbour Bridge. That is nothing unusual about that for boaties—except that they were all in the nude! That is typical of Lemo and many of the Coogee surf club guys at the time.
Lemo had a wonderful partner in Margaret, who also passed away this year. Margs, as she was known, was lovingly the mother of surfboat crews in Coogee. She was a champion in surfboat sweeping. She spent many years supporting squads in the club. John and Margaret were well known for their hospitality and warmth at their home in Coogee. May they rest in peace.
I rise today to acknowledge a living legend of my electorate of O'Connor—World War II veteran Harold Martin, who is soon to turn 100. Harold Martin was a prisoner of war during World War II. He was captured by the Japanese in the Fall of Singapore on 15 February 1942. Harold spent the next two years as a prisoner of war, building the notorious Burma-Thailand railway along with 60,000 other Allied soldiers. Over 12,000 of those Allied soldiers died as a direct result of working on this railway, 2,700 of them Australians. Harold has an epic tale of survival.
Family friend, ex-Albany girl and now international photographer Samm Blake has captured this in a moving documentary about Harold revisiting Myanmar, Thailand and Singapore more than 70 years after his rescue. It was viewed by audiences throughout O'Connor during the Anzac Centenary year. Samm's poignant film A Long Way Back traces Harold's recollections of life as a POW and his feelings on returning to Myanmar in 2012 to visit the graves of his fallen mates.
On another epic journey, in 2014, Harold travelled to Thailand to attend the Anzac Day service at Hellfire Pass and the cemetery at Kanchanaburi. Harold was a VIP guest along with two other POW survivors from Australia. Samm, her dad, Morris, and friend Murray walked with Harold along many parts of the Thai-Burma railway line and visited the bridge over the River Kwai. They viewed one of the original Japanese trains that carted the POWs on their five-day journey from Singapore to Thailand. Harold recalled how each carriage had over 50 men crammed into it, with no ventilation and no toilet. Many were sick and died en route.
Just before surrender, the Japanese army attempted to relocate the POWs to Japan by boat. Harold was transported on the Rakuyo Maru, a cargo ship unidentified as a vessel carrying POWs. During this voyage, with 1,317 POWs on board, they were torpedoed twice by a US submarine. The Japanese panicked and abandoned their sinking ship, leaving the POWs to perish.
The surviving POWs floated at sea, covered in oil and virtually unrecognisable as human beings. Harold clung to a makeshift raft for four days before being found by the USS Pampanito on 15 September 1944. A total of 73 POWs were rescued and Harold remembers the crew bathing them, treating their injuries and giving up their beds to the survivors.
Harold returned home to his wife, Molly, and young son, Ray, in late 1944, and their family was blessed with four more children. Harold has finally shared his story after 70 years, touchingly retold by Samm Blake, with the help of photographs and footage from the national War Memorial. Her documentary honours Harold Martin and will endure as a reminder of all Australian soldiers' sacrifice.
I salute Harold Martin, World War II veteran, survivor of one of the most horrific events of the war and a living legend. Happy 100th birthday, Harold. (Time expired)
I want to use my constituency statement to talk about the damage that has been done by the backpacker tax in the Northern Territory, where I am from.
I have been representing the constituents who live in my electorate who own mango farms, or who are in the horticultural industry or who runs services that backpackers use—the tourism industry. I just want to stress that these are families. These are Northern Territory families, small business people and people who have invested in and built up medium-sized businesses. They have had millions of dollars pulled out of their businesses because 30 per cent of backpackers have gone from the Territory.
I just want to refresh everyone's memory; there is so much spin going on that it gets a bit confusing. There was an initial announcement by the coalition of a 32 per cent backpacker tax rate, and the backpackers voted with their feet and went somewhere else. They went to New Zealand or to Canada. So there has been a 30 per cent decrease in backpackers. The Top End is very dependent on our tourist industry, so this has done a lot of damage.
Finally the coalition realised the madness of 32 per cent and, with no modelling whatsoever—none—arbitrarily decided on 19 per cent. Then the industry—those growers and those tourism businesses—said that 19 per cent is an arbitrary figure and that it is not competitive. So we got 15 per cent.
What I will continue to do in this place—and let's hope that the government sees some sense—is to keep fighting for a rate that makes us competitive. New Zealand has 10.5 per cent; let's just support small-and medium-sized businesses in our country. That is what I have been doing, fighting for businesses in my electorate. And I hope that the Nationals members start to do the same, because if we do not get that rate—it is too late, for example for millions of dollars worth of mangoes which are rotting on the ground. It is too late for those mango farmers. Some of our small tourism businesses have gone to the wall—it is too late for them. But if we can establish a sensible, fair and competitive rate now then we can go out to the market and say, 'Hey, backpackers, come back to the Top End. Come back to regional Australia, because we want you to come and stay with us, work with us and earn your money.' We know that they spend it locally, and that money goes back into our community.
This morning it just got insane, with the member for Wentworth talking about Labor trying to support rich white kids. Backpackers are from all over the world, and they come to see our magnificent country. I really hope that a sensible rate is reached today. (Time expired)
I rise today to remind the House that there is a serious issue, as yet unresolved, facing local sugarcane growers in my electorate of Capricornia. I refer to a David and Goliath battle: a long, drawn-out dispute between canegrowing families in the Sarina district and the multinational company Wilmar. The matter relates to pitiful contracts offered by Wilmar to market their sugar. Today I call on Wilmar to strike a fair deal with sugarcane growers in the Sarina district before Christmas.
Only this week, executives from the controversial Singapore company visited Parliament House in Canberra for meetings with the agriculture minister, Barnaby Joyce. This drawn-out dispute over sugar marketing rights between Wilmar and local canefarmers has gone on far too long, causing local families great stress. I call on Wilmar to man up and bring an amicable solution to the sugar contract stand-off before Christmas to give local farmers and the general district a sense of relief and certainty ahead of the new year.
It is time for the international company to play nice. Now is the time for Wilmar to stop holding local canefarmers to ransom and end the sugar contract crisis. We need them to address the terms sheet and commit to a fair on-supply agreement with local canegrowers. Some canegrowers do not have a satisfactory marketing agreement going into 2017. Today I go as far as warning Wilmar that if they do not play fair with the livelihoods of growers, then federal MPs could be forced to push for a federal code of conduct for sugar marketing companies. There are a lot of federal Queensland LNP MPs and senators fed up with the stalemate and uncertainty Wilmar is responsible for. If Wilmar will not play ball, then a code of conduct would be a serious option MPs would consider pushing through in legislation.
I am also interested to see the outcome of a current investigation by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, the ACCC, into the competitive behaviour of Wilmar in the local sugar sector. Wilmar executives are on short notice today. MPs like myself are fed up with their games, which are impacting on the lives of local families. They need to find a fair solution by Christmas. Sugar is the second major agriculture industry in Capricornia. Local sugar families contribute much to communities such as Sarina and deserve a fair go from Wilmar.
As John Bunyan once said, 'You have not lived today until you have done something for someone who can never repay you.' These words certainly apply to a group in my community, the Australian Health Humanitarian Aid. This is a team of dedicated doctors, optometrists, dentists, volunteers and local Rotary clubs who have regularly travelled to Vietnam and Cambodia to treat the poor and those otherwise unable to obtain treatment.
On 13 August this year, a team of 60 volunteers travelled to Phnom Penh, performing hundreds of medical procedures for disadvantaged people in villages throughout Cambodia. These operations are free of charge and are made possible by local fundraising efforts and the generosity of sponsors, supporters and in particular our local Rotary clubs. With the help of their partner, the Cambodia International Sight Association, treatment was provided to hundreds of patients. Most of the dental patients were children from surrounding orphanages, some presenting with HIV and severe disability, and most had never seen a dentist before. The eye and dental teams operated from local hospitals and clinics. The patients came from far and wide. The waiting rooms were full of patients being prepared for eye surgery and dental procedures.
The teams travelled to remote villages in the Kandal province, providing medical examinations and treatment to local villages. AHHA also provided humanitarian parcels for people, consisting of food and blankets, while students received school accessories and school uniforms. In Phnom Penh the ophthalmology and dental teams conducted seminars, providing local medical practitioners with information on the latest procedures in their particular areas of specialisation. Because of the dedication and commitment of AHHA—the doctors, the nurses, the Rotary clubs of Liverpool West and Cabramatta and the volunteers—many Cambodians now have a new lease on life and a real future where they can once more be active and productive members of their villages and local communities. But, most importantly, they regained their self-esteem. During the two-week mission undertaken by AHHA, 424 eye surgeries were performed, as well as 1,140 dental procedures; 2,000 pairs of sunglasses and 100 pairs of prescription glasses were provided; and more than 5,000 medicines were dispensed.
There are many people responsible, but today I would like to give my thanks to Dr William Trinh, who heads the AHHA, and his dedicated team. They have made a profound difference by bettering people's lives.
Today I am very proud to launch the inaugural Goldstein Christmas giving appeal. This year we have partnered with Bayside Community Information & Support Service, which is an independent, not-for-profit charity that supports vulnerable community members across most of Goldstein. At Christmas time they distribute 150 hampers and Christmas gifts to clients and committee members who cannot afford to enjoy the extras that most of us are able to take for granted at Christmas. Many of the clients have children and grandchildren and cannot afford to buy gifts for them, so we rely on community support and donations to ensure that children in the Goldstein area have an enjoyable Christmas. I call on everybody in the electorate of Goldstein to reach out to those in need in the community and to donate. I thank BayCISS, and in particular Anne Coughlin, for the wonderful work that they do. Donations can be made in the form of non-perishable food, vouchers, toys or other gifts of appropriate for the children up to the age of 14 and, of course, direct financial donations. All financial donations are tax deductible and go directly to delivery of the Christmas program. No donations are used for administration. We are also acutely aware at this time of year that families are struggling to cover back-to-school costs, so we also welcome donations to the BayCISS education program, which supports families with these costs in mind.
Today I also wish to congratulate councillors elected in both Bayside City Council and Glen Eira City Council. Congratulations to the newly elected Mayor, Councillor Alex Del Porto, and Deputy Mayor, Councillor James Long, along with re-elected councillors Michael Heffernan and Laurence Evans, and newly elected councillors Sonia Castelli, Rob Grinter and Clarke Martin, in Bayside. I would also like to congratulate the Mayor, Councillor Mary Delahunty, and Deputy Mayor, Jim Magee, along with the re-elected councillors Jamie Hyams and Margaret Esakoff, and newly elected councillors Nina Taylor, Joel Silver, Dan Sztrajt, Clare Davey and Tony Athanasopoulos, in the city of Glen Eira. Congratulations, and I look forward to having a constructive working relationship with you during the remainder of our terms, in the interests of Goldstein residents.
Finally, Deputy Speaker, thank you very much: I want to wish everybody a Merry Christmas and a happy and prosperous 2017. At this time of year, with the valedictory speeches of the Prime Minister and of the Leader of the Opposition, we have been hearing how we should all come together in the spirit of giving and charity to build a better Australia for everybody. I would like to echo those sentiments, not just on my behalf but also on behalf of the election of Goldstein, a model community which can take its values to the nation. I think we would be a better country if we all came together at this time of year, for the Christmas season or for whatever festivities you celebrate, to find a constructive way to take this country forward in 2017, together.
A division having been called in the House of Representatives—
Sitting suspended from 11 : 09 to 11 : 41
In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members constituency statements has concluded.
I am glad to have this opportunity to make some remarks about Report 165: Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties. I am a member of that committee and I am a new member of this place. I begin by observing that the committee process was both instructive and constructive. I thank the Chair, the member for Fadden, for the way he guided us through the process and, of course, my fellow Labor members of the committee for the way they approached the evidence and the submissions that we received in hearings.
The report enables ratification of the TPP to occur, and that report was tabled yesterday. The timing is little bit strange, considering the circumstances that confront us. Since 8 November and the success of President-elect Trump, it has become clear that the United States has no present intention of ratifying the TPP, and without the United States in the TPP it will not come into force. On that basis, Labor members of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties thought it would be prudent to move the reporting date to the new year so that those developments in the United States could unfold. They were also mindful that there is an inquiry afoot in the other place that does not report until the first week of the new parliamentary year. That was not the mood of the majority of the committee. Obviously the report has been tabled and presumably ratification will ensue.
On the TPP itself, Labor supports fair and free trade agreements. From the time of the Hawke-Keating government, Australia has looked to participate openly in the global market on the basis that free and fair trade is in our national interest economically, socially and often geopolitically. When free trade agreements work well and are constructed properly, they are supportive of developing nations, including developing nations in our region. Labor has pursued tariff reduction, the opening up of the Australian economy and the winding back of nontariff barriers. We have always recognised, and we continue to recognise, that multilateral agreements are preferable to a noodle bowl of bilateral arrangements.
The Trans-Pacific Partnership itself is a plurilateral trade and investment agreement. It is important to recognise that the scope of these agreements has grown over time and we now see trade, investment and other matters combined within international agreements like the TPP. The TPP joins together a not insignificant group of nations in our region and elsewhere. While the modelled aggregate benefit of the TPP is modest, there are some significant benefits to be had for certain sectors of the Australian economy—the dairy sector, wine producers, beef and sugar and so on—and those benefits are acknowledged. There are also some meaningful improvements within the TPP that go to issues like tariff reduction, manufacturing, general market access, regulatory harmonisation and the removal of nontariff barriers. It is also welcome that the TPP includes provisions on environmental and labour standards, but it is worth observing that the compliance and enforcement mechanisms around those standards are not as robust as the mechanisms that cover the more purely economic aspects of the agreement.
There are some aspects of the TPP, in process and in substance, that are less than optimal, and I will touch on some of those. Both hearings and submissions that were provided to the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties—in its 44th Parliament incarnation and in its present incarnation—went to the question of the way in which relevant sectors of the Australian community are consulted and enabled to participate in the treaty-making process. It was observed that, in the European Union and in the United States, there is greater opportunity for a range of stakeholders to be involved. That includes representatives of different parts of the economy—different industry and economic sectors, as well as groups representing civil society interests. I am glad that one of the recommendations in report 165 goes to that issue. Indeed, recommendation 1 states:
… the Australian Government should consider changing its approach to free trade agreement negotiations to permit security cleared representatives from business and civil society to see the Australian Government positions being put as part of those negotiations.
I think that would be a welcome improvement.
I moved a further recommendation in the last relevant meeting of the JSCOT, which went to the issue of economic modelling and analysis. Over a number of years, a range of people with interests in the treaty-making process have observed that the national interest assessment alone is not a sufficient basis on which to judge the economic value of a trade agreement and the balance between the benefits and any costs that might flow from such an agreement. I was grateful to the committee chair and the majority of the committee for accepting a further recommendation which goes to the process and states:
The Committee recommends that the Australian Government consider implementing a process through which independent modelling and analysis of a proposed trade agreement is undertaken by the Productivity Commission, or equivalent organisation, and provided to the Committee alongside the National Interest Assessment (NIA) to improve assessment of the agreement.
I am grateful that that became part of the majority recommendations.
In terms of the substance of the agreement, the two areas of concern to Labor members of the committee, and to the opposition generally, are temporary labour market access and the inclusion of investor-state dispute settlement provisions. There were concerns as well in relation to intellectual property and monopoly rights—for pharmaceuticals and biologics, in particular.
On temporary labour market access, it is important to recognise that the concessions Australia proposes to make under the TPP are lopsided. We are offering temporary labour market access on terms that are not reciprocated by other participant nations. It is important to remember that the United States never includes or offers up labour market access as part of its approach to trade agreements. That is just a no-go area for the United States. Yet the TPP will operate in such a way that, under our existing 457 visa system, labour market testing for contractual service suppliers will not apply for six signatory countries: Canada, Peru, Brunei, Mexico, Malaysia and Vietnam. It is worth highlighting that more than 650 professions are currently covered by the term 'contractual service providers'. There will also be a change to mandatory skills assessment, with the provision for contractual services providers to meet the assessment of their skills based on their accreditation in their home nation, rather than by an actual skills assessment. There are obvious concerns about that in relation to things like electrical trades.
I will finish with investor-state dispute settlement provisions. There really is no reason for Australia to enter into these arrangements. The TPP puts those arrangements between us and the United States, Canada, Japan and Peru for the first time. We already have ISDS between us and all of the other participant nations. It exposes us to an unnecessary risk. There is no evidence that shows ISDS increases or improves investor flows. And the Productivity Commission on multiple occasions has pointed out that the risks of ISDS in terms of costs and the impact on Australia's ability to make public policy in the national interest just override any suggested benefit that ISDS may have. I will finish with what the Productivity Commission said in 2013-14. It said:
The Australian government should seek to avoid the inclusion of investor-state dispute settlement provisions that credit foreign investors in Australia substantive or procedural rights greater than those enjoyed by the Australian investors.
And it made the point it has a clear potential to impact our public policy making ability.
I am delighted to speak on this document of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties that has been tabled, not because I am a member of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties—because I am not—but because my background is very much in international trade. I believe the TPP is a core, vital potential instrument for the international community and that is important for Australia's ongoing prosperity. I think there is no secret that the world is currently amidst an enormous amount of volatility and uncertainty. At times like this, we need to ensure that the architecture across the international environment is one that reconciles with Australia's values and indeed with the existing open trade arrangement that has persisted post-World War II.
There are three reasons why I stand here today to talk in support of the TPP. Firstly, it does reinforce a positive international trading environment. Secondly, it is especially good for Australia. And thirdly, I believe it is good for the Sunshine Coast, where the seat of Fairfax's is based. If I could start with the bigger picture global architecture, those students of history, particularly economic history, will understand the importance of the Bretton Woods discussions post-World War II that saw the likes of the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade being established.
At that point, we were looking at a global political economy that was not only just recovering from war but was also looking at a depression. The integration that the Bretton Woods discussions gave rise to has been very much to our advantage as a country. We had then the Western Allied Forces establish a network structure globally that reconciled with Australian democracy and Australia's liberal economic approach. In other words, we now have the predominant approach to global trade that reconciles with our own approach as a country.
There has been a proven correlation over hundreds of years now between economic integration and peace. That correlation is not ironclad. There was a time in the lead up to World War I where people suggested the world had never been so integrated yet a war eventuated. Nevertheless, I think most economists would agree that the tighter different economies are integrated, the more likely it is that peace and prosperity will exist.
So as we discuss the TPP here in this country and elsewhere, I think it is worth remembering that these large international multilateral agreements actually do an enormous amount of good also from a strategic perspective. The great thinkers of economics, be they Adam Smith or John Stuart Mill, did not really differentiate that much between politics and economics, quite frankly. They saw philosophy, politics and economics as so closely interwoven that it suggests, even today, that what is good from an economic perspective is also good from a political perspective. It is for that reason, too, that I disagree with the former speaker from the opposition, who suggested that multilateral agreements—as much as the TPP is one—are always preferable over bilateral agreements or regional agreements. I disagree entirely with that. Based on my own background, not just by studying these matters but as a practitioner in international trade, I would encourage opposition members to not be so ideological on issues of international agreements. We need to be more pragmatic. We need, basically, to make whatever agreements are in the best interests of our country—because more FTAs mean more trade; more trade means more jobs. If we take an ideological position on any of these matters, then we risk jeopardising the opening up of new markets for Australia.
On the first point: indeed, the TPP reconciles with the existing international trade architecture. That architecture is one in which Australia has prospered enormously. That takes me to my second point: the TPP is very good for Australia. I think anybody who has worked in business before knows that the first point of a growth strategy, whether you are a small business or a large multinational—or, indeed, if you are a country—the first step is to leverage and exploit your own strengths. We see in the TPP an opportunity where over 98 per cent of the tariffs in the region that the TPP covers will be eliminated or reduced. We see an opportunity for those things which we are strong in—not just agriculture and resources but also services. We now have an opportunity, through the TPP, to provide more market access to some of our largest trading partners. As a country, therefore, as we go forward and grow our economy, and as we leverage our strengths, a lot of those strengths need to be exported—and the TPP plays in perfectly with that. Where there is some confusion in the international market, with different bilateral or regional agreements, the TPP also plays an additional role in harmonising some of that confusion. That, again, brings greater certainty to Australian companies that are trading internationally.
When it comes to what is, of course, the greatest part of Australia, Mr Deputy Speaker, the Sunshine Coast and the seat of Fairfax, deals like the TPP are good for companies in my local area, too. If you look at some of the sectors that the TPP covers, they include horticulture, beef, seafood and dairy; these are areas that are enormous strengths for the Sunshine Coast. Five years ago, we were nearing $200 million in just the agricultural sector in our region. Any region of Australia is not unlike Australia itself: growth potential lies in exporting; investment relies on importing. And the more we can be exposed as a region—the Sunshine Coast region—the more we can be exposed to markets where we can export more seafood, more beef, more horticulture and more dairy and, I have to add to that, more organic foods, where we have a deep expertise, then the more jobs we will be creating on the Sunshine Coast. It is for that reason that I am more than happy to stand here today to put my support behind the TPP.
I rise to speak on the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties' report on the TPP. I think it is a pity that the member for Fairfax has probably not checked his facts about it. The increase in GDP that Australia will get from this treaty is 0.7 per cent—let me will repeat that: it is 0.7 per cent—by 2030. In fact, the countries that will benefit from this treaty are those outside Australia—countries like Vietnam and Chile—who will have access to our markets. But the only independent analysis we have comes from the World Bank, and that is one of the issues that I have with this treaty. I must say that, before entering this parliament, I did not know a lot about the TPP. But, having done days and days of hearings into it, and listened to expert evidence, I am more concerned now than I was before about some of the impacts of this so-called free trade agreement. Having said that, there is a view that the whole TPP, to quote one of my colleagues, is 'dead as a dodo'.
Debate interrupted.
Today, I rise to speak about an exciting new facility under construction in my electorate, the Morayfield Health Hub. This health hub concept is the brainchild of Health Development Corporation. This corporation is a healthcare solutions business run by clinicians and health professionals with a desire to match health infrastructure to the needs of my local community. It is the culmination of the corporation's extensive experience in the healthcare sector. The health hub model, as it is being successfully delivered in two other Queensland locations, focuses on three key areas of development: clinical excellence, healthcare systems and education, training and research. This health hub presents a unique opportunity to truly connect and integrate health services across primary, secondary and acute settings. The model is patient-centred and aims to provide a very seamless experience between multiple service providers. The model also aims, though, to achieve better health outcomes for patients through collaboration and integration of services.
The Morayfield Health Hub project is spearheaded by Health Development Corporation's director and our local doctor Dr Evan Jones. I have met with Dr Jones on numerous occasions and I am really impressed with his passion for finding practical healthcare solutions that will improve the lives of people in Longman. The hub is due for completion in October 2017. The facility will deliver all clinical health services up to the point where the patient needs an overnight stay in a hospital bed. This includes things like general practice; radiology and pathology labs; primary and specialist ambulatory services; acute care and day procedure units; integrated, allied and oral health services; preventative health, diagnostic and medical support services and, of course, our community health services. The benefits of the Morayfield Health Hub are many but, first and foremost, it provides health services that are so desperately needed in my region. It provides healthcare users with a local and convenient facility that will serve a whole range of their health needs. It means that people in my community, in my electorate, who are elderly or sick will not have to travel great distances between facilities to see health providers and other health professionals, or to undergo a variety of different medical procedures. The health hub will also take some pressure off our public health system. The Caboolture hospital, which is just a couple of kilometres down the road, is currently operating at close to double capacity. The number of GPs servicing our local area is less than half the national average. So there is a real need for more health providers in the region and the Morayfield Health Hub will help service that need.
Along with the obvious health benefits of the Morayfield Health Hub, there are other benefits to our community. First among these is the creation of local jobs. There are opportunities for locals to be employed in the construction of the facility and that is being undertaken from the nearby Sunshine Coast—and member for Fairfax was just in this place speaking about his electorate. Locals will have employment opportunities in the day-to-day running of the facility. Many health professionals and admin staff will be required to deliver those health services to patients and workers such as cleaners to maintain the facility and staff for the coffee shops and retail businesses within the facility will also be required. There will also be that positive flow of patronage to local businesses around and near the hub. It is undeniable that the Morayfield Health Hub is a really worthwhile project for the communities of Morayfield and Caboolture and beyond. However, adequate investment in our health-care system like this will inevitably fail to prosper if this hub is not constructed in the first place. If we do not maintain the universality of Medicare, the business model for this type of venture will simply not stack up. Entrepreneurs like Dr Evan Jones would be forced to make a decision not to build this facility, the Morayfield health hub, at all. Where will the many thousands of local people that would utilise the Morayfield health hub go? I will tell you where they will go: they will end up back at the already strained services of the Caboolture Hospital or maybe the undersupplied local general practice facilities.
So I give my commitment to the people of my electorate of Longman and to Dr Evan Jones and others like him that I will fight to ensure that we maintain the universality of our health-care system, I will fight so the system is always adequately funded, and I will always fight to protect Medicare.
Mr Deputy Speaker Hastie, I rise to speak in the adjournment debate. It is great to see another Western Australian in the chair.
I just want to update the House on one of the local governments in my electorate which you would be aware of, as we reflect on the year and look forward to 2017. The City of Canning is a hardworking council with some very talented councillors and officers, including Mayor Ng, who is very proactive in the community.
I particularly want to update the House on some recent events and issues in the suburb of Bentley, which is in the City of Canning. Over the last few months, I have been contacted by residents in Quinn Avenue in Bentley. They informed me of their increasing fears of one particular household in the street. Their complaints include car break-ins on the street, illegal off-road activity and antisocial and suspicious behaviour of occupants living at this address. However, there has been good news. My office was contacted by the Public Trustee last week, and they informed my office that the residents of the property have been moved on and the locks have now been changed. The house is boarded up, and the trustee will fix it up and sell it. I want to thank the City of Canning and in particular Councillor Jesse Jacobs for his proactive work in ensuring that this matter was dealt with swiftly. After I had the meeting with the City of Canning in regard to Quinn Avenue, they informed me that, during the period from 31 July to November, the city received and actioned 28 customer requests linked to this property alone. The City of Canning worked with the local police and the Public Trustee to address these issues. Two weeks ago, the city's officers inspected the house, along with the Public Trustee—as I said—and with their contractors and the police. The house was found to be in poor condition, and as a result the Public Trustee has moved those occupants out.
I also want to update the House on an exciting project that the City of Canning is working on which may affect your area as well, Mr Deputy Speaker Hastie. The Housing Authority and the City of Canning are working together to regenerate an area of Bentley into a vibrant community, providing new amenities and services and offering a diverse range of housing options. The project is called the Bentley Regeneration project. This project will provide 1,500 new dwellings as well as revitalised multipurpose civic and community facilities, 15 diverse open public spaces, and commercial and retail buildings. This project will be complemented by the City of Canning's City Centre Access and Activation Project, which will see the transport hub at the town centre be redeveloped for better transportation and connection all the way through to Armadale. I look forward to the Turnbull government supporting the City of Canning in these projects. As you can see, the City of Canning is a vibrant community. I look forward to seeing the transformation take place over the next few years.
Before I finish, I want to quickly touch on the ABCC and the success of this government in passing this legislation that took us to the election earlier this year. Common sense and the goodwill of the Senate have prevailed, and the ABCC is coming back. I have been contacted by many contractors from the construction industry who I know from my time in the construction industry. They have rung up to congratulate the efforts of the coalition in bringing the ABCC back to the construction industry. The re-establishment of the Australian Building and Construction Commission is very important in our national interest. It is important to bring down the cost of construction to improve economic growth and job creation. If infrastructure and construction projects across Australia can be delivered on time and on budget, it will give confidence back to investors. By bringing back the ACCC, Australia will have a stronger building industry, and a strong building industry will build a stronger Australia for all Australians.
I normally try to take this opportunity at this time of the year to pass on my best wishes not only to the people of Swan but to my staff, in particular, who have supported me this year, and also to my many parliamentary colleagues who came and supported the seat of Swan during the election. I would also like to pass on my best wishes to the opposition, their families and all their staff—who I know support them in their roles as parliamentarians—for the coming festive season.
I would also particularly like to thank the parliamentary staff, who do a great job—all the clerks and attendants who assist us in our roles—the staff in the CPOs in Perth who assist me in my role in the seat of Swan, the Comcar drivers and the organisers at the Comcar office, the transport office. Best wishes to anyone I have missed, but I would particularly like to thank my wife and my family, who have supported me enormously in the past year. My wife ran my campaign for me and is now my division president, so she plays an important and integral role in supporting me as the member for Swan.
One of the most important tasks performed by a local member is assisting constituents with Centrelink and Medicare matters. For many, these two services are the face of government; but cutbacks, wage disputes, office closures and a continued push to online services have left that face looking a lot uglier for thousands of Australians and for many in the electorate of Kingsford Smith.
In 2015 the Abbott-Turnbull government, in their infinite wisdom, announced that they would close the Medicare office in Eastgardens, which had been the shopfront and point of contact for Medicare for many in our community for decades. When they closed this service they said: 'Don't worry. We're integrating it with the local Centrelink office at Maroubra Junction, but people will continue to get the same level of service.' Over the last 18 months this commitment has proven to be nothing more than another lie from this government. Lately, constituents have been attending my office—which is around the corner from the newly amalgamated Centrelink and Medicare offices—to complain about the extensive waits and unhelpful service they are getting.
Bernadette Green, from Matraville, began helping her 93-year-old aunt with an age pension application in November last year. When they ran into some technical difficulties relating to assets in the aunt's name, Bernadette decided to attend the Medicare office to try and sort them out. After waiting in the line for an exorbitant amount of time, she was told that they could not help her and she was sent away. Bernadette and her aunt had to go to the extent of hiring a solicitor, and it took a full six months before her aunt's application was processed properly. No-one who is 93 years old should have to hire a solicitor to do a basic dealing with Medicare. But that is the extent that older Australians and pensioners have to go to with the Turnbull government.
Another resident, from Daceyville, needed to change from a carer's pension to an age pension after the man she had cared for passed away. Confused with some of the questions on the forms, the 90-year-old visited Centrelink for help and guidance. She was turned away and told to try the local library. I do not now how the local library is going to help with a Centrelink issue. She came to our office the very same day quite distraught from the experience.
I want to point out that I do not blame the staff of Centrelink and Medicare. They are working exorbitant hours, they are under a lot of pressure and it is basically non-stop. From when they start in the morning, through until to when they finish, they are non-stop dealing with customers. The cuts to Centrelink and Medicare, the cuts to staff and the pressure on wage levels from the Turnbull government are making their role impossible, and it is leading to a diminution of services in our community. After three years without a wage increase for Department of Human Services staff, the situation at our Centrelink and Medicare offices is reaching breaking point. It is not just overworked and under-resourced staff doing it tough; it is the Australian people who are suffering.
Mr Turnbull has pursued a cruel anti-worker industrial agenda, with thousands already losing important workplace rights and many more facing the loss of vital conditions such as family-friendly provisions and the prohibition on the inclusion of domestic violence leave.
A government member interjecting—
The member over here says there is a deal on the table—2½ per cent, way under what the market is paying. In fact, what do you think about judges getting 4½ per cent the other day, buster? What do you think about that? Is it any wonder that people are upset with what this government is doing when it comes to workplace relations?
Order! The member will resume his seat. I am happy for a bit of banter so long as it does not interfere with the speaker at the time. I call the honourable member for Kingsford Smith.
Staff of the Department of Human Services plan to commence four days of industrial action on 5 December, taking a stand against the government's unfair and ideological approach to workplace bargaining. Rather than seeking to fix the blowouts in Medicare processing and Centrelink waiting times and the increasing number of unanswered calls, the government is pursuing policies that are making the situation worse. It is time they acknowledged the importance of these services and, rather than letting it worsen the impact on ordinary Australians, actually worked to fix these problems. The government could fix the problems of waiting times at Centrelink and Medicare by sitting down with the workers involved and negotiating a fair and reasonable pay offer. That is what they should do immediately.
Recently I visited the REDsugar Arts Centre in Hurstville to present the Banks Outstanding Artistic Achievement Awards. A total of 26 awards were presented and it was a great afternoon to visit the centre and see the very fine artworks on display ranging from young primary school kids all the way through to year 12 students. I would like to congratulate Winnie Liu on her strong leadership of the centre and all of the students for their success at the centre. As a nation, we do a great job of celebrating and promoting sporting achievements. That is a good thing and it is entirely appropriate. But we should never forget to also acknowledge achievements in the arts, particularly from young people in our community. Again, I thank REDsugar Arts Centre for its hospitality on the day.
I would also like to thank Padstow North Public School for a recent visit that I made to the school. I chatted with year 5 and 6 students about the federal parliament and government. The school had visited parliament. Unfortunately, that was in a non-sitting week, so I was not able to meet them on the day. We had a really good discussion recently about government. You often find that some of the most insightful questions you receive about the functioning of the parliament, government and democracy come from school kids in the community—and that was certainly the case on the day. I would like to thank the school principal, Natalie Armstrong, and also the class teacher, Sandra Chegwidden, for inviting me along to have that great conversation on the day.
In my electorate of Banks we are fortunate to have a strong Girl Guides community. My daughter is an enthusiastic participant in Girl Guides and we have many great Girl Guides groups in the area. In Narwee, we have a regional Girl Guides centre. Recently, the Southern Sydney River Region Girl Guides Awards were held to present the Baden Powell Award and the Junior Baden Powell Award. The Baden Powell awards are very important in the life of a girl guide because they acknowledge the achievements of the girls in learning the basic and more advanced skills that are an important part of becoming a girl guide. It was great to see so many of the kids from my area at the event, and I certainly congratulate everyone who was involved on the day. Revesby, Mortdale and a number of other Girl Guides groups in our region were present on the day.
Last Saturday night, along with the members for Throsby and Hughes, I attended the 50th anniversary concert of the Macedonian Cultural and Artistic Association Illindin. This was a very big deal and was held at the State Theatre in Sydney, arguably the finest performance space in the city. It was a coming together of the performers from the Illindin community of the last 50 years—different generations who had come together to celebrate and promote the ancient Macedonian culture. It was a really entertaining night. I would like to congratulate, the president of the association, Mr Peco Naumoski, and the Macedonian Ambassador, His Excellency Mr Vele Trpevski, who does so much in the Australian Macedonian community. Congratulations to all the performers on what was a terrific night.
I recently attended the opening night of the St George Creative Art and Craft Centre's annual exhibition. This is a community artistic group with artwork from kindergarten kids right through to some of the more senior members of our community—pottery, paintings, sketches, woodwork and a whole bunch of really impressive pieces of art. The centre has been there since the 1970s. It is next door to the Pole Depot Community Centre in Penshurst. For many generations of St George residents, it has provided a place for artistic endeavour. There are many volunteers who are involved in managing the centre, running classes and so on. Thank you so much for what you have put into the community. It was good to see Margaret Conlon and many of the other members of the executive there on the evening.
I rise today to celebrate the fantastic end-of-year news that CSIRO has signed a lucrative international deal to license technology that was designed right here in Australia—indeed, in my electorate of Newcastle. The deal will see Beijing based solar company Thermal Focus produce, sell and install CSIRO's patented concentrated solar thermal technology in China. This has the potential to generate millions of dollars for our national science agency and to showcase Australia's smarts and technology on the global stage. I am very proud to say that the work was pioneered at the CSIRO's national energy centre, which is located in my electorate of Newcastle. It is a fantastic organisation with amazingly talented people of world-class research standard. This is not just good news for the CSIRO and the people involved in the project; it is a vote of confidence in the quality of the research sector and it cements our place in the international clean energy economy.
However, this deal could have played out very differently if Labor had not managed to hold off the government's most recent attacks on the renewable energy sector. In fact, the Turnbull government directly put this work in peril when it tried to axe the Australian Renewable Energy Agency, which provided funds for this project only a few months ago. At the time, I met with staff and management from CSIRO and they impressed upon me the importance of the ARENA funding for the work they do in Newcastle. Thankfully, Labor stood up to the Turnbull government's plans to destroy ARENA, and we managed to secure funding of $800 million over the next five years.
The Minister for Innovation, Industry and Science, Greg Hunt, certainly did not mention this when he said of the deal yesterday: 'Australia is a leader in clean energy technology and this partnership is an important step in realising this advantage.' I was absolutely astounded to read the minister's comments, not because I disagree with his words—I certainly do not—but because of his sheer breathtaking hypocrisy given that he is a key member of a government that has tried to cut the very funding that supports this world-class work. He is a key member of a government that has spent much of the past three years engaged in a vicious and senseless war on the renewable energy sector. In fact, he also cut ARENA's funding back in 2013 when he was the environment minister—not to mention halving the million rooftop solar program, abolishing the Climate Commission, trying to axe the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and signing off on a miserably low climate target.
Those who thought the Turnbull government might be different have quickly had their hopes dashed. Only last month—after an extreme weather event knocked out key parts of South Australia's energy infrastructure and saw the Prime Minister himself out there making the ridiculous claim that renewable energy is a threat to energy security—all those opposite still had no policies or plans to address climate change after 2020.
But it is not just renewables and the climate that those opposite have waged a war on. Science and research have also taken a massive beating. In fact, the Liberals have cut a staggering $3 billion from science, research and innovation since coming to power. The Turnbull government likes to talk about the importance of innovation and an agile economy, but they have cut millions—indeed, billions—from the very bodies that need to help us achieve that.
Another thing that those opposite like to talk about—or at least something that they like to say a lot—is jobs and growth. The CSIRO concentrated solar thermal deal, which was announced yesterday, is a real-life jobs and growth case study. We know that, if we have to build a prosperous future and create those new jobs while maintaining our standard of living, we need to drive high-value, high-skilled industries like research and development and renewable energy. These are the industries that will help us build a diverse economy. These are the industries that will open up new markets in a rapidly evolving global marketplace. These are the industries that will generate growth. And these are the industries that will create those key jobs for the future. If those opposite really want to deliver jobs and growth, they need to get over the senseless animosity and stop attacking the very industries that are going to deliver what Australians so desperately need.
I present a petition from my electorate that has been before the Petitions Committee of the parliament.
The petition read as follows—
To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives draws to the attention of the House:
that since 2010 when the Government's action on child labour in the cocoa industry was "to support voluntary labelling and various activities undertaken through the United Nations" child labour in the cocoa industry has increased by 18% Request: We therefore ask the House to act to review this decision and to set a deadline for the importation of cocoa products involving the use of the worst forms of child labour. According to the 2014 Tulane University 2013/2014 Survey Research on Child Labour in West African Cocoa report there are now over 2 million children working in hazardous conditions in cocoa production. This is 18% more than in 2008/9.
We ask the house that is deadline includes developing and implementing industry-wide standards of public certification for imports of cocoa beans and their derivative products so that such items will not be allowed to be imported into Australia unless they are shown to have been grown and/or processed without any of the worst forms of child labour as listed in article three in ILO convention 182.
from 78 citizens
Petition received.
Seventy-eight residents of the Mitchell federal electorate are drawing attention to child slave labour in the cocoa industry. They are calling on the government to put a forward date on banning the importation of cocoa products involving the use of the worst forms of child labour. I recommend this petition to the House.
I would like to raise the Baird government's announcement this month of the $550 million redevelopment of Nepean Hospital. This very significant announcement of huge capital works funding for one of the most important hospitals in Western Sydney is a long-overdue announcement that was only made possible by the Baird government's work in privatising the poles and wires in New South Wales, which provided the capital that New South Wales needed to do these urgent works on hospitals, roads, and new police and fire stations all around the state. I welcome the announcement by Mr Baird and Ms Skinner, noting that this will deliver the biggest hospital rebuilding program in the state's history: $5 billion into the state's hospital infrastructure that is being provided by the Baird Liberal government in New South Wales.
It is a welcome development, but, of course, it was not welcomed by some Labor members here in the parliament, even though you are seeing $550 million of redevelopment, including a new clinical services block; a new and expanded emergency department; expanded and upgraded medical imaging; 12 new operating theatres; 18 birthing suites and new accommodation; a new neonatal intensive care unit; 200 overnight beds and new accommodation; a new helipad; and new community health services. You would think it is an amazing achievement for any state government. You would think the new federal member for Lindsay would welcome such an announcement, given the fact that she has been talking about this for some time. But instead, on Monday, 28 November, here in this House, the member for Lindsay did not welcome the announcement. In fact, she sought to play politics with the fact that the Baird government is putting $550 million of real money on the table to upgrade Nepean Hospital.
I think it is very poor form, because the state government has done the hard yards in privatising the poles and wires. It was opposed bitterly by the state Labor Party at every turn. It was opposed by the unions, who support the member for Lindsay, and from whom the member for Lindsay has drawn support. They opposed, at every turn, the privatisation of the poles and wires, even though the public in New South Wales cast their votes in record numbers to privatise the poles and wires in New South Wales, understanding that the dividend of that would be a huge injection into the health and hospital system. What we are seeing now is a $5 billion redevelopment of our health and hospital system in New South Wales. It is an outstanding record of achievement for a state government. It is coming to Penrith and it is coming to Lindsay, and I want to commend the state member for Penrith, Stuart Ayres, who has fought very long and hard for this and has made some great announcements about this. I want to commend the former member for Lindsay, Fiona Scott, who fought and campaigned for a long time to get this hospital upgraded. I know she would welcome this announcement as well today.
I also want to note, while we are speaking about Western Sydney, that not only have the Labor Party opposed the privatisation of poles and wires but now—we have had airport briefings in this place—the new member for Lindsay, the new member for Macquarie and the new member for Macarthur are opposing the Western Sydney Airport. They are putting themselves in the block of another major economic achievement for Western Sydney. It is actually the Labor Party's policy at the moment to support the Western Sydney Airport. It is the Liberal Party's and the current federal coalition government's policy to support the airport, to put in place the roads and infrastructure, and to support the airport to have the jobs of the future for people in Western Sydney, and these new members of parliament are seeking to oppose what will be the biggest economic driver for Western Sydney in many decades.
I think it is a poor record. I think it is poor form. I think it lacks grace and it lacks class not to welcome a $550 million redevelopment of a hospital when a state government announces it. I believe the member for Lindsay should come in here and say thank you to the state government, the Baird Liberal government, and she should acknowledge, at the very least, that it is an important announcement. It is a historic announcement. It has been made possible by the hard work of good economic management and of taking the hard decisions that need to be taken so you have the capital to upgrade this vital community asset, Nepean Hospital. I want to say again to the Baird Liberal government of New South Wales: thank you for the vital work you are doing in New South Wales in injecting the capital we need to have a world-leading health system.
I would like to take this opportunity as we head into the holiday period to speak about the tourism industry in Tasmania and the hospitality workers that help make that happen. The tourism industry in Tasmania directly and indirectly contributes about $2.5 billion a year to Tasmania's gross state product, which is the highest economic contributor for any state in Australia. It directly supports 17,500 jobs and directly and indirectly contributes the highest percentage of jobs to Tasmania's employment at 15.3 per cent of the total in the state. A total of 1.17 million people visited Tasmania during the year, and this does not include the burgeoning cruise ship industry.
The tourism industry in Tasmania benefits from the highly skilled workers in our hospitality industry. Hospitality can be a very rewarding career, particularly in Tasmania: the opportunity to work on some of the most pristine coastlines in the world at top-class hotels or in some of the country's best live music venues. There are many workers who take great pride in delivering coffees and beers at local pubs.
However, it saddens me that there are those in this community, and indeed in this House, that would see these hospitality workers that deliver some of the finest food in the country—indeed in the world—take a pay cut. Their ludicrous argument is that the costs saved to businesses would then be shared with our workers in our community as jobs.
The McKell Institute produced a study in 2014 that examined the economic impact of penalty rate cuts in the retail sector of a rural area of New South Wales, and it found that retail workers there would lose millions of dollars per year, as cuts of take-home pay. What effect would this have on this rural economy? A loss of disposable income to the lowest paid workers across rural New South Wales of possibly $11 million, and it is precisely these workers that keep our economy going. These are the workers that keep the Tasmanian economy going. While it may be employers who create jobs in rural centres, it is the workers who consume that keep the local economies ticking over.
A research paper released last week by Citi Research found that cutting penalty rates would increase earnings for shareholders by up to eight per cent. One of the alternatives to an improved dividend to the shareholder is a benefit to consumers. Nowhere does it suggest that this reduction in costs of human resources for a business would then be reinvested or spent on other human resources. It does not take an economic genius to know that the market is designed to find the most efficient way of delivering services and products. Contrary to the arguments put forward by those who would like to see the lowest paid workers in Australia paid less, a reduction in costs simply goes to profit.
As we head into the holiday season, Tasmanian hospitality workers and their families have no idea as to whether they are about to receive one of the biggest pay cuts in decades. What do penalty rates mean for our lowest paid workers? Carol, in Launceston, works weekends in hospitality, and also is a full-time foster parent to her nephew, who has a chronic health condition. Any cut to penalty rates would have a huge impact on Carol's family and her capacity to support and provide for her foster child. It is something that she cannot afford, and does not deserve.
There is also Lititia in Hobart, who works in catering. Weekend rates for her mean the difference between fresh or frozen vegetables for her family, and the ability to provide dance lessons for her daughters. Any cut to the penalty rates would be a pay cut that they cannot afford and they do not deserve. Lititia knows that if weekend rates are cut, her employer will not put on more staff because they do not need more staff. Her employer will just take a larger profit.
Then there is Kirsty from Hobart, who has built a career for herself in hospitality. Every weekend she misses out on special events with her family and friends in order to do her job. When we are out relaxing and enjoying ourselves on Friday and Saturday nights, it is people like Kirsty who will be serving us and making our precious weekends more enjoyable. This Christmas Day, Kirsty is likely to be working again while the rest of us are unwrapping presents and gorging on turkey, ham, prawns and, of course, non-CUB beer. Of course she would like to be fairly compensated for that, and yet again any move by the FWC to reduce penalty rates will result in a pay cut that Kirsty cannot afford and does not deserve.
We in Labor understand that penalty rates continue to be a fundamental part of a strong safety net for Australian workers, enabling low-income workers and workers in highly casualised industries to share in our nation's economic prosperity.
A few weeks ago Queenslanders woke to the news that the state Labor government is planning to sell assets. I know the people in my electorate very clearly remember exactly what Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk said she would never do. In fact, at the 2015 state election, the now Premier launched her campaign in front of massive signs that said 'Stop the asset sell-off'.
I spoke on this topic here in parliament as soon as I heard of the state government's plan to flog off assets owned by the state in Carseldine in my electorate. I called out the Premier for misleading Queenslanders, just as Bill Shorten and those opposite misled Australians with their Medicare campaign—their scare campaign—at the last federal election. I spoke specifically about the plan to sell the Carseldine government precinct, formerly the QUT Carseldine campus. I want to add that I said that there were a number of issues here. It is the fact that the state government said they would never sell assets, and now they are blatantly going ahead and doing it. But they have done so without any consultation in the community. Carseldine residents are fed up, and they have the Save our Carseldine Facebook page up and running, where people in Carseldine can get information on the environment, on traffic and town planning, on flooding and on what this will mean for the suburb.
Growing up in the area, I used to run around down in Cabbage Tree Creek, which borders Carseldine. It is a great green space, full of native plants, reptiles, birds and animals. The Carseldine government precinct on the corner of Dorville Road and Beams Road provides Carseldine residents with valuable green space. There are cycleways, sporting ovals and it is a popular market venue with the Carseldine markets every Saturday morning. The space in Carseldine is home to squirrel gliders and some 103 bird species, including long-billed corellas, red-backed fairy-wrens, owls, honeyeaters and kingfishers that live around Cabbage Tree Creek. There has been no planning in relation to wildlife at all in this rushed campaign. This is a significant urban bushland area in the northern suburbs, and selling off this land would destroy some 60 per cent of the green space.
The other thing is that, because there has been no consultation and no thought, there has been no thought around traffic and town planning. Let's look at the limited information the state government has given locals. This sell-off would make way for 900 new dwellings of four, five and eight storeys high. I am certainly not against development. I certainly know that, as a growing city, Brisbane needs new places for people to live in order to help bring down the cost of housing and to house people. But there is one rule for normal developers and then there is a separate rule for the state government. The people in my electorate of Petrie cannot stand that the state government just says: 'Oh gee, we're short on a buck. We racked up $80 billion in debt. We've offloaded it from government debt onto assets like electricity assets'—that is not really government debt, but it pushes up everyone's electricity bill in Carseldine. There has been no planning. There is one rule for the state Labor government and another rule for everyone else.
Roads in this area—in particular, the level crossing over the railway tracks at Beams Road—need upgrading urgently. The Brisbane City Council, to their credit, and the former Newman state government upgraded the Bracken Ridge overpass and the Geebung overpass. They did not get around to upgrading Beams Road. But this state Labor government has no plan to upgrade it. The sale of the land in Carseldine might net up to $100 million. But it would cost a minimum of $80 million just to build an overpass over this area—and according to the local councillor, Amanda Cooper, it could be higher. I want to thank the local Brisbane City Council councillor, Amanda Cooper, and the state member for Aspley, Tracey Davis. They have been strong advocates in calling the state government to account and making sure they consult with Carseldine locals on this important issue. To the people in Carseldine: thank you to everyone involved. If you want more information, get onto the Save Our Carseldine campaign on Facebook. Thank you.
We are getting a lot of Christmas wishes and a lot of valedictory speeches today in parliament. But what I want to put on the record in this debate is that for many Australian workers all they want for Christmas is job security and a job they can count on. For many Australian workers, their future and their job security is becoming less and less certain. We see daily in our news reports how insecure work and casualisation of the workforce are becoming the norm.
I want to highlight three particular cases that are unlikely to be resolved between now and Christmas. These people will be spending this Christmas out on the picket line calling on their multinational employers to do the right thing and give them back their job security and, in some cases, their actual jobs. I first want to highlight CUB 55, who are maintenance workers at the CUB Abbotsford facility. It is coming up to summer, when people like a beer when they are watching the cricket over Christmas, yet work at the factory has slowed. How did they become CUB 55? Well, they were working for a labour hire company that lost the contract with CUB 55. On a Thursday they were asked to go to a hotel not near the site. Their jobs were posted on pieces of white paper around the meeting room they were in, and they were told that they could write down their names and reapply for their jobs. What these workers found out was that they would be working for a new company with a 65 per cent pay cut—a 65 per cent pay cut! It is simply unfair and outrageous that a contract company could do this to hardworking Australians, blue-collar workers in maintenance. We call on CUB to do the right thing, the moral thing, and re-employ the CUB 55 so that they can have job security this Christmas.
I would also like to acknowledge Anglo American's mineworkers at German Creek, which is about three hours west of Rockhampton in Central Queensland,. They too have been taking industrial action—for more than 103 days. Again, it is about job security. We found out this week from Fair Work that, while they have been out fighting for their own job security, their company can proceed with redundancies. Therefore, again, another large multinational that is not paying a lot of tax here in Australia has chosen an outsourced labour hire workforce over its own workforce. This is a site where, at the start of the dispute, there were about 280 directly employed mineworkers, and there were 116 labour hire workers, who were on less money.
What we have now seen is Anglo American being given the green light to force redundancies on their permanent workforce. It could be the death of this regional town to lose that many more people from the mine. The school is worried that it will close. The mums are worried about what this means for the community. The sporting clubs are worried about losing this many local workers to drive-in drive-out workers.
The final group of workers who this Christmas are calling on a large multinational to do the right thing and ensure their job security are maintenance mineworkers in WA in the town of Collie, at the Griffin coalmine. This is another example of how maintenance workers have been told that, if they do not agree to the conditions set out by the company, they will receive a 43 per cent pay cut.
This is where we are at. We are talking about the rhetoric that we hear from the government, who say they want a high-wage, high-skilled economy. Well, these are high-skilled, hardworking, blue-collar Australians who have been offered 65 per cent pay cuts and 43 per cent pay cuts. It is not on. I call on these multinationals do the right thing by these workers and give them job security for Christmas and jobs that they can count on.
Dedication, commitment and perseverance are fantastic attributes for any athlete. Most of us would agree that the top of the pinnacle is to represent Australia, and that is exactly what Goonellabah soccer player Kaiden Powell is doing. Last week, Kaiden was selected to play in the Australian Indigenous team against the New Zealand Maori team in the near future. The selectors cast their eye over an impressive pool of players representing 16 teams at the recent National Indigenous Football Championships in Nowra. The news had a double impact for Kaiden. He has also taken up a fantastic opportunity to play for the Broadmeadow Magic team, based in Newcastle, in the upcoming National Premier Leagues.
The 27-year-old aspires to reach the A-league or even play overseas if the cards fall the right way. He has climbed the ladder of success through his local club, the Hornets. It is one of the many teams that play in the popular far North Coast football competition. Congratulations to Kaiden for his outstanding success. You are a fantastic role model for your community, and I wish you every success in the future.
It goes without saying that we must encourage people in our communities to learn and become valuable members. Novaskill is one organisation that promotes and helps train our people from all walks of life. I recently attended the Novaskill annual awards night, and I would like to acknowledge both Novaskill and all the award winners, who included the Hospitality Trainee of the Year, Joeline Grono; the Retail Trainee of the Year, Kathy Youman; and the Small Employer of the Year, Sandra, Helen and Mick from the Wurlitzer Bakery at Evans Head. The RTO Trainee of the Year was Bridget Hogan. Well done, Bridgie; I am very proud of you.
The Construction Student of the Year was Isaac McCliskie-Myles. The Disability Student of the Year was Kim Eames. The Individual Support Student of the Year was Susan Lane; the Novaskill Employee of the Year, Christie Kelly; the Indigenous Student of the Year, Allan Barry; the Apprentice of the Year, Myles Burgess; the Electrical Apprentice of the Year, Bradley Hanlon; the Catering Operations Trainee of the Year, Irene Collings; and the Business Trainee of the Year, Stacy Leadbeatter. The Participant Excellence Award went to Lynda Meade. The Largest Employer of the Year was the Ballina Shire Council. The Jobmatch Host Employer of the Year was Rob Ward Electrical Services. The School Based Trainee of the Year was Savannah Daley, and the Jobmatch Trainee of the Year was Jade Newlove.
I would like to thank as well all of the sponsors who supported this: Grafton Motor Group, ON-Q Human Resources, North Coast TAFE, the CBus super fund, the Wurlitzer Bakery, Rosh-Tech IT, The Northern Star, TURSA, Fleet Management Australia, Smallprint, Catapult and the Richmond Valley Council. Congratulations to all concerned.
Today I would like to highlight the fantastic achievements of a Casino local, Karlee Whitton. Karlee is the mother of two young boys, a high school teacher, a trainer at Casino Boxing Club and an aspiring amateur boxer. She grew up watching her dad's passion as he trained boxers in the local gym, and is now extremely proud to have him standing in her corner. Last weekend, Karlee travelled to Cairns to take part in the Australian Amateur Boxing Titles. It was at these titles that Karlee achieved the first part of her dream: being crowned Australian Champion for both the flyweight and bantamweight sections. Karlee now has her sights set on fulfilling the second part of her dream: being selected for the Australian team to compete at the 2018 Commonwealth Games. I would like to congratulate Karlee for the success she has achieved over the weekend and, on behalf of our community, I would like to wish her all the very best in reaching her goal of representing Australia at the upcoming Commonwealth Games.
It gives me, truly and sincerely, great pleasure to talk about a terrific organisation that is now in its 10th season in my area, the Midnight Basketball Mt Druitt Tournament. The tournament is run from the Emerton Leisure Centre, although it has been run in different places over the period of those 10 seasons. It provides valuable work in helping to skill up our local young people, and it is a terrific model of community engagement. For young kids who might spend their time doing nothing on a Friday night and potentially getting themselves into strife, it provides a basketball tournament but also the ability to learn life skills through classes that are done through the tournament. It takes a lot to get this done. The terrific Vanessa Simmonds is the chair of the volunteer committee that runs the tournament. Lindsay Trevitt—who has actually taken out Chifley's Outstanding Volunteer of the Year award—is invaluable in helping out in any way he can, and organises the logistics and the buses to pick up the kids. As well as Vanessa and Lindsay, a number of volunteers have been involved over the 10 tournaments, including Nicole Farrant and Daniel Cooper. Vanessa has said that she sees the benefit of the relationships and connections that are built during the tournaments, as the kids continue through their programs and other pathways afterwards. And I have seen that myself: I have seen the change in those young people as they have gone through, and I have seen the confidence that has grown in them, and their ability to engage in a complete different way. It is a terrific way in which this program is making an impact. This year there are 100 participants. I remember going to the first one, and they were lucky to get 20—and now they have 100. All up, there are 45 volunteers who help out in some way, shape or form.
The Lethbridge Park Community Kitchen have kindly donated their time to cook up a feast every night that the tournament is held, and they feed all of the participants. Midnight Basketball Mt Druitt is also supported by Blacktown City Council, Red Cross, New South Wales Health, New South Wales Police and Emerton Youth Recreation Centre. I am looking forward to seeing the new champion who is going to be crowned at the grand final next Friday at the Emerton Leisure Centre, with presentations occurring at 10.40 am. I say to all: you are terrific community ambassadors and role models, and I think our community owes you a debt of gratitude for what you are doing in helping young people to get on track and get better lives.
I do not know about you, Deputy Speaker, but I love a great David and Goliath story. I love the story of an underdog that is up against big odds and is considered to have no chance of being able to win or influence an outcome. In my area, we have some great community groups that are doing just that—rallying against some of the harsh impacts of what has been proposed with Badgerys Creek Airport—which is now being called Western Sydney Airport, to dilute or dodge the impact of a bad name; a name which has been reviled in our area for quite some time. There are some great groups doing some great things there: the No Badgerys Creek Airport group and the Residents Against Western Sydney Airport. These guys do not have the ability to run swanky conferences in the middle of Sydney raising a quarter of a million dollars, like the Western Sydney Leadership Dialogue—run out of Balmain—did this week. These people basically rely on people power. They go to the festivals, they go to the fetes, they talk in neighbourhoods, they organise protest meetings—some of which have attracted nearly 800 people in the Blue Mountains. These people do it tough. They do it while people from the east of the city are sneering down their noses at them. These people are making sure that community interests are actually and genuinely taken into account.
When all these big interests are collected to push this airport from the east of the city, delivering the infrastructure that the east thinks the west needs rather than what the west deserves, Barker, as they are known, are doing a great thing in speaking up for people. In what is considered a tough task—and from time to time they think that the odds will overwhelm them—I want them to know in this parliament they have a number of people backing them. I know the member for Macquarie thinks the world of the work that they are doing as does Senator Doug Cameron. I want them to know that their efforts are being noticed, not being overlooked, and that I wish them all the best in making sure that the community gets a fair deal and gets the infrastructure that it actually needs rather than a bunch of eastern Sydney toffs putting some infrastructure proposition in the west against our will.
I rise today to recognise the contribution that people with disability make to communities right across Australia. This Saturday 3 December is International Day of People With Disability. It is a UN sanctioned day and it seeks to raise public awareness, understanding and acceptance of people with disability and celebrate their achievements and their contributions.
As the Assistant Minister for Social Services and Disability Services, I encourage communities to come together to participate and to celebrate. This day gives all of us the opportunity to reflect on and acknowledge the positive impact people with disability have in our community. We should all consider what we can do to make sure people with disability have the same opportunities to pursue their dreams and reach their full potential. In my local area, I will be joining with international disability ambassador Karni Liddell and will be at the McIntyre Centre for riding for the disabled to recognise the wonderful work that they do in supporting young people with disability.
Previously, on 7 November, I had the pleasure of attending the 2016 National Disability Awards dinner. There were many deserving recipients of awards this year and this special event highlighted the spirit amongst individuals, organisations, services and associated initiatives. All the winners and finalists were very deserving. I particularly recognise my own Brisbane City Council for being awarded employer of the year. The Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, attended and presented Dr Peter Abolfathi with the excellence in technology award.
This morning I hosted a morning tea for members and senators and peak disability organisations as well as members of the National Disability and Carers Advisory Council to recognise International Day of People with Disability. I was delighted that Tony Dee, who was the voice behind the 2016 Rio Paralympics 'we are the superhumans' campaign was also able to attend, as he entertained everyone so well at the disability awards in November. A very special gift to everyone were some not melting moments but 'helping moments'. An ADE by the name of Help Enterprises in Brisbane made some very special little 'helping moments' to give to everyone who was able to attend.
I was also delighted that the Minister for Social Services, the Honourable Christian Porter, could attend. He launched the second implementation plan for the National Disability Strategy. As he said, 2017 is going to be very important year for us all to work together to ensure that we support those with disability in our community. And we need to consider that there are 4.6 million people in Australia living with disability. The National Disability Insurance Scheme, while being absolutely wonderful and life changing for people with severe and significant disabilities, will only support 460,000, so there will be 4.2 million people with disability who we must continue to support and their carers.
International Day of People with Disability will see many local events including morning teas, community exhibitions, sporting festivals and speaking events. I encourage everyone to join in and celebrate the day. Also, if you want to learn more about the day, of course we have a website—all good events have a website—idpwd.com.au. This Saturday, as I said, I will be joining Paralympian Karni Liddell. We are looking forward to hearing about celebrations being held across the rest of Australia and in other electorates.
International Day of People with Disability is not only a day to celebrate the achievements and contributions of people with disability; it is also about highlighting the need to ensure that those with disability are afforded the same opportunities to reach their full potential and pursue their dreams. Whether those dreams are competing at the Paralympics like Karni Liddell has or riding a horse of the McIntyre Centre, we can all assist in making them a reality.
I thank all the people in the disability sector who are so devoted and dedicated to make sure that people with disability lead the lives that they want and achieve the goals that they aspire to.
Question agreed to.
Federation Chamber adjourned at 13:01