Yanggu gulanyin ngalawiri, dhunayi, Ngunawal dhawra. Wanggarralijinyin mariny bulan bugarabang.
Today, we are meeting together on Ngunawal land and we acknowledge and pay our respects to their elders past and present. And we pay our deep respects to all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people gathered here today—including our Aboriginal members of parliament—and all across Australia, who have been the custodians of these lands and whose elders hold the knowledge of their rich and diverse cultures. I also welcome the first ministers and their representatives from the states and territories who have gathered with us today to demonstrate that the responsibility—indeed, the opportunity—for closing the gap in partnership with our communities rests with all levels of government and with all Australians.
The lives, the occupations and the dreams of Aboriginal and Torres Islander Australians are as diverse as those of all other Australians and stretch across this vast land, from the most remote communities to the heart of our capitals, to our national parliament. Our First Australians are showing that they can do anything, as they inspire us with their resilience, their courage and their enterprise.
Last year, Chris Sarra proposed three principles that would help make a difference in Indigenous policy. He said: 'Do things with us, not to us, bring us policy approaches that nurture hope and optimism, and acknowledge, embrace and celebrate the humanity of Indigenous Australia.' I am pleased that Chris has agreed to join the new Indigenous Advisory Council, along with Andrea Mason, Susan Murphy, Ngiare Brown, Roy Ah-See and Djambawa Marawili. And I want to thank Warren Mundine and the retiring members for their work.
Humanity/ Kenbi
Nothing brought a quiet moment of humanity to the 2016 election campaign more than the handing of the title deeds to Belyuen elder Raylene Singh, 37 years after the Larrakia people submitted a claim to what had always been theirs. For families like Raylene's, despite their old people passing on before the Kenbi land claim was settled, the past continues to live in the present.
Acknowledging past wrongs enables healing to begin. We saw that with the National Apology to the Stolen Generations—delivered by Prime Minister Rudd, who also joins us today—and the ninth anniversary of that moment in history was recognised yesterday here in the House. Acknowledgement requires the humility of acceptance of the truth. On that hot, dry day on the shores of the Cox Peninsula in Darwin, we acknowledgedthat the Larrakia people had cared for their country for tens of thousands of years, that their songs had been sung since time out of mind, and that those songs held and passed on the knowledge of Larrakia customs and traditions.
Acknowledgement is the seed from which hope and healing grow. It is that acknowledgement that 50 years ago saw the Australian people vote overwhelmingly to change our Constitution so that the Commonwealth could assume powers in relation to our First Australians. And while many issues divide us in this place, we are united in our determination to ensure that our Constitution is amended once again to recognise our First Australians. Changing the Constitution is neither easy nor a task for the faint hearted. The Referendum Council will conclude its consultations this year so that then parliament can complete the work of formulating and presenting the recognition amendments.
The success of the 1967 referendum also meant that First Australians were counted equally in our official population alongside all other others in the census. This provided our first understanding of the survival and the resilience of our Indigenous peoples, but also the depth of that gap between their situation and that of other Australians. The leaders of those times challenged us to think well past statistics: the Freedom Riders like Charles Perkins; Vincent Lingiari and his fellow workers at the Wave Hill 'walk-off'; and Eddie Mabo and his fight for native title. Theirs are the shoulders among many upon which a new generation of Indigenous leaders stand today.
And last night the Prime Minister's courtyard was abuzz with enthusiasm, with positivity and with the hope of leaders challenging us to again think past the statistics. Bright, determined women and men stood tall as successful people in their fields of work, proud of their heritage and anchored in their culture. While we must accelerate progress and close the gap, we must also tell the broader story of Indigenous Australia, not of despondency but of a relentless and determined optimism; that being Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander means to succeed, to achieve, to have big dreams and high hopes, and to draw strength from your identity as an Indigenous person in this country.
As Prime Minister, I will continue to tell these stories, to talk about the strengths of our First Australians. We have among us five Indigenous members of parliament, who bring the same pride, the same strength, here to our democracy: Ken Wyatt, the first Indigenous member of the House of Representatives, and now the first Indigenous minister to be appointed in a Commonwealth government; as well as Linda Burney, Senator Pat Dodson, Senator Malarndirri McCarthy and Senator Jacqui Lambie.
Yet, even with the determination of our First Australians to create a better future, even with successive Commonwealth and state governments investing more resources and even with tens of thousands of dedicated Australians seeking to contribute and engage, we still are not making enough progress.
We have come a long way since the referendum, but we have not come far enough. I present today to the parliament and to the people of Australia the ninth Closing the Gap report. This report demonstrates that all Australian governments have much more work to do.
The proportion of Indigenous 20- to 24-year-olds who have achieved year 12 or equivalent is 61.5 per cent—up from 45.4 per cent in 2008. This target is on trackto halve the gap. A new target for Indigenous four-year-olds enrolled in early childhood education is 95 per cent by 2025. The data shows that in 2015, 87 per cent of all Indigenous children were enrolled in early childhood education the year before full-time school.
We have seen improvements in reading and numeracy for Indigenous students but this target is not on track. Last year, 640 more children needed to read at the year 3 benchmark to halve the gap. This year, that figure is around 440. The literacy gap is narrowing and achievable, and through the individualised learning plans agreed at COAG, first ministers have committed to improve these results.
The national school attendance is also not on track. Around 20 per cent of the gap in school performance between Indigenous and non-Indigenous students can be explained by poor attendance. But there are examples of real progress with families and communities.
In the Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara Lands, the APY Lands, principal Matt Greenespoke to me of the fierce rivalry in community football. But he said he was more interested and focused on the fierce rivalry to attain school attendance targets. And with the help of our Remote School Attendance Strategy, championed by Minister Nigel Scullion, Matt is driving cultural change in Fregon. The strategy is working. RSAS schools showed a higher attendance rate in 2016 compared to 2013.
We have made great gains in improving the key factors that influence the health of Indigenous children. But we are also reminded of the fragility of life, and the heavy burden of responsibility of families, communities and governments. I am very saddened and disappointed that the target to halve the gap in Indigenous child mortality is not on track, with the 2015 data being just outside the target.
We must redouble our efforts to reduce smoking rates during pregnancy, continue to improve immunisation rates, lift rates of antenatal care, reduce fetal trauma, and keep our children safe. Rates of attending antenatal care in the important first trimester are highest in outer regional areas and lowest in major cities.
Ken Wyatt as the Minister for Indigenous Health, a field in which he has had many decades of experience, will work wisely and collaboratively with our state and territory counterparts, and the community health sector, to get this target back on track.
We have seen improvements in reducing mortality from chronic diseases; however, the mortality rates from cancer are rising. The overall mortality rate has declined by 15 per cent since 1998, and life expectancy isincreasing. However, it is not accelerating at the pace it should and, therefore, as in previous years, this target is not on track.
The employment target is not on track either, but 57.5 per cent of those living in major cities are employed. Five thousand Indigenous job seekers have been placed in to real jobs through our Vocational Training and Employment Centres network. Almost 500 Indigenous businesses were awarded more than $284 million in Commonwealth contracts thanks to our Indigenous Procurement Policy. I want to thank state and territory governments for agreeing to explore similar procurement policies to help the Indigenous business sector thrive.
Mr Speaker, a telling point: the data tells us there is no employment gapbetween Indigenous Australians and non-Indigenous Australians with a university degree—a reminder of the central importance of education.
If we look at the long-term intergenerational trends, we see that Indigenous life expectancy is increasing, babies are being born healthier, more people are studying and gaining post-school qualifications and those adults are participating in work. These are achievements that families, elders and communities can be proud of.
But incarceration rates and rates of child protection are too high. Sixty-three per cent of Indigenous people incarcerated last year were in prison for violent offences and offences that cause harm. Central to reducing incarceration is reducing the violence and, of course, protecting the victims of violence.
Our Third Action Plan to Reduce Violence Against Women and Children includes measures to support Indigenous victims, and stop the cycle of reoffending.
Our Prison to Work report commissioned in last year's Closing The Gap speech has since been delivered, and adopted by COAG. Working in partnership with Kuku Yalanji man, Jeremey Donovan, we have gained important insights into the cycle of incarceration. In response, COAG agreed to better coordination of government services especially in-prison training and rehabilitation, employment, health and social services.
Children should always be treated humanely and with love, especially when they are in custody. The confronting and appalling images of children shackled and in spit hoods shocked our nation, and as Prime Minister I acted swiftly.
While the work of the royal commission into juvenile justice and child protection continues, governments across Australia are taking steps to ensure children are always treated appropriately.
To provide independent oversight, this government will ratify the Optional Protocol to the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (OPCAT).
I am pleased to inform the House that Bunuba woman, June Oscar AO, has been appointed Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner. The first woman to take on this role.
June brings tremendous knowledge, and has been a formidable campaigner against alcohol abuse, shining a light on the devastating consequences of Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder (FASD).
The issues are complex, and, as we know, the solutions are not simple.
Indigenous Affairs is an intricate public policy area. It requires uncompromised collaboration with Indigenous people, and national leadership. And it needs buy-in from states, communities and most importantly families.
I am pleased that COAG has agreed to progress renewed targets in the year ahead, and I invite the opposition and the crossbench to participate, particularly the Indigenous members of parliament.
The national interest requires a re-commitment to the relationship with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.
But there can be no relationship without partnership.
And there can be no partnership without participation—we heard that very eloquently this morning at the Redfern Statement breakfast.
I firmly believe that people must be involved in the process in order to be engaged in the outcomes. It has to be a shared endeavour.
Greater empowerment of local communities will deliver the shared outcomes we all seek.
The government is reforming the way the Indigenous Affairs portfolio operates—moving from transactional government, to enablement, from paying for services to linking funding to outcomes, and from a one-size-fits-all mindset for program design, to local solutions.
Indigenous families and communities must be at the centre of this approach.
We have started the journey, but there is much more work to do.
I welcome Professor Ian Anderson into my department who will play an important role in leading this new way of working, along with people like Anne-Marie Roberts, who leads a team of passionate and committed staff working in communities across the nation.
The Indigenous-led Empowered Communities model is now in eight regions across the country. I met their leaders last month, and it is clear this approach is generating strong Indigenous governance, and empowering Indigenous people to partner with government and companies.
These models, and others such as Murdi Paaki in Western New South Wales, and Ceduna in South Australia, are being driven by local Indigenous leaders.
Where communities are ready, we will work with them to build capacity and ensure more responsibility for decision making rests as close to the community as possible.
My confidence comes from seeing firsthand how this approach is working at the community level.
I have met mothers, like Norma and Lena from Western Australia, who have lost children to suicide. These women have bravely shared their stories, working tirelessly with leaders like Pat Dudgeon, Gerry Georgatos and Adele Cox to find locally-driven solutions.
I met Corey McLennan, and the leaders of Ceduna and the Far West Coast as well as Ian Trust from the Kimberley, who have co-designed the trial of the new Cashless Debit Card with the government.
We hosted Charlie King and the No More campaign to end violence against women. In an historic display of support parliamentarians—all of us—linked arms and walked with Charlie to end this scourge of violence against women.
And I could tell dozens more stories of self-reliance from Fregon, Redfern, La Perouse, Scotdesco, Brisbane, Darwin, Perth—it is a very long list, as we know.
We can learn as much from these successes, as we can from the failures.
But, to do so we must have a rigorous evaluation of programs so we know what is working and what is not.
We will expand the Productivity Commission to include a new Indigenous Commissioner to lead the commission's work of policy evaluation.
And the government will invest $50 million for research into policy and its implementation; this will be designed in partnership and with the guidance of the Indigenous Advisory Council.
So much is published about Indigenous communities and, as many Indigenous Australians have said to me, not nearly enough is published for Indigenous communities.
So the data and research we have, and the evidence we need to build, will be made available to Indigenous communities to empower leadership and support community-led programs. It will assist government in its next phase of Closing The Gap, which must focus on regional action and outcomes.
I ask that we give credit to the quiet achievers—the Indigenous people who are working on the front line of family violence, who are enabling people with disability to gain the services they need, who are starting businesses, employing others, innovating—all people who have expressed their deep desire to work together as committed Australians.
And I ask that you seek out people like those I had the honour of addressing last night—everyday Indigenous Australians achieving extraordinary things.
Like the Kongs—a family of firsts. Marilyn and Marlene were the first Indigenous medical graduates at Sydney University. Marlene became a GP and public health expert; Marilyn became the first Indigenous obstetrician and their brother Kelvin, the first Indigenous surgeon in Australia.
I ask that we share these stories and those of the entrepreneurs, lawyers, the scientists, the teachers, the nurses, the servicemen and servicewomen, the social service workers, the writers, the accountants, the public servants, and the ministers, members and senators. Again, their callings and achievements are as diverse, as magnificent and as inspiring as those of other Australians. Let us tell the stories of Indigenous achievement and hard work, because those stories are true markers of progress. They inspire and encourage and they make a difference. This parliament has the opportunity, using the knowledge and wisdom of Indigenous people, to embark on a new approach to closing the gap on Indigenous disadvantage.
My government will not shy away from our responsibility and we will uphold the priorities of education, employment, health and the right of all people to be safe from family violence. We will not waver in our quest to achieve these outcomes, but we will have the humility to admit that we must travel this road together, with open hearts and a determination to ensure that our First Australians and all Australians will be able here, more than anywhere, to be their best and realise their dreams.
I just ask the Prime Minister if he could present a copy of the report. I thank the Prime Minister. The Leader of the Opposition.
I acknowledge the Ngunnawal and Ngambri peoples, traditional owners of the land upon which we meet. I pay my respects to elders past, present and emerging.
This tradition of recognition goes back millennia. This parliament and the nation we call home is, was and always will be Aboriginal land. Where we are, so too are Aboriginal peoples: from the Noonga near Perth to the Eora of Sydney, the Nunga of Adelaide, the Kulin around Melbourne, the Palawah of Tassie, the Murri of Brisbane and Torres Strait Islanders. We are one country, enriched by hundreds of nations, languages and traditions.
After the last election, I took on the shadow ministry for Indigenous affairs. My family and I went back to Garma to listen and learn. I have met with Northern Territory leaders, defending the young men being abused in juvenile detention. I travelled to Wave Hill to commemorate the courage of Vincent Lingiari and the Gurindji. And I have looked to my Indigenous colleagues for their wisdom. They are as inspirational as they are modest: a Wiradjuri woman in the House, a shadow minister; a Yanuwa woman in the Senate, heading our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander caucus committee; and a Yawuru man, the father of reconciliation, I look to him as my mentor and assistant shadow minister. I also recognise the member for Hasluck, Ken Wyatt, and congratulate him on his historic appointment, and I recognise too Senator Lambie.
I will never forget walking into Cairns West Primary on Djabugay Country on the first day of last year's election campaign and I saw the wide-eyed smiles of so many young Aboriginal students as I introduced them to Senator Patrick Dodson. The value of role models, of the next generation seeing faces like theirs in places of power, cannot be underestimated. It should not be the exception. We should make it the rule.
In the Labor Party, we are doing better than we have, but what we did before was simply not good enough and I want us to improve, not just at the federal level but at every level of government.
There are so many First Australians in the galleries today. You are friends and your peers would elevate and enrich our parliament with your talent, whichever party you choose. I look forward to the day, and can imagine the day, when one of the First Australians is our Prime Minister or, indeed, our head of state.
As the Prime Minister mentioned, the Referendum Council are continuing their important community conversations. After the Uluru gathering, it will be time for the parliament to step up and draw upon these consultations and to finally agree a set of words to put to the Australian people.
I believe, and let me be clear, that this parliament, this year, should agree on a way forward—not a vague poetic statement meaning nothing and offending no-one by saying nothing; a meaningful proposition that every Australian can understand and, I remain confident, Australians will overwhelmingly support.
Recognition is not the end of the road, but it should be the beginning of a new, far more equal relationship between the first peoples of this nation and all of us who have followed. And that is where the listening and the learning must reach beyond the walls of this chamber.
I do not seek to present a balance sheet of the good and the bad—not a list of top-down programs imperfectly managed; not the same old story of reports written but not read. Instead, I believe in a new approach.
We must forget the insulting fiction that the First Australians are a problem to be solved and, instead, have a new approach to listen to people who stand on the other side of the gap; a new approach that, from now on, the First Australians must have first say in the decisions that shape their lives; a new approach that means a stronger voice for the National Congress of Australia's First People and the resources to make it happen; a new approach to extend ourselves beyond handpicked sources of advice; a new approach to be in the places where our First Australians live and work and play, from Mount Druitt to Logan, in the APY Lands and East Arnhem. Not treating local consultation as a box to be ticked but applying the wisdom of people who know. Understanding and recognising there are many Aboriginal nations across this country: Waanyi and Warlpiri, Badi Badi and Gumatj, Tharawal and Kuarna, Yorta Yorta and Narrunga. And all of these nations have the right to have control of their future. The change required is deeper and more profound than where we visit and who we talk to, though.
I believe that First Australians want a way to be heard in a voice that they are in control of. I want Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to know that Labor hears you. We understand the need for a structure that is not at the mercy of the cuts or seen as a gift of largesse; a voice that cannot be kicked to the curb by change of government or policy; an entity that recognises culture, kinship, identity, language, country and responsibility; the pride that comes from knowing who you are, where you come from and the values you stand upon; and a system where culture is central and fundamental. And have no doubt; this can be done.
We see it when a Pitjantjatjara person seeks out a local healer, a ngangkari, in addition to a GP—when they see both the GP and the local healer; because spiritual wellbeing cannot be treated by a packet of Panadol alone. We see it in the Koori Court in Parramatta, using diversionary sentencing as an alternative to incarceration. The elders sit on the bench alongside the judges and ask the right questions of young people. They give the young people a sense of belonging and, if these young people muck up, the elders address them with that straight-talking freedom of family and culture, a frankness and reassurance, that even the judge can learn from. There at this court, the police, the prosecution and the defence show sensitivity to culture, yet still deal with the young person who has behaved in an antisocial way. This cross-cultural approach enhances the system, bringing Aboriginal cultures to the centre, allowing justice to be done without diminishing the individual or denying identity. It Australianises justice and makes it work better.
We also see it in the best of Australian theatre and art and in education and literature. And if we can accept the value and richness of Indigenous cultural genius and allow it to impact and transform our justice system and the arts, we can do this with the Australian parliament too. In this the people's place, we can grow an enhanced respect for the first peoples for their unique societies, for their values and for their experiences.
At Redfern, Paul Keating threw down a gauntlet to us, the non-Aboriginal Australians. He posed a question that we had never asked: how would I feel if this were done to me? That question still stands before Australia, 25 years later. How would we feel if our children were more likely to go to jail than to university? How would we feel if the life expectancy of our families was 20 years shorter than our neighbour? How would we feel if, because of our skin, we experienced racism and discrimination? And how would we feel if every time we offered a solution, an idea or an alternative approach, we were patronisingly told 'the government knows best'?
This is about our ability to walk in another's shoes. So our test, as a people and as a parliament, is not just to craft a new response but also to rediscover an old emotion, to recapture the best of Australian compassion, to wake up our brotherhood and sisterhood and recapture our love for our fellow human being and our dedication to our neighbours, as we saw with Weary Dunlop's devotion to his troops—the love of others over risk to self; with Fred Hollows' life of service; and with Nancy Wake's courage. It is actually a spirit we see in millions of ordinary Australians: carers, teachers, volunteers and emergency service personnel. It is the story that Pat told me about the matron at his school demanding that that young boy have sheets on his bed like every other young boy. It is about the lady in Casterton who said that no-one was going to treat Pat any different to any other boy.
Courage comes in all forms, and it is the spirit we need. There is a spirit of courage which lurks in the hearts of all Australians. There is that sense that we, at a certain point, will be pushed no further, that we will not stand for it any more. It is that spirit to reject discrimination, to reject inequality and to simply say, 'This cannot continue and Aboriginal people should not put up with the rubbish anymore.' So my message today is not just for the people in this chamber but for the first peoples of this nation. We seek your help. We seek your partnership. We seek your inspiration and your leadership, because things cannot continue as they are.
The audit of the Indigenous Advancement Strategy tells a worrying tale, a familiar tale. It is concern about consultation and cuts. But it speaks, though, of a problem—perhaps it is called paternalism—of a slide backwards. We see too often—and this is not a comment on the coalition or Labor; it is a comment about parliament—the legitimate cynicism of our First Australians towards the efforts of this place. There are problems written across the land, in suburbs and remote communities, in our schools and hospitals, in women's refuges, in the courts of our country and in the targets that we fall short of today. We see it in the staggering 440 per cent increase in Aboriginal children in out-of-home care.
It has been 20 years since Bringing them home, that report which brought tears to this chamber. It is nine years since Kevin Rudd and Jenny Macklin's apology to the stolen generations—and I wish to acknowledge former Prime Minister Rudd's presence here today in the gallery, visiting his former workplace. I say this, Kevin: you can take well-deserved pride in your leadership on the 2008 apology. But now we have more Aboriginal children than ever growing up away from home and away from kin, culture and country. We know that many members of the stolen generation are still living with the pain of their removal and the harm done by years of having their stories rejected and denied.
That is why I applaud the state governments of New South Wales, South Australia and Tasmania, who are already taking steps towards providing reparations to families torn apart by the discrimination of those times. Decency demands that we now have a conversation at the Commonwealth level about the need for the Commonwealth to follow the lead on reparations. This is the right thing to do. It is at the heart of reconciliation: telling the truth, saying sorry and making good.
The Closing the Gap targets were agreed by all levels of government—not just the Commonwealth; the states and the local government—in partnership with Aboriginal people. The targets were driven by the understanding: that your health influences your education, that your education affects your ability to get a job, and that good jobs make thing better for families, relationships and communities. The Closing the Gap framework is an intergenerational commitment to eroding centuries of inequality. It outlives governments and parliaments and prime ministers and opposition leaders—but it also requires renewal. This year, many of the current targets are due to be renegotiated. And there are also new areas that we must consider. Labor continues to demand a justice target, because incarceration and victimisation are breaking families and communities across this country.
Today we propose a new priority on stronger families—adding a target for reducing the number of Aboriginal children in out-of-home care. The Secretariat for National Aboriginal and Islander Chid Care has shone a light on this shame: one in three children in statutory out-of-home care are Indigenous. And Indigenous children are nearly 10 times more likely to be removed by child protection authorities than their non-Indigenous peers. Labor will listen to and will work with SNAICC—and, most importantly, the communities themselves—to look at new models and new approaches.
Breaking this vicious cycle of family violence, of women murdered and driven from their homes, of unsafe communities, of parents in jail and kids in care, requires more from us than doubling down on the current system. We need to learn from places like Bourke and Cowra and their focus on justice reinvestment—on prevention, not just punishment; from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities who are making men face up to their responsibilities, forcing a change in attitudes and supporting great initiatives such as the 'No More' campaign. And that should be our story across the board: in preventative health, in education, in employment and in housing. It is time for humility—to admit that we don't have the answers here; to go out and seek them.
It is time for truth-telling. Our ancestors drove the first peoples of this nation from their bora ring; we scattered the ashes of their campfires. We fenced the hunting grounds; we poisoned the waterholes; we distributed blankets infected with diseases we knew would kill. And there has been plenty of damage done in different ways with better intentions—by the belief that forced assimilation was the only way to achieve equality.
So today, I come here not to tell but to ask, because where we have failed the first Australians have succeeded. On the road to reconciliation, it is our first Australians who have led the way: giving forgiveness as we seek forgiveness; standing up and walking off at Wave Hill Station, for their right to live on their land in their way; Charles Perkins and the Freedom Riders, who opened the eyes of a generation to racism and poverty; Jessie Street, Faith Bandler, Chicka Dixon, Joe McGinniss and countless others who rallied support for the 67 Referendum under the banner 'Count us Together'; and Eddie Mabo, who told his daughter Gail: 'One day, all Australia is going to know my name'.
The success of Aboriginal leadership can be found in every corner of the country. I have seen it with my own eyes: the Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisations, providing essential primary care; marvellous Indigenous rangers, in Wadeye and Maningrida, the Central Desert and the Kimberley, working on country and on the seas and waterways, doing meaningful jobs for good wages; the Families as First Teachers program, which has given culturally-appropriate support to over 2,000 young families, helping with health and hygiene and preparing for early childhood education; Money Mob, teaching budgeting and planning skills; Deadly Choices, through the Institute for Urban Indigenous Health in Brisbane, improving preventive health; the Michael Long Learning and Leadership Centre in Darwin; the Stars Foundation, inspiring Indigenous girls, modelling the success of the Clontarf Academy for Boys; and there is the Australian Indigenous Mentoring Experience, connecting Aboriginal university students with high achievers at school.
On every issue, at every age, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are demonstrating that solutions are within their grasp. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people know what needs to be done. What they need from this parliament is recognition, respect and resources.
We cannot swap the tyranny of bureaucracy for funding cuts and neglect. The people on the frontline—the elders, the leaders, the teachers and health-care workers—know what to do. We need to take the time to listen. We need to respect the right of Aboriginal voices to make decisions and to control their own lives—to give them their own place and space. They just need us to back them up.
Fifty years ago, Oodgeroo wrote:
… the victory of the 1967 Referendum was not a change of white attitudes. The real victory was the spirit of hope and optimism …We had won something.… We were visible, hopeful and vocal.
All too rarely—before and since—has that been the story for Aboriginal people. Instead, it has been a tale of exclusion: exclusion from opportunity, from the pages of our history, and exclusion from the decisions that govern their lives.
It is time to write a new story. And it is a story of belonging, because Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples belong to a proud tradition, of nations who fought the invaders; brave people who fought, and died, for their country, at Passchendaele, Kokoda and Long Tan, and now in the Middle East and Afghanistan; who have fought and continue to fight for justice, for land, for an apology, for recognition.
You belong to a tradition of sporting brilliance, in the face of racism from opponents, teammates, administrators and even spectators. You belong to humanity's oldest continuous culture—more famous around the world than ever before. You do not belong in a jail cell for an offence that carries an $80 fine. You do not belong strapped into a chair with a hood on your head. You do not belong in the back of a windowless van, away from your family and loved ones. You do not belong in a bureaucrat's office begging for money. You do not belong on the streets with nowhere to go.
You belong here, as members of parliament, as leaders of this nation. You belong in the Constitution, recognised at last. You belong in schools, teaching and learning. You belong on construction sites, building homes, gaining skills. You belong on country, caring for land. You belong here, growing up healthy, raising your children in safety, growing old with security. You belong here, strong in your culture, kinship, language and country. You belong here, equal citizens in this great country, equal partners in our common endeavour. This is your place. This is our place. Our future is your future. As Senator Dodson has said to me, 'Let's go. The best advice: let's get on with it.' As he would say, in the language of his people, 'Wamba yimbulan.'
I acknowledge all of our guests in the distinguished visitors' gallery, on the floor of the House and in the speaker's gallery. I particularly acknowledge former Prime Minister Rudd, who joins us today.
by leave—I move:
That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate.
Question agreed to.
Labor opposes the Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Bill 2017. Legislation for the reintroduction of the Australian Building and Construction Commission passed the parliament in the final sitting week of last year, as you will remember, Mr Deputy Speaker. It passed after a protracted and bungled process which began all the way back on 14 December 2013. It passed in a late sitting in the last week of the year with the support of many on the crossbench, including Senators Hinch, Xenophon and Leyonhjelm and senators from Pauline Hanson's One Nation. In fact, the specific provision we will amend here today, if the government has its way, was proposed by Senator Hinch and supported not only by the crossbench but also by the government.
In our view, we have dealt with this matter, a matter that started, as I said, in December 2013 with the introduction of the ABCC bill into this place. Of course, that bill was rejected by the parliament at that time, and a compromise was reached and, indeed, supported by the senators I have just mentioned. So, having settled the law with respect to the building industry—according to the Prime Minister a vital economic reform—the government now wants to trash its own law.
Companies that have enterprise agreements which are legal but not code compliant are nonetheless able, until 29 November 2018, to submit expressions of interest and tenders and be awarded Commonwealth work. That is the law as it stands. The government is proposing to further amend the Building and Construction (Improving Productivity) Act 2016 less than three months after its passage to wind back the exemption period for non-code-compliant companies from two years to nine months, and limit the exemptions so that companies that are not code compliant may tender for but not be awarded any Commonwealth building work within the nine-month exemption period. The effect of this amendment on those companies that have signed agreements, approved by the Fair Work Commission pursuant to the Fair Work Act, which are legal but not code compliant is that they will have to make a commercial decision not to tender for Commonwealth building work or they will have to seek to renegotiate their agreements with parties to those agreements in a very limited time frame. According to news reports, it is estimated—and, indeed, it was confirmed in the very brief Senate inquiry yesterday—that there are over 3,000 enterprise agreements that were made pursuant to the act, which were made lawfully and in good faith by employers, their workforce and unions, and they will have to be renegotiated before August this year.
It is important to remember that all of those companies that negotiated with unions in good faith and entered into legal enterprise agreements over the last three years acted prudently and reasonably. What was not reasonable for them to have to do was to anticipate a law that may or may not be enacted by the parliament. In fact, on the basis of the rejection of the code throughout the course of the last parliamentary term, it was quite reasonable, and indeed entirely proper, for employers not to have regard to the code, which had no legal basis, no legal standing whatsoever, when they negotiated and settled those agreements. It is also important to remember that the code they are supposed to comply with not only was not law when those agreements were made, as I have just said, but had been rejected time and time again by the parliament.
While Labor does not support the existence and substance of the code, the only sensible thing for the government to do would be to exempt those companies from the operation of the code until their existing enterprise agreements nominally expired. In other words, if an employer under the law entered into an agreement with its workforce and relevant unions then it would be entirely unfair for them now to be punished for negotiating those agreements in that manner—yet that is exactly what the government seeks to do. It seeks to punish significant large, medium and small employers who entered into agreements before the bill was enacted last year. Of course, this legislation will further punish those companies and make it even more difficult for them.
The advice we gave the government at the time is that they should have waited for the nominal expiration date of those agreements, which would have been only fair. But, of course, common sense is rare in the Turnbull Liberal government. Instead, we have this rushed, ideological, damaging piece of legislation, which will throw the industry into chaos. How exactly the government believe that this will improve productivity is anyone's guess.
You might recall the Prime Minister claimed victory after the passage of the ABCC bill in December last year. He was ecstatic, in fact. He stood at the dispatch box—I was opposite—and he lauded the agreement and effectively said that this was the end of the matter. He went on to say that this bill was a vital economic reform. He was, if you like, crowing about his success. Whilst we did not agree then and do not agree now with the substance of the bill or the code, we believe it is quite improper now for the government to renege on that settlement.
However, Labor, the crossbench and, most importantly, the industry have every right to believe that the bill that passed last year would be the end of the matter, would be settled law. On the passing of the ABCC legislation last year, the Prime Minister confirmed in this place:
Up until 29 November 2018, it will allow building industry participants whose enterprise agreements are not Building Code compliant to tender for and be awarded Commonwealth-funded building contracts.
Unfortunately, what the Prime Minister said in December last year has proven to be a lie, has proven to be untrue, because, while he said one thing in December, this bill fundamentally contradicts that commitment. Less than three months later, the government is shifting the goalposts again. Let there be no mistake. If the bill passes, it will be a pyrrhic victory, as there will be chaos, uncertainty and potentially industrial conflict in the building and construction industry.
Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: I would ask that the member withdraw the unparliamentary term that he used in his speech just a minute ago.
In the context in which it was used, I do not believe it was unparliamentary, so there is no point of order.
The government, in collusion with a number of Senate crossbenchers, is now looking to rewrite the legislation, pulling the rug out from under the industry. I am particularly disappointed in Senator Xenophon, who must know the consequences of his support for this irresponsible approach. As to why Senator Hinch has taken this action is anyone's guess, because it is almost impossible to know what he stands for on any given matter on any given day. He did remind us in the Senate inquiry yesterday, though, that it was not he who proposed the 29 November 2018 date as the transition period for the code to apply. It was the Prime Minister who wrote, on a note that he passed across the table to Senator Hinch in December last year, 'Let us have a two-year grace period for those companies.' It is the Prime Minister who proposed the amendment that was reflected in the bill last year, and it is that change that is occurring which really shows how dishonourable the Prime Minister has been with respect to this matter—very dishonourable indeed. The fact that Senator Hinch has gone along with the change is also very, very disappointing. He engaged with many stakeholders over the course of the debate, he gave undertakings, he stood up in the parliament, he moved the amendment and now he seeks to change that.
With respect to Senator Xenophon, he should know better. This is a senator who has been in the parliament for a considerable time, having of course been in the South Australian parliament for a long time before that. More to the point, it is Senator Xenophon who often likes to portray himself as a friend to Australian workers—a friend of the worker, as he would like to see it. Senator Xenophon trumpets the fact, for example, that he supports Australian-made products, and yet, if he supports this code in either of the two parts, he will be denying the ability for employers and unions and their workforces to negotiate Australian-made protective clothing in enterprise agreements. Here is a senator who has said he supports Australian-made products. He will be denying provisions that currently exist in enterprise agreements in the building industry and therefore denying Australian-made products to be reflected in those agreements, as a result of his support for the code.
He lays claim to be concerned also by the growth of asbestos related diseases and deaths. In fact, Senator Xenophon is the co-patron of the South Australian Asbestos Victims Association. As the co-patron of what is a remarkable organisation—and I have had the great pleasure of attending the remarkable commemorations that they hold each year—has he spoken to that organisation and said that he supports a code that will remove from enterprise agreements in the building industry the ability to have accredited training on asbestos safety?
If this code is to take effect, whether it is in August this year or later on, there are provisions that currently exist in certain enterprise agreements that will be struck out of those agreements if the employer chooses to be code compliant. I will refer to one example. It is a Queensland enterprise agreement that says: 'The employer agrees that it will, within three months of the commencement of this agreement, schedule a nationally accredited asbestos awareness training course for each employee covered by this agreement. Further, the employer agrees that it will, within three months of each new employee commencing employment, ensure that the employee successfully completes a nationally accredited asbestos awareness training course.' That provision will be struck from enterprise agreements across the building industry if the code takes effect.
Further to that, we have heard Senator Xenophon, Senator Hinch and, indeed, One Nation senators talk about their concerns about temporary workers getting jobs before and instead of unemployed construction workers in the industry, and yet there are provisions that go to the use of temporary work visas that will be struck out of agreements across the country. Firstly, in a Victorian agreement there is a clause that says the following:
The Employer will ensure all Employees are lawfully entitled to work in Australia performing work under the Agreement. Before employing overseas workers [on] any temporary visa, the Parties will confer to ensure that all parties are satisfied that all laws in relation to sponsorship, engagement and employment of a person who is not an Australian citizen.
That form of regulation, to make sure there is not exploitation or abuse of the visa system, will be struck from any further agreement, whether it is in Victoria or in any other state, in the building industry. Further to that, there is a provision in an enterprise agreement in Queensland that says, if there are to be redundancies in the building industry, local workers will not be made redundant before temporary work visa applicants. The provision in this Queensland enterprise agreement says:
In the event of redundancies required during the life of the Agreement, in occupational classifications where both Australian workers and temporary foreign workers are employed, temporary foreign workers will be made redundant first, given that temporary foreign workers are intended to supplement the Australian workforce.
That provision, which prefers local workers and ensures that they are not sacked before overseas workers, currently is in an enterprise agreement in the building industry in Queensland—and it will be disallowed as soon as the code takes effect. So there is no point One Nation, Senator Hinch or Senator Xenophon talking about local workers or Australian workers when they are supporting a code coming in earlier than the government intended and actually precluding any provisions in those agreements that will protect the interests of Australian workers.
These are the types of provisions, by the way, that can be in enterprise agreements in any sector of Australia other than the building industry, and yet the government supports this anti-worker legislation and is being supported at this time by Senator Xenophon, Senator Hinch, One Nation senators, Senator Leyonhjelm and others. We urge those crossbench senators to rethink their position because the effect of this code has a consequence that is completely contrary to what they say they support when they go back to their constituencies. They should rethink their position in relation to the code more generally, but at the very least, if they do not change their position on the code, they should reject this bill because it brings forward the implementation of the code, after the Prime Minister made a commitment that there would be a two-year period of grace before the transition took effect. They are some of the provisions that would be struck out of enterprise agreements if the employers were able to settle the changes to become code compliant.
Senator Xenophon likes to talk about his support for Australian made products. I mentioned earlier protective clothing and how there would be no right for agreements to ensure that protective clothing is made to comply with relevant Australian standards. A provision which currently is in Probuild enterprise agreements states: 'All endeavours will be made to provide clothing that is Australian made.' That provision will have to be struck out if they want to tender for Commonwealth work. So you have a situation where the Commonwealth government is imposing restrictions not only on workers but on unions and employers from agreeing on having Australian made protective clothing. If they do not strike this provision out of their enterprise agreements, they will not be allowed to tender for Commonwealth funded work. There is a bit of a cruel irony to this situation, but that is the effect of the code—and, indeed, the code will be brought forward to August this year if this bill passes. There are a whole series of implications for employers, their workforce and unions in relation to what is allowable and what is not allowable in the building industry. It is very important for people to understand that provisions that would no longer be allowed in the building industry are entirely permissible in every other industry in this country.
This is the reason why Labor are very adamant that we oppose this bill. That is why we have always opposed the code. That is why we will oppose the bringing forward of the implementation of the code—because it has this very significant adverse impact on the ability of employers, their workers and unions to negotiate in exactly the same manner, with the same rights and entitlements, as every other worker, employer and union in this country.
These are things that the Senate crossbench should be seriously contemplating. They may say they were not aware of the implications of the code. You might remember much was made of the provisions of the bill—it was undemocratic; it was in breach of civil rights; it was in breach of many of the International Labour Organization conventions that this country has signed up to. That is true. Indeed, much of the debate that was had in this place over the course of the three years since this bill was first introduced did focus very much on the bill itself. It focused on the way in which the onus in health and safety matters was going to shift to require the employee to justify why they may have raised health and safety matters, the fact that there were limited rights of legal representation, and the fact that there were powers that were, we would say, excessive, particularly in the civil jurisdiction. It is true to say that is where much of the debate focused in this place. However, the issue with respect to the bill before us today is the effect the code will have upon the capacity and rights of not only workers and unions but employers to bargain in good faith in this industry. As I say, it would deny the rights of provisions that go to asbestos safety training that would be accredited. It would deny the rights of the parties to have visa provisions that would temper and regulate the use of temporary workers in the industry.
Order! The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. The shadow minister will have an opportunity to conclude his speech at that time.
I rise to speak on the government's plan for a consultative forum on Western Sydney Airport, FOWSA. The proposed make-up of FOWSA, yet again, shows that there is one rule for the eastern half of Sydney and a different rule for the west when it comes to airports. The membership of FOWSA announced by the minister excludes federal members of parliament. By contrast, Sydney Airport Community Forum has 11 federal MPs including the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and the Minister for Urban Infrastructure. SACF has every local federal member affected by aircraft noise—in other words, every single electorate within cooee of the airport, including those on the North Shore. But, in its plans for FOWSA, there is not a single spot dedicated for federal MPs. I raised this issue with the Minister for Urban Infrastructure's office late last year and there has been no response. It is completely unacceptable that federal MPs in Western Sydney are excluded in a forum that will have a key role in the process of determining the airspace and flight path design for the airport.
You also have to question the survey that came out today that claims people want a 24/7 airport in Western Sydney without decent rail infrastructure. What questions were asked? What information was people given? Who was asked? How many were surveyed? I am not going to take it seriously until we know those things. This continues an attitude of arrogance about the people of Western Sydney. (Time expired)
Last Friday night I attended the Rotary Club of Berry's annual Riverland and Mallee Vocational Awards. These awards are the largest of their kind in regional Australia, which underscores not only the hard work of the apprentices, trainees and students but also the dedication of members of the Rotary Club of Berry and the quality of the training experiences offered by employers in the Riverland and surrounds.
Apprenticeships and traineeships are a highly effective way to skill Australians to be part of the modern, rapidly changing workplace. Apprentices and trainees gain valuable skills which project them on to lucrative career pathways. Nationally, employment outcomes for trade apprentices, in particular, are strong, with over 90 per cent of graduates remaining employed after completion of their training. There is no doubt that an apprenticeship or a traineeship provides a strong foundation for a highly successful and fulfilling career. Recognition must also go to employers in the region who not only contribute to their profession and the local economy by employing a trainee or apprentice, but also provide much appreciated guidance, education and training for the young people they take on.
Again, congratulations to all nominees and well done to the finalists and, of course, the winners: Erica Austria, winner of the Vocational Education and Training Student of the Year; Tayla Kingham, winner of the Australian School-Based Trainee of the Year; Chernoa Morrow, winner of the Australian School-Based Apprentice of the Year; Casey Cox, Trainee of the Year; and Cody Milne, Apprentice of the Year. I wish them well with their careers.
I rise today to pay tribute to the work of volunteer bushfire brigades that cover my electorate and surrounding areas, who last week kept under control a blaze near Wungong and Bedfordale. Through the fantastic work of these volunteer firefighters and with some good luck from the rain, the fire was contained before any homes could be damaged or lives lost.
Growing up in the Kelmscott Hills, my family and I know only too well how much people in our region rely on the services of the volunteer bushfire brigade and their firefighters. Everyone is well aware of the vital work that these volunteers put into protecting our community during the tragic 2011 Kelmscott-Roleystone fires. Volunteer brigades must be able to have the capacity to defend our homes from bushfires and that requires funding, which is why I welcome the commitment made by WA Labor for an additional $300,000 in funding for bushfire brigades in the city of Armadale and the Shire of Serpentine-Jarrahdale.
Labor's candidate for Darling Range, Barry Urban, is a volunteer bushfire fighter himself and was out with the brigade this week. He knows that our brigades need support, and this funding commitment will go a long way towards ensuring our volunteers have the best possible equipment and facilities to continue their fantastic work. So, once again, I place on the record my thanks to the volunteers who, along with firefighters from DPAW and DFES, continue to keep our community safe during these hot summer months. We all sleep better at night knowing that they have got our backs.
Stability, jobs and economic growth—apparently, not very sexy words but these are the things I campaigned on and helped me to be re-elected in July 2016. By working hard, I am delivering in the Pilbara, with a new St John Ambulance Port Hedland building, the realignment of the Great Northern Highway and the North West Coastal Highway, upgrading of the Marble Bar Road and improved mobile reception with many new mobile towers—to name but a few.
As I have said before in this place, the Pilbara is an economic heartland for Australia. While the mining and resources industries is, of course, vitally important to Australia's and the region's sustainability, the Pilbara has a diversified economy, including the arts, tourism and hospitality industries, and can be so much more. The proposed Nat's' $5 mining tax in WA is akin to the failed federal Labor government's mining tax. Both would impact jobs locally in Durack and have a detrimental impact on future mining projects across Australia.
WA Liberals, we get the bush; WA Liberals, we get jobs—it is in our blood. But there are also many social issues in the region, and only by all three tiers of government working together will we actually be able to achieve some outcomes. That is why I am 100 per cent behind the state Liberal candidate for the Pilbara, Mark Alchin, and I now look forward to working with him to make the Pilbara a better place for all.
I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge and congratulate those members of the community in my electorate of Wills who were inducted into the Order of Australia on Australia Day this year. Ms Melanie Raymond OAM was recognised for her tireless work with young people, her work in social welfare and contribution to the community over decades. I just visited Youth Projects in Glenroy and saw firsthand the great work she and her team do with employment and education services for young people. Ms Susan Nixon OAM was recognised for her service to women over many decades. The Reverend Alistair Macrae OAM was recognised for his outstanding work and service to the Uniting Church and in promoting ecumenism, interfaith dialogue and reconciliation. Mr Shane Lapworth OAM was recognised for his outstanding service to the community as a volunteer SES member since 2001—although Shane claims it was all Connie Lapworth's work, who is now the actual controller of SES in Broadmeadows.
These people join a select group of inductees to our unique Australian honours system. They are indeed remarkable people and, as their representative in this place, it is my absolute pleasure and honour to thank them for their meritorious service to our community and our nation. It is people like these who make Australia such a wonderful country. I thank them and congratulate them for their wonderful service to Australia and their communities.
Every year for last 57 years, the city of Port Lincoln has staged the Tunarama Festival—originally to mark the departure of the tuna fleet. In more recent times, the industry that spawned the festival has changed into a modern, dynamic industry focused on quality production and marketing; so too the Tunarama Festival, which has adapted and become a broadly encompassing community festival.
This year, Tunarama also encompassed the Australia Day celebrations and, also, was able to claim its first Prime Ministerial visit during the carnival. It was a great pleasure to be able to showcase Port Lincoln to Malcolm Turnbull and introduce him in the flesh to many of my constituents. We had the opportunity to meet with many of the organisers and participants in the street parade, including South Australia Variety Bash's No. 1 fundraisers, Runaway Brides; the Tacoma Preservation Society; Dragons Abreast—a wonderful support organisation for women who have suffered breast cancer; and a number of children and sporting groups. They were all eager to meet the Prime Minister. As we wandered down the street, the excitement of having a sitting Prime Minister was palpable, as people lined up for selfies with Malcolm Turnbull.
Whilst we viewed the parade from the mayor's offices, we had the opportunity to meet with Sam Telfer, Julie Low and Bruce Green—three mayors from the lower Eyre Peninsula. The reps from RDA all had a chance to get in the ear of the Prime Minister. (Time expired)
My electorate of Macarthur on the southern outskirts of Sydney recently experienced, like many other western areas, record high temperatures of 44 degrees and 46 degrees centigrade respectively on Friday and Saturday of last week. There has been a huge differential between coastal areas and the western suburbs. This has put increasing strain on already stretched resources. Macarthur is facing increasing developmental pressures and is growing rapidly. Western Sydney, on a population basis, is bearing the brunt of global warming. Much of the newer development is poorly designed to cope with high temperatures, with black-roofed houses, black-asphalted roads, poorly insulated houses and a lack of trees. Some classrooms and many trains are not air-conditioned. Poor public transport increases motor vehicle pollution. The evidence of global warming is now unequivocal, yet all we hear from this government is about some mythical non-existent concept called 'clean coal', a few cheap political stunts and no concrete action. Global warming costs money but also, more importantly, costs many lives. It is time this government forgot the politics and acted for the good of the Australian people, and the Macarthur electorate demands the government to act urgently on global warming.
I rise today to congratulate a part of my electorate which unfortunately is no longer part of my electorate—that is, the municipal area of Shellharbour City Council. Today, they received the news that their amalgamation with Wollongong City Council is not going to go ahead. I have to congratulate Mayor Marianne Saliba and especially my friend Kellie Marsh for their absolutely consistent, tenacious and strong work in advocating for their council to stay as a separate entity. I argued with them, stood by them and went with them to rallies to argue with them to prevent this amalgamation from taking place. Regional councils, unless they are in dire need of financial assistance, should not be amalgamated. These people are answerable to their little communities, they know their communities—they bang into them in the streets and the supermarkets. They know their people and they should be congratulated. I stand here today to say to them, despite all the moves made against them and all the tricks that went on behind the scenes, well done, particularly to Kellie and Marianne. And young Nathan, who is Kellie's son, has been an avid little supporter at all the rallies.
Further, in relation to Closing the Gap in that area, the Green Army work in Killalea estate park did all that was meant to happen with Closing the Gap for young Indigenous people, and their work in that region was absolutely fabulous. Thank you very much.
I rise to talk about the important work done by two fantastic not-for-profits, beyondblue and Love Your Sister. Firstly, beyondblue is an independent association working to address the issues associated with mental illness, including depression, anxiety disorders and related mental health disorders. Love Your Sister is another fantastic not-for-profit, working to promote early detection and improve survival rates for breast cancer sufferers. It was set up by Sam and Connie Johnson, following Connie's battle with cancer three times over the last six years. Some members of the House may know Sam Johnson as the actor who played Molly Meldrum in a recent telly series. Together, Sam and Connie started Love Your Sister with the aims of breaking the world record for the longest distance travelled on a unicycle around Australia; to raise $1 million for the Garvan Research Foundation; and, most importantly, to remind every woman to be breast aware and stop others having to say goodbye to those they love. In 2013, Sam raised $1.4 million for Love Your Sister, as he rode around Australia on a bike. Sam Johnson will be with Mel Yeates, who is travelling around Australia playing her guitar raising money for Love Your Sister and beyondblue, at a fundraiser tonight in my office. Everyone is welcome.
Today, I would like to discuss the important contribution volunteers make in Bonner. I would also like to talk about the first annual Bonner volunteer awards, which are starting soon. I have met many exceptional volunteers over the years. These men and women freely give up their time and energy to make their community a better place. They improve our schools, clean up our environment, provide a boost to emergency and health services, and help keep vital community organisations running. They give a helping hand to people in need. They are amazing role models. And they all do it without asking for anything in return except for the knowledge that they are making a difference.
I have nothing but respect for the many thousands of volunteers all across Australia. This year I wanted to do my part to thank the outstanding volunteers and volunteer groups in my electorate. I am now pleased to announce the Bonner Volunteer Awards. These awards will give thanks to individuals and teams that have demonstrated outstanding volunteer qualities. They will recognise volunteers who have made a significant and lasting contribution to the community, who have set a great example to fellow volunteers and who have inspired others to volunteer.
My office will be taking nominations from 27 February to 17 March. I have selected a panel of three community representatives to select the winners, who will be presented their awards on 31 March. I cannot wait to hear the stories of Bonner's exceptional volunteers and thank them for their service.
Mr Deputy Speaker, you might know Beechworth, one of the favourite visiting places for many members of parliament. How absolutely honoured I was last Friday to open the Writers, Readers and Poets' Weekend, which was a great activity. Today in this place I would like to acknowledge the Beechworth Arts Council, the many sponsors and the organising committee for the fantastic job they did, bringing together speakers, film, playwrights, workshops, readers, actors and artists, and showcasing some amazing poetry, writing and film.
Particularly, thank you to Indigo Shire Council, WAW Credit Union, the George Kerford Hotel, Pennyweight Wineries, the State Library of Victoria and the University of Melbourne School of Culture and Communications. It was great to have your support.
It would not have been such a wonderful weekend without the actual hard work and dedication of the committee. Thanks to all those involved. Thanks to Jamie, for your fantastic leadership. Thanks to Michael; Jude; Olga; Inga; Helen McIntyre and her husband, David; Helen Murray; Lesley; Ann; and Daren John Pope for all their hours of work.
I have to say, the absolute favourite of mine was last Friday night at May Day Hills garden, walking around those magnificent trees, reading poetry. That has to be one of the really special parts of this job, followed by the artwork of Wooragee Primary School. Fantastic work, everybody. Thanks for making Indi such a magnificent place for artists.
I want to share some of the positive news for finger lime growers not only in my electorate but right around Australia. Just a few days ago I got a really excited call from Ian and Margie Douglas, who run the Lime Caviar Company in the Scenic Rim. They were telling me that they had a sense of real hope that they are a step closer to being able to export their fresh finger limes to places like China, India, Japan, the US, South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, Vietnam or New Zealand—places they had not been able to get finger limes into over concerns about fruit fly.
But a new federal-funded study could now change all of that and bring hope for the likes of Ian and Margie. Ian and Margie hope that the study could prove what they already believe to be true: that finger limes do not carry fruit fly. I welcome this study, which the Queensland agriculture department will carry out through a $313,000 grant from the Commonwealth's Agricultural Trade and Market Access Cooperation program.
I took the Douglas couple's case to Canberra after they raised their frustrations with me last year. Ian and Margie have been determined and proactive in championing this issue at a national level and need to be commended. They sought advocacy from me as their federal member, and they also broadcast it to the lounge rooms of fellow Australians through the widely-watched Landline program. I acknowledge Pip Courtney for their contribution there.
This study is a positive step in the right direction. I am proud to be a part of a government which is supporting our farmers through the hurdles facing this industry.
In this House of Representatives, where governments are made and unmade, the largest single political party by far is the Australian Labor Party. The current Prime Minister only governs because of an arrangement he has with the National Party. He governs thanks to a deal. When the current Prime Minister overthrew the former Prime Minister the National Party was not happy. Eventually they said: 'No, it's okay. We've struck a new deal with the Liberal Party, so everything's okay.'
The question becomes: what is that deal? Nothing could be more fundamental to our democracy and to the Westminster system than that deal—the deal that keeps this Prime Minister and this government in power. But can the Australian people see the deal? No. Apparently it is a secret. It is so secret that I have been denied my FOI request for the coalition agreement. It is so secret that this government is now fighting me in the courts, spending taxpayers' money to keep that coalition agreement a secret.
The Australian people are entitled to ask what is in this deal that allows this Prime Minister to govern in partnership with the National Party. What is in this deal that he is keeping so secret from the Australian people?
I rise to speak about my continued commitment to reporting to the House what the people of Fisher have told me that they care about in my recent 11 listening posts conducted in the last week of January.
Dennis Hume from Glass House wants the government to continue to drive to roll out high-speed broadband through NBN to all Australians as quickly as possible. I am glad to say that we were able to work with Telstra to get him good news on his own connection.
Laurence Brumley is concerned about whether food labelling is clear enough. I was pleased to be able to tell him about the government's new 2016 food labelling laws.
Nick Byron from Battery Hill is a former PE teacher still passionately engaged in youth sport. He wanted to know, from his pushbike, about the government's strategy for encouraging physical activity. We are working with the minister to get him the most up-to-date information in this space.
Finally, Jim Davidson in Maleny believes rightly that MP's entitlements need to be addressed. I told him about my determination to run my own office like a small business, and I look forward to passing on the news about the government's recent strong action to establish the Independent Parliamentary Expenses Authority.
I am determined to be a federal member who listens. I thank the constituents I have mentioned today for their honesty and helpful feedback, and I thank the over 100 Fisher constituents who came to see me during my listening posts.
I rise to celebrate two firsts in the electorate of Lalor on the past Saturday and two firsts for the city of Wyndham. For the first time in Wyndham we celebrated the Lunar New Year festival with the Chinese community in Point Cook. It was a fabulous celebration with dancing, singing, martial arts displays—everything you would expect to find in a Melbourne Lunar New Year festival. I would like to congratulate the Chinese community and all of the sponsors. I joined Councillor An, Councillor Gibbons and Councillor Hooper there, and would like to give a special mention to former Councillor Bob Fairclough, whose vision it was to work with our community to deliver on that day.
The other event that I attended on the weekend was our first International Mother Language Day celebration, initiated by Nurul Islam Khan, President of the Victorian Bangladeshi Community Foundation, who invited me. I joined Councillor Gilligan and Councillor Villagonzales and we shared reading bilingual books and a celebration of all things mother language. In a country like ours it is really important that we stop to note the importance of the mother tongue and what it means to have the freedom to speak it, as of course our Bangladeshi community fully understands with the stark history in their own country, where people lost their lives defending their right to speak their mother language.
I rise to bring to the attention of the House a snapshot of local issues that are important to people on the Central Coast. Over the last week more than 250 local residents and businesses have contacted me to share with me what matters to them. There are people like Bill from Point Frederick, who was one of many who see the No. 1 issue as an urgent priority for more local jobs, especially in Gosford. With fewer local jobs, many people commute to work or to study, like Kai from Green Point who said there are significant internet blackspots from Woy Woy heading into the city, which underlines the importance of the coalition's election commitment to deliver continuous mobile coverage on the train line between Wyong and Hornsby.
Troy from Macmasters Beach supports our $10 million investment in a performing arts centre in Gosford. His daughter also travels four hours every day to study the arts in Sydney. With so much young talent on the Central Coast, Troy is confident the centre would be a massive boost. Chris at Tascott said that his priorities include the need to reduce the high rate of suicide and he asked a powerful question: what can be done to give people hope? Cathy from Kincumber alerted me to fears of an above-average rate of asthma, which is something that I will raise with local experts. Dozens more posted on my Facebook page, many with local issues that I will follow up directly with state and local government. As Graeme from Bensville put it, people do not care which level of government problems fit with; they just want things fixed. There were many more comments which I hope to share with the House at another time, but to those who have responded so far, thank you. We will deliver on our commitments.
I have petitioned the government to prioritise Canberra on the NBN rollout map. I have written to the minister to prioritise Canberra on the NBN rollout map, and to date, despite the promise by the Prime Minister that every household in Australia would have NBN by 2016, the rollout map for my electorate is just one big blank space. So I am asking Canberrans to send me their speeds to show the parlous internet in our nation's capital.
Markus from Fadden has a download of 5.62 megabits per second and an upload of an appalling 0.88 megabits per second. He wrote:
To backup my 64 gigabyte phone to the internet it would take me 94 days!
I was living in Munich last year. With the standard 10 megabytes per second connection over there it would only have taken 2.5 hours!
As he said:
I may as well invest in a carrier pigeon at this point.
Well said, Markus. He also sent me a read-out when he was mid-flight:
Hi Gai—I'm currently flying 12 kilometres over Siberia in a Finnair A350, and the internet connection is faster than the copper network back at home... oh my.
Download 3.01 megabits per second
Upload 1.59 megabits per second
If the Turnbull government will not listen to Canberrans, let's show them our nation's capital has some of the worst internet speeds in the world.
I rise today to commend the government's commitment to honouring a century of service by our armed forces through the Spirit of Anzac Centenary Experience. Earlier this month I had the privilege of opening this exhibit in Kalgoorlie-Boulder, one of the largest regional cities in my electorate of O'Connor. What made this moment particularly satisfying was that Kalgoorlie-Boulder happened to be one of just 23 locations in Australia to host this exhibit. The Western Australian Goldfields, in relative terms, have always been overrepresented in Australia's Defence Force. It is a proud region and the residents have traditionally shown an unwavering commitment to our nation's values and principles and a love for the Australian way of life. So I consider it extremely fitting that the government made the decision to bring the Spirit of Anzac Experience to Kalgoorlie-Boulder on its national tour. This was no mean feat. The interactive experience includes more than 200 artefacts from the Australian War Memorial and covered three basketball courts at Kalgoorlie-Boulder's sport and recreation centre.
The government's decision to bring the flagship community event of our Anzac centenary program to regional areas should be applauded. All Australians should have the chance to connect with our history, particularly during such a significant time of commemoration. This decision was vindicated by the overwhelming support in the Goldfields. When I opened the exhibition of behalf of the Minister for Veterans Affairs, Dan Tehan, I was told that more than 4,000 people had preregistered for this event prior to its launch. I thank the minister and commend the government for bringing this exhibition to the Goldfields.
Here we are back in parliament and yet there is still deafening silence from people on the other side, the government, about the growing trend of aggressive employers of big companies filing to terminate collective agreements. There are companies out there undermining collective bargaining as we speak, using the Fair Work Act in a way to manipulate bargaining in our workplaces. Where is it happening? In their own electorates. It is happening in the seat of Murray with the Echuca Parmalat workers, where the company has filed to terminate the agreement, trying to cut those workers' wages. It is happening in Queensland, in the member for Capricornia's electorate, where they are sacking workers and replacing them with labour hire. It is happening in the small WA town of Collie, where workers are facing 65 per cent pay cuts because the company has filed to terminate the agreement, and this government does nothing. It does nothing to stand up for blue-collar workers' jobs. It does nothing to stand up and say that we need to have a fair work system that is based upon fair enterprise bargaining. It is allowing its big business mates to bully workers into horrible pay cuts that will not only hurt those workers and their families but small communities. This government is a disgrace when it comes to standing up for blue-collar workers and their families.
Despite 42-degree heat in the shade last Saturday, the nation's greatest Lunar New Year celebration event was held in Bennelong, and it was a smashing success, with thousands braving the conditions. The chair of the Eastwood Lunar New Year Organising Committee, Hugh Lee, once again delivered for his community. He was decisive when the heat was literally on, acting swiftly to modify the program to ensure the weather was well-managed and everyone was kept safe. He even ensured that Chinese-style hand fans were distributed to the masses. Thank you very much, Hugh.
The event was supported by a huge number of community champions. There were sponsors: Jack Zhang of the Commonwealth Bank in Eastwood; Greg Barclay of the Eastwood Hotel, a great place for a beer or two; Scott Chan of LJ Hooker Eastwood; and Deborah Anderson from SBS. Thank you for your support. The MCs, Melissa Foong and Matthew Won, were magnificent, with both English and Cantonese at their disposal. The students from the Feng Hua Chinese School sang the anthem beautifully, accompanied by their very impressive violinist, Justine Zhang. It was a wonderful performance. Members of the organising committee included Anthony Ching; Jeffrey Tse; Wilson Fu; Roy Maggio; Counsellor Justin Li, honorary chairman and founder of the event; Danny Yu; Joe Yu; Esther Barclay-Lee; Professor Koo Guan Choo; Tony Tang; Michelle Carter; Stephanie Foley; Liz Berge; and the omnipresent Andrew Hill.
Bennelong's strength is its diversity. I am proud to represent Australia's most multicultural electorate. Congratulations to all involved.
In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Why is the Prime Minister holding the future of the National Disability Insurance Scheme hostage to his cuts to families, carers, pensioners and young people?
It is hard to imagine more gall than we have got from the Leader of the Opposition. He told Peter van Onselen that the NDIS was good for votes and was good politically. That is what he said. That was his motivation. He said it was good for votes and good political stuff. Then he set it up, and we have all supported it. As Prime Minister, I have now signed up every jurisdiction. So we are all on board.
But there is little thing that the Labor Party forgot, and that is paying for it. They always overlook that. They are big on intention and their motives are so good but they just cannot pay for them.
Ms Catherine King interjecting—
The member for Ballarat!
It is the old story: the problem with socialists is that eventually they run out of other people's money, and that is exactly what has happened to this bloke. He has gone out there with his bleeding heart, talking about the NDIS, and left a great big financial hole. We are doing the hard work to pay for it—that is what we are doing—because we believe that people with disabilities need the respect of having the funding in place to pay for their government's commitments. That is the difference. Labor are big on the rhetoric and big on the promises but, when it comes to paying the bill, all they do is rack up more and more debt. That is the Labor way. It is the reckless way. It underlines why you cannot trust the Labor Party and why you cannot trust this Leader of the Opposition. He sold out the NDIS before it got started when he never put in place the funding to pay for it.
Honourable members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Just before I call the member for Jagajaga, the members on my right will cease interjecting. The member for Ballarat is now warned, as are the members for Oxley and Hindmarsh.
I seek leave to table the Treasury document from 2013 that shows we fully funded the NDIS.
Honourable members interjecting—
Is leave granted? Perhaps if members on my right would stop interjecting I could get an answer to the question of whether leave is granted.
Leave not granted.
I thank the Leader of the House.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister update the House on how the government's responsible energy policies will help hardworking Australian families and businesses access more affordable and reliable power, which is something of great concern to constituents in my electorate of Robertson?
Now more than ever, the honourable member's constituents, and the constituents of every member in this House, need to be assured of reliable and affordable power.
Dr Mike Kelly interjecting—
There is a massive threat looming over that prospect—
Dr Mike Kelly interjecting—
The member for Eden-Monaro is warned.
and that is the Labor Party and its reckless ideological approach to energy security, which has been demonstrated comprehensively in South Australia.
Ms Plibersek interjecting—
The member for Sydney is warned.
Only today, the Treasurer and I met with the Committee for Adelaide, a South Australian business group. Those business leaders are feeling the full brunt of what Jay Weatherill called his 'great experiment'. Well, it is an experiment that has failed. It has failed workers; it has failed businesses; and it has failed households. The chairman, Colin Goodall, said: 'Power has become a daily conversation in South Australia. It is difficult to attract new businesses to South Australia due to electricity being unreliable.' Those views were reinforced by every member of his delegation. One member said that he was considering moving his business out of South Australia and that he was not able to expand in the way his competitors interstate were able to expand, because of unavailable, unreliable and unaffordable power. Colin Goodall, the chairman of the committee said, 'South Australia is the canary in the coalmine.'
That is where Australia's energy situation will end up if the Labor Party are allowed to carry out their policies. In South Australia, they recognise the consequence of this unplanned introduction of a massive amount of wind power and variable renewable energy into the grid without any plan and without any proper analysis of how it could be integrated. We know what happened. We have seen it.
The Labor Party and the opposition leader should explain how their 50 per cent renewable energy target is going to work out—
Ms Plibersek interjecting—
The member for Sydney has been warned. If she interjects again she will be leaving the chamber, as will the member for Lindsay.
How is that going to work out? And how is he going to deliver on double the emissions reductions already committed to by the government—double what we have agreed to in Paris? And they have no plan whatsoever to maintain the stability or the affordability of our energy system. We cannot let that unreliability, that unaffordability, that threat to jobs, that threat to business, that threat to families, go right across Australia. That is Labor's promise if they were to be elected to government.
My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to his previous answer in response to a question from the member for Robertson. Last week in New South Wales, power was cut to households in the electorates of Bennelong, Reid and Robertson. Power was also cut to the Tomago smelter, whose usual power consumption is equivalent to almost one million households. This is despite the fact that New South Wales has the highest dependence on coal power in the nation. When will the Prime Minister stop blaming renewable energy and admit he has a national energy crisis on his hands?
The member for Reid is warned.
The delusion of the member for Port Adelaide is remarkable—really! This is a member from South Australia who described the blackouts in South Australia, including the one in September last year that cost Arrium—a business struggling to survive; a business where thousands of workers' jobs depend on its survival; on a knife's edge—$30 million. And what did the member for Port Adelaide describe it as? It was 'a hiccup'; just another hiccup! And he complains about one hiccup after another in South Australia. You are seeing businesses being put to the wall in his own state and his own constituents losing their jobs, and he does not think it matters.
What about the owner of a seafood restaurant in Port Lincoln who said he had no trade for 2½ days—
The member for Port Adelaide, on a point of order.
Again, direct relevance, Speaker—
The member for Port Adelaide will resume his seat.
The Prime Minister had—
The member for Port Adelaide will resume his seat.
Mr Butler interjecting—
The member for Port Adelaide will resume his seat.
Mr Butler interjecting—
The member for Port Adelaide will leave the chamber under 94(a).
The member for Port Adelaide then left the chamber.
The Prime Minister has the call.
Opposition members interjecting—
I am not going to have members openly defy my requests for them to resume their seat.
The honourable member, who is leaving the chamber now, simply cannot cope with the truth. The truth is that South Australia's experiment has failed. And it is all very well for the delusionists on the Labor side—
Opposition members interjecting—
It is all very well for them to shout and yell. I do not think they would be shouting and yelling at the South Australian businesses that are here today, whose businesses and whose employees are being put at risk and whose competitive position is being disadvantaged, or the pensioners in South Australia who cannot afford to turn on the air conditioner because it is the most expensive power in the country and, when they can afford it, they cannot be sure that it will come on when they flick the switch.
There is no point in Labor denying the fact that every South Australian knows: if you introduce a massive amount of variable renewable energy, of wind or solar, into your grid, and you do so without proper planning, without the backup, without the firming power, without the storage, then you increase the vulnerability of your grid, and that is exactly what AEMO has said. It is precisely what they have said. So they have made the grid less resilient—more vulnerable to the blackouts that are destroying jobs across South Australia.
The Prime Minister will resume his seat.
Mr Pyne interjecting—
The Leader of the House will cease interjecting. Has the Prime Minister concluded his answer? The Prime Minister has concluded his answer.
My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer update the House on the action the government is taking to promote investment that creates jobs and reduces cost-of-living pressures on hardworking Australian families? Is the Treasurer aware of any alternative approaches that put the Australian economy at a competitive disadvantage?
I thank the member for Barker for his question. I know he also was interested today in the meeting that the Prime Minister and I had with South Australians who have come and are sharing the many challenges that they are facing.
Nine out of 10 jobs in the Australian economy are in the private sector. Hardworking Australians and their families depend on the success of those businesses for the jobs they have, for the hours they are able to work and for the incomes they are able to earn, to ensure that they can meet the cost pressures that are on their family budgets.
That is why I am pleased to see today that today's NAB monthly survey shows the following: some good news in terms of how the private sector is getting on and taking an optimistic outlook about the future. Business conditions, according to the survey today, are the strongest result we have seen in almost a decade, since October 2007. Business confidence is back to a three-year high—the best figure we have seen since February 2014. In fact, Alan Oster, the chief economist from NAB, has said: if sustained, confidence at these levels could see firms revise up their capital expenditure and hiring plans. For actual capital expenditure, it was the strongest result seen since the Howard-Costello government was last in office—when the coalition was last in office before this government. Employment conditions have strengthened to the strongest we have seen since June 2011.
While acknowledging some seasonal factors in these figures, what we are seeing is a business outlook which wants to get on with things and do things. That is why, on this side of the House, we are backing businesses and, in particular, small businesses, who we want to support to pay less tax, to ensure that they can get access to things like the instant asset write-off. And we are talking about companies that have half a dozen employees, that have a turnover of $2½ million a year. We want to give them that support, but those opposite stand in the way of that support for these businesses who are clearly saying they want to get out there, they want to employ people and they want to seize the opportunities and the improving economic outlook that we are starting to see not just here but around the world.
The other thing those businesses want to do is have affordable energy for their future. As the Prime Minister said today, the Chair of the Committee for Adelaide, Colin Goodall, said that South Australia is the canary in the coalmine. Do not be frightened. I said 'coal'. Do not be too scared. Get over your coalophobia. Embrace the all-of-the-above approach of this government, which says, 'We want to ensure energy affordability for small businesses and large businesses, because they want to get on with things.' All those opposite want to do is engage in the politics of opposition and put a roadblock in the face of Australian businesses who just want to give Australians jobs.
My question is to the Prime Minister. On Friday, a supply shortage in coal-dependent New South Wales meant power was cut to Tomago, Australia's largest aluminium smelter, in my electorate. Yesterday, the CEO of Tomago said:
… the way the energy system is working at the moment, it is dysfunctional.
What we saw on Friday was a genuine system-security risk. When will the Prime Minister stop blaming renewable energy and admit that he has an energy crisis on his hands, a crisis which is hurting the largest private— (Time expired)
The Minister for the Environment and Energy, whom I will invite to add to this answer, has just drawn to my attention a statement by the Australian Energy Market Operator from 10 February about New South Wales's electricity supply, in which it states, 'AEMO can also confirm that residential load shedding was not required at any point'—quite to the contrary of what the member for Port Adelaide just said.
Opposition members interjecting—
Another lie! Another lie! Another lie!
The member for Port Adelaide said residential load shedding was required—
The Minister for the Environment and Energy will come to the dispatch box and withdraw.
I withdraw.
The member for Port Adelaide said that there was residential load shedding in the state, and here we have a statement from AEMO, of which he must have been aware, saying that was not the case.
As far as Tomago is concerned: it is a large base load customer for electricity in New South Wales. It is the practice with large base load customers to, by agreement, load shed—for which they are rewarded at times of very high peak demand. It is the way in which big customers like that—aluminium smelters being the biggest, obviously—are able to provide stabilisation and balance to the grid.
What was put to us by the member for Port Adelaide is contradicted by AEMO. He is not here to defend himself or explain his misstatement, but it just shows how the Labor Party is deluded about energy. I will invite the minister to add to that answer.
Unfortunately, we are seeing a pattern of mistruths and obfuscation by those opposite. Yesterday, those opposite sought to portray the Prime Minister and me as blaming renewables for last September's blackout—
Mr Dreyfus interjecting—
The member for Isaacs is warned.
when we actually went out in writing, and in numerous interviews, saying that that was not the cause and that the cause was the storm.
The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order?
On direct relevance. At the end of the answer, the Prime Minister was specifically on the topic. Since the Minister for the Environment and Energy stood up, it has had nothing to do with the question that was asked—a very specific question from a member of parliament asking about a major employer in her own electorate.
I am listening carefully to the Minister for the Environment and Energy. Before I call him, I will just say, on the point of order, that the minister is entitled to compare and contrast to a point, but this question referred specifically to issues in New South Wales. He needs to come back to that in the remaining 45 seconds.
The facts are clear that Tomago, as the Prime Minister said, make up around 10 per cent of New South Wales's demand. Their contract with AGL, I think, goes back to 1991. There is a provision, when the prices go high, for AGL to enter a relationship to reduce the supply to Tomago. The key point is that the member for Port Adelaide said there was residential load shedding. In the press release at 7.30 pm on 10 February, he said that did not happen. This is a consistent pattern. You have been found out: mistruths and misleading the parliament again and again.
Mr Speaker—
The minister has concluded his answer. Manager of Opposition Business, I think it is best that we move on.
Mr Speaker, let me just make a point of order.
Okay. I will hear the Manager of Opposition Business.
He made a very specific unparliamentary allegation of deliberately misleading—
He did not use the word 'deliberately'.
When you claim that it is again and again, it is a big stretch to claim that it is accidental. Those sorts of reflections should be withdrawn.
Mr Dutton interjecting—
The Minister for Immigration and Border Protection persistently interjects, particularly when I am hearing points of order.
Mr Pyne interjecting—
The reason the Leader of the House cannot hear him is that he is often interjecting with him! I am trying to inject some lightheartedness, but, in seriousness, I will have no choice but to take action on the next interjection by the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection. The Manager of Opposition Business's point is on the use of the term 'misleading'. He might find it undesirable—I may well myself—but the Practice and the Hansard are littered with that term being able to be used. It is only out of order when 'deliberately misleading' is used. That has been the case under many speakers, and it has been the case in questions that have been asked. There have been many questions—we could take the time to dig them out—asked by the opposition using the term 'misleading' that I have not ruled out of order.
My question is to the minister representing the Minister for Communications. Pre corporatisation, the Australia Post CEO received $360,000 a year. Ahmed Fahour, the current CEO, enjoys $5.6 million. France's postal service CEO receives $1 million, whilst the United States postal service CEO receives only $550,000. Pre Fahour, stamps cost 50c; they are now $1—Minister, no more Christmas cards. In 2014, Australia Post sacked 900 staff. In the same year, Mr Fahour's Australia Post donated $2.8 million to his brother's Islamic museum. Minister, in light of Australia Post's generosity, could I get $30,000 to repair the Catholic church in Julia Creek?
I thank the member for Kennedy for that question. As the government and the Prime Minister have made clear, the government does have concerns about the remuneration level of the Australia Post chief executive, and those concerns have been communicated to the chairman of Australia Post. We have expressed those views to Australia Post. In relation to the Catholic church at Julia Creek, I certainly encourage the member to come forward with an application under the Building Better Regions Fund.
I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon the Premier of Tasmania, the Hon. Will Hodgman, and the Tasmanian Minister for Health, the Hon. Michael Ferguson, who is also a former member of this House for the division of Bass. On behalf of the House I extend a very warm welcome to both of you.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources. Will the minister outline to the House the importance of the Australian dairy industry to the economy and to hardworking Australian families across the country? What are the obstacles to the viability of this industry?
I thank the honourable member for his question and note that one of the largest dairy farms is in the member's electorate. Dairy is an incredibly important industry to our nation, not only for our daily requirements but because it is worth about $13 billion a year and produces about 9.7 billion litres of milk. We have recently been getting a large step-up in the price of milk, which is very good, considering the support we have given during the dairy crisis. It is good to see things are now turning around, and so it should, with 6,000 dairy farmers employing around about 40,000 people directly.
Power is an incredibly important part of dairying, right from the milking sheds to irrigation. There are so many irrigators today, and I have noted that in the Burdekin and also around Bundaberg irrigators say that one of the major problems is the cost of power to actually lift water onto their crops. But there is also the cost of electricity for refrigeration and electric fences, and processing is a massive power cost. Retailers have massive power costs. In amongst that, on 1 July 2016 the Queensland Labor government increased power prices by 12 per cent. And in South Australia we saw that between 2010 and 2013, under a Labor government and under Labor Party policies, the daily house price of electricity went up by 100 per cent. A gentleman by the name of Steve Whan from the National Irrigators Council—he was formerly a Labor primary industry minister—has said that the high cost is putting incredible pressure on irrigation.
So the question is really: is the member for Maribyrnong, the Leader of the Opposition, going to go to the dispatch box and explain to the Australian people why he wants the Commonwealth of Australia to look like the state of South Australia? Why would he drive the economy of the nation of Australia to the same ludicrous outcome that we are currently seeing in South Australia? Why would he have as his premier policy something that will hurt the people in the seat of Lindsay, in the seat of Chifley, in the seat of Blair, in the seat of Parramatta, in the seat of Greenway, in the seat of Macquarie and in the seat of Herbert. The member for Shortland looks down at his notepad because he knows full well that this is absolutely designed to be prosecuted against the working people, the working men and women, of Shortland. And the member for Hunter knows that what he has is a government that has been absolutely hijacked by the Greens. They are more worried about Annandale, about Newtown, about Woolloomooloo than they are about the working men and women of Australia. You have all taken them for granted, but they are hearing it now, because as soon as the lights go out their love and their affection for Labor Party policy, as dictated by the Greens, falls to pieces.
We believe quite clearly. Now, are you going to talk about your power policy? (Time expired)
My question is to the Prime Minister. It has been reported that this year Queensland has experienced more than 23 times as many extreme power price spikes as South Australia and that New South Wales has had almost four times as many as South Australia. Given that New South Wales and Queensland are the states with the highest dependency on coal and the lowest levels of renewable energy in the nation, how does the Prime Minister explain these massive power spikes in Queensland and New South Wales when he cannot blame renewable energy?
There is a wonderful retro quality about the Leader of the Opposition's performance today. He reminds me of one of those old Soviet leaders who, as their country slipped further and further backwards, would be able to produce some figures from Gosplan showing that the VI Lenin memorial umbrella factory in Novosibirsk was beating production levels, and he would be able to produce all of those—
Mr Shorten interjecting—
And he holds up The Guardian. Well, there you go. We are not working together—seriously. I know it looks like he is performing on cue, but he is doing this by himself.
South Australia has the most expensive and the least reliable energy in Australia. It has the least resilient grid and the least reliable transmission, and it is the most dependent on another state—on the brown coal in Victoria, the most emissions intensive. All of that is fact. It is all set out by AEMO. It is all there in the report we were discussing yesterday. Business leaders from South Australia know that. The mums and dads who cannot get the air conditioning to work because there is no power know that. The people who cannot turn the lights on know that. The workers at Whyalla, at Arrium, whose jobs are at risk know that. They have had $30 million lost to that company, which is struggling to survive. One business owner after another through that state knows that fact. And what we see is the Labor Party in complete and utter denial.
Now, you would think that if they had one iota that was fair dinkum in them they would say, 'Boy, there's a lesson to be learned here. We better get with a better plan. We'd better build in some resilience. We need some more baseload. We need some more storage. We need some more transmission.' But, oh no—everything is perfect in the socialist paradise of South Australia, because they can come up with some numbers or a report from The Guardian to say so.
The facts are very clear: this is a serious business. If you want to have a lot of variable power in your grid, fine, but you have to plan for it. You have to have the backup; you have to have the firming power and you have to have the storage. Labor planned for none of that and South Australians are paying the price.
As for the member for Paterson—she talks about the Tomago aluminium smelter. Her party—your party, member for Paterson—wants to close down the coal-fired power stations in the Hunter that provide the baseload for Tomago. So go and ask the workers at Tomago how they think they will get on when they are not connected to Bayswater and Liddell.
My question is to the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection. Will the minister update the House on steps the government is taking to ensure that the 457 visa program is a supplement to, and not a substitute for, Australian workers? How would an alternative approach jeopardise job security and opportunities for hardworking Australians?
I thank the member for Dawson for his question. Like all members here, we want to make sure that Australians can get Australian jobs. We want to make sure that where there is a vacancy anywhere around the country that we can fill that position with an Australian worker before we have to look abroad to see, having not been able to fill that job here, whether we would have to bring a worker in on a 457 visa from overseas.
I think all Australians would support that position. Or, at least, I thought so until I saw the speech by the Leader of the Opposition at the Press Club only a week or so ago. He started out by saying that he lamented the number of visas granted for trade and technician jobs, and that the number of visas that had been granted under that category had spiked under the 457 program.
Now, my old man is a builder, and I thought, 'Well, I have a lot of sympathy for the Leader of the Opposition making a fair case. You want to see Australians go into trades and into jobs.' But when you have a look, though, at the figures, the Leader of the Opposition, of course, was the employment minister in the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd great years of government in this country. When you have a look at those figures, it turns out that the number of 457 visas issued for carpenters was 250 per cent higher under the Labor Party—250 per cent higher! For cooks, 3,041 457 visas were issued by the Labor government, remembering that that Leader of the Opposition, who feigned this interest in Australian workers, issued these visas in many cases—up by 150 per cent under Labor.
Motor mechanics: the Leader of the Opposition, as an old union boss, pretended to be the champion of workers. For motor mechanics he had a 200 per cent increase in the number of visas issued during his time. And my favourite—electricians. The honourable Leader of the Opposition here pretended to be one of the workers, although he has never worked a day in his life—he is here for the union bosses, and he is here to represent the union bosses only—what happened in the category of electricians? Up by 400 per cent under Labor—400 per cent!
So when you go out around the country, and when you are talking to people in your electorates and in suburbia around the country, when they say to you, 'You know, there's something not right about this Leader of the Opposition,' and when they say to you, 'I just can't trust him. I just can't bring myself to trust this Leader of the Opposition,' do not look at what he says. Look at what he did when he was a minister in the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd years and look at what he does as Leader of the Opposition.
Mr Perrett interjecting—
The member for Moreton is warned!
He is not interested in the fact that pensioners are being driven to turn off their air conditioners when the heat is approaching 40 degrees a day. He is not interested in the workers of this country; he is here to represent the interests of union bosses. He is dictated to by Greens policies, which is why he is more interested in the policies that will get them elected in inner city areas, but will starve workers of jobs— (Time expired)
My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. Yesterday in question time, the Deputy Prime Minister ridiculed anyone who received preferences from the Greens political party. Given that the WA Nationals have now retaliated against the WA Liberals by cutting a deal to preference the Greens political party ahead of the Liberals, does the Deputy Prime Minister stand by the answer he gave in this place yesterday? Is he now determined to just ridicule himself for the sake of consistency, and every other member of the WA National Party?
I am ruling that question in order. It referred to yesterday's answer.
I welcome the question from the member for Watson. I always thought the member for Watson might give me a question about water. He is actually the shadow water minister, and the whole time there he has never asked me one question about water—not one! You would think he might about the Murray-Darling Basin Plan—you would think that he might ask me a question. Not a chance! All we get is a stand-up, pogo-stick comedian coming to the dispatch box to talk nonsense.
But what I do know about polling, and I do know a little bit about polling, is that I know about Mr 22 per cent over there—22 per cent: that is what they give him! They give the Leader of the Opposition 22 per cent. And I know the member for Grayndler: you are one of our biggest supporters, aren't you? You are watching us. We are doing a good job for you, aren't we? You are getting ready. You are getting ready—you are lining them up.
Ms Plibersek interjecting—
The member for Sydney does not like me saying this. Do not worry—you will be next! If the Leader of the Opposition fails, you will be next. You are gone—you will sit back there. The member for Grayndler will come to sit up here and the member for Sydney will go over there. It is all going to happen!
There are a couple of others back there—you there might come forward. The member for Whitlam never really was here, so he will go back! It really does not matter, you can see what is happening: you are done and dusted, old mate—the Leader of the Opposition. You are done and dusted. You are all over, ever since you decided that all elections were created different and that there were certain elections that are better than other elections—
The Deputy Prime Minister will resume his seat!
Don't you want me to—
No, I want you to sit down! The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order?
On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I refer to page 505 of Practice, which reads:
Although there is no specific rule set down by standing order, the House follows the practice of requiring Members’ speeches to be in English.
The Manager of Opposition Business is warned!
Government members interjecting—
Opposition members interjecting—
Members on both sides will cease interjecting.
Mr Rob Mitchell interjecting—
The member for McEwen will leave under 94(a).
The member for McEwen then left the chamber .
The Manager of Opposition Business has been warned. The Deputy Prime Minister has the call. He is halfway through the answer, and I am judging his preamble has been lengthy but it is coming to an end.
I have to say, Mr Speaker, he is a very funny man, the member for Watson. We know what is wrong with the member for Watson: he wants to be in the story. We have not even given him a chance. But even we know that you, Leader of the Opposition, have not got a chance. You have got no chance at all.
If they really want to talk about who is preferencing who, I would say that the member for Sydney is preferencing the member for Grayndler. The member for Grayndler is definitely voting against the member for Maribyrnong. I would say that your chances of hanging round here for another six months are around about zero.
My question is to the Minister for Defence Industry representing the Minister for Employment. Would he outline how the government's commitment to industrial relations reform will help protect the pay and conditions of hardworking Australians, and what action is the government taking to ensure that union leaders act in the interests of those workers that they represent?
I thank the member for Menzies for his question. I know he has a very deep interest in ensuring that union leaders abide by the law and work on behalf of their workers rather than themselves.
Union leaders who receive thousands in personal benefits from employers with whom they are negotiating are clearly placing themselves in a position of conflict of interest. That is why the Heydon royal commission recommended that we should outlaw such benefits and impose a criminal sanction on those who solicit, offer, provide or receive them. So the government do intend to legislate this year in that area, and we hope that the opposition will see their way clear to supporting reform in the area of ensuring that union bosses are not in a conflict of interest position because of the thousands of dollars, potentially tens of thousands of dollars, of benefits that they receive from employers.
Let me give you an example of one of the things we would like to outlaw, Mr Speaker. Imagine if a union leader travelled with a billionaire who owned a jet, with their family, to Easter Island, Argentina and Cuba—
Mr Perrett interjecting—
The member for Moreton will leave under 94(a).
The member for Moreton then left the chamber.
and at the same time was negotiating with that employer's company to sign an enterprise business agreement that took away the maternity leave rights of the workers who worked for that particular business and required that all the workers' super got paid into that business's super fund?
A government member: It would never happen.
Nobody could imagine it, could they? But it might ring a bell for one person in this House. It is our old China over here, the Leader of the Opposition, because that is exactly what the Leader of the Opposition did when he was the AWU secretary: he travelled with the Pratt family, who owned Visy Industries, to Cuba, to Argentina and to Easter Island, and signed, as the National Secretary of the AWU, an agreement with Visy Industries that removed maternity leave rights and turned them into unpaid paternity leave for the workers of Visy Industries, and required the workers' super to get paid into the Pratt super fund.
We are going to make that illegal, but there is more. Amazingly, he took now Senator Kimberley Kitching and her husband, Andrew Landeryou, on that trip. You can just imagine them at the Plaza de Mayo, at the presidential palace: smoking the Cuban cigars, Ms Kitching doing her best impersonation of 'Don't cry for me Argentina' over the balcony to the rather bemused tourists below, who must have been wondering what was going on. The thing about the Labor Party and particularly this Leader of the Opposition is that the Leader of the Opposition is not unlike the Perons, pretending to be the workers' friend while actually selling them down the river. Look at what he does, never what he says.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Why is the Prime Minister choosing to harm 1½ million Australian families and threaten the National Disability Insurance Scheme instead of scrapping his $50 billion handout to big business?
I gather the honourable member is referring to our business tax cuts policy, the justification for which was very eloquently given by her leader, the member for Maribyrnong, when he was in government. Again and again he stood up here and said cutting business tax creates more employment, creates greater productivity, creates more investment. He was a really powerful advocate for it. It may be that Andrew Leigh had given him some notes from the academia of that time.
The Prime Minister will refer to members by their correct titles.
The member for Fenner, I should say, Mr Speaker. Again, you have to look at what the Leader of the Opposition is doing at any one time, not what he says. What he says is no guarantee or indication of what he will do. As Mark Latham has described, as his colleagues have described, he is a master of saying different things to different people to suit his purpose.
As far as the childcare reforms we are proposing, they will make child care more affordable and more available. They will benefit families on low and lower middle incomes. They are going to make a vital change, removing the $7½ thousand cap for families on incomes under $185,000. This is a great reform, and the Labor Party should support it.
As far as the NDIS is concerned, the only threat to the NDIS is Labor's failure to fund it. The reality is that we are in deficit, we have debt, and that is because we need to make savings. We are making savings here in addition to the childcare benefit reforms and we are applying them to fund the NDIS, which otherwise would have to be funded out of debt. What we need to do is to live within our means. We need to be able to fund all of our social welfare commitments from our revenue, and that means we have to make reforms. The honourable member has a great heart—I do not doubt that—and I am sure she wants the NDIS to work, but somebody has to pay for it. You cannot keep on borrowing your way into the future. I wish the honourable members opposite would show one-tenth of the compassion that they talk about all the time for the generations to come. Their failure to live within our means is imposing an unconscionable burden of debt on our children and grandchildren. That is their legacy. We are paying the way to ensure that we can afford the NDIS and all the benefits and services Australians are entitled to expect.
My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Will the minister advise the House how high-efficiency, low-emissions coal technology is helping countries meet their Paris Agreement targets? Is the minister aware of any alternative approaches that would increase cost-of-living pressures for hardworking families?
I thank the member for La Trobe for his question. I know he recognises the importance of reliable energy to ensure that jobs are maintained and the economy in his electorate continues to grow. It is a fact that fossil fuels, including coal, will remain a vital source of power generation around the world for years to come. According to the International Energy Agency, power generation based on coal-fired power stations and fossil fuels has actually increased over the period from the 1970s to today. It was about 38 per cent of global power generation in the 1970s. Over 41 per cent of power generation comes from coal usage now. According to the International Energy Agency, that will increase in the years to come, particularly in developing countries.
Many countries have embraced new technology in order to ensure that their use of coal is efficient and clean. Under this new technology of high-efficiency, low-emissions, countries are able to generate electricity. It is cheap, it is reliable, but it also helps reduce their carbon emissions. According to the International Energy Agency Clean Coal Centre in London, in a report in September 2015, this new HELE technology—the high-efficiency, low-emissions technology—in 10 Asian economies has already reduced carbon emissions by some 479 million tonnes per year. The assessment by the International Energy Agency Clean Coal Centre in London is: if all the new power stations embracing high-efficiency, low-emissions technology had been ultra, super critical, the decrease in emissions would have been not 479 million tonnes a year but over two billion tonnes a year.
Nations around the world are embracing sensible, economically responsible technologies not only to grow their economies but also to meet their Paris agreements. But not the Australian Labor Party. Their obsession with a 50 per cent renewable energy target is destroying business confidence in South Australia, threatening jobs and threatening industries. South Australia is exhibit A. The Labor Party can be in denial, but there is power blackout after power blackout because of their ideology. There used to be an old line in South Australia under Labor governments—'Last person out, turn off the lights.' That is now Labor's national energy policy.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Under the government's latest cuts to paid parental leave, a female police officer in Victoria will lose 12 weeks of paid parental leave. That is a loss of around $8,000. Can the Prime Minister explain to police officers, who sacrifice so much to protect our community, why he wants them to return to their challenging work sooner, with less money, because of his cuts to paid parental leave?
The coalition stands behind our police, our security services and the men and women of the ADF in a way that the Labor Party have not done. We know that. Look at their disgraceful record on security in Victoria. Look at their failure to defend our borders. Look at their reluctance to stand up for our alliances. The Labor Party have never been prepared to stand behind the men and women that keep us safe. We are and we do. The member for Paterson raised earlier the workers at Tomago. Standing behind working men and women—
Mr Watts interjecting—
The member for Gellibrand is warned.
Mr Watts interjecting—
The member for Gellibrand has been warned. He probably did not hear because he was interjecting uncontrollably.
Mr Watts interjecting—
One more word! You are in an ejector seat—I am telling you. The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order?
Honourable members interjecting—
I want to hear the Manager of Opposition Business.
Mr Speaker, on direct relevance. The question goes to the impact of the government's policies on Victorian police officers and nothing else. The Prime Minister is talking about everything but.
Paid parental leave!
The member for Jagajaga is warned. Before I call the Prime Minister, the Manager of Opposition Business does raise a valid point of order. As he well knows, the Prime Minister is entitled to a preamble and to make some remarks for context, which he has done, but I am sure he will bring himself, in the two-thirds of the time remaining, back to the question.
The reforms that we are proposing and the Labor Party is opposing will benefit families all around Australia, benefit families of police men and women, benefit families of power workers in the Hunter Valley and benefit families of workers in Tomago, until such time as the member for Paterson achieves her goal and drives coal out of the Hunter Valley. But I will ask the minister to add to the answer on social services.
I thank the member opposite for the question. The measure that is included in the bill that is before the parliament would see 96,000 mothers, representing the lowest income participants in the paid parental leave scheme, receive an extra two weeks at home after the birth of their child and up to an extra $1,300. There used to be a time when the Labor Party's view was that the focus should be squarely on those who have the lowest income and the lowest means and the lowest ability to look after their own interests. What they do in opposing this measure in this bill is deny 96,000 mothers, the lowest income participants in the scheme, an extra two weeks and an extra up to $1,300 during that period of time. The system that we have at the moment gives rise to situations like the one that they have—
Order! The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order other than relevance?
Mr Speaker, if there is a new preamble and he is avoiding the topic again, all I can ask is that you enforce your earlier ruling.
The Minister for Social Services is talking on the topic of the question—I am listening to him carefully—but he needs to, as he knows, confine himself to the substance of the question.
It is the case that the system that we have at present has disproportionate focus on some instances in the public sector. So you can have a situation arise where one mother who might earn over $100,000 plus 15 per cent super will have access to up to, for instance, 14 weeks of employer paid maternity leave. When you consider the leave for that person plus the taxpayer funded leave, they could receive $44½ thousand, which is more than most mothers earn in a year. (Time expired)
My question is to the Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment. How does the government's trade agenda create jobs for hardworking Australians and how important is affordable and reliable energy for Australian exporters? How does this compare with alternative approaches that would threaten Australia's trade competitiveness?
I thank the member for Bonner for his question because it goes to the core of the government's agenda with respect to our export policies and our strong focus on building the right framework in terms of the trade agreements that Australia will follow to boost the opportunities for Australian exporters, especially those small- to medium-sized exporters. Those on this side of the chamber know that creating export opportunities and getting access to markets is great for growing Aussie jobs. I think about, for example, in the member for Bonner's own electorate, the visit that I had to Grove Juice, where Andrew Ross, the CEO of Grove Juice, said: 'Because of the increased exports, we have had to hire extra staff in our processing production area, which is good for regional development.' I also know examples such as Ausab. They are exporters of abalone. They have got expansions underway in Port Lincoln and Portland in Victoria, and they have employed 75 extra Australian workers in preparation for the increased demand out of China and Japan as a result of the coalition government's free trade agreements that we have put in place. So we know, on this side of the chamber, that we have got to continue opening export markets to keep economic growth and to ensure that more Australians have jobs.
But we also know on this side of the House that crucial to being able to maximise the opportunity from access to these export markets is reliable and affordable power and knowing that there is, of course, the supply that businesses are expecting when it comes to energy policy. It is a point of difference—a point of contrast—because, if we actually were to see Labor's policies put in place and we saw the high-risk policies of the Labor Party, which would directly affect power supply, then it would be a very different set of circumstances.
I know it is Valentine's Day today and I know that the Leader of the Opposition would like us all to be having a candlelit dinner every single night if Labor's policies were put in place. Every single night, you could see us sitting down to our candlelit dinner they would be having. They have had a real interest lately in preference deals. You could see the Leader of the Opposition sitting down across the candlelit table with Richard Di Natale talking about their preference deal, and the member for Melbourne with his little solar panel, trying to get enough light from the candle to make sure the lights stayed on. It would be a very romantic occasion.
But I have got to say: the real concern that Australians have is about the character of this guy, the alternative Australian Prime Minister. As I said, Australians recognise a 'Counterfeit Bill' when they see one. They know examples of a 'Counterfeit Bill', including the fake deal that we saw when Clean Event workers were sold out and dudded for the benefit of union bosses. They know fake Medicare text messages when they see them. They know fake support for coalminers who are being dudded by deals with the Greens on Labor's crazy renewable energy policy. What we know is who is going to take the 'Counterfeit Bill' out of circulation: the member for Sydney— (Time expired)
My question is to the Treasurer. Now that the minor parties have joined with Labor to oppose the government's latest unfair cuts, will the Treasurer take his cuts to families, pensioners, carers and new mums out of the parliament and out of the budget? Why does the Treasurer continue Joe Hockey's practice of artificially propping up his budget with measures that will not pass the parliament?
At the last election, the coalition government took to the people of Australia our plan, which would take the budget back into balance by 2021, and included in that plan, which we had set out for some years and put before the Australian people, were all of the measures that are included in that omnibus bill. We went clearly and fairly to the Australian people on that, as we did on other issues, such as company tax to ensure that small and, ultimately, large businesses as well could ensure that they could invest for the future and create jobs. That is what we did.
In the time since the last election—after we won that election and those opposite were rejected at the ballot box for their approach—we have been successful in some $22 billion in measures that they would have seen junked and they would have seen converted into higher taxes on Australian families and higher taxes on Australian business. We pursued it and we said that we are going to continue to pursue budget repair that ensures that the current generation who receive benefits can also be the ones who pay for those, ensuring that our expenditure is affordable.
The option put forward by those opposite is intergenerational theft. What they are saying is they want to keep expenditure higher and they want to send the bill to their children. So the debt that you raise that has to be paid back in higher taxes in the future, has got to be raised to pay for benefits that are unaffordable now and that are being consumed now. Those opposite are like those who put a thumping big holiday on the family mortgage; they enjoy it at the time but they have to pay it off for years and years afterwards.
On this side of the House, we think that the generation that is incurring this expenditure has to be the generation that pays for that expenditure. We think that expenditure should be more affordable. We think that expenditure should be more sustainable. Those opposite just want to keep on spending and spending and send the bill to our children and they want to send the bill to those currently who have to pay more and more in higher interest payments, because this mob on that side have no idea about how to control their spending. They only have three buttons they push—higher spending, higher debt, higher taxes. That is not the policy of this side of the House; that is the policy of those who sit opposite.
My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Energy. Will the minister update the House on the government's actions to reduce emissions and lower electricity bills for hardworking Australians without compromising their energy security? What hurdles stand in the way to achieving this security for hardworking Australian families?
Ms Burney interjecting—
The member for Barton is warned.
I thank the member for Chisholm for her question and acknowledge her deep concern for the rising electricity bills for more than 10,000 small businesses in her electorate and some constituents who will be paying up to $135 more for electricity next year as a result of the announced closure of Hazelwood.
We on this side of the House recognise that energy efficiency is one way to drive down electricity prices. In fact, we have a National Energy Productivity Plan to get a 40 per cent boost by 2030. If you can reduce pressure on the grid you can create more stability, if you can reduce consumption you can lower costs and, if you can reduce consumption, you can also lower emissions. One of the ways we are doing that is through new standards for buildings. I announced the Commercial Building Disclosures Program, which could lead to a $50 million energy saving. We have also got new standards around appliances. For example, a state-of-the-art air conditioner sold in Australia in 2003 would not meet the minimum conditions and standards that we apply today. We have new lighting standards as well, which could save a household up to $2,400 over the next 10 years.
I am asked if I am aware of any alternatives. We know that the Labor Party have 'put the cart before the horse' in order to protect their 'left flank'. They are not my words. They are the words of a former Labor environment minister, Graham Richardson, when he talked about their energy policy. The member for Port Adelaide insultingly described 1.7 million people going into the dark in South Australia as a hiccup. I suppose he describes the people in South Australia paying more than 40 per cent more for their electricity than the national electricity market average as a mere headache. I can tell you that this issue and Labor's policies are creating heartburn in your heartland. You have a 50 per cent renewable energy target. You have an emissions intensity scheme. You want to force the closure of power stations. This is cold comfort for a company like Philmac in the electorate of Hindmarsh. It is an 80-year-old company that exports to 30 countries, employs over 300 people and has seen its electricity prices go up by 200 per cent in the last two years. They have said publicly that this is impacting on jobs and their international competitiveness.
This is a very serious issue—not just the stability in South Australia but also the affordability of the electricity system. You do not have to take my word for it: elders from the Labor Party like Graham Richardson, Keith De Lacy, Gary Johns and a whole range of others have been critical of the Labor Party's policy.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Last night, the Senate passed a motion demanding the Minister for Education and Training immediately release the government's plan for school funding. When will the Prime Minister end the uncertainty and come clean about just how badly schools will be hit by his $30 billion of cuts?
We were contemplating education and its significance in the closing the gap speeches today. One of the most telling statistics that we drew from that report, amidst many disappointing ones, was that the employment gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians does not exist—in fact, employment percentages are the same—where Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians have a tertiary education. So it is a great reminder that education is transformative. We know that a quality education provides a lifetime of opportunity. We are investing more money in school education than any government in the history of the Commonwealth. We are getting on and fixing another one of Labor's extraordinary messes in the field of education.
Under their failed VET FEE-HELP scheme, thousands of vulnerable students, including many Indigenous students, were ripped off by dodgy providers and that led to a blowout from costing $325 million in 2012 to $1.8 billion in 2014 and $3 billion in 2015. This was a Labor Party scheme they set up and it resulted in the taxpayer funding courses like diplomas of energy healing—and this was not applicable to South Australia; this was not an engineering degree—flower essence therapy and Chinese medicine treatments for dogs and cats. That was what the Labor Party did with taxpayers' dollars on education.
But you're in government.
We are the government and we have fixed your mess. What we are doing now is ensuring that our school education funding results in better outcomes. The other question we have to answer is why is it that we spend more and more each year on school education but results get worse?
Ms Plibersek interjecting—
And, of course, the member for Sydney says, 'Spend more money.' That is the only answer: she wants to keep on doing the same thing when it is obvious it is not working.
Ms Plibersek interjecting—
The member for Sydney has already been warned.
We are working with the states, who obviously run all the schools, to ensure that we get quality teaching, better outcomes and better value for the educational dollar. We owe it to the children, we owe it to their parents and we owe it to Australia's future to ensure that we get the right outcomes, the quality outcomes, from our massive and increasing investment in school education.
My question is to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. Will the minister inform the House how the government is investing in support for veterans' mental health? Is the minister aware of any particular support for veterans suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder?
I thank the member for Capricornia for her question. I thank her also for the invitation to visit her electorate last year and I commend her on the great work that her RSL clubs are doing there, especially the Cockscomb Veterans Bush Retreat, the Emu Park RSL and the Yeppoon RSL. This government is making it easier for veterans seeking mental health treatment and support.
Two weeks ago, I met with Chris May, a veteran who, with his brother Scott, served in Iraq and Afghanistan. In 2011, Chris's Bushmaster was struck with an IED that left him with injuries to his neck and back and with pain that he still feels today. It also left him dealing with PTSD. Returning to Australia, Chris has used his experience to encourage service men and women to come forward and seek help for their injuries, particularly PTSD. Through his work, Chris, along with his brother Scott, were nominated for local hero in this year's Australian of the Year awards. I know the member for Holt has acknowledged that in this place previously.
The reason I mention Chris is because two weeks ago he helped launch the trial of a new intensive treatment program for current and former Australian Defence Force members with PTSD. Supported by the Turnbull government, the Rapid Exposure Supporting Trauma Recovery, RESTORE trial, is a world leading research program that will assess whether delivering treatment over an intensive two-week period betters the outcomes for current and former ADF members with PTSD.
Around 200 current and former members will be recruited for the trial, which will run over two years. If successful, this research will be world leading in treating PTSD and set the gold standard for how we help our current and former service men and women impacted by this disorder. This is in addition to measures the government has already implemented. For the first time last year, we made the treatment of five mental health conditions faced by veterans—depression, anxiety, PTSD, alcohol abuse and substance abuse—free of charge with no need to prove that they were related to service. This funding is uncapped. If there is a need, it will be funded. It is vital we continue to do all we can in addressing PTSD and other mental health conditions. We are committed to funding new research and developing new treatments in order to give veterans and current ADF members the care that they need.
My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. Yesterday in the Senate, the Minister for Defence confirmed she was aware before the election of the potential requirements for the expansion of the Shoalwater Bay and Townsville Field military training areas. Given the Deputy Prime Minister is also deputy chair of the National Security Committee of the cabinet, the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources and the Leader of the National Party, did he first become aware that the expansion could require the acquisition of prime agricultural land before or after the election?
This is a matter that is clearly within the responsibilities of the person who represents the Minister for Defence in this place on matters to do with the defence estate, and that is the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. Therefore, he should be answering this question.
Mr Fitzgibbon interjecting—
The member for Hunter will resume his seat. I have listened very carefully to the question and I do not need a further explanation. The Minister representing the Minister for Defence can address the question to the extent he can.
In the course of this term of government and the previous term, there have been numerous times when questions have been asked by members on that side where the only connection with the Deputy Prime Minister's portfolio has been that it has been talking about what the outcome would be on agricultural land. It has happened on a range of policy issues. This is the first time a question of that nature has come from the opposition. If it were the case that the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources has that much of a limited remit then the vast majority of the questions he has answered from members on his own side would have been ruled out of order.
I will hear the member for Hunter again.
My question is clearly to the Minister for Agriculture—
I want to hear the question again.
Yesterday the Minister for Defence told the Senate that she knew about the acquisitions prior to—
Government members interjecting—
Members on my right!
My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. Yesterday in the Senate the Minister for Defence confirmed she was aware before the election of the potential requirements for the expansion of the Shoalwater Bay and Townsville Field military training areas. Given the Deputy Prime Minister is also the deputy chair of the National Security Committee of the cabinet, the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources and the leader of the National Party, did he first become aware that the expansion could require the acquisition of prime agricultural land before or after the election?
I have to say that I still do not think that question is in order because it goes to matters dealing with Defence and it is incidental to the minister's responsibilities to the House.
I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
Mr Speaker, I seek to make a personal explanation.
Does the member claim to have been misrepresented?
I do.
The member for Port Adelaide may proceed.
Thank you, Speaker. In question time today the Prime Minister said, 'The member for Port Adelaide said residential load shedding was required'. In my question I said no such thing. I said that power was cut to households in the electorates of Bennelong, Reid and Robertson. It is a fact supported by tweets on 10 February—last Friday—by Ausgrid, the network operator, confirming that power was cut to 1,200 customers in Narara, power was cut to Burwood in Reid, and power was cut in Ryde, Marsfield and North Ryde in Bennelong.
Honourable members interjecting—
Mr Butler interjecting—
The member for Port Adelaide will cease interjecting! I would hate to throw him out again; he has just gotten back in time for the MPI.
I seek leave to make a personal explanation.
Does the Leader of the Opposition claim to have been misrepresented?
Yes, I do.
You may proceed.
In question time today the Leader of the House made allegations about me that I do not put workers first. I always have. More seriously, he cast aspersions on people who are not in this place and their relationship with me. Richard Pratt was a close family friend of mine. The Pratt family were best friends of my former wife's family—best friends. My friend Richard Pratt passed away eight years ago.
For the Leader of the House to impugn the reputation of someone who is not alive to defend himself is shameful. Government members can throw all the insults they want at me. If that is all they have left—if that is the best they have—go for it. But to trample on a dead man's memory for political purposes is beneath contempt. I hope that the Leader of the House reflects on his conduct and apologises for it.
I present the Auditor-General's performance audit report No. 38 of 2016-17, entitled The approval and administration of Commonwealth funding for the WestConnex project: Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development; Infrastructure Australia.
I move:
That the report be made a parliamentary paper.
I move an amendment to the proposition of the Leader of the House and that the report be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate.
We have not had a discussion about this.
I did not know it was about to happen.
Mr Speaker, can I withdraw that motion and have a discussion with the member, by indulgence?
By indulgence, the Leader of the House.
I might withdraw the motion and discuss it with the former Leader of the House and see if we can come to some arrangement. I have no particular reason not to refer it, but I am also unaware of the circumstances that surround it.
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 the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate.
Question agreed to.
I have received a letter from the member for Port Adelaide proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:
The Government's failure to address the national energy crisis.
I call upon those honourable members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.
More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—
As we heard from the member for Paterson earlier in question time, last Friday power was cut in load shedding arrangements to the Tomago Aluminium smelter. This is a smelter that uses 10 to 12 per cent of New South Wales' power—equivalent to around a million households. Power was also cut on that day—not in load shedding arrangements—to households in the electorates that I mentioned in question time and also in my personal explanation.
It is important to point out that this is not a jurisdiction even connected directly to South Australia. This is a jurisdiction with one of the highest penetrations of coal fired power in the nation, if not the world—well over 80 per cent—and one of the lowest penetrations of renewable energy in the country. It has vast interconnection capacity with Queensland and, to the south, with Victoria. On the same Friday, more than 1,000 megawatts of power was imported from Queensland, hundreds of megawatts of power was imported from Victoria to New South Wales, but still Tomago had to shut down. The CEO of Tomago, as the member for Paterson pointed out earlier today, said:
It's fair to say the way the energy system is working at the moment, it is dysfunctional. What we saw on Friday was a genuine system security risk ...
The Prime Minister would have Australians understand that every problem in the energy system—whether it is load shedding to the biggest aluminium smelter in the country, power cuts in one part of the country or price spikes in Queensland that are several times more frequent than in South Australia—is because of wind farms in South Australia. This fatuous, mendacious approach to energy policy—which, to be fair to the minister, way predates his time in this portfolio—jumped the shark last week when the Treasurer of one of the biggest economies in the world thought it was a good idea to bring a big lump of coal into question time.
The fact is that there is a crisis in energy policy. There is a crisis and it is national and it is touching every element of our electricity system. As The Australian very helpfully pointed out yesterday, there have been massive price increases in electricity over the last 10 years. The Australian also pointed out that the biggest price increases over that period of a decade have taken place, in order: in Queensland by 135 per cent, in Victoria by 117 per cent, and in New South Wales by 108 per cent—again, the three states in the national electricity market with the highest penetrations of coal fired power and the lowest penetrations of renewable energy.
The Leader of the Opposition also pointed to the price spikes, the extreme price events we have seen over the course of 2016 in Queensland. There were 23 times the number of extreme price events we have seen in South Australia. In New South Wales there were several times the number of extreme price events we have seen in South Australia. Again, those jurisdictions have very high levels of coal and very low levels of renewable energy. The market rules, everyone agrees, are simply not fit for purpose.
Tony Wood from the Grattan Institute—often a very deep critic of Labor policy—has said that either the rules are not working or AEMO, the federal regulator, is misinterpreting them. We saw that over the course of last week in a very stark way. AEMO decided, wrongly—I think it admitted at the Senate inquiry that it got the demand projections wrong for Wednesday afternoon in South Australia—not to order Pelican Point to turn its second unit on. If it had, there would have been no need for load shedding. There would have been more than sufficient capacity from fossil fuel generation, gas fired generation, in that state to cover what was a record level of demand in South Australia during that extreme heat event on Wednesday.
Pollution is going up. That is not a matter often alluded to by the minister for the environment, but under this government, after coming down by several percentage points under the Labor government, pollution, unsurprisingly, has started to rise again across the economy, but particularly in the electricity sector. All of this is happening while the electricity industry tells us that as much as three quarters of our existing generators are operating beyond their design life and are shutting. Whether or not this minister likes it, whether or not state ministers like it, these privatised companies are taking decisions to shut their generators and investors are paralysed by a lack of energy policy on the part of this government to be able to build replacement plant.
The minister on Lateline last night was asked, reasonably: 'What's the government's plan?' That is quite reasonable given that this government is now well into its fourth year in power, and he could say nothing. All he could do is outline the elements of Labor policy that he is opposed to. He is opposed to a framework around the way in which those old plants close. Instead, he wants to continue a situation where the nation waits for an announcement by a board of directors, usually on the other side of the world—multinational companies that are operating this essential electricity infrastructure—to tell us, 'No, we're done. We're going to close the plant'—no planning or arrangements for the impact on the electricity system; no planning for the impact on the local economies, the workers in the communities. But when AGL, for example, says, 'We want to plan a framework for the closure of ageing assets so that it is an orderly replacement process, not a disorderly process,' the minister says, 'Labor supports that, so we can't.' There is no plan for an alternative way of approaching closure, but they are opposed.
They oppose a price signal to underpin the investment—the renewal of our electricity infrastructure. This is perhaps the sorriest episode because, to his credit, the minister had done the work to develop an emissions intensity scheme proposal for COAG at its meeting in December. He went out on the Monday morning and said, 'Of course we'd consider it,' because everyone in the industry wanted it. It was an Energy Market Commission model supported by the CSIRO; supported by the Climate Change Authority; supported by the Chief Scientist; supported by the electricity industry, from the renewable sector to the coal fired sector; supported by state governments, Labor and Liberal alike; but not supported by Senator Cory Bernardi. So when Senator Cory Bernardi came out—
Honourable members interjecting—
Yes, that was a great judgement on the Prime Minister's part. Let's placate Senator Bernardi and everything will be fine. How did that work out for you? Danny Price, the Prime Minister's old energy adviser, said that decision alone has made the Liberal Party 'the party of increasing electricity prices and reduced energy security'. Of course, they are opposed to all of those things and they are opposed to renewable energy. They have no policy beyond 2020. There will not be a project built beyond 2020 under this government's policy framework. They have this pathological thing about renewable energy. They are happy to come in and stroke a black rock, but have a pathological hatred of renewable energy. They have not yet started talking about the health impacts that the former Prime Minister was so worried about when he rode past that wind farm on Rottnest Island, but I would not be surprised anymore if this Prime Minister started talking about those things as well.
They run the prices scare campaign. In spite of the fact that the Warburton panel—a panel certainly led by climate sceptics—said that the expansion of renewable energy puts downward pressure on wholesale prices and in spite of modelling across the world that increasingly says that new solar and new wind are the cheapest forms of new generation, they still run this. They do not care about the jobs impact. There were 3,000 jobs lost in renewable energy since this government came to power. If we had kept pace with jobs growth around the world in this industry, we would be 11,000 jobs better off in this industry than we are under the Liberal government. As I said, and it is a small point: renewable energy is the only way we are going to achieve the Paris targets that the Prime Minister signed us up to.
They do have one policy of course—the only policy they have come up with in more than three years in government—and that is to build new coal generators. To be fair, it is not the Prime Minister's policy; it is the member for Warringah's policy. No-one had talked about this for years until the member for Warringah penned an op-ed a few weeks ago. Then, lo and behold, playing the Prime Minister like a violin, it ends up as the centrepiece of the National Press Club speech from this Prime Minister. Never mind that the industry says, put simply: 'You cannot finance coal.' Never mind that the Climate Institute says it would require at least $26 billion in taxpayer subsidies. Never mind that the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, a government owned corporation—which is apparently going to underwrite this—said they would not support that and that it would be massively risky for taxpayers. But he has placated Senator Bernardi and he has placated the member for Warringah—and that, apparently, is the only driver for energy policy at a time of crisis for this government.
This government is presiding over a crisis that is spreading across the nation. Well into its fourth year in power, this government still has no answers to the question: how do you deliver affordable, reliable supply that will start to cut our pollution? This minister unfortunately is very long on opposition but utterly bereft of an answer to deal with this crisis.
The only reason we are dealing with this MPI today is that the member for Port Adelaide thinks the best form of defence is offence, because, if you had the record Labor has on energy policy, you would not have the gall to come to this dispatch box. When Labor were last in government electricity prices increased by more than 100 per cent. We had the dreaded $15 billion carbon tax, which Australians did not want and did not need. We had more than a dozen different policies. Who could forget the citizens assembly, cash for clunkers, the emissions trading scheme or the carbon tax? The list went on and on. They were very poor policies.
Now, from opposition, they have a quadrella of policies which are only going to send electricity prices higher and undermine the stability of the system. First and foremost, they have a 50 per cent renewable energy target by 2030. When they put that in their policy document they said there would be no details released until October 2017. Then, when the Leader of the Opposition fronted up to the Press Club the other day, it was the issue that did not get spoken of other than a single reference to renewables, with no detail about his policy.
They have a 45 per cent emissions reduction target by 2030, nearly double what we have taken to Paris—a target which will cost hundreds of billions of dollars to meet. They have an emissions intensity scheme, which Penny Wong, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, when she was climate change minister in 2009, described as a 'mongrel of a policy'. She described it as a smokescreen and as being no credible alternative. Then of course they have a policy to close Australia's 24 coal-fired power stations. They come up in question time today and ask about the Tomago aluminium smelter, but the Tomago aluminium smelter and others like it would not survive if we did not have coal-fired power. What about the member for Shortland? He is a shadow assistant minister, and he has a policy, which he has to defend, that includes the forced closure of Vales Point, which is in his own electorate.
No, it doesn't. Don't mislead the House.
It does. The Australian Energy Market Commission modelled the forced closure policy, and then the member for Port Adelaide has referred to that. I can tell you that the many hundreds of workers at Vales Point would not be too happy with the member for Shortland. As Graham Richardson said, Labor are trying to 'out-green the Greens', they have a farce of a policy on 'a wing, a hope and a prayer' and it is going to sell out pensioners and blue-collar workers—the blue-collar workers you are expected to defend.
Let us get the record straight as to what occurred in South Australia. We have had four blackouts in nearly as many months. Last September, 1.7 million people lost power. We had blackouts in December, January and now in February. Embarrassingly and humiliatingly, the member for Port Adelaide described those blackouts as 'mere hiccups'. If I was working for one of those companies or was one of those 3,000 workers at Olympic Dam, owned by BHP, in South Australia, I would not call that a hiccup. If I was one of the 1,500 workers at Arrium in Whyalla or one of the hundreds of workers at the Port Pirie smelter, owned by Nyrstar—if I was one of those hundreds of workers or thousands of workers affected—I would not be describing that as a mere hiccup. If I was one of those people stuck in an elevator or imprisoned in their homes or stuck in the gridlock of the streets when the lights went out, I would not be describing this as a hiccup. Nor would I be describing the fact that South Australia pays electricity prices which are more than 40 per cent above the average across the national electricity market as a headache.
The Labor Party's policies have effectively led to these blackouts, because they have left the South Australian system a lot more vulnerable. In fact, since the closure of the Northern power station last May, which the Labor Party say has nothing to do with renewables—which was absolutely disagreed with by Alinta in their statement at the time—we have seen nearly a doubling of the reliance on the interconnector, ironically, supplying brown coal-fired power from the Latrobe Valley into South Australia.
South Australia has become a lot more vulnerable. The intermittent power that South Australia is now relying on for more than 40 per cent of supply does not always have predictable levels of supply. The quality as well as the quantity is different from baseload generation, particularly coal but also gas and hydro. It does not have the same characteristics of FCAS and inertia that you get from a spinning turbine and the consistent 50 hertz voltage that you get with baseload power.
One day, in the June-July period of last year, wind supplied 80 per cent of South Australia's power, but on another day it supplied just one per cent of its power. When the lights went out last Wednesday, it fell to supplying just two and a half per cent of the South Australia's power. That was a 95 per cent drop on the power that was being supplied by the wind farms earlier in that day. And it is that level of volatility, without the necessary storage, which this reliance on intermittent power creates.
We are taking very seriously our responsibilities to get more stability into the system. That is why we have tasked Chief Scientist Alan Finkel to produce a report, and that is why we are investing record amounts in storage—battery storage, and, as the Prime Minister talked about, pumped hydro. Some of the programs include: the virtual power plant in Adelaide, connecting 1,000 businesses and homes with batteries and solar PV; the work we are doing on a copper mine in Western Australia in order to take out diesel from that operation and replace it with solar; and the work we are doing in pumped hydro with the Kidston goldmine in Queensland. More than $150 million worth of projects have been invested in by ARENA and CFC with battery technology.
Of course, we want to push the states to lift the moratoriums and the bans on gas development because we think this is vital as a transition fuel, with about half the emissions of coal. And we need to get more gas out of the ground—for example, in the Northern Territory, where the Labor government has a moratorium in place. The Northern Territory has about 180 years' worth of supply to meet Australia's domestic gas needs. Imagine if we could get that out of the ground.
The other target we are taking on is the Labor states' high renewable energy targets, which not only are leading to bad investment outcomes but also will not improve the environment: a 50 per cent target in South Australia; a 50 per cent target in Queensland, remarkably, with only 4½ per cent of their power today coming from renewables; and a 40 per cent target in Victoria. I am very pleased to say at this dispatch box that our Victorian, South Australian and Queensland Liberal and Nationals colleagues have banded together to reject those targets once they get into government.
We take our emissions reduction targets very seriously, and those on the other side of the House need to know: when they were in government, they were projected to miss their 2020 target by more than 700 million tonnes. We, according to the last projections, will beat our 2020 target by more than 220 million tonnes. Whether it is energy productivity, or whether it is our Emissions Reduction Fund, which has been able to achieve 178 million tonnes of abatement at just over $11 on average, or whether it is what we are doing in other parts of the portfolio with the renewable energy target and the work of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and ARENA, we are doing a lot in a lot of areas to meet our emissions targets, and we will beat our 2030 targets, as well as beating our 2020 targets.
I just want to finish by saying that the member for Port Adelaide has been playing a very dangerous game in the last week. He—unfortunately, because he is a very endearing bloke and means well—has got wrong and misunderstood the role of AEMO. Secondly, he has misunderstood the true powers of the states to direct AEMO, and the lack of power of the Commonwealth to direct AEMO. Thirdly, he has also sought to blame the government for not saying that the South Australian blackout last September had anything to do with the severe storms. We were up-front at the time. And today at the dispatch box he also sought to imply that there was load-shedding for residential customers. That is not correct, and he knows the truth.
I am glad the minister is here because I have got a simple question for him: does he even turn up to cabinet anymore, after his last disastrous foray into an emissions intensity scheme which lasted 24 hours before he was rolled by the true powerhouse of this government, the Deputy Prime Minister? Seriously!
And the member for Warringah!
And the member for Warringah, and Senator Bernardi. Seriously, I have had flights that have lasted longer than his policy proposals have lasted in this government! And that is truly tragic for this nation. It is tragic for this nation because the events of last week have demonstrated that we need a serious discussion about energy policy and this mob is incapable of providing it. We saw AEMO's failure in South Australia to direct the turning on of the Pelican Point second unit, which would have avoided load-shedding. We saw AEMO force curtailment of the Tomago aluminium smelter—a smelter that uses the equivalent of one million homes' worth of electricity—endangering the jobs of 1,000 workers. My friend the member for Paterson will talk about this later, but I spoke to the CEO on Friday afternoon, and he was gravely worried about the future of that smelter because of the lack of energy policy by this government.
This is how serious this debate is. We have 14 groups calling for a genuine policy discussion in this area, including the Aluminium Council, the Energy Council, AiG and BCA. But all we get from that side is bringing lumps of coal into question time, and inaudible guff from the Deputy Prime Minister. We do not get a serious policy debate because all they care about is petty politics.
We, on the other side, have a well-thought-out, reasoned policy around an emissions intensity scheme—a policy backed by the Australian Energy Market Commission, AEMO, CSIRO, the chief scientist, state governments, AiG, AGL, Origin, the big energy users, Danny Price and the Grattan Institute. Who supports their policy of building new coal-fired power stations with public subsidies? Well, I have got six names: the MCA, the DLP, the IPA, Ray Hadley, Tim Blair, and Malcolm Roberts and the tin-foil-hat brigade! Oh, and The Australian newspaper. Those are the sum supporters of this mob's awful policy. And the tragedy is: not a single commercial player will invest in coal-fired power stations in this country because it is uneconomical; it is a dud investment that will not last.
What is the result of this policy uncertainty? What does Danny Price say in modelling commissioned by the Australian Energy Market Commission, the AEMC—a government body commissioning modelling from the government's own favoured energy sector modeller? He found that their policy would cost $15 billion more for consumers—$15 billion more! And when we saw the minister's policy backflip after 24 hours, after being rolled by the Deputy Prime Minister, he said: 'This shows a lack of spine.' He means that they, the Liberal Party, are the party of increasing electricity prices and reduced energy security. And that is the great tragedy of this mob. By playing petty politics, by not being serious about this, all we have is higher energy prices and greater uncertainty. And the fact is: not another power station will be built in this country.
Mr Butler interjecting—
And the shadow minister reminds me that their great white hope is now storage technology through ARENA. This mob spent the last three years trying to abolish ARENA, and now it is their great white hope. All they do now is call out individual members on this side as somehow betraying workers. I will not be lectured by this mob on support for workers. I will not be lectured by the Liberal Party on how to support workers and their jobs. This mob are a fraud.
I am proud to represent a region that was built on coal. My neighbours are coalminers—I can see the biggest coal-fired power station in this country from my home—and they know change is coming. I talk to workers in the energy sector every week, and they know that not a single new coal-fired power station will be built in this country, and that is why we need policy certainty.
Build more coal!
That is why we need sensible policy discussion, where we look after workers and communities. All we get over there is empty rhetoric from climate change fossils like the member for Hughes, who does not accept climate change is coming. In the end, who will suffer? It will be the workers and communities of this country who will suffer because of this policy malaise. They are the ones who will see greater blackouts because the government, led by a shell of a man, will not engage in a serious economic policy debate about energy policy in this country. Sadly, our country will be poorer for it.
It gives me no pleasure at all to stand here today and proclaim myself as a modern-day Cassandra, but I can say, 'I told you so.' I have been saying for quite some time—in fact, for over four years; I have checked my records—what would happen to the South Australian electricity grid if we ignored the signals that were clearly on show for us.
I began meeting with Alinta right back in 2012, and they told me that their power station was beginning to lose money. It was not because the price of energy in South Australia was being driven down by cheap energy coming from the wind farms; it was because it was being driven down by oversupply. Basically, we were building new power stations, new wind farms, in South Australia that were oversupplying the market. Of course, at the times of high wind, the Alinta operation became worse than non-profitable. In fact, they were paying very high fees to unload electricity, which they could not stop generating.
The South Australian government has made an art form out of attracting wind energy into South Australia. The figures are worth visiting. More than 50 per cent of Australia's capacity in wind farms is situated in South Australia. Around 60 per cent of that generation capacity is situated in my electorate of Grey. The national target that both sides of politics agreed to sign off on—actually, that is probably not quite true. Anyway, the national target, which we set only 12 months ago in this place, is 23 per cent. South Australia is already at 41 per cent—way in front of the recognised limit. It is worth noting that Denmark are held up as a great paragon of this transformation of electricity, and they have set their wind limit at 23 per cent. In South Australia, we have gone to 41 per cent.
In the three years to 2015, I met with Alinta repeatedly. They said that, if we kept building more wind capacity in South Australia, they would withdraw from the market. They were meeting, of course, with the South Australian government at the same time. This was a clearly telegraphed message coming from Alinta. They did not give a date; they had hoped to stay there longer. They bought an asset that they believed would survive longer.
What I call on the South Australian government to do, and what I have been calling on them to do for some time, is to approve no more renewable energy in South Australia, no more new projects, unless they include storage. This is a very important message. There is nothing wrong with renewable energy at all, and, in fact, I am a great supporter of it. I have been trying very hard to get two projects attracted into Port Augusta—both with solar thermal storage. But, at this stage, the South Australian government continues to sign off on new wind farms without storage, which will further disrupt the market. It is as if they are the three wise monkeys: they are sitting there and they do not want to hear any evil, they do not want to see any evil and they are not going to speak any evil. 'We'll just keep approving the wind farms; it'll be all right.' It will not be all right.
South Australian industries are being severely damaged. Some of the major employers in my electorate have been mentioned in this debate. BHP at Roxby Downs is estimated to have lost somewhere near $100 million in the power outage in September, and Arrium, severely damaged, had around $10 million worth of damage. Nyrstar, which is investing close to $500 million in Port Pirie, is absolutely horrified by what has happened to the electricity market. Reliability is one thing—and it is very important—but the price of electricity in South Australia is crucifying their industries. I had an abalone farm in Port Lincoln which was intending to invest in a major expansion, but its electricity bill has gone from $700,000 to $1.33 million in 12 months. That is a 90 per cent increase. I was talking to some McDonald's franchisees—three separate outlets, employing 290 people between them. Their electricity bills have risen by close to 100 per cent across the board in the last 12 months. These are the people who are employing our kids. There are 290 employees in these three McDonald's franchises, and they are facing electricity rises of 90 per cent. (Time expired)
Could I ask the ministers and shadow ministers at the table to be a little quieter. It is interfering with the other speeches.
I rise today to speak on the government's failure to address the national energy crisis. During question time, the Prime Minister claimed that I want to close down the Hunter region's electricity generators. This is not true. The fact is that they are reaching the end of their commercial life, and this government have no plans—no plans for regions like mine. I was absolutely galled as they handed around the piece of coal last week. I tell you, I have more knowledge of coal in my little finger than the whole collective of this government. None of them would have been down a coalmine. None of them would have fired a shot in an open cut. None of them would have any understanding of what it is like to go underground to earn a living out of coal. You clearly have no clue, and you have no clue about the energy requirements of this nation either. I stand as a representative of people who work in pits, whose families are supported by pits. I support them, as I support my aluminium workers.
I want to thank the workers of Tomago Aluminium, in my electorate of Paterson, who pushed on through blistering heat on Friday and Saturday to minimise the danger of damage to the pot lines forced by a power shutdown. They are still working to return to normal operations, which could take up to a week. The Tomago aluminium smelter is one of Australia's biggest manufacturers. It supplies 25 per cent of Australia's primary aluminium and supports 1,000 families in my electorate. As that dreadful heatwave hit the eastern states of Australia on Friday, it had no choice but to curtail its production by 300 megawatts, or 30 per cent. Tomago is contractually bound to do what its energy provider, AGL Energy, asks it to do. It has no choice. AGL Energy CEO, Andy Vesey, told me in a conversation on Friday that his company had been asked by the Australian Energy Market Operator to reduce power demand because of the record heatwave conditions and that a shutdown of Tomago was considered the best course of action.
Tomago draws 12 per cent of the state's power, so on face value it seemed like a pragmatic and sensible choice. But shutting down pot lines—if you know anything about aluminium smelting—can cause irreparable damage. AGL argued that with proper notice Tomago could put procedures in place that would protect the pot lines and prevent the kind of catastrophe we saw in Victoria last year. But that decision had ramifications in that smelter in my electorate of Paterson. It required workers to work through blistering heat. It required precarious decision-making on the part of smelter CEO, Matt Howell. It also required a bit of faith—faith that there would be sufficient power to get the pot lines back up to speed and that no damage would be done through aluminium solidifying; faith that in such precarious market conditions the owners of the Tomago smelter, Rio Tinto, CSR, Alcan Australia and Hydro Aluminium, would not decide to shut up shop altogether if this state and country could not guarantee a secure energy source. That is what we are facing.
Mr Craig Kelly interjecting—
You cannot get your act together, so manufacturers like Tomago are put at risk. We have seen one aluminium smelter in my electorate close, and I do not want to see another go. Our local economy and our local families rely on Tomago. Kurri Kurri, my home town, is still reeling from the closure of the Hydro Aluminium smelter in 2012, and our region can ill afford the closing of another smelter.
From the bottom of my heart I thank Matt Howell and his team at Tomago for their incredible efforts but—and it is a big but—why, in Australia in 2017, are we being asked to make a choice between cutting off the power to a major Australian manufacturer and cutting off the power to 300,000 homes? Why are we not able to keep the fridges going, the lights on or the air conditioning running during a heatwave? Think of the elderly people and the young families. What sort of a choice is that? And why should we be making it? It is because you have no plans. You have no clue how to transition. Was it a forced decision? Did AGL have no choice but to shut down Tomago? Was it directed to do so? Was it a commercial decision by AGL to choose this course of action to make a tidy profit? Who is calling the shots when it comes to keeping the lights on and the power on for industries in this country? When will this government sort this mess out?
Last week those guys passed around that piece of coal. We know that that coal was just a sham, and that is what this government is. It is a power sham.
What we need to see in energy policy is two things: we need energy security and we need energy affordability. It is not that much to ask. It is what the people of Australia expect to achieve. I come from a state which has endured four blackouts in five months. One of those blackouts went for as long as 24 hours in some places. They were statewide, not in small segments of the community. I could spend some time talking about energy security, but I do not think I need to.
What I would like to talk about is energy affordability—and this is the real smokey here right now. Do you know that last Wednesday in Victoria the member for Dunkley's constituents purchased energy at $135.80 per megawatt hour, while the member for Boothby and I have constituents who, on the same day, over the course of a 24-hour period, paid—wait for it—$2,099 for the very same product at the very same time? The member for Dunkley and I are good friends, but we are also rivals. There is a strong rivalry between South Australia and Victoria. We are 'frenemies', though I am pretty sure the member for Port Adelaide would not want Port Adelaide giving Melbourne a 10-goal head start leading into a grand final. He would not want that, but that is what we are doing with energy.
Let's talk about the South Australian experience. Let's talk about the South Australian experiment. Let's talk about this failed experiment. It is little wonder that South Australia leads the nation in terms of unemployment. It has the highest rate of unemployment in the nation. I am not proud to be here as a South Australian talking about that, but after almost 15 years of SA Labor that is what you get. South Australia also suffers from another ill, and that is that we have the shallowest rate of inward investment of any state or territory in the nation. Do you know why? If you are an investor and you have got a footloose investment that would like to place somewhere, you are not going to place it in South Australia, because you will pay an electricity rate that sometimes is 40 times what a Victorian pays.
Do not take my word for it. Ian McDonnell runs a successful sawmill in Mt Gambier. He said recently in the local paper: 'It presents another challenge for business. It's a serious impediment for existing companies and anyone looking to move their businesses to our state. It's certainly concerning for South Australia.' There is a South Australian businessman telling you what the issue is. I could sit here and talk about South Australian irrigators who cannot lift water from the river. I told the party room about six months ago that the Central Irrigation Trust have renegotiated their contract and that this year it is $1.3 million more than it was last year. They have told their irrigators, 'We'll deal with the increase this year, but next year you will be facing a price increase of between 15 and 30 per cent.'
But it is not just businesses. I posted recently on Facebook about this, and a constituent in my electorate, who is not known to me, wrote the following, 'I nearly die when I read my electricity bill. Despite being super careful, I pay more than $1,100 a quarter. Sometimes I pay up to $1,400 a quarter, and I am a single person living in a household alone. This is beyond reasonable. No wonder poverty is normal.' Well, poverty is normal in South Australia, because these prices, as we heard, are beyond reasonable.
Now, if those opposite do not think this is having an effect on jobs, recently in my electorate there was an article titled, 'Power bill pressure'. John Forster, the operations manager of a business in my electorate, South East Pine, a mill, said:
… the business had suffered due to "massive" electricity price rises and had been forced to make cutbacks.
"The price we pay for megawatts per hour has tripled in the past two years," Mr Forster said.
He said that they had been forced to make cutbacks and to find savings elsewhere because they need electricity to operate. He said, 'We have lost two wages as a result of that.'
That means two people in my electorate had to go home to their families and tell them, 'I've been laid off today. I've been laid off today because the mill I work for can't afford the electricity bill.' If those opposite genuinely cared about Australian workers, they would work with us to resolve this. The intermittency of renewables has wrecked this system, and that is what is killing South Australians and their employment prospects.
Energy policy and the proper administration of our electricity system are critical to this nation's future. The last thing we need is for energy policy to become a blackout blame game, and for it to turn into an exercise in bringing your pet rock into question time.
The member for Barker said that energy policy needs to deliver two things, and that is right. It needs to deliver secure and affordable energy, that is No. 1, and we also need a safe and stable climate—that is No. 2. We need to ensure that global warming stays below two degrees Celsius, and the only way to do that is to seriously reduce carbon emissions.
The development of renewable energy, energy efficiency and storage technology is the clearest path to doing both of those things. The greatest fraud—the greatest dereliction of responsibility—in this place is for people to manufacture a conflict between secure and affordable electricity and renewable power. That is a fraud. It is a false dichotomy, it is dishonest and it is dangerous.
What is the reality? Last year, carbon dioxide concentrations measured at the aptly named Cape Grim passed 400 parts per million for the first time. And 2016 was the hottest year on record. The hottest year before that was 2015 and the hottest year before that was 2014. The world needs to respond, and it is responding. On the positive side of the ledger, The Financial Times reported last October that renewables have now actually overtaken coal as the largest source of power capacity on the planet. But as the world surges towards renewables we are going backwards.
In 2013 we were in the top four nations for renewable energy investment; now we are well outside the top 10. In 2014, while global investment in large-scale renewables grew by 16 per cent, in Australia it went backwards by 88 per cent. We literally fell off a cliff when it came to investment in large-scale renewables. We lost 3,000 jobs. If we had maintained the trajectory that the Labor government was on we would not have lost those 3,000 jobs, we would have added an additional 7,600 jobs.
We know that Australia's future has to include a mix of energy sources. We know, if we are honest with ourselves and if we consider the science, that that mix will include more and more renewable energy as time passes. The science tells us that; it tells us we need to make the transition sooner and more comprehensively. Our commitment under the Paris agreement requires us to make that transition more quickly and more comprehensively. And the evidence of the Department of Climate Change and Energy to the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties acknowledged that our existing policies will not get us to our current inadequate targets.
So we can argue about how fast and how far that transition will go. There are plenty of expert and not-so-expert views. I happen to like this formulation that was put forward in 2010, that Australia needs to move to, 'A situation where all, or almost all, of our energy comes from zero- or very near zero-emission sources.' That same public intellectual said, 'I promise you, you cannot achieve that cut without getting to a point by mid-century where all or almost all of our stationary energy from power stations and big factories and so forth comes from zero-emission sources.
The person went on to say, 'The zero-emission future is absolutely essential if we are to leave a safe planet to our children and the generations that come after them.' In 2010 those were the views of the member for Wentworth, the current Prime Minister. In recent days he suggested that 50 per cent is a bridge too far. His colleagues think that 20 per cent is a bridge too far. Now we are hearing about new coal-fired power stations and so-called 'clean coal', when the business community says that the former is uninvestable and scientists say that the latter is a fantasy.
The reality is that the crises we have seen this summer are not from a mix of renewables and non-renewables; they are from inadequate management of electricity supply. Even though my state of Western Australia is not subject to the vagaries of the national grid or the national regulator, we are at risk because we face the prospect of the privatisation of Western Power. We are at risk of seeing the price rises, job losses and instability of supply that comes with the privatisation of our power system. All that will be put at risk because of the $40 billion of debt that Colin Barnett has racked up. He has squandered the boom, he has run down the strongest economy in the nation and now he needs to sell the farm.
He said he would run surpluses. He promised he would build a railway line to Ellenbrook and introduce MAX light rail. He promised he would never sell Western Power. Western Australia cannot bear any more broken promises. There is only one way to protect our public assets, jobs and power prices; it is time to switch off the Colin Barnett government.
It is quite extraordinary that I am rising again to speak on another Labor government failure. It is the second matter of public importance they have put up in relation to our alleged failures when in fact, once again, it is their failure. The only failure here is of the federal Labor Party, those opposite, and of course, once again, the South Australian Wetherill Labor government.
I note that I cannot see, apart from the member for Port Adelaide, any South Australian members of parliament sitting opposite. I would like to know where they are to argue that, allegedly, we have failed when we have not. The South Australian Labor government has failed, and those opposite have failed, on power for my home state. You and the state Labor government have created this energy crisis and you are attempting to make it worse. That is the most extraordinary part of this.
In my home state of South Australia we do not have secure, reliable or affordable power. In my home state, in my electorate of Boothby, residents and businesses are paying more than 40 per cent more for their power than the rest of Australia. In my home state, residents and businesses do not have secure or reliable power and they live in fear of more blackouts. We have had blackout after blackout, starting last September when our entire state lost power. Apart from the member for Port Adelaide, none of you here in the chamber experienced that unless you were visiting my fine state at the time. It was a really scary experience: 1.7 million people did not have power that day. Businesses were without power and my residents were without power. They were very dangerous conditions. I want to make mention of our incredible police, who did a wonderful job that day getting everybody home in peak-hour traffic—in a storm and with no traffic lights—and our emergency services volunteers, who helped people who had trees and other things down around their houses. They helped residents in need.
Flinders public hospital, which is in my electorate of Boothby, lost power, and its generator did not work either. People in intensive care had to be transferred to Flinders Private Hospital, which thankfully still had power through its generator. It is a miracle that nobody died. This is what happens when you have a failed electricity policy, as the Labor government does in South Australia—and a complete inability to manage our hospitals, as it turns out, which I recently spoke about.
It was not just the hospital, though; it was a range of businesses, and I want to talk about some of them. One of my local McDonald's, for example, which operates 24 hours a day, lost power for some time and lost a lot of stock. They employ a lot of young people, who did not get their hours that day. It cost $7,000 to fix their air-conditioner. They have now bought a generator to protect themselves from this happening again. Their power bill, like those of so many other businesses, is set to rise by tens of thousands of dollars in the near future.
Ben, my wonderful local newsagent, in his first day of trading after the Christmas holiday period and public holidays, completely lost power at his businesses. He was unable to open his cafe, and his newsagency was closed for most of the day. He still had to pay his staff wages for 12 hours, even though he was not making any money. The increase in the cost of electricity to his business is something in the order of 20 per cent this year. His December trade went really well but he lost all of that because of his lost income on the day we had the blackout.
I want to talk about Premier Jay Weatherill and the way he described—
You are in the federal parliament!
The member for Shortland has had his turn.
what he is doing to our power situation in South Australia, where we now have reliance on renewables of 40 per cent of our overall power supply. The Premier said:
We are running a big international experiment right now … We have got a long, skinny transmission system and we will soon have 50 per cent renewable energy, including a lot of wind and some solar … We want to get as close to 100 per cent renewable power as possible … We know there are challenges here. But with big risks, go big opportunities.
We know the result of this big experiment. It has been an absolute disaster for our state. It is a disaster for my residents and a disaster for my businesses. I call on those opposite to abandon their 50 per cent renewable energy target, which is going to put my residents and businesses in even more danger.
I note the member for Port Adelaide, who put up this matter of public importance for discussion, has described blackout after blackout as 'hiccups'. Quite frankly, that is a disgraceful thing to say when my businesses and residents are at risk and suffering in so many ways.
There was a time when I lived in a place where there were regular blackouts and power outages. I found it particularly difficult because we lived on the 13th floor back then and when the elevators went out I got quite a bit of exercise. But that was in a Third World country and it was well over 20 years ago; in fact, closer to 30 years ago.
Fast forward to Australia in 2017, and under this Liberal-National government we are a developed nation facing a national energy crisis. We cannot allow power cuts in South Australia, New South Wales and elsewhere to become part of the new norm because this government ignore recommendations from the AEMC, the CSIRO, the electricity generation industry and others by rejecting an emissions intensity scheme. Instead, what do they do? They continue to attack renewables and falsely blame blackouts on renewables in a shameful misrepresentation to the Australian people, right here in this parliament. Instead, they bring in lumps of coal—I suspect it was really the minister's well-deserved Christmas present—and play politics while families, pensioners and businesses suffer under their right-wing-led approach, denying that climate change even exists and following the climate change deniers and conspiracy theorists down the path of ruin.
The member for Barker spoke about energy security and affordability and said that it was so simple. Why aren't they doing anything about it if it is so, so simple? The member for Barker chose to wax lyrical about affordability and lamented soaring electricity prices in South Australia: electricity prices that are soaring because their government privatised the market—just like the WA Liberals want to privatise Western Power when they get in. That seems to be the modus operandi of this LNP government: run it into the ground then sell it off without a single thought for the people who will suffer most—the mums and dads, the pensioners and those on low incomes, who will all be burdened with high energy costs.
Hear, hear!
Thank you.
That is your privatisation.
That is your privatisation doing that. At the last election, I think I must have heard the slogan Jobs and growth more times than I would like to remember, but this government continues to fail Australians on both counts, because to achieve jobs and growth—let me give you a little lesson here: jobs and growth 101—you need to diversify markets and attract investment and you need energy security.
Let me start with the first point. The whole world is moving towards clean energy. There is no doubt about that. The whole world is moving towards it, and Australia has an enormous opportunity. But those on the other side cannot see it, because they are too blinkered by their right-wing ideology and their tinfoil hats. Our climate, especially in Western Australia, with its arid conditions, has generated innovation in alternative and renewable energy sources. I have been in a very privileged position to look at some of this innovation. It is innovation that has attracted the attention of investors in other parts of the world and in countries with similar climatic conditions who are also concerned about their energy security. Countries like Qatar, for example, who are currently preparing for the World Cup in 2020, are looking to Australia for renewable energy to run the massive number of air conditioners that they are going to need to be able to provide for the number of tourists coming to the 2020 World Cup.
Despite this unique advantage we have slipped behind the rest of the world in energy investment under this government, the government of 'jobs and growth; growth and jobs'. They have no policy to drive investment in renewables beyond 2020. In contrast, Labor's election policy of 50 per cent renewable energy by 2030, supported by an emissions intensity scheme, provides certainty to support new investments to the tune of $48 billion across the country. (Time expired).
I have seen some confused and muddle headed thinking from Labor members of parliament in my time, but today, I think, just about takes the cake for complete and utter confusion. But I would like to congratulate the member for Newcastle for her contribution to this MPI, because she is right to be concerned about those jobs at Tomago.
The main theme of this debate, that we have an energy crisis in this country, is correct. Why do we have the crisis? It goes back to when good old Kevin 07 decided that he would have a 20 per cent renewable energy target by 2020. There was nothing that was economically sensible about that, other than that it rhymed: 20 per cent by 2020. The entire problem is that when you have wind turbines, which are the lowest costing renewable energy, but cost more than coal, and the wind does not blow the power does not flow. An example from today, we have around 2,000 wind turbines in this nation, if they were all working at maximum capacity they would generate around 3,900 megawatts. At 12 o'clock today they were working at less than two per cent capacity. That means you have to have the backup of fossil fuels. That is why it was so good for the member for Newcastle to talk about the importance of coal fired power. Because without coal fired power, places like Tomago will close down. All those workers in her electorate will lose their jobs. Yet it is the Labor Party that has a plan to kick-start—they said it, kick-start—the closure of coal fired power station's in their policy. I say to the member for Newcastle about the coal fired power station that the workers in Tomago rely on, it is the policy of the Labor Party and the Greens to close those power coal fired power stations down.
Opposition members interjecting—
Now you are all keen for coal fired power, is that right? You are all keen. You all like coal, is that right? Are you all for it? Well you have to be, because whatever you have in wind has to be backed up by some form of fossil fuel.
The problem is, as I think the member for Shortland said, no-one will finance a new coal fired power station in this nation. That is true, and the reason for that is because that mob on the other side have this mad insanity of a 50 per cent renewable energy target. Anyone that is going to invest knows that they will have to get a return on that coal fired power station over 30 or 40 years. They know that there is a political risk. The political risk is that the reckless incompetents on that side of the House may actually come to government one time in the next 30 or 40 years and inflict their policies of closing down coal fired power in this nation. That is why we are not getting the investment and that is why we have an energy crisis in this country. If we have a crisis today, what about next year? Next year we are closing down—with the cheers of all the Labor members and the Greens—Hazelwood power station in Victoria. It is being closed down. I know that most of you secretly cheer that. That is 20 per cent of Victoria's—
Opposition members interjecting—
Well stand up in this parliament and say you support Hazelwood being kept open. Come on, stand up in this parliament and say, 'Keep Hazelwood open.' No, they will not say it. They want to see it close down. They will be cheering when it closes down. That is 20 per cent of Victoria's power. What will happen next year if we have similar weather conditions to those we have had this year? We will not just have the population that we have today, we will have to find power for another 330,000 people in this nation to have air conditioning, refrigeration and stoves to cook on. They will need power. So the power demands in this nation will be higher and we will have less power. We have got to get more coal fired power stations. I call on all members: if you are really concerned about jobs, if you are really concerned about prosperity then abandon that 50 per cent renewable energy target. Because that is what is needed if we are going to bring stability back to the electricity supplies of this country. (Time expired)
Order! The time for the debate has expired.
I return to the Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Amendment Bill 2017. Labor will oppose this bill for the reasons I have outlined and also for some other reasons, and I will go to some of those. I will recap. As I have said, this bill will bring forward a code to apply to the building industry and will have a number of implications, not least of all employers, their workforce and unions will be unable to bargain in exactly the same manner as every other employer, workforce and union in every other sector of our economy. In particular, the code, if implemented, will restrict the capacity for those parties to enterprise agreements to bargain on a range of things, including the ratio of apprentices. That is currently allowable under the Fair Work Act but would be disallowed by the code for this industry. For example, it would not allow an employer, workforce and union to strike a deal to have a ratio of apprentices for a number of workers. We think this will limit or diminish the efforts by some in the industry to improve the ratio of apprentices and give young people an opportunity to work. That is why we are so surprised that Senator Xenophon, who likes to say he supports workers, Senator Hinch, One Nation senators and others are supporting this bill.
It also will deny employers, unions and workers the ability to regulate the forms of employment in any way. Therefore, it will not allow some restrictions about temporary worker use. We know temporary workers are often exploited in many industries in this country. We have seen recently some awful examples of exploitation, but so too some employers may seek to employ them over and above and instead of local workers. There are provisions currently in enterprise agreements, for example, in Queensland and Victoria that restrict that use or at least ensure that there is some preference for local workers. If it is the case that temporary workers are used to supplement areas of demand in the workforce, it is understandable, for example, that parties to an agreement might want to ensure that, if there are to be redundancies, local workers who have been there longer are not made redundant before temporary workers are laid off. There are provisions in agreements currently that in fact do favour local workers over overseas temporary workers. That will not be allowed to be inserted into enterprise agreements after the code takes effect.
We hear a lot from One Nation senators, Senator Hinch, Senator Xenophon and others about supporting local workers and, indeed, regulating the use of temporary workers. Government members have to understand that in supporting the code they are supporting restrictions on protecting local workers to keep their work and even denying the right of employers, unions and workers to say that, if there are to be redundancies, it should be temporary workers first. I think that is a regressive step and it shows the lengths that this government will go to to introduce this code even though it is against the interests of Australian workers.
Further to this matter, Senator Xenophon likes to make great deal of his interest in asbestos and safety generally. Indeed, he is a co-patron of an asbestos safety organisation in South Australia. He certainly is on the record arguing in favour of improvements to prevent the use and importation of asbestos. He also talks about workers' safety, yet his support for this code will deny provisions in agreements that currently exist—they will have to be struck out if they are to be code compliant—that enable five days training on asbestos safety in Queensland, South Australia, Victoria and other states. How can a senator so unequivocally support the need to educate workers and provide opportunities for them to be better informed in order to protect their health and the health of their colleagues while at the same time support a code that will not allow for such provisions to be inserted into future enterprise agreements if they are to be code compliant?
He joins the government in supporting the code. Further to that of course he supports the government in bringing forward the code, as this bill would do if enacted. Labor do oppose the code, but we said that, if the code were to apply, it should apply only once agreements have nominally expired. That would only be fair. Why should parties have regard to a code that was not passed by the parliament? What the parties did instead was enter into agreements pursuant to the Fair Work Act and, subsequently—after many rejections, I might add—the parliament then introduced a code to take effect on 29 November next year.
The Prime Minister no less was the one who wrote the compromise of 29 November 2018, as we heard from Senator Hinch in the inquiry yesterday on this bill. He wrote the compromise and passed it across the table to Senator Hinch to say he was happy to have a two-year period of grace before the code was to take effect, which would mean that companies that have agreements that are lawful and yet contrary to the code would be able to tender and win Commonwealth funded contracts. So the Prime Minister—no-one else—suggested 29 November 2018 as the date when the code would take effect and today we are debating a bill that completely contradicts the commitments made by the Prime Minister in the last sitting week of last year. This shows how dishonest this government is. It is willing to tell lies about matters that come before the parliament and of course is willing to prosecute an argument that will indeed attack the interests of working people in the building industry with no genuine benefit, just a terrible effect on workers.
So we say to the government: this code is unfair. It treats building workers and building employers differently from workers in every other sector of our economy. It limits the ability to negotiate on things like Australian made content for protective clothing, asbestos safety training, apprenticeship ratios, forms of employment and hours of duty in ways that no other sector has to endure. It is intrinsically anti worker, this legislation, and the fact that the crossbench senators are contemplating bringing forward the code by supporting this bill is quite frankly unconscionable. Those crossbench senators said that they told the industry in December they had reached an accommodation. The Prime Minister stood at the dispatch box last December and said this was a good deal, and now he is seeking to renege on that deal. It is for these reasons that I have outlined that Labor opposes this bill and will always, always, oppose the code that it contains.
I rise to support this bill. The Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Amendment Bill 2017 makes a welcome adjustment to the Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Act 2016. The ABCC act and the building code contained a two-year transition period which delayed the requirement, under the building code, for building and construction companies to have code-compliant enterprise agreements before they could tender for Commonwealth funded work. This transition period allowed construction companies to continue to use non-code-compliant enterprise agreements made before 2 December 2016.
This bill does two things. It decreases the transition period included in the act from two years to nine months. This will see the new code come into practice by the end of the year. The bill will also prohibit companies with non-code-compliant agreements from being awarded Commonwealth-funded building work after the commencement date of the bill.
These changes are directed at the massive union pressure placed on building companies to sign non-code-compliant agreements that contain non-productive and discriminatory terms. There is evidence that unions are already trying to dodge the code. Just days after the code was released, the CFMEU shut down 13 sites operated by Kane Constructions in Victoria. Kane is a construction company that has resisted intense coercion from the CFMEU to sign non-code-compliant enterprise agreements.
These changes are a welcome tightening of the legislation, to encourage and reward companies who comply with the new building code. They remove any unfair advantage that may have been paid to construction companies unable to hold out against the standover tactics of the CFMEU. They create a level playing field across the building industry.
In supporting this bill, I, unlike the member for Gorton, would like to commend Senator Hinch for listening to the construction industry in Victoria, for being responsive and for his appreciation of what the government is trying to achieve through the ABCC. As Senator Hinch said:
… the legislation was killing them—
the building and construction companies, he meant. It doesn't get much clearer than that.
The re-establishment of the Australian Building and Construction Commission last year was a signature achievement of the coalition. Despite the best efforts of unions and the Labor Party, the ABCC is back. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, nearly half, 42 per cent, of all working days lost to industrial disputes are in the construction industry. In September 2016, the rate of industrial disputes in the construction industry was nearly six times the Australian average. These disputes are estimated to add 30 per cent to the cost of infrastructure. As of 30 January 2017, there were 110 CFMEU officials before the courts, which in recent years have imposed fines of more than $8 million on the union. When the previous ABCC existed, the performance of the building and construction industry improved. Productivity improved by 30 per cent. Disputes fell from five times the all-industries average to double the average. Under the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government, the ABCC was abolished by the then employment minister, Bill Shorten, at the behest of the CFMEU. Standards of behaviour in the building industry deteriorated markedly. Violent disputes became more common. Thuggery and disregard for the law became commonplace. Productivity flatlined.
The re-establishment of the ABCC last year put back in place a regulator with strong and effective powers. It established a commission with the power to monitor compliance with the law by the building and construction industry. The ABCC will be able to take enforcement action and promote appropriate standards of conduct across the industry. The commission will have the power to eliminate coercion and discrimination in the industry. It will take action against standover tactics and the strongarming of builders and workers who are trying to do the right thing. It will enforce better levels of governance across the industry by making it an offence to intentionally hinder or obstruct an authorised officer seeking information or documents.
There is no question of the need for the ABCC. Just like the Cole royal commission laid bare the truth of the building and construction industry in the early 2000s, leading to the original establishment of the ABCC, the Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption, the Heydon royal commission, showed just how low Australia's unions had sunk, and the CFMEU and the AWU were among the worst of the lot.
The report of the 2015 Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption is a great read. It is a real page-turner. Just when you think it cannot get worse, just when you think that you must have reached the peak of union corruption and failure of governance, there is another example that is even more outrageous or unbelievable.
Commissioner Heydon did a fantastic job in very difficult circumstances, and I commend him for his patience, his fortitude and his significant efforts in putting together a comprehensive report. Commissioner Heydon is one of the outstanding lawyers of his generation. The personal attacks from those opposite and from the trade union movement were unprecedented and outrageous, particularly for someone who, like his celebrated father, Sir Peter Heydon—the public servant who was most responsible for the ending of the White Australia policy—has given so much service to his country.
The report is not an insignificant achievement when you consider what he was up against. There was perjury—much perjury. Some union officials brazenly admitted to it and said they would plead guilty to charges of perjury. A huge amount of the testimony given in hearings was false to the knowledge of the witnesses. There was destruction of documents, most blatantly by the CFMEU. The CFMEU in Queensland caused a number of tonnes—tonnes—of documents to be removed from the CFMEU's Brisbane office and disposed of on the same day that the CFMEU received a notice to produce from the royal commission. Despite this obstructionist behaviour, the commission found plenty of evidence of trade union corruption and the complete failure of anything approaching governance.
Commissioner Heydon found widespread misconduct by six unions across every state and territory in Australia, except for the Northern Territory. He found financial misconduct. He found breaches of legal duty. He found misuse of union funds for personal gain and purposes. He found misrepresentation of membership numbers. He found misconduct on building sites. He found abuse of process. He found blackmail. He found death threats and bribery. Commissioner Heydon found:
This conduct has taken place among a wide variety of unions and industries. Those responsible have ranged in seniority from the most junior levels to the most senior ... Of course what has been described is not universal. It may not even be typical. But you can look at any area of Australia. You can look at any unionised industry. You can look at any type of industrial union. You can select any period of time. You can take any rank of officeholder … You can search for any type of misbehaviour. You will find rich examples over the last 23 years in the Australian … union movement.
Again, he said:
The misconduct exhibits great variety. It is widespread. It is deep-seated.
The Labor Party argues that the ABCC is an unfair and unwarranted imposition on trade unions. In a civilised society, you should not need a watchdog. But, given the findings of Heydon royal commission, how can you possibly consider the building and construction industry to be civilised? How can you possibly let these trade unions continue to act without oversight?
As I said before, the report of the royal commission makes for gripping reading. Here are some examples:
At a blockade of a Grocon site by the CFMEU a driver of a minibus, who happened to be suffering from cancer, attempted to drive out of the blockaded area. He described how CFMEU members surrounded his van, yelling abuse and punching the windscreen. One of them was John Setka, then Assistant State Secretary, who was found by Tracey J to have used foul and abusive language, to have punched the windscreen, and to have shouted: ‘I hope you die of … cancer’.
This is not civilised behaviour.
Last April, a CFMEU official was found guilty of attempting to intimidate a government official on the Barangaroo site in Sydney. While blockading the site, he was alleged to have abused workers attempting to go to work, calling them 'scum' and 'dogs'. He was found to have called a government inspector a 'grub' and abused him with language too foul to use in this place. The same CFMEU official was found guilty on two charges of threatening and intimidating two government inspectors on the Sunshine Coast and intimidating a further inspector at the Queensland University of Technology, including by attempting to punch him. These are not civilised people. Perhaps the most well-known instance was in Queensland. When told he was trespassing on a Grocon building site, a CFMEU official threatened a Grocon safety adviser, saying, 'You know what, I know your phone number. I know where you live.' I want to be clear that these are not idle threats. The royal commission heard evidence from one project manager at a licensed builder that he was beaten up by two CFMEU officials when he refused to pull money out of the business to make unauthorised payments to the union. They beat him so badly that they perforated both his eardrums. He required hospital treatment. This is not an acceptable work environment. This is not acceptable in Australia in 2017.
I return to the Royal Commission. Numerous officials were found to have misused trade union funds for their personal gain. Remember, these are people who are supposedly representing the otherwise unrepresented workers and who are meant to be delivering a public good in terms of getting the best outcome for their workers; but, instead, what did they do? They took membership dues and spent them on themselves. A former lead organiser for the CFMEU in the Australian Capital Territory conceded during hearings in Canberra that he had personally received $100,000 in secret payments from employers. A former president of the CFMEU in Queensland received around $150,000 worth of free work on his home, arranged by a senior employee of a major building company, with the knowledge of his superior. Both the incoming and the outgoing secretary of the Western Australian branch of the TWU depleted union funds by over $600,000 to spend on the unauthorised purchase of two luxury four-wheel drive vehicles and an unauthorised, generous redundancy payment for the outgoing secretary. In the notorious Health Services Union, Kathy Jackson, Michael Williamson and Craig Thomson used union funds for their own purposes, and both Williamson and Thomson have been convicted in relation to their crimes.
But, as we all know, personal use of union funds was not where it stopped. Unions negotiated sweetheart payments from employers, trashing the interests of their members for paltry financial gain into undisclosed fighting funds. An organiser in the CFMEU in New South Wales received $2,500 per week in secret and possibly unlawful cash payments. A company operating a mushroom farm in Victoria agreed to pay the AWU $4,000 a month for a number of months in exchange for industrial peace. The AWU in Victoria entered into an agreement with Thiess John Holland, where the AWU received $110,000 per year for three years, disguised by a series of false invoices. The AWU in Victoria and a large cleaning company, Cleanevent, agreed to extend their enterprise agreement without any consultation with workers. This saved the company $2 million a year. And what did the AWU get in return? It got $25,000 per year and 100 bogus union members. What a deal! What a complete perversion of the role of a trade union. What a paltry price for such a sell-out. And who was the hard-headed, genius negotiator of this deal? The Leader of the Opposition! Who knows where he would take our country with that kind of capability behind him.
It is no wonder that Senator Hinch has been approached by building and construction companies in his home state of Victoria, keen to see compliance with the new code of conduct come into force as soon as possible. Victoria has borne witness to some of the very worst behaviour of the CFMEU. Last June, the Herald Sun identified a paid CFMEU official attending a bikie protest, which was led by a union representative in Rebels colours. That union representative was using a megaphone covered in CFMEU stickers. The relationship between the CFMEU and bikie gangs was there for all to see.
In his statement to the Royal Commission on Trade Union Governance and Corruption, Victoria Police Assistant Commissioner, Stephen Fontana, confirmed: 'Victoria Police intelligence indicates that criminal activity is undertaken by trade union officials directly, and by organised crime figures or groups on behalf of trade union officials.' He went on to say, 'The criminal activity of which Victoria Police is concerned is generally comprised of corruption, drug trade, blackmail and extortion. Corruption takes the form of secret commissions and preferential tendering.' And that's not all. He went on to say, 'Intelligence indicates that trade union officials use Outlaw Motorcycle Gangs to engage in activity on their behalf and that [these gangs] often commit serious crime to execute these activities. Specifically, trade unions use [gang] members as "hired muscle" for debt collection, with "standover tactics used to intimidate victims".' This kind of behaviour is outrageous. It is holding our building and construction industry to ransom. We cannot have trade unions working hand in glove with outlawed criminal gangs to put a halt to legitimate business. We cannot have the jobs of everyday Australians put at risk so that groups of criminals might profit from illegal activities. We cannot have a lawless trade union running rampant over an industry.
In conclusion, the protections offered by the ABCC are real and the need for those protections is real. The Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption proved just how badly the trade union movement can fail its members—hard working men and women who rely on unions to represent them and deliver reasonable and fair working conditions. The unions involved in the building and construction industry, the CFMEU in particular, are among the worst of the lot. There is a distinct pattern of behaviour where the union operates to its own advantage and to the personal advantage of its office bearers and representatives. As Commissioner Heydon reported: 'It is a picture of the union concerned not with its role as the instrument through which to protect the public interest of its members but with self-interest. Its primary interest is in leading the group of its officials as a self-perpetuating institution. It is an institution more concerned with gathering members than servicing them.'
The ABCC will bring standards back to Australia's building sites. It will increase productivity, improve the safety of workers and hold the CFMEU to account. The amendment put forward in this bill today will expedite these standards, making them operational by the end of the year. For that reason, I commend the bill to this House.
This bill, the Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Amendment Bill 2017, tells you about everything that is wrong with this place. It tells you that if the parliament legislates and strikes what it thinks is an appropriate balance but big business do not like it, they will get you while you are lying on the beach over the summer holidays and get the parliament to change its position. We will talk a bit more about that in the moment.
The previous speaker and all of the other government speakers who came before him spent a huge amount of their time talking in support of this bill by talking about claims of criminal behaviour that apparently go on on building sites. They may not know this but the bill does not deal with criminal behaviour. The ABCC has no power to investigate criminal behaviour. That is left up to a quaint organisation called 'the police'. The police investigate claims of criminal behaviour. The police prosecute them. And we have in this country a thing called 'the rule of law' where a judge decides whether you have broken the law or not.
But because they have absolutely no justification for this bill, other than for delivering for their corporate masters, they come in here and dress up this bill as if it has something to do with crime. If one single member on the government benches could point me to a provision in the building construction industry legislation or in the ABCCs remit that deals with crime, maybe some of the things they have said would be relevant. But they are not relevant. All the backbenchers trot in here and trot out their repeated lines about claims of criminal activity without realising, because they have not read the bill, that this organisation has nothing to do with claims of criminal activity. That is left up to the police. If you have claims of criminal activity, refer them to the police. The union has done that from time to time. And I am sure that any government members who have claims about that could leave it up to existing law enforcement agencies. And the rule of law could follow its usual course, as it does in a democracy.
But no, this party gets up here and says, 'We can never have any regulation of commercial activity. We have to let people negotiate their own contracts. Far be it from the government to step in and tell business what to do. We've got to get rid of red tape.' Apparently that all falls down when it comes to the workplace, because what this legislation does is say that if you negotiate an agreement in your workplace for certain wages, conditions and protections the government is going to come in and tell you whether you have got it right or wrong.
Under this bill and its accompanying code, which the government now wants to bring into force much more quickly, the government sits down at the negotiating table of every workplace in the country in the construction industry and rewrites their agreement for them. This government is all for market forces except when you negotiate an outcome they do not like. Then they come in and say, 'We're going to rewrite it.' What utter hypocrisy. When this government is prepared to sit down and rewrite the wages and conditions of everyone in this country, just because of the industry that they happen to work in, they no longer have any credibility. They no longer have any credibility when it comes to saying that somehow in their mind the market is different. They do not care about the market. They care about delivering for big business. Nowhere is that more apparent than when you look at the chronology of this bill.
The government went to the election saying, 'We want to introduce legislation around the ABCC.' It was an election issue. It was a double dissolution trigger. We then had months of discussion about it after that. During a late night sitting of the Senate—after hearing all of the evidence, after many committee inquiries and after the government agitating for it in the public realm—we had the Senate agree on a package of amendments to the bill. I did not agree with that package of amendments. I did not agree with the bill. But after hearing everything that is what the Senate resolved. That is the way things sometime happen in this place. Government says, 'We want to do all of these things.' The Senate says, 'Hang on, we want some protections built in.' So what ends up passing into law is sometimes what could be called a compromise package that allows the government to do what it wants but contains some protections or some compromises.
What happened after the Senate had done all of that, exercised its role as a house of review and managed to enshrine some minimal protections for people who happen to work in the construction industry? What happened after that? Big business came up to certain senators and the government and said, 'We don't like the deal that you've struck. We know that you've struck a deal that says, "You can have your law. You can have your code. You can have your Building and Construction Commission, but we need time to get the industry in order so that we don't have people on two sets of agreements—some of which might be code compliant and some of which won't. We will have a grace period to work out whether or not our agreements are compliant with the new code."' Big business came and said, 'We don’t like that, sorry. I know democracy was at work in the Senate when you agreed on that but let me tell you why it's wrong. It's wrong because it is going to cost us a bit of money and we want this in right now.'
So what happened? Senator Xenophon and his team and Senator Hinch came out in a blaze of glory in the papers and said, 'We've changed our mind. We heard from big business over summer and, sorry, those protections that we negotiated, we don't want them anymore.' The government stands up, applauds the conservative crossbench and says: 'Thank you for doing the right thing. Thank you for doing the right thing by big business. Thank you for doing the right thing by us. Thank you for making our donors happy, because that will increase our coffers again come election time, and thank you for doing the work of taking away people's rights at work just because they happen to work in the construction industry.'
And what is going to be the result of this? There are going to be a couple of things that will happen. One is that there is a very clear message that is sent to the whole of the community that this government does not believe in people negotiating their own contracts or their own agreements. If you negotiate something this government does not like, it will come in and take away the rights and protections that you have negotiated. So, as a result, forget about seeing agreements that contain protections in them that might increase the number of apprentices or that might increase other people's participation in the workforce or that, heaven forbid, might increase safety in the workplace. All of those things are now out of bounds.
Secondly, what I think the government probably understands but does not care about, but the crossbenchers certainly do not understand, is the chaos that this bill is going to introduce. Where I think the penny has not dropped for the government and for a number of the crossbenchers is that you now have an industry where a lot of people are on agreements that were struck before the code, and now you have a number of people who are going to be on agreements struck after the code, and you have the government saying with this bill: 'Well, you might have struck what was a lawful agreement and complied with the law at the time, but, effectively retrospectively, we're going to say that, if you have one of those things, you're not going to get any Commonwealth work. If you have one of those things, even if it's not on a Commonwealth job, forget about getting Commonwealth work.'
What do you think is going to happen in response to that? Every one of those agreements in the country is going to be opened up for renegotiation. That is why the grace period was inserted in the first place: to give people time to work this through. So when you see now, on building sites around the country, people saying, 'Well, we thought we had a lawful agreement, but the government was quite happy to legislate retrospectively to say it's no longer a lawful agreement and I can't get any government work because I happen to have this even on an unrelated site,' people are going to come up and say, 'Well, if you're going to take those conditions away from me, I want something for it in return.' So this government has just basically reopened negotiations on almost every building site around the country. That, I think, has not dawned on Senator Hinch—that he has been sold a pup, and Senator Xenophon has been sold a pup as well. When it happens, it can be laid squarely at their feet.
But the last and perhaps the most significant consequence of this legislation is that it sends a message that the Senate may be a house of review but there are certain senators in there who do not take that obligation seriously and who are prepared to trade away whatever they negotiate one day if someone taps them on the shoulder overnight and says, 'Listen, you haven't got the right deal for us in big business; we want you to change your mind.' I will tell you what: after watching this performance and after seeing how Senator Xenophon and his team in the Senate behaved and how Senator Hinch behaved, I would not trust them to walk in, negotiate on my behalf, get protections and even tell me it was worth something because they put them into law, because what I now know, and what everyone in the country knows—and especially what people in South Australia ought to know—is that, when Senator Nick Xenophon tells you he has negotiated a protection and that it is going to go into law, he is quite happy to vote against it the next week if someone in big business taps him on the shoulder and tells him to remove it, because he is more concerned about currying favour with the government and with big business than with standing up to protect people's rights at work. That is the lesson that ought to be brought home to everyone in South Australia and to everyone in Victoria: now there are people in the Senate who will trade away people's rights if someone from big business gets them while they are lying on their towel on the beach over their summer holidays or at any other point in time.
This will set an incredible precedent in this place, because we have legislation coming up about paid parental leave, about child care and about cutting the big business tax rate, and we have senators now who, by their own admission, are prepared to vote one way one day and say, 'Oh, but it's all right; we've given the government something they want but we've got this for you over here on the side,' but then will take away that side deal the next day. So not only are we left in the dark at the moment about what negotiations are going on around cutting paid parental leave, child care and so on from Senator Nick Xenophon's team in the Senate or any of the other senators—we do not really know about that and will find out what deal they do to facilitate the company tax cut for big business or to help the government rip hundreds of millions of dollars out of welfare—but we also know now that if they try to say to people in South Australia, 'It's okay because we've negotiated a quid pro quo; we're about to give the government a big tax cut for big business, but it's okay because I'm getting this over here on the side, and we're about to help the government with their welfare payments, but it's okay because I've got this for you over here,' that promise is not worth the paper it is written on, because even if the government puts side deals with Senator Xenophon or Senator Hinch into law we now know they will trade them off a few weeks later if they think it is in their interest to do so.
I do not know what Senator Hinch and Senator Xenophon are getting for this grubby deal. I do not know what they are getting in return for backflipping on something that only a few weeks ago in the parliamentary sitting calendar they thought was a good deal to enshrine some minimal protection for people's rights at work. Perhaps when they make their contributions to the Senate they might enlighten us as to what quid pro quo they are getting for this. But they now need to know that, if they vote for this bill and this bill passes the Senate, their credibility as defenders of people's rights is shot forever, because we now know not only that they are prepared to trade and do side deals but that those side deals will get repealed the very next day.
I say this: if this legislation passes, the whole of the country ought to know that the parliament is a wholly owned subsidiary of big business in this country, because certain senators have failed to stand up and do their job. The reason that we have a house of review, the Senate, is to provide a check and balance on the government and to say to the government, 'If you're just doing this because it's in the interests of big business, we will stop you and make you act in the public interest.' That is partly what they did last year. They did not get it completely right, in my opinion, but at least they reined in some of the government excesses. But now even that is thrown like confetti in the wind. When this bill comes before the Senate, if it passes this place, it will be incumbent on those senators who have changed their position in a very, very short period of time to explain to the public what they got for it but also to explain to the public why they should ever be trusted again. Why trust any of those senators ever again if they will tell you that they will put your protections into law one day and then, a couple of weeks later, they come around and take them out again?
I will be opposing this bill, and the Greens will be opposing this bill, just as we opposed it in the Senate last time, because there is something to be said for standing up for your principles and there is something to be said for standing up for them even when you have to have a difficult conversation with someone from big business. Unfortunately it seems we cannot rely on the others to do that.
I was enjoying the soliloquy from the member for Melbourne about the conservative crossbench in the Senate. I thought to myself, 'Geez, this is a good speech. It's a cracker of a speech. I might even steal some of his themes and lines about the conservative crossbench.' And then I thought to myself, 'Why isn't Ricky Muir in the Senate anymore? And why has the Senate got this complexion?' I scratched my head and then I remembered—'Oh, that's right! The Greens party did a deal with the Liberal Party which facilitated the election of the very Senate that he just railed against, facilitated the power of the Nick Xenophon Team—that personality cult—and facilitated the rancid influence of One Nation in this parliament.' And now we have this mock outrage about this conservative crossbench, about the influence it is having on this nation.
But the member for Melbourne is right: the Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Amendment Bill 2017 is a bad bill. It was a bad bill when it was presented years ago; it was a bad bill when it was presented last year. We had many speeches in this House about it. We had thorough examination of this bill in the House and in the Senate and it was made—can you make a bad bill better? I do not know. You can improve its operation perhaps. So amendments were made to this bill, with its pernicious civil regime that outlaws workers standing up for their safety, standing up against people who would push them into unsafe working conditions often.
This bill gives plumbers, electricians, building labourers and other tradesmen fewer rights than drug dealers. What kind of nation is this government presiding over when that happens? A sparky or a plumber simply wants to go to work in the day and earn a decent wage in a safe workplace. We all know what the building trades are like. They are tough, they are unforgiving and the companies that operate in them are cutthroat and tough and unforgiving. There is a culture of phoenixing. There is a culture of cutting corners, often, with some of those companies, and they push their workers into unsafe work environments. That is why there is death after death in this industry—sometimes of very young workers.
This is a bad bill and there was a poor process applied to it by the government, who first presented it as a double dissolution bill and then had to wobble into the House here in their normal fashion and try the best they could to make it somewhat workable and then wobble into the Senate, into the other place, to that conservative crossbench—poor process. And now they roll into the next year.
Most governments improve over the summer months because they disappear from view. We know Senator Xenophon and Senator Hinch—two senators who have no lives, apparently—kept working over the summer. They were on TV every second day, scurrying about corporate back rooms—I nearly said 'bedrooms' there!—being influenced on perfectly sensible amendments that they made in this bill. Then they scurried back here in the New Year to make these bills more unworkable. The member for Melbourne is right. No-one has thought through the practical consequences of these bills, which will be to throw up 3,000 industrial agreements, 3,000 workplace agreements, for renegotiation. Think about that. Even if you believe that this is a good idea, the Fair Work Commission could not possibly, even by agreement, process that many agreements in the time.
What will be the consequence? Good companies who try to do the right thing and obey the law will be forbidden to tender for Commonwealth contracts. That can only do one thing: force contract prices up, because there will be less competition. And what is this? It is the big hand of government. For all of this government's rhetoric, this is the big hand of government reaching into the private sector and the free market and meddling in a completely ridiculous fashion—
Using procurement to force—
using procurement to force its ideological predisposition on business. We are about to see the mother of all logjams in the Fair Work Commission. There will be companies out there who are desperate to renegotiate their agreements. We have seen some consequences of that in South Australia. We have heard a lot about power from those opposite—I do not want to go through the power debate in this place on this bill; maybe another time—but SA Power Networks is one company which has been caught up in the red tape of this government. The big hand of government is meddling with a company which has had 12 years of industrial stability and peace in South Australia. It has been 12 years since there has been disputation in SA Power Networks—a fully unionised workforce, unionised because they know the union protects their interests. But they have been informed that SAPN will be a code-covered entity. By virtue of its work in the NBN, it will now become subject to the Building Code, which means that its single enterprise agreement—which is agreed, is in place and gives workers, management and the company a fair set of conditions and stable workplace relations, which is important in the industry—will be split into three different agreements.
It is so serious because workers will face losing guarantees about the use of contractors and guarantees about the use of apprentices. They have a very good apprenticeship scheme running at SAPN, which they should be praised for. Craigmore High School, in my electorate, participates in that. They have a Stobie pole in the school—for those opposite, in South Australia a Stobie pole is an electricity pole—and kids train on it with proper safety harnesses, preparing them for an apprenticeship program. So it is a company that is doing the right thing in many ways. We can have other debates about some of the corporate taxation arrangements and all the rest of it, but in industrial relations, its apprenticeship programs and its relationship with South Australian schools, it is doing a good job. It has had a decade or more of industrial peace, something that those opposite claim they want, and yet they are now going to drag this company, which has industrial peace, into a situation where it has to negotiate three different agreements, disrupt its workforce and disrupt the stable agreements it has around apprenticeships and contractors. That is why the South Australian Treasurer has written to the Minister for Employment requesting an exemption for SAPN.
That is just one little cameo of the damage this bill will do. It is damage done by a government who are, frankly, completely out of control. They have had a leadership change. It has been good for ministers at the table because they have had a promotion, but the disruption and unpredictability that has been caused is a serious problem. We have all heard the Prime Minister's speeches and seen 'bad Malcolm'. We have had the Jack Nicholson from The Shining version of Malcolm come out—'Here's Malcolm!' We have seen him come out and the backbench get all excited, but we know that the government are completely out of control and completely unpredictable. This is pretty much the antithesis of the way you market yourselves to the community. You are supposed to be the force of stability and rationality. That is your market. That is the Menzies pitch: boring but predictable.
And here we are, overturning contracts.
And here we are, reaching into private entities. Forget the unionised workforce, who have done the right thing here. This is a private company that has a stable agreement and has done the right thing. It is not a building company; it is a power company. By virtue of its involvement in the NBN, which is a government program, it has been dragged into this ridiculous, pernicious code, which at its heart is actually a representation, just as Work Choices was, of big government getting involved in the private market. You are getting involved and sticking your noses in where they do not belong. That is what this is. You just shake your head. We kind of expect it from the government, given their leadership worries and the constantly changing ministerial line-up. How can anybody really predict what they will do? They want both sides of every argument, a sure sign of a government in trouble. I see the member for Corio in the chamber. Is that right—the member for Corio?
Corangamite.
Corangamite—that is right. Corio is on our side. He is a good bloke. What I love about Corangamite is that everybody in the country has seen you in your little tank helmet, out there pitching for a bid that was taken out of the running by the government. That is pretty embarrassing, I would have thought. Maybe you can explain that for me. I thought you were supposed to be an up-and-comer and a clever backbencher, but backing in a bid that the government skewers is a bad look, isn't it? I was talking a bit before—
Ms Henderson interjecting—
I wait to be informed by you in the next speech! But here is the thing: I was thinking about Ricky Muir. What a good bloke Ricky Muir was. You could talk cars with him and he seemed to be a pretty sensible fellow. He took a long time before he spoke in the parliament. That perhaps was a sign of good judgement. He got a bit of stick about it, but it might have been a sign of good judgement, because what we have now on the conservative crossbench is this kaleidoscope of colour and movement that you get with Senator Xenophon's party, which is named after him. I note that he is committed to changing its title sometime soon. I doubt that will happen, really. It is a personality cult. Its representations are ciphers for his opinions. We know with Senator Xenophon that he can change his mind at a moment's notice—just like that, with a snap of the fingers. He stood up in the Senate and backed in the TWU's Safe Rates campaign. He quoted a widow in his speech supporting it. Then, of course, a different section of the community, business, got to him and he changed his mind straight back and voted completely the opposite way—and he has done the same thing here. We have to hear about how he is the great hero of workers, backing apprenticeships, opposing overseas workers, promoting Australian made goods and against asbestos. Yet, in this bill, he removes every single mechanism for workers to defend themselves and campaign on those issues or do something about those issues. He removes every single legal facility for them to have safe workplaces, make sure there are apprenticeship ratios, make sure there is consultation on 457 visas and make sure they do not have to work with asbestos. For all of his talk, what do we see from Senator Xenophon's party? We see a cipher for big business.
We see the same thing with Senator Hinch. It is impossible not to like Senator Hinch's persona on the TV. We all remember him from our youth. I am not saying he has done everything wrong, but he is wandering around the Senate in a dazed and confused fashion and no-one really knows which way he will go. Now he has voted one way before Christmas and another way after Christmas. We have One Nation rolling around this country, you know, talking to the workers.
Doing preference deals with the Libs.
Doing preference deals with the Libs. What they are really seeking to do is to replace the Liberal and National parties. Senator Ron Boswell, who was a good man, regarded defeating One Nation as his finest achievement. That is the way he described it: 'Defeating One Nation was my finest achievement'. And what do we find over here? Preference deals and the mainstreaming of One Nation—gutlessness.
Order! Member for Corangamite, you have a point of order?
Just to ask you to remind the member to speak on the bill. He is speaking outside the content of the bill, so could you ask the member to bring his contribution back to the contents of the bill?
The member for Wakefield has the call.
The passage of the bill is facilitated by the conservative crossbench and they are being stroked. One Nation is been stoked by this Prime Minister and by this government, and it will be to your shame and to your detriment.
It is always a great pleasure to follow the member for Wakefield because he always comes up with some sort of wacky line in his contribution, and I note that he is confused about whether the member for Corio is actually a member on his side. Yes, he is the Labor member for Corio, but you would not know about that. The member for Wakefield did mention the Land 400 defence contract, and I have to say that I am very pleased that he did because, when it comes to fighting for jobs, I am incredibly proud of what we are doing on this side of the House, in contrast to the member for Corio, a shadow defence minister, who has absolutely shamed the people of Geelong because he has not been prepared to stand up and fight for jobs. I draw on the member for Wakefield's contribution on this bill. This is all about jobs, and our bill before the House today—
I rise on a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The member for Corangamite pulled me up for not talking about the bill and now she has wandered off into her own justifications.
This is wide-ranging and I will allow the member to continue.
There is a little bit of hypocrisy there from the member for Wakefield, given he actually spoke about the Land 400 defence contract in his contribution. I just want to put on the record that the Victorian government is trying to push that contract into central Melbourne by putting to the defence primes that Fishermans Bend be the preferred location—very disappointing. The member for Corio has been absolutely pathetic in the way he has stood up for our city in our region and not fighting for our region to make sure that we land some of those jobs in Geelong, in Corangamite and in our wonderful region. Shame on Daniel Andrews, shame on local Labor MPs and shame on Labor's shadow defence minister, the member for Corio, who has absolutely and fundamentally failed the people of Geelong.
I want to correct the record when it comes to the member for Wakefield's contribution: this is actually a decision of the defence primes; it is not a decision of the Department of Defence and nor is it a decision for the Victorian government. The incentive packages, however, are every important, and what a disappointment it is that the Victorian government, in a secret plan, is trying to push all of those jobs into Fishermans Bend and is not standing up for regional Victoria, including my region.
This bill before the House today, the Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Amendment Bill, is a very important part of our focus on driving jobs in the building and construction sector, which employs one million Australians. That is why our government, last year, re-established the Australian Building and Construction Commission. This is crucial to driving reform and boosting productivity. The building code is fundamental to our objective to make sure that we can start seeing a construction sector which is thriving, and we have not seen that under the previous Labor government.
This bill amends the expiry of the transitional grace period from 28 November 2018 to 31 August 2017 for enterprise agreements made before the building code commenced on 2 December 2016. So, while new enterprise agreements made after 2 December 2016 must comply with the code, building industry participants covered by existing enterprise agreements will now have until 31 August 2017 to ensure their agreements are code compliant. This is very reasonable period of time. Building companies have been on notice for a very significant period of time—
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr Deputy Speaker, I would ask that members opposite stop interjecting. The members are being quite rude and, frankly, it is absolutely inappropriate.
The member for Corangamite has the call.
The bill also limits the exemption to building industry participants submitting expressions of interest and tendering for Commonwealth-funded building work. This means enterprise agreements will need to comply with the building code before contracts are awarded and work gets underway.
We are very proud to be putting this bill before the House because what this amendment does is create a level playing field for those in the industry. There are some building companies who did not enter into a new enterprise agreement because they knew that they were obliged to incorporate into the enterprise agreement the building code. I include in those companies Kane Constructions, which is doing wonderful work in the city of Geelong in a $74 million construction of stage 4 of Simonds Stadium. There are other companies that rushed their agreements through and thought that they would have two years to move to the building code, which, frankly, was far too long.
I do want to commend Senator Hinch. Initially, of course, he opposed this particular component of the ABCC legislation. I spoke to Senator Hinch today and I congratulated him, and he said, 'You know, Sarah, in politics when you make the wrong call, when you make the wrong decision, you have to be man enough or woman enough to change your mind and to set things right.' That is exactly what Senator Hinch has done in putting to the Prime Minister that two years is too long.
As we all knew on this side of the House, the reason Senator Hinch took that approach was because over the summer he was approached by many building companies that said to him: 'This is absolutely unfair. You are forcing us to comply with the code, yet other companies have two years to move to a building code. That creates a very unlevel playing field and puts us at an enormous disadvantage. It hurts us. We won't be able to tender for the same work because we have much higher obligations.'
In the end, Senator Hinch recognised that this was going to hurt companies and it was going to hurt workers. That is why Senator Hinch, after speaking to many people, recognised the inequity of Labor's position and put to the Prime Minister that a nine-month transition period is appropriate. So building companies now have a reasonable period of time to renegotiate their enterprise agreements so that all companies are on a level playing field.
In his contribution earlier in the day, the member for O'Connor said: 'I don't know what this is going to do to improve productivity. How is this going to fix business? What is the problem with an enterprise agreement including a broad scope of terms?' Well, clearly, the member for O'Connor—
The member for Gorton or the member for O'Connor?
Yes, I am sorry—the member for Gorton. The member for Gorton has not done his homework because enterprise agreements in the building and construction industry have included a broad range of restrictive work practices, discriminatory provisions and provisions which hurt building companies and which hurt workers. Some examples are enterprise agreements which have required contractors to employ a nonworking shop steward or job delegate. There have been clauses where there is a one-in all-in clause, where if one person is offered overtime, all other workers must be offered overtime whether or not there is enough work. So let's just pay workers for work that they do not do! That was a requirement in some enterprise agreements.
Some enterprise agreements include jump-up provisions, which prevent engaging subcontractors unless they provide certain union dictated terms and conditions to workers, despite their existing lawful industrial arrangements. In other words, some enterprise agreements make it impossible for building companies to lawfully engage subcontractors because they are so restrictive.
There are also provisions which require contractors to obtain the approval of the union over the number and types of employees that a contractor may engage on a project. In Queensland, there is one enterprise agreement which allows the union to call a two-hour stop-work meeting every single day. Members opposite say: 'What's wrong with that? What's the problem? How is that hurting productivity?' That is unacceptable and we, as a government, are proud to have a code which says: 'We do expect some minimum standards. We do expect workers when they go to work to actually work through the day.' Frankly, most people who go to work want that too.
This has been driven by the uncomfortable and cosy relationship between members opposite and the likes of the CFMEU, and that is exactly why the ABCC has been introduced. Regrettably, corruption, lawlessness, standover tactics, bullying and intimidation have been commonplace in the Australian construction industry. Boy oh boy, did we see that in play in Geelong in December on the very first day that the commission came into effect. While Kane had a proper exemption in place for the Simonds Stadium redevelopment, and there were proper provisions under the Fair Work agreement where they could go out on strike lawfully, that did not cover subcontractors. Union bosses with the CFMEU stood at the gate on one day in December of last year and said to subcontractors who were not covered by the lawful provisions with the Fair Work Commission that they were not to work that day. That is unlawful conduct. The CFMEU had no right to ask subcontractors not to attend work to work on the stadium. That is a $74 million development for our city. It is incredibly important for jobs. It is incredibly important for our own region's prosperity. It is an example of how the CFMEU operate.
That particular action was not protected action; it was unprotected. A few weeks before Christmas, 135 workers missed out on a day's pay because they were told by the CFMEU bosses, and they were supported by a number of other unions, not to attend work. I say to members opposite: we seek your support for this amendment. We seek your support for a level playing field so that when there is a building company tendering for Commonwealth work that everyone operates on the same playing field. That is only fair. We cannot give some companies an advantage and not others.
We have seen a terrible history, frankly, in the lead-up to the introduction of the commission where the likes of the CFMEU have run devastating campaigns against Grocon and against Boral, which have really brought some companies to their knees. We must have lawful conduct on Australian building and construction sites, and that is absolutely fundamental. I do want to reflect on the evidence before the royal commission of the Boral CEO, Mike Kane, who made it very clear that the CFMEU were engaging in cartel tactics, blackmail and intimidation because of Boral's work on the Regional Rail Link—again, a very important project for our region which was brought to a standstill. Members opposite said nothing about that. Mr Kane actually said in evidence before the royal commission that Boral had lost $8 million in the past 19 months because of the conduct of the CFMEU.
We need to make sure that everyone working on Australian building and construction sites is working legally, is playing fair and is not engaging in the sorts of tactics that we have seen. It is incredibly regrettable, when you look at the scope and the seriousness of the conduct, Mr Deputy Speaker, that it has taken this amount of effort to reintroduce the Australian Building and Construction Commission. I reflect back on the conduct that occurred at Simonds Stadium on the very first day that the commission came into effect. I do know that members of the ABCC attended the construction site and that they are investigating the conduct of certain union members. I am very pleased to know that that is proceeding.
Thank you very much. I commend this bill to the House.
It will not surprise anybody in this House that I rise to speak against this ridiculous bill that is before us. It is ridiculous for a number of reasons. It also shows how hypocritical this government is. This is a government that is saying that 3,000 agreements that have been struck need to be renegotiated within nine months. Agreements struck and signed off by Fair Work—3,000 of them—need to be renegotiated by August this year.
The same government have failed to enter into collective agreements and renegotiate with their own workforce. Tens of thousands of public servants have not had an agreement in place for over three years, yet they are saying to the construction industry, who have gotten on with their job and struck employer and employee agreements in their workplaces: 'Sorry, we don't like some of your clauses, so go back and do it again and do it within nine months. If you don't, you cannot get federal government work.' This is a government that is so heavy-handed with the construction industry it is trying to restrict any possible collective bargaining or freedom that exists. Those opposite who are throwing stones at the construction industry should really look at their efforts in enterprise bargaining and reflect on that for a moment before forcing the construction industry down this chaotic path.
The bill that is before us today is to amend their own act by basically saying companies who have collective agreements that are not code compliant have to be renegotiated in the next nine months. Whilst they can tender for work they cannot enter into contracts. What kind of ridiculous clause is that? Put the hard work in, do the paperwork and tender, but then if you get it they say you cannot sign the contract until you have renegotiated the agreement. You opposite are bullying the construction industry by doing that, you are bullying the workers by doing that and you are bullying the construction companies. Some of these companies are not big companies. Some of these companies are small-to-medium companies that are doing work in regional areas. There are companies like Fairbrother in Tasmania, who have been doing work on the UTAS housing project. They have clauses in their agreement with their workers which would now be restricted because of this code.
There are clauses about apprenticeship ratios. What kind of government wants to strike out apprenticeship ratio agreements in their agreements? What kind of government wants to discriminate and exclude apprenticeships? We have some companies in this country that have sat down with their existing workforce and said, 'Let's work together to ensure that we have another generation of workers in the construction industry' and they have agreed to apprenticeship ratios. They exist in agreements and the construction industry is one of the only industries that we have left in this country with successful apprenticeship programs. Yet this government is saying that there is now something wrong with having that and they are restricting that from being in agreements.
It is not the only clause that this government is saying is now noncompliant and needs to be struck out and renegotiated. This government also has a problem with having within agreements words around making sure every person who works on a site has the right visa and that there are compliance checks. We have heard time and time again in the media about problems with visa workers in the construction industry. People are being employed on construction sites—some of the most dangerous workplaces in Australia—who do not have the right training, do not have the proper safety standards and do not have the proper visas. Yet this government is saying that when a workforce and the employer want to be proactive about it and put it into their agreement it is now not allowed.
Let us just reflect for a moment on some of the quite tragic cases we have had of temporary visa workers working on Australian construction sites and what happens when we do not have an agreement like this in place to do the double-checking and the due diligence to make sure that these workers are safe. We have had the deaths of backpackers in Perth. Two Irish backpackers were crushed, and then a woman—a German backpacker—quite tragically fell to her death because she had taken her harness off. This government do not care about that. They do not care about workplace health and safety, they do not care about workers' safety and they do not care about the migrant temporary workers in these workplaces. They want to make it really hard for an employer who has put a clause in their agreement that says there will be compulsory visa checks.
This is another clause they have a problem with: visas workers redundancies and making sure that local workers have priority. This government, through all their rhetoric and bravado in question time, says: 'We are going to stand up for Australian workers and Australian jobs. We want to see Australians employed.' Yet when a construction agreement has a clause that says that locals will be retained and that casual workers and visa workers are off first, this government is now saying that that should be prohibited. It is now barred under this government if an employer and employees sit down and say, 'If there's a downturn in work we will take away the labour hire and the overseas visa workers first so that the local workers keep their jobs.' That is a clause that every Australian worker would love to have in their agreement. That is a clause that meat workers would like to have, that Parmalat workers would like to have, that food processing workers would like to have, that cleaners would like to have. I cannot think of an industry that would not want to see that kind of clause in their agreement, but, because the construction industry has been sensible and wants to retain a skilled local workforce, the government seek to punish it for getting on with the job of negotiating an agreement so we can continue the construction boom.
The government have a serious problem when it comes to respecting the people who work in the construction industry. As I have mentioned, the government say they will prohibit any clause in relation to apprenticeships and ratios. Why would you target young people in that way? The government also say that another prohibited clause under their code is the opportunity for local manufacturing. Again, that completely flies in the face of all of their rhetoric. They say that clauses which prioritise protective clothing that, wherever possible, is made in Australia are prohibited content and should not be allowed in an agreement. So, when you have construction workers saying to their employer, 'It's not just about us having good secure jobs; we want you to maximise buying equipment and clothing from Australian manufacturers to support another industry,' the government is saying, 'No, that's prohibited content. You can't have that in an agreement and, if you do, you cannot tender for government work.' For all of their ranting and rhetoric about standing up for Australian manufacturing, what they are doing in the ABCC and in this bill by bringing forward the code is saying to a whole bunch of workers, when they have done the right thing to support workers in another industry, 'No, you cannot have a clause in an agreement that talks about prioritising Australian manufactured goods and, in particular, uniforms.'
Another problem that the government have in another restrictive clause under this agreement is asbestos awareness training. We have already had case after case coming up about asbestos being found in Australian workplaces and, because safety officers and workers have spoken out and said there is asbestos, we have been able to catch it in some cases. Where we have non-union workplaces or where we do not have skilled up safety reps, I fear how much asbestos may be in building sites and workplaces. I fear that because we know it is coming in. The government is lax on borders and they are letting asbestos product come in to be used on our building sites—they have not stopped it at the borders—and, when we say we will have asbestos awareness training so that workers can identify it, speak up about it and stop it from being put into a building, they say it is not allowed to be in an agreement between employers and employees. They are so restrictive. They are the new mother state, forcing upon an industry their own ideological obsession about breaking any ability for workers and employers to have a mature relationship.
The government also have a problem when employers, like Lend Lease, and their employees include in their agreement suicide awareness training. The industry acknowledges that there is a problem amongst their youth. They acknowledge and they recognise that they have lost too many of their own to suicide. By being proactive about it and sitting down with Lend Lease, they included suicide awareness training within their agreement, yet the government says, 'No, that's not allowed in the code.' Lend Lease is one of our biggest construction companies. If they want to build another Bendigo hospital, if they want to tender for a federal government contract or if they want to build the Hobart hospital, they have to strike out that clause in their agreement.
The government also have a problem with any clauses that look at long hours of work. The government also have a problem with casualisation. This is another clause that I know Australians would want to see in workplaces. In this particular agreement, if you work for an employer for more than six weeks, you are able to apply for permanency. That is something that used to exist many decades ago and many workers want to see it reintroduced.
The government—and this is the corker—also have a problem with heat policies in agreements. After a week and a half of question time and ranting about how people need to be able to put on their air conditioners in 40-degree heat and ranting about how people need to be in cool climates on really hot days, they want to exclude any form of heat policy in collective agreements, possibly forcing construction workers who are outdoors and exposed to work in climates that are unsafe. This is a government that is targeting the construction industry because it is an industry where they have been able to get on with the job in a mature way and work out an agreement.
This is a government, with the fact that they have brought in this rushed legislation, that want noncomplying companies to renegotiate their agreements from two years down to nine months. That will create chaos in the industry. Big companies will basically not tender for federal government work. This will put them at odds with state agreements that prioritise making sure that they have companies with apprenticeship ratios. In the state of Victoria there is a rule at a state government level. To tender for state government work, one in 10 of the people on the job must be apprentices. If Lend Lease had that in their contract, my question to the government is: does that exclude them from federal government work? The chaos that this government are creating in the construction industry to pursue their own ideology is just disgraceful. We know that the last time the ABCC was in, productivity crashed. We know that the last time the ABCC was in, workplace death and industry increased.
Weakening the employees' ability to negotiate with their employers does nothing for productivity. It creates division and it creates chaos. Let us just be reminded that this is one of the hardest industries to work in. They are working in very dangerous workplaces. So the fact that we have a government that wants to exclude so many safety provisions from collective agreements demonstrates just how out of touch the government is with blue-collar construction workers.
I call on the government to withdraw this amendment. I call on them to engage with the employers and listen to what they are saying. Go out on those construction sites and hear what those foremen and forewomen have to say about the ABCC and about the heavy-handed tactics of the ABCC. Go out there and talk to apprentices who are enjoying the fact that they are going to have a career in construction. But, if the government have their way, all we will see is an increase in 457 visas, an increase in backpackers and temporary workers on construction sites and a crash in apprenticeships, giving the next generation no opportunity. This is a bad bill amending another bad bill, and it demonstrates everything that is wrong with this government, who are driven by their hatred for the unions and their ideology to break workers.
I note that there are no further government speakers who are willing to get up and defend the legislation that has been put forward in their name, and I can understand full well why. The innocuously named bill, the Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Amendment Bill 2017, is designed to induce or coerce employers to break an agreement that was made with them in good faith. I will say that again, because it is absolutely true and it is important that every member on the other side understands this. This is a bill designed to coerce or induce employers to break an agreement which has been made with their workforce in good faith. If an ordinary business, a union or a private individual did that, we would call it a crime or we would call it a tort. But when the government does it we call it lawmaking. It is no less a crime or a tort because it is brought forward in the name of the government.
Let us put this into context. This is a government that came back from a near-death experience in the August election with a grand plan to reshape the structure of Australia and to remodel the economy. We were promised great big new plans, but when we looked for the detail it amounted to nothing more than a $50 billion tax cut for the richest individuals in this country; a benefit cut for pensioners; a series of threatening show-cause and 'you are in debt' letters from the Minister for Human Services; and a proposition to amend the Australian building and construction industry bill. So there you have it: their great big bold plan for Australia.
This is a man who has strived his entire life—and I am talking about the member for Wentworth—to get to the position where he had the words 'Prime Minister of Australia' on his business card. He gets that opportunity, and his big plan for Australia is a tax cut for the richest, a benefit cut for pensioners and a bill to have a go at unions, just because he does not like them. It is not an agenda; it is farce. As I said, if this proposition was brought forward in the name of an ordinary individual, a business or a union, it would be called a crime, because, make no mistake, this bill is about inducing or coercing employers to break, breach or renege on agreement. That is its singular purpose.
The pillars of liberal philosophy, those talismans that thrust every one of those conservative members of parliament to stand for public office and come to this place revolve around a few things. There is the idea of freedom of contract, the idea that it is not the place of third parties and certainly not the place of governments to interfere in the rights of individuals to freely contract with each other and reach agreements and, once an agreement is struck, it should stick, and it should not be the role of other individuals to attempt to come in there and set that agreement aside. There is the idea that we remove government and unwanted third parties from the business affairs of employers, as between employers and employees and employers and unions; that we do not need third parties and we do not need governments getting in and tying them up in red tape and ensuring that they cannot get on with the work that they need to do to grow their profitability and to employ people. And, finally, there is the idea that, if government must legislate, it should not do so retrospectively. That is what ostensibly animates all those on the other side.
This bill which is before the House today offends each and every one of those propositions. Let me explain why. This bill attempts to put the Australian building and construction industry commissioner in a position where he can second-guess, vet and set aside—or certainly ensure that people who are employed under such an agreement never get a job on certain worksites in this country. Think about this for a moment. Two weeks ago the Leader of the Opposition gave a speech in the National Press Club of Australia.
It was a good speech.
It was a good speech, as the member for Griffith points out. He committed Labor to three core objectives. There were three things we were going to be advocating for over the course of the next 12 months, and those three things were jobs, jobs and jobs.
Deputy Speaker, I want you to think for a moment about the purpose of this bill, a bill which, if it does not achieve its first objective, which is to coerce employers to set aside an agreement, will certainly achieve its second objective. And that second objective is to prevent workers from getting jobs in certain places in Australia. I want you to contrast that proposition with a proposition of the Leader of the Opposition, and the Labor challenge for the year, and that is: to put our shoulder to the wheel, to create more jobs and to make it easier for workers to get jobs in this country. Contrast that with the single purpose of this bill, which is coercion and preventing workers from getting jobs on certain building sites in this country. Have you ever heard of this proposition—where a government, which talks about creating jobs, says: 'But we are going to create a piece of legislation whose purpose is to stop certain workers getting a job'? That is what it is about—to prevent certain workers who are employed by certain businesses, employed by certain agreements which the government takes offence to, from getting a job on a worksite.
Let us have a look at this. I want to take us through it, because the member for Gorton has gone through, in some detail, the provisions of the bill. For the benefit of those members from the government who have not read the bill that they are about to vote for, I want to take them through some of the provisions of the bill, in the hope that they will change their mind, because I have already explained how it offends against everything that they purport to stand for—every Liberal principle that they purport to stand for. But I also want to spell out why it offends against just good common sense.
The capacity of the bill to do its work arises from section 34 of the building and construction industry act. This is the provision of the act which enables the minister to make a code. And indeed, he has made such a code, and I have a copy of that code in my hand. It is this code which is enlivened and will be given further force by the bill before the House today. I want to take you to a couple of provisions within the code which I rather warrant that the overwhelming majority of members of the coalition have not even read. They will not have even read this, because if they had read it they certainly would not be voting for it. I will quote from clause 11 of the relevant code, headed 'Content of agreements and prohibited conduct, arrangements and practices'. Take note of the heading, Deputy Speaker, because that is what it is all about. It says:
A code covered entity must not be covered by an enterprise agreement in respect of building work which includes clauses that:
(a) impose or purport to impose limits on the right of the code covered entity—
that being a business—
to manage its business or to improve productivity …
Just think about that for a moment. This is what we are giving force to. I ask members opposite to consider this. They are prohibiting a clause within an enterprise agreement which imposes, or purports to impose, limits on the right of the code covered entity to manage its business or to improve productivity. Well, that could be just about anything—perhaps a provision which will be in every enterprise agreement in the country which says that ordinary hours of work shall be within a 12-hour bandwidth and they shall be between the hours of 7 am and 7 pm. Pick up just about any enterprise agreement in the country, and you will have a provision within it that has that—a provision which is imposing or purporting to impose a limit on the right of the employer to manage their business. That is exactly what it does. In fact, that is exactly what most enterprise agreements do—they seek to enshrine rights which provide benefits to employees, albeit benefits which may restrict the right of an employer to do absolutely everything that they would otherwise want to do or to manage the business in ways which best suit their interests, because that is what enterprise agreements do. That is what contracts do: they settle rights as between employers and employees in a way which restricts the abilities of both to do what they might otherwise want to do willy-nilly.
So you might say, 'Well, that can't be a sensible reading of the code or the act; that's not what is intended by the legislation.' But I put to you, Deputy Speaker: that is exactly what it says. So if that is not a sensible reading of it, surely there has to be some adjudication of this. I can only say to you: I wish I were still on the lawyering tools! I would be making a fortune out of this, because what this does is to put every building and construction agreement in the country into contest. And it will be the Australian Building and Construction Industry Commissioner who ultimately will be the arbiter, to see which of those common provisions which are in every single enterprise agreement in the country are offensive to the code and therefore are going to restrict or stop employees getting a job on a particular worksite. Have you ever seen a more ridiculous piece of legislation?
There are certain industrial activists on that side of the House who have been working their entire lives to see that sort of legislation entered onto the statute books. They are not in the majority, and I am absolutely certain that you, Mr Deputy Speaker Buchholz, are not within their number. But this is the provision which they will be voting to extend if this bill passes before this House.
We have heard a lot of talk over the last three or four months about the importance of creating jobs, particularly creating jobs for young people. I happen to believe it is the obligation of every member of this House to be doing everything within their power to be looking for opportunities to create skills, training and employment opportunities, for young Australians to get an apprenticeship, to get a start in life. It is quite common that unions, when they are advocating for agreements, whether they are industry, enterprise-wide or site agreements, to seek to strike up an arrangement with the employer that says that there shall be a certain number of apprentices or trainees that are employed on a worksite—a very sensible arrangement, and one which is in the interests of all Australians. Anybody who has ever tried to get a plumber out to their place on a weekend would understand the shortage we have of plumbers, and of sparkies, chippies and many other trades. The way we are going to fix that is not by importing them from overseas but by training up our young people to do that work.
I am absolutely certain that no member on that side, apart from the industrial activists, has read this provision, because otherwise they would not vote for it, because the provision within the code that they are voting to extend will prohibit agreements on building sites which attempt to put in place provisions which require ratios or agreements around trainee numbers, apprenticeship numbers and the types of employers on the worksite. I could list a whole range of other provisions which members of the government are voting to extend. I have just picked a few, to point out the absolute ludicrousness of the provisions contained within this bill and to ram home the point that it is unprecedented in this country that members would ignorantly walk into this House and stick their hand up to vote for a provision which is going to stop people getting a job. They may do that by accident, but they should never do it on purpose. The single purpose of this bill is to stop certain Australians—who, before the passage of the bill, would be quite entitled to get a job—getting a job on a certain building site in this country. As I said, members on that side should be informed about what they are going to vote for. This is certainly not in the interests of their constituents.
I am pleased to stand to speak on the Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Amendment Bill 2017. I do not have a union background. I was a small-business owner and, immediately before coming to parliament, I ran a national trade association, so I was well and truly on the employer and business side. And yet I am standing in this House today speaking on a bill that I think, at the very best, is incompetent and will not achieve what this government sets out to achieve.
I do not think that what they are trying to achieve is a good idea, but I want to assess this bill against the criteria that they set for themselves and have a look at what they say they are trying to achieve and whether or not this bill will do that—because it will not. It breaches the very purpose of the code that it seeks to impose. If we were in this House talking about a Building and Construction Commission that actually looked at the construction industry and codes that handled those things—that actually looked at the fact that this is an industry that makes up eight per cent to 10 per cent of GDP and it has between 20 per cent and 25 per cent of insolvencies, that it regularly sells debt to some very unsavoury characters, that it has unacceptably high levels of injury—I would have something else to say, but we are not. We are looking at a structure that has been set in place specifically to wind back the power of unions in an industry which, in many areas, is totally out of control. But now I will leave that and I will go to the bill itself.
Let us look at what the bill says it is going to do. Back in December, when the construction industry bills were passed, a code was established which defined what enterprise agreements could contain if a company was going to tender and be awarded a tender for a government contract. Because most industrial awards are negotiated years ahead, sometimes three years, the Independents got together and, with Labor's support, managed to get an amendment through which allowed businesses a two-year transition period. The code would apply but not until 29 November 2018. So businesses that had already entered into an agreement had time to renegotiate.
What this bill does, just three months later, is wind that back and allow just a nine-month transition period instead. It says that you must now be code compliant by 1 September 2017. You can submit a tender before that, but you cannot be awarded the tender unless you are code compliant, even in that nine-month transition period. That means that, from the time this bill passes, no company that has an enterprise agreement which they negotiated in good faith under the law will be able to tender for a government contract and be awarded that contract, unless they can renegotiate that agreement outside of its term—in other words, start again. That is an extraordinary shift in three months.
What we heard from the member for Corangamite, which was quite extraordinary, was that Senator Hinch agreed to this amendment because various building companies went to him and said that the companies that were not compliant had an advantage over those that were. In other words, the companies that had enterprise agreements that were in breach of this code—because the unions asked for too much—had an advantage over the companies that were code compliant. In other words, it was cheaper to contract a company that was not code compliant than one that was. Excuse me, but that makes no sense. If the purpose of this is to push down prices for the government and get value for the taxpayer, how can it be that we are actually making this amendment because a senator believes that it is more expensive if you are code compliant than if you are not? If the member for Corangamite got this wrong and Senator Hinch is saying, 'No; actually it is the other way around,' then why on earth would we be forcing companies to renegotiate contracts which they did of their own free will when they deliberately entered into contracts that made them supposedly less competitive? It makes zero sense. It makes no sense whatsoever. It does bell the cat that this is not about the things that this government claims it is about, which is driving down prices for the taxpayer. It is about union busting and union busting alone.
Let us look a little bit further at what this code actually is. I am reading from the explanatory statement. The purpose of the code is to:
… promote an improved workplace relations framework for building work and promote compliance with this code of practice, the Act and designated building laws and encourage the development of safe, healthy, fair, lawful and productive building sites for the benefit of all building industry participants …
So the purpose of the code is to make our workplaces better for the workers and safer. That is one of its objectives.
It is hard to imagine, then, why the code would prevent workers from negotiating that they should, for example, have asbestos safety training, because that is prohibited under the code; they cannot do that. It is hard to imagine why that would be the case. Given the level of suicide by construction workers on construction sites, it is hard to imagine that the code would prohibit the provision of training that assists management and leaders on worksites to recognise the symptoms of a person who may be at risk. Given the objective of the code, it is hard to imagine why the code would prohibit workers who stand out in the sun in 40 and 45 degrees from insisting that their clothing be made of a material that is suitable for that. It is hard to imagine why the code would preclude those things, if that is the objective of the code.
For the benefit of all building industry participants—including workers, clearly—the purpose of the code is to 'encourage the development of safe, healthy, fair, lawful and productive building sites'. And it is not just about workers. For example, asbestos safety is not just about workers. When a worker handles asbestos badly and contracts the dreadful cancers that it can cause, the whole community pays for that. Workplace safety is not just about the worker; it is also about the company and the business itself. Workplace safety is something that both sides of the industrial field should care about, and I know that in most cases they do, which is why so many companies have these clauses in their enterprise agreements. They agree with them. They put them in there because it is actually good for everybody if workers are safe. It is good to have workers as well as managers caring about safety. It is a good thing.
The second paragraph says that the purpose of the code is to:
… assist industry stakeholders to understand the Commonwealth's expectations of, and requirements for, entities that choose to tender for Commonwealth funded building work …
If the purpose of the code is to assist stakeholders to understand the Commonwealth's expectations, three months ago they thought they knew, and now they do not. As bad as it was, three months ago they knew what it was: they had two years to renegotiate their contracts. Now they do not. As the previous speaker outlined, the code itself is so broad that virtually any clause in an enterprise agreement dealing with the conditions that workers work in could be precluded under this code. So when the fair work umpire makes a decision about one clause, does every other building company have to renegotiate in order to conform to the code? This does not introduce certainty; it introduces extraordinary uncertainty. It does exactly the opposite to what the explanatory statement says the code is all about.
I would also like to point out that when the government made these changes in secret over Christmas there was no negotiation. There was no consultation with the industry. There was negotiation with the Independents behind closed doors, but there was no consultation—to the extent that the government did not know how many businesses would be precluded from being awarded a tender under the new code because they were in enterprise agreements that were not new code compliant. They did not know; they did it anyway.
It turns out that there are at least 3,300 companies that would be precluded from being awarded a tender under this bill because they have entered into an enterprise agreement in good faith within the law with the union and those agreements will now not be code compliant. At least 3,300 companies will find themselves in this position. Master Builders Australia have said, 'That's okay, there'll be enough companies out there that are code compliant to fulfil the government's requirements for its building.' That is not the point. This is not about the government and whether it can let contracts. This is about fairness in the sector. This is about fairness in contracting. This is about companies who negotiated in good faith but who will now have seven months to renegotiate an agreement within its term.
I put to you: if these unions are so terrible and such bullies, who is going to benefit from the fact that the construction company has to renegotiate within that time frame in order to win a tender? That actually gives the power to the union and not to the construction company. That seven-month process does not empower the construction company to completely put the screws into the union. It does completely the opposite. It says to the construction company, 'You'd better find a way to get the union to give you an agreement you can both sign. And you've got to do it within seven months or you can't tender from this contract.' And do not believe that the unions cannot find things to put in enterprise agreements that will be code compliant. They will. They will find a way to do it. Then the fair work umpire will say, 'That's a new one. I haven't seen that one before. You can't have that one,' and everyone will have to renegotiate their agreements again, and then the unions will come up with something else.
This is a nightmare for construction companies. It does completely the opposite to what the government said it would do, particularly when we have a government that keeps telling us over and over again what nasty people the CFMEU are and how they are always trying to bully these huge construction companies, which make billions of dollars, into doing their bidding. This is quite a nightmare. It will not do what the government thinks it will do. It will bring incredible uncertainty into the sector.
If the government's purpose is to keep costs down, the best way to do that is to have an open tender process, which it does. This means that the government, even without these codes, can look at a company that has an enterprise agreement that they do not like and a company that has an enterprise agreement that they quite approve of and see which one is cheaper. If it is cheaper to have those code-compliant enterprise agreements, then those companies will win the tenders anyway. If companies are going too far in their enterprise agreements and that is driving up costs, they will be more expensive. The tender process itself is sufficient to weed out those companies whose enterprise agreements are not appropriate for the taxpayer spend. Tendering alone does that.
Why is it that the government is suddenly going nanny state when it comes to the construction industry and deciding what an employer and a worker can agree with each other? Where the hell does that come from? This supposed small government, this conservative government, suddenly decides that it has to decide whether or not a group of workers and their employer can make an agreement on the quality of their clothing. No, they cannot, because this government says that it is not right and it is not fair. It also says in its own arguments for doing this that those companies that do that would actually be cheaper, and give an unfair advantage to those that are not code compliant. This is a nonsense. It is a total, absolute nonsense.
If the government really did care about trying to lift the standards in the construction industry and ensure that taxpayers got a good deal, and that those wonderful objectives of the code were met—more safety et cetera—then perhaps they could target a few other things. They could, for example, target, as I said in my opening remarks, the incredibly high insolvencies which do put businesses out of business. When a big company goes insolvent—and the insolvency rate is between 20 and 25 per cent on eight per cent GDP—then many hundreds of workers, small contractors and small businesses go to the wall because of that.
When workplace safety is not met over and over again by a company, how are they treated in the code? Where is their banning from government contracts when people actually die in their workplaces and their accident levels are too high? Where is that? Where is the code that actually makes a difference?
I rise to speak on the Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Amendment Bill 2017—so-called 'improving productivity'. This legislation is anti-union, antidemocratic and anti-market. It is bad legislation for many reasons, and I will point that out through the prism of a couple of things.
Firstly, the construction industry is a dangerous industry. Many people die or are injured in that industry, unlike many other jobs. Secondly, as the member for Parramatta mentioned in her speech, around 25 per cent of companies involved in the construction industry, particularly smaller ones, end up going insolvent and that means workers miss out on being paid and that small businesses miss out on getting paid and go to the wall. They end up owing millions and millions of dollars in wages and superannuation.
My third point is that despite all said by those opposite this legislation is talking about a civil enforcement regime not a criminal enforcement regime. They are dressing it up as if it were a criminal process but that is not the case. That was never the intent of this legislation. So I point that out.
It is, however, remarkable that we are debating this amendment bill in the second sitting week of 2017. The Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Bill 2013 only passed the parliament in the final sitting week of 2016. The ink is barely dry on that piece of legislation, but already this hopeless Turnbull government is trying to patch up problems with their own legislation—the legislation that, in fact, they took almost three years to get passed through this parliament. You would think that when it was finally passed that it would have been a well-considered and fit-for-its-purpose bill. But now we have the Turnbull government trying to trash its own laws just weeks after enacting them.
So what is this all about? Well, it is all about existing negotiated and agreed legal enterprise-bargaining agreements that are not compliant with the new code. Companies with these settled, noncompliant agreements are not able to submit expressions of interest and tenders for Commonwealth work, and they are significant companies—big players in the Australian construction industry. The legislation that passed last year allowed for companies whose current agreements are not code compliant to still be able to submit expressions of interest and tenders up until November 2018. This bill attempts to wind back that exemption to September this year, just seven months away. So this will put these hardworking companies and their hardworking employees in the difficult position of either not tendering for Commonwealth building work and missing out on work at a time when construction is a little flat, or having to renegotiate their complicated agreements very quickly.
This is a complete botch up by the Turnbull government. They do not even know how many of these agreements will be affected, and it has been reported that there may be up to 3,000 of these agreements—3,000 agreements that were negotiated in good faith. The code has been rejected time and time again by parliament, and was not law at the time these legal agreements were made—negotiated in the marketplace. I remember when the Liberal Party used to believe in markets. So this retrospective legislation, you could say, is more Turnbull government chaos in the extreme.
When the ABCC bill passed last year, although Labor did not support the bill—and still does not agree with the legislation or the need for it—we believed, as did the industry, including employers, that once passed, the building industry could go about its business at least knowing what the law was. When you are talking about big projects you need certainty. So, welcome to the Turnbull government, where the goalposts shift as the polls sink!
To put this all in perspective, we need to cast our minds back to early last year when the Prime Minister's popularity was well and truly beginning to slide. The honeymoon was well and truly over, and he thought it was a good idea to call a double dissolution election. We then had the extraordinary act of the proroguing of parliament—do you remember that, Deputy Speaker? Prime Minister Turnbull advised the Governor-General to call a double dissolution election, saying that the ABCC bill was—and I quote from his letter to the Governor-General:
… important elements of the Government's economic plan for jobs and growth, …
There is that term: jobs and growth. You have not heard that for a while, Deputy Speaker! 'Jobs and growth,' it went missing after July 2nd!
But during the eight long weeks of the election campaign there was hardly a murmur about this so-called important piece of legislation that the Prime Minister told us was one of the two main reasons he called a double dissolution election. And hasn't that worked out well, that double dissolution election!
It is great to have One Nation and the Liberal Party getting into bed together in Western Australia and four One Nation senators—or 3½ or whatever it is when Western Australia sorts out its mess. We have four One Nation senators—the party that John Howard rejected is now getting into bed with the Liberal Party, and we have had a Liberal Prime Minister not able to say to boo about it. It is disgraceful!
Anyway, this legislation was introduced to the House by the government in order to thrust back on Australians the draconian Australian Building and Construction Commission. The legislation finally passed, albeit heavily amended and compromised, in the last sitting week of 2016. The ABCC was back in business. The ABCC was originally introduced in 2005. Labor opposed its introduction then and opposed it again last year. Originally implemented by the Howard government, the ABCC was said to be a response to the recommendations of the $60 million Cole royal commission. The Cole commission was established by the Howard government to investigate the building and construction industry, supposedly a 'hotbed of intimidation, lawlessness, thuggery and violence' at the time. Curiously, not one criminal prosecution, not even a finding of guilt, resulted from that entire royal commission. As a point of difference, the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse has made almost 1,900 referrals to authorities so far. That is a fair dinkum royal commission.
Let us revisit the period after the ABCC was introduced in 2005. Building industry fatalities jumped 95 per cent between 2006 and 2008. In 2007, 51 workers were killed on construction sites, the highest number in 10 years. During the time the ABCC was in operation, cases were brought against the CFMEU and other unions, resulting in over $5 million in fines and millions more in court costs. That may be good for lawyers but not the building industry. The ABCC was condemned eight times by the International Labour Organization for bias and for breaching conventions that Australia had signed. It was found to have unlawfully interviewed 203 people. When a Labor government removed the majority of the ABCC's powers and implemented the Fair Work Australia model, we saw industrial disputes go down and fatalities go down. Most importantly for the economists out there, productivity increased. The government's argument that the ABCC will increase productivity is not borne out by their own data, their own facts. According to the ABS, construction industry productivity increased more in the seven years before the introduction of the ABCC than it did in the seven years the ABCC existed. And productivity has been higher every year since the abolition of the ABCC in 2012.
Labor will always abhor corruption and criminal activity in any industry, including the building and construction industry, and we will always fight for doing the right thing with union members' money, not just when it is politically expedient to do so. I particularly hate union officials who misuse union membership fees—I think they are grubs—and I will always fight hard against that. However, the ABCC is not designed to deal with breaches of the criminal law or corruption of any kind. It was set up by the Howard government to enforce civil laws and industrial relations legislation. It is not a 'tough cop on the beat', as those opposite keep saying. Despite LNP protestations, it is actually, as I said at the start of my contribution, a civil jurisdiction.
During the period the ABCC was in place, there were 330 deaths on construction sites. The number of investigations set in motion by the ABCC into those deaths? The answer is not hard: zero. Not one investigation was thought warranted after 330 deaths of ordinary Australians going about their jobs in the construction industry. These were hardworking Australians who went to their jobs and never came home.
The ABCC was reinstated by the Turnbull government late last year, and already this hapless government is scrambling to make changes to the legislation that it trumpeted. There has been zero consultation with anybody about these amendments: not the employers, the hardworking construction companies; not the unions; not the hardworking employees; not anyone. The government has no way of knowing how the industry will be impacted by these changes. This is not good government; this is chaos.
What do we know? We know that some clauses in current enterprise agreements cannot be continued under the code, such as support places for apprentices on building sites, which are mandated by a ratio of apprentices to tradespeople—investing in the future. Other clauses to go? How about mandatory consultation before temporary overseas workers are used? How about the provision of nationally accredited asbestos awareness training for workers? How about the requirement that employers buy Australian made protective clothing for their workers instead of inferior imported clothing—a little bit of economic nationalism? How about local workers having priority over temporary foreign workers when redundancies are contemplated—again a little bit of economic nationalism? How about employees being provided with both awareness training to recognise potentially suicidal behaviour and basic skills to help keep employees safe? I note that last clause in particular because apprentices in the construction industry are 2½ times more likely to suicide than other young people their age. These clauses currently exist in some enterprise agreements but will not be allowed under the code. These are clauses that protect Australian workers and Australian businesses.
I have never worked in the building industry, but my three brothers do. In fact, one of my brothers worked on the construction of Parliament House when the flagpole fell over. He worked for a crane company that had to come and try to fix it. My younger brother also works in the building industry. He was working on a Twin Towns building site when a crane collapsed and landed right beside him. His back was injured significantly, and the two workers standing alongside him at the cement pour were killed. The kibble nearly hit my brother; it just missed him. The pond weights actually did hit him and did significant damage to his back. Obviously, having been inches away from being killed, he will forever carry that trauma with him.
Seeing the building and construction industry through the prism of my three brothers has given me some insight into how tough this business is. They have told me many stories about workers and the danger of businesses going belly up. It is an industry that is tough on workers: physically demanding and obviously not necessarily a job that you can do until you are 70. It can be dangerous, and the more that costs are cut to improve the bottom line, the more dangerous it becomes for workers. Whenever safe practices are abandoned we end up losing lives on worksites. These are the very workers whom the government should be working to protect. Sadly, I do not think the Turnbull government cares about hardworking Australian construction workers. It has been left to Labor and the union movement to stand up for these workers.
With all the ideological union bashing coming from the opposite side of the House, it is easy to forget the great work that unions do for their workers—and employers, for that matter. There is no better evidence than when it comes to talking about asbestos. It has been a banned substance since 2003, but building materials containing asbestos are being illegally imported into Australia from other parts of the world, especially from China.
I recently spoke about asbestos with Andrew Ramsay, a very experienced and well respected workplace health and safety coordinator for the CFMEU. He told me about getting a phone call on the weekend, when they were working at 1 William Street, the new Queensland government building, where they thought there might be asbestos. They then did some investigations, and the piece of material that they had been cutting with saws to make fit, because they are innovative and industrious, was found to contain 60 per cent asbestos. The old fibro sheets that you might know contain about 10 to 15 per cent asbestos. This was a piece in 2016 that contained 60 per cent asbestos—and, remember, one asbestos fibre is basically enough to kill you. It had been imported to Australia. But for the CFMEU and the training that the workplace official had, who knows who could have been affected by that asbestos? We need asbestos awareness training for workers. It is sensible.
There are at least 69 job sites, from Perth to Brisbane and everywhere in between, that have had asbestos delivered to them. Sadly, what was Minister Dutton's response? He actually blamed the CFMEU for driving developers to use illegal and dangerous products on their building sites. That is what the minister for safer borders said in response to this bizarre situation. That is just one example being told by Andrew Ramsay of what can happen if you do not have regulated and appropriately credentialed union officials being able to access building sites.
This is just one of the many reasons why Labor opposes the reintroduction of the draconian ABCC legislation, and why it opposes this retrospective amendment that will only cause chaos in the construction industry. Labor will always protect hardworking Australians. Labor stands up for ordinary families working hard to make ends meet. This bill is just more evidence of a desperate Prime Minister protecting his own job at the expense of Australian workers. These are ordinary, hardworking Australians doing their job in a dangerous industry. They have the right to be protected at their workplace, to be safe and to go home at the end of the day.
I thank the honourable member, and perhaps the honourable member for Moreton could pass on my best to Mr Ramsay.
I am delighted to rise to address this place in support of the speech made by our shadow minister for employment and workplace relations, the member for Gorton. I join him and all the others on this side in vigorously opposing the Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Amendment Bill 2017. This bill is a terrific example of how you do not necessarily need legislation—or proposed legislation—that is War and Peace in order for it to have a potentially devastating effect upon the workplace.
I have not been in this place for terribly long and would never pretend to have been, but I am quite astounded that such an innocuous-looking proposal as is contained in this bill could actually have such a profound effect upon stability and certainty in workplaces throughout the country. The devil is in the detail in this bill, both in the extent to which it seeks to wind back the exemption period for non-code compliant companies from two years to nine months and in the impact on the ground as to what will happen for stability and certainty in harmonious industrial relations, insofar as the enforceability of thousands and thousands of enterprise agreements that have been struck all over the country in good faith between employees, employee representatives in trade unions and employers, and the extent to which those enterprise agreements are almost certainly going to be struck down on the basis of their incompatibility with what is required in order to comply with the code.
I listened with great interest to all of my colleagues' speeches in relation to this bill and I think they are all to be commended for their eloquence, their accuracy and the manner in which they have spelt out the impact that passing this bill will have in workplaces around the country. I think it is a blight and it is an incredible shame that we have so few speakers from the government who are prepared to go in to bat for this bill. It speaks volumes that there is a dearth of advocates on the other side to say anything positive about this bill at all. They parade in here, constantly espousing sanctimonious notions about how the conservative side of the fence is the one which promotes stability, minimises sovereign risk and is all about productivity—ironically, the name of this bill—whereas even a cursory glance shows that this bill, if enacted, will produce anything but those outcomes. My colleague and good friend the member for Whitlam, for the benefit of the members on the other side, took this place through the various provisions insofar as they are likely to impact upon the workplace. I would also like to do this for those who are playing at home. It does not take long to see just how disastrous the implementation of these amendments will be in relation to the workplace.
The first port of call is the code itself. The code makes very clear, at section 11, the manner in which the contents of existing enterprise agreements are likely to be struck down to the extent they are inconsistent with the code:
(1) A code covered entity must not be covered by an enterprise agreement in respect of building work which includes clauses that:
Not both, but potentially just to manage its business. If I may, not professing to have any significant expertise in parliamentary drafting, I can tell you from a cursory glance that that is wider than this continent when you consider what within an enterprise agreement purports to impose limits on an entity to manage its business. Shortly I will come particularly to an application of that clause in relation to asbestos and exposure to asbestos in the workplace and discuss what a disastrous effect it may have insofar as protecting workers from unnecessary exposure to asbestos is concerned. That is clause 11.
We need to then marry that with what is actually proposed. The current act is already deplorable in limiting the rights of workers in the workplace to a safe environment, amongst a litany of other egregious clauses restricting the rights of workers and trade unions in relation to protecting the workplace environment. I draw attention to section 34(2E), which relates to when an employer can enter into a contract pursuant to the code on a worksite. The section states:
If a document issued under subsection (1) includes requirements in relation to the content of building enterprise agreements, a building industry participant may, before 29 November 2018 …
Strike that out to read '1 September 2017' if the government gets its way, not to mention the crossbenchers. Do not think for one minute the crossbenchers are to escape any of the wrath here. As a matter of fact, quite frankly, they deserve an equal apportionment of wrath as the conservatives. The section states a building industry participant may:
… submit expressions of interest, tender for and be awarded building work funded … by the Commonwealth …
The trick to this is focusing on not only tendering for but being awarded the building work. What is so controversial about that, I hear you ask? What is really sneaky and devious about the proposed amendment is that section 34(2E) is due to be amended to delete the provision upon which an entity can be awarded the contract. If we go forward in time seven months to 1 September 2017, which creates a level of uncertainty as it is, there is simply no point in an employer trying to get the work when it considers the prospect that it will not be awarded that work if it maintains a devotion to what has previously been agreed or negotiated in its enterprise agreement. The absence of the word 'awarded' completely changes the utility of the enterprise agreement formally negotiated in good faith.
When one then applies the fact that an employer may tender for the work but not get it, according to a literal reading of the bill, to how it chooses to manage its business, we ask ourselves the question: how different is life going to be on a worksite insofar as the enforceability of the Building Code is required in such a short period of time? The fact of the matter is that, in relation to workplace safety, it may be incredibly different. One does not need to go any further than an industrial agreement that is publicly available, a Brookfield Multiplex enterprise agreement approved by the Fair Work Commission. It sets out at clause 26.4:
The Employer agrees that it will, within three months of the commencement of this Agreement, schedule a nationally accredited asbestos awareness training course, for each employee covered by this Agreement.
Further, the Employer agrees that it will, within three months of the each new Employee commencing employment, ensure that the Employee successfully completes a nationally accredited asbestos awareness training course.
It provides that the employer will cover all costs associated with the training. That is a fundamentally important right. It is a complete travesty that such a clause is even required in enterprise agreements at all in this day and age, when you consider what we know about governments being aware of the dangers of exposing workers to asbestos, which goes back to the turn of the century—but that provision is in the agreement. The problem is that the application of this bill would render a clause like that inconsistent insofar that it will be struck down and there will be no obligation whatsoever on an employer to honour that clause of the agreement. What will that do? It is very clear. If this bill is passed, it will go one step further to create a culture on the worksite that says it is okay to expose workers to asbestos in the course of their employment in 2017.
It says so much about the attitude of this government and those crossbenchers, team Xenophon included. The role which Senator Xenophon and his party have played in approving these amendments is, quite frankly, shameful. The senator pretends to be a friend and supporter of victims of asbestos disease and yet he is allowed to get away with such an amendment, which will have the effect of serving precisely the contrary purpose and causing workers to be exposed to asbestos. In this day and age, very tragically, we know due to the actuarial evidence that over 700 people this year will die of an asbestos related disease as a result of exposure to asbestos in the past. How is that likely to track in the future? The answer does not get any cheerier at all. As things currently go, that number will continue to increase or stay at about the same rate all the way through to about 2020. By 2040, 23 years in the future—due the lag time in relation to terminal diseases—there will be 350 deaths per year as a result of exposure to asbestos. That is the evidence according to the modelling, and what does this government do? It sits on its hands and promotes a culture where it is okay to be exposed to asbestos on worksites. The list is so long that, with the little time I have left, I will not even scratch the surface.
Considering the fact that imported asbestos was banned from 31 December 2003, we ask ourselves the question: how is this mob's monitoring of exposure to asbestos on worksites working out? It is working out diabolically. It is working out criminally. We need look no further than exposure to workers as a result of the Great Wall of China motor vehicles in 2012, and in relation to children's crayons in 2015. Late in 2016, Australian Border Force tested 3,700 children's crayons, confirming that all of them contained traces of asbestos.
Perhaps the biggest scourge in relation to worksites and exposure to workers of asbestos dust and fibre, relates to the importation of products for Yuanda, Australia. But we have seen that all over the country. In my home town of Perth, the children's hospital construction ground to a halt for litany of reasons, but one of them, in particular, was that, in July last year, asbestos was found in roof panels installed throughout the building. Tests confirmed the presence of asbestos in 200 roofing panels, with hundreds of workers exposed to asbestos dust and fibre. It also occurs on the other side of the country in relation to the presence of asbestos in worksites in Brisbane. We have seen exposure to asbestos as a result of Australian Portable Camps in 2010 onwards, and also exposure to asbestos in Melbourne as a result of exposure at Robert Johnson Engineering.
What we see here in this bill—and this is really only the start—is yet another example about the culture on the other side, and the culture of these crossbenchers, particularly in the Senate, in that they are saying that this is okay. It is not just in direct examples; it is woven throughout their conduct in relation to workers in this country. This mob on the other side, the Prime Minister and those who are sanctimonious and stand up and talk about jobs, are not fair dinkum when it comes to protecting Australian workers and protecting their right to a safe work environment. This bill will do quite the opposite and it should be opposed every step of the way.
I join the member for Perth—and I commend him for his contribution—and all of my other Labor colleagues who have spoken on this bill in opposing this legislation, the Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Amendment Bill 2017. The last time that legislation relating to the ABCC came before this parliament, in both October and December of last year, the debate was gagged. The government did not want to talk about the ABCC legislation. They did not want to talk about it because they knew full well that it would not stand up to public scrutiny when they did. The legislation did not withstand the fairness test and it did not withstand the common sense test. Indeed, this was the legislation that the government used in order to call a double dissolution election on 2 July last year, and yet we saw in the whole campaign for that election, that the government refused to even talk about the very legislation that they called the election upon. Again, they did so because they knew that out there in the community people did not accept the justification for this legislation that the government continuously tried to spin.
This legislation—the same as the original ABCC legislation—does not pass the fairness test, nor do the amendments that we are dealing with right here and now. It simply delivers on the self-interest of big construction companies and their pressure on the government, and also on the government's anti-union ideology. That is what it is all about. The Turnbull government is prepared to trade away the workers' rights in order to bolster the profits of large construction companies, in the same way that we have seen them try to do this week with legislation that will trade away social payments to some of Australia's lowest paid workers and individuals, people on the lowest incomes, people that are some of the most needy in the country, in order to give a $50 billion tax break to big business. The similarity is right there and very stark: trading away workers' rights in order to bolster the profits of big companies.
I would expect that from this government because it has a track record of doing that, but I have to say I am both disappointed and surprised to see the same approach to this legislation from the Nick Xenophon Team, from Senator Hinch and from Pauline Hanson's One Nation party. Those minor parties were all elected and came into this place as champions of the Aussie battler, champions of Australian jobs, champions of common sense and champions of fairness and common decency. Yet this legislation shows that their true values have been exposed. They will have a lot of explaining to do to the wider community as a result of their support for this legislation.
This legislation weakens or deletes provisions in the current law that favour Australian workers over temporary foreign workers and support Australian apprenticeships. We have an ageing workforce. Everybody talks about that consistently. If we do not 'trade up' young people into those trades we will ultimately end up with not enough tradespeople to meet the demands of this country. Then the government can justifiably do what it has always wanted to do, and that is bring tradespeople and workers from overseas, because it can justifiably say, 'We simply don't have those skills here in Australia.' And when it does that, again, its prime and only motive for doing it will be to bring down and lower the wages and working conditions of other Australians.
This legislation also does away with measures that support Australian manufacturers, as others of my colleagues have pointed out. And it waters down important work safety matters, including the long work hours that construction workers are often obliged to work. I can say that with absolute confidence because I speak to, and I know, many construction workers. Indeed, I am quite surprised to hear how often they tell me about the long hours that they are working.
But I want to touch for a moment on the matter that the member for Perth eloquently put to the House only a few moments ago, and that is the condition in this legislation which deals with asbestos awareness training and how that is also going to be phased out as a result of this legislation. This is an industry sector where asbestos products pose a constant risk. Again, the member for Perth alluded to a number of examples in recent times after asbestos was meant to have been banned in this country but is still being used.
In South Australia, we have the Asbestos Victims Association of SA. Senator Xenophon is a co-patron of the Asbestos Victims Association of SA. It is an organisation that for the last 12 years has been campaigning about the dangers of asbestos and running education programs to make the community and industry more aware of the dangers of this product. Each year, there is a service held in Salisbury to commemorate those people who have died—and will probably die in the years to come in greater numbers, as a result of the research that has been carried out—because in the course of their work, they have had to deal with asbestos. Senator Xenophon, of all people, should know better. By supporting these provisions, Senator Xenophon betrays the organisation that he lends his name to as a patron.
This legislation does not deal with criminal behaviour, as members opposite would have you believe—at least the two members who had the courage to come into this chamber and speak on it. I am not surprised that only two members have spoken on it, but the two who did essentially focused and concentrated their remarks on criminal behaviour within the construction sector. This legislation, as other members have quite rightly pointed out, does not deal with criminal behaviour. There are other agencies that are well-resourced and quite capable of doing that and, indeed, have done that where and when it has occurred.
The government's spin about the Heydon royal commission and the need for this legislation, again, simply does not withstand scrutiny. Indeed, to my knowledge, and I think the member for Moreton made this point as well, no criminal prosecutions have resulted from the Heydon royal commission. That says it all. The commission was nothing more than a witch-hunt. Again, if one thinks back, the Australian Building and Construction Commission was brought in as legislation before any of that commission took place. It was always an intent of the coalition government to attack the construction workers of this country.
Every construction project is unique—unique in scope, unique in the construction risks associated with it and the risks that the project presents to the surrounding neighbourhood and unique in the project's proponents, be they locals, overseas builders, reputable firms or unreputable firms. Every project is unique and, therefore, quite rightly, the workers who are going to work on those projects and the unions that represent them have every right to enter into individual agreements with the proponent and the builders of those projects to ensure that all the matters that need to be covered with respect to that project are, indeed, covered. That is what has happened in the past, and that is why we have some 3,000 agreements in place.
It is not a case where each project is the same as the other and, therefore, there is one template that can be used across all of them. We know—
The minister on a point of order.
In spite of the fact that I have a high regard for the member for Makin and I have enjoyed his speech so far, and in spite of the fact that it is very similar to his last one, I move:
That the question be put.
The question is that the question be put.
Bill read a second time.
Is leave granted for the third reading to be moved immediately?
Leave is not granted. This is an important bill. There are members of this House who want to speak on this bill, including the member for Kennedy who wants to get on his feet and speak on this bill. The member for Scullin still wants to speak on this bill.
I move:
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the motion for the third reading being moved without delay.
I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
This bill is going to create uncertainty and chaos in the building industry. In December last year, the Prime Minister made a deal with the crossbench senators, and he is reneging on that deal today.
I move:
That the question be now put.
The question is that the question be now put.
The question is that this bill be now read a third time.
I support the Parliamentary Entitlements Legislation Amendment Bill 2017 on behalf of the opposition. This bill seeks to remove the Life Gold Pass from all current passholders and future recipients. Announced previously by the former Prime Minister, the member for Warringah, in 2014, the removal of the Life Gold Pass has not gone without criticism in some quarters. Labor has supported reforms to the Life Gold Pass in the past and will continue to do so with our support for this bill.
The expectations of the Australian people are clear. At a time when economic insecurity is reaching an all-time high, the continuation of such an entitlement is quite simply inappropriate. It is a privilege to represent our constituents in this place, although it can be a demanding and taxing task. All in this place need to ensure that we maintain the faith and confidence of the public. Without this, our democracy can only suffer.
This bill has caused some division in the coalition. There are some members and senators who have chosen to launch a public fight to retain the Life Gold Pass. To those members, I say: it is our duty to ensure that we stand up for what matters to Australians.
The Life Gold Pass was introduced many decades ago, when train travel was the primary method of travel around the country. It may have met community standards then; it certainly does not meet community standards now. It is our duty to focus on the issues affecting communities we represent, not to defend our own self interest ahead of the national interest and the public interest. Labor understands this, and, accordingly, we will support this bill and ensure its timely passage through the parliament.
The question is that the bill be now read a second time.
If it is of convenience to the House, I am happy to speak for another minute or so.
I would very much appreciate it; thank you.
I mean to be helpful, but if there is a government speaker who wants to speak, I am more than happy for them to do so, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I am here to be helpful.
This has been a public debate now for some time. It was the previous Labor government that reformed the gold pass and closed a few entries. That was something that happened when we were in office. Then the then Prime Minister, the member for Warringah, took it further, and this prime minister has taken it further still. But this is a case where the parliament should come together and expeditiously pass the bill—hence my brief remarks, to help ensure that expeditious passage! But obviously something else has been required on this occasion tonight.
It is the case that the gold pass simply does no longer pass the public test of what is reasonable and appropriate. We all understand that in the 1920s members were travelling long distances by train, and it may have been quite appropriate then, when it was introduced.
Of course, this will be of some controversy to former members and to those who do not receive the gold pass in the future. But I challenge members of parliament and senators: can you really defend this? Can you really stand at street-corner meetings, can you really stand in public meetings, and say: 'This is appropriate,' any longer? It is not. It is no longer appropriate. It is not the case that we could justify this to the public; nor should we, because it just simply does not pass the test of being reasonable.
I think that most reasonable Australians—well, some would go further and say that all serving members of parliament should have their travel completely abolished, and we should not receive any travel entitlements, but most would recognise that a member of parliament going about their business, travelling from city to city, would require an appropriate level of support for that work expense. But it is very difficult to justify, for the vast majority of members of parliament, that gold pass.
I think that, again, most reasonable Australians would expect and understand that former prime ministers have a special responsibility. Former prime ministers still get called upon to speak at events, to go to charities or to support different initiatives in the community, and there needs to be a degree of support for former prime ministers and, indeed, for former governors-general. But, for many of us—and I would put the vast majority of us in this circumstance—when we leave this place, our public service, to the degree that it is associated with our time in parliament, has come to an end, and so that support should also come to an end. To argue otherwise is to suggest that members of parliament need ongoing travel support, and that is simply not the case.
So the opposition will strongly support the passage of this bill. We will expedite its passage through either house of parliament, as is requested by the government, because it is a reasonable thing to do in the circumstances. It is a reasonable thing to do to ensure that the Australian people have confidence in the system. We have to be able to defend each work entitlement we are given. We have to be able to explain why it is justified. We have to be able to explain that it is necessary. We have to be able to rationalise and explain the reasons for it. And certainly I can no longer do that for the gold pass. I think many members would struggle to do that for the gold pass because it simply does not pass that test—it simply just does not. Hence, you find bipartisan agreement—or, I would imagine or I would hope, unanimous agreement—through both houses of parliament that this should be passed. It should be done expeditiously, and then we can say to the Australian people that those work expenses which we have are justified to help us do our jobs, to serve our constituents, to travel to and from Canberra and to be in touch with various parts of the community. Senior ministers and shadow ministers need to travel to every state and territory through the year and not just to capital cities. I certainly take the position, in my role as shadow Treasurer, that I need to be in touch with regional Australia. I conclude my remarks by saying that the opposition supports this bill.
Debate interrupted.
I rise to condemn this government for yet another round of calculated, cruel and callous cuts that the 'Trumble' leadership seeks to implement with its Social Services Legislation Amendment (Omnibus Savings and Child Care Reform)—but without the 'reform' bit—Bill 2017. These cuts are supported by the Liberals' new best friend, the One Nation Party, which has so far stood for wilful ignorance, fearmongering and pitting every Australian against another. These cuts amount to so much more than financial savagery. These cuts attack the fundamental fabric of this nation's spirit and character. These cuts are designed to hurt three million children, age pensioners, young people who cannot get secure employment and single parents—One Nation describes us as ugly and lazy. The only ugliness here is a government that would seek to remove support from those who need it most.
I would like to touch on just one of these cuts, which has been studied in depth by Deloitte Access Economics, and their report that states that these cuts disproportionately affect our Indigenous communities and, in particular, our Indigenous children. Today, in this House, at that dispatch box, the Closing the gap report was handed down by a seemingly sympathetic Prime Minister who was promising to do more. Well, at least the Prime Minister is aware that the gaps are there to be filled. I guess that is a good start. So, with the Deloitte report in the other hand, why would he lead a government that is charging ahead with these cuts?
I proudly represent Lindsay, within greater Western Sydney, which has the highest concentration of Indigenous people in Australia. The cuts for Indigenous children will see more than one in two families face an increase in their childcare costs of $4.40 per hour. However, for children in care for 15 hours per week, which is the government's policy, you would soon see that $4.40 per hour hurting a family budget. Forty per cent of Indigenous families will have their access to child care cut completely. Staggeringly, more than two-thirds of Indigenous childhood education services will have their funding cut altogether.
Last year, our shadow minister for early childhood education, the Hon. Kate Ellis; the member for Chifley, Ed Husic; and I visited the Yenu Allowah Aboriginal Child and Family Centre, located in Mount Druitt, next to my electorate of Lindsay. This centre is responsible for the first education of our first peoples. While it is open to all children, it has a specific Indigenous focus and has an almost exclusive Indigenous enrolment. All the teachers are identified as Indigenous and teach children vital early education with respect to culture, community and country. The centre also employs people from the local area, providing jobs to young people that keep them engaged and allow them to tighten their own links to their culture.
But the government's cuts do not reflect the words that spilled from the Prime Minister's mouth today when he tabled the ninth Closing the gap report, nor do they reflect the statement in the front of the report which states:
We will continue to focus on key priorities – from preconception and the early years through school, providing a positive start to life …
There could not be a more backward step than the agenda to cut Indigenous early childhood education.
I want to see this Prime Minister back up his rhetoric with action. I am certain that every single Australian would want that too. I want more than the lip-service commitment the Prime Minister made to closing the gap. We need it to result in outcomes. We do not need talk from the Prime Minister; we need leadership. We need action to make it a reality. The reality is that the cuts to Indigenous early childhood services that he is overseeing, through his leadership, directly contradict the speech he gave today about closing the gap.
These cuts do not just affect our Indigenous children; they affect a sweeping range of the lowest paid, most vulnerable members of our communities. They take $3.30 for every $1 in proposed childcare assistance from pensioners, families, new mums and young Australians. One point five million Australian families will be worse off. The worst hit will be single parents. Young jobseekers will be left with nothing to live on for five weeks—because that is sustainable! Jobseekers aged 22 to 24 will be hit with a massive cut, losing $48 per week.
This is a government which claims to be so worried and concerned about youth unemployment, yet it takes away the ability of young people to access TAFE and then punishes them for being unemployed. It is farcical, and it shows the contempt the government has for working families and those who are struggling to get by. This is also the government that insists on taking money from the most vulnerable people in our society apparently to pay for the National Disability Insurance Scheme, in some kind of blackmail arrangement, pitting those doing it tough against those with a disability.
Of course, they will not touch the $50 billion worth of big business tax cuts they are handing out to their mates, but they will go after pensioners and the unemployed. They are happy to cut $30 billion from education and they refuse to reverse the $500 million cut from the Indigenous affairs budget. These things reflect the priorities of the Turnbull Liberal government. No wonder people are turning against this government. (Time expired)
It is a privilege to represent the electorate of Berowra and to bring the views of the people of Berowra to this parliament on a daily basis. Over December and January, I conducted a community survey to gauge the issues that matter most to the residents of Berowra, and I received a fantastic response from across the electorate.
The No. 1 issue for Berowra residents is traffic congestion and the need for better road infrastructure. Around 36 per cent of respondents raised roads and traffic congestion as a problem in the local area. Time stuck in traffic is time away from family. Time stuck in traffic represents billions of dollars in lost productivity each year. Only a couple of weeks ago, we saw the impact of an accident on the M1 Pacific Motorway trapping motorists in their vehicles for up to 10 hours. And, just the day before, all southbound lanes were closed on Pennant Hills Road at Normanhurst after a truck spilled its load of milk across the highway, causing a five-kilometre traffic jam.
Our road infrastructure needs upgrading. That is why I am proud to be part of a government that is committed to delivering real results not only for my electorate but right across the country. The coalition government has committed to investing $50 billion in infrastructure between 2013 and 2020, and we are on track to meet this target. Infrastructure investment funding for 2016-17 alone is almost $8½ billion. This investment is vital to Australia's future as part of our long-term plan to grow the economy and create more jobs. It is also why I am such a strong supporter of NorthConnex. NorthConnex will make a fundamental difference to traffic congestion in my electorate by removing 5,000 trucks each day and improving the flow of traffic along Pennant Hills Road. Pennant Hills Road has been adjudged one of the worst roads in Australia. I was pleased to show the Prime Minister over the NorthConnex site at West Pennant Hills in October last year. The Prime Minister remarked at West Pennant Hills:
Here … you see this one of the most congested roads in Australia. That congestion is coming to an end …
I am proud to inform the House tonight that NorthConnex is being delivered on time and on budget and will help improve congestion on Pennant Hills Road and our local roads.
While I am speaking about NorthConnex, next Tuesday I will be visiting the NorthConnex training hub at West Pennant Hills in my electorate to participate in a general awareness training session with the organisation MATES In Construction. MATES In Construction aims to be Australia's leading industry suicide prevention organisation and is focused on raising awareness, on building capacity, on providing help and on research. I had the pleasure of meeting with their CEO, Peter McClelland, late last year, and I am looking forward to continuing to achieve results in this space.
Returning to my community survey, of those respondents to the survey who highlighted roads and infrastructure as a key issue, 20 per cent mentioned the need to widen New Line Road. In significant areas New Line Road is a single-lane road each way. That might have been appropriate at a time when suburbs like Cherrybrook were orchards and farms, but it is not appropriate for what has become a major artery for suburbs to the north-west of my electorate. Since my election in July, New Line Road has been an important priority for me and I have lobbied the New South Wales minister for roads to do something about it. I sought a costing for the widening of New Line Road from the former New South Wales minister for roads, Duncan Gay, and asked about the state priority for the project.
I have also approached the federal Minister for Urban Infrastructure, Paul Fletcher, to see what can be done at the federal level to fast-track the widening of New Line Road. Minister Fletcher's advice is that the New South Wales government needs to prioritise the road and put an application forward to the federal government in order for it to be considered for federal funds against other competing proposals. I will be writing to the new New South Wales minister for roads, Melinda Pavey, to encourage her to officially prioritise the upgrade of New Line Road. I will continue to fight for the widening of New Line Road for our community. Tonight I announce that I will be starting a petition to get the New South Wales minister for roads to prioritise the widening of New Line Road and to hear the voice of my community.
Other local issues raised by Berowra residents in the community survey include their desire to see improvements made to other existing infrastructure which is properly the responsibility of state governments and local councils, and I will be passing such concerns along to my state and council colleagues. People have raised the issues of parking at Pennant Hills and Beecroft stations, a lift at Beecroft station and the need for traffic lights at the intersection of Old Northern Road and Glenhaven Road. All of these issues are very important to people in the local community.
One of the major national issues that has been raised is the issue of maintaining strong borders and improved settlement policies for new migrants. I believe in Australia's diversity, but I also believe in strong border protection. It is the coalition that has delivered both of those things.
I am pleased to draw the attention of the House this evening to some of the issues facing my electorate. It is an honour to represent the people of Berowra. I will continue to fight for them in this place. (Time expired)
Power outages have caused profound hardship in my electorate and for communities across South Australia. We want answers and we deserve solutions. But we are getting the same old blame game: mudslinging between Liberal and Labor and between the federal government and the state government.
I urge governments and parties of all persuasions to review the joint statement issued yesterday by a diverse coalition of Australian community representatives, including organisations such as Energy Networks Australia, the Australian Conservation Foundation, St Vincent de Paul Society, the Australian Steel Institute, and ACOSS. Those are just some of the organisations represented. I quote:
Representatives of Australian communities, including civil society, households, workers, investors, business energy users and energy suppliers today challenged all political leaders to stop partisan antics and work together to reform Australia's energy systems and markets to deliver the reliable, affordable and clean energy that is critical to wellbeing, employment and prosperity.
There is simply no room for partisan politics when the reliability, affordability and sustainability of Australia's energy system is at stake.
The status quo of policy uncertainty, lack of coordination and unreformed markets is increasing costs, undermining investment and worsening reliability risks. This impacts all Australians, including vulnerable low-income households, workers, regional communities and trade-exposed industries.
The finger pointing will not solve our energy challenges. More than a decade of this has made most energy investments impossibly risky.
It is too hard.
This has pushed prices higher while hindering transformational change of our energy system. The result is enduring dysfunction in the electricity sector.
I agree wholeheartedly with this statement. It is rare that workers, businesses, investors, environmentalists and civil society can so passionately agree on an issue. The Australian community gets it. Yet many in our parliament choose to be blinded by ideology.
In Mayo, we are in the middle of a bushfire season, and I cannot stress enough the absolute catastrophe that will ensue if there is a bushfire during a prolonged power outage. In my electorate, when households lose power many also lose water and sewerage. We have properties and towns with no access to mains water, so they rely on pump-operated tanks and bores. Yet last week vulnerable communities in bushfire prone Echunga, Meadows and Longwood were forced onto the roster for power-shedding on a 40-plus degree day. There were no flushing toilets and there was no water to drink in the taps and no water to bathe with for thousands of households for almost five days, and that is what happened to us at Christmas time. This made us lose medical supplies, and food in fridges and freezers was also wasted.
During prolonged power outages, the public health consequences of losing access to water and sewerage are especially difficult for people with mobility issues. For them it is potentially life-threatening. Our mobile phone towers failed after only four hours. We lose internet, and in areas with NBN fibre-to-the-node, which is installed in parts of my electorate, we also lose landlines. It is of particular concern when households have children, elderly citizens and people with a disability. The challenge when you cannot communicate is that you do not even know if a fire is coming.
The Nick Xenophon Team has called upon the South Australian government to intervene directly in the state electricity market. Through its ability to contract for the electricity that it uses, the state government has the market power to underwrite a gas-fired power plant which would provide both energy security and lower prices for consumers. Such a move would add real competition pressures on existing generators and prevent the price gouging that is currently occurring during intermittent and unreliable electricity supply in South Australia.
And so I urge the federal government to join with the state government and get some action here for South Australia, and to stop using us in question time as the butt of its jokes.
Life in rural and remote Australia is more difficult than in metropolitan areas. People here make do with fewer services and a lack of technology compared to their city counterparts. So it is pleasing when the Turnbull-Joyce government can make a real difference to helping regional people overcome some of these barriers. I rise today to talk about the positive impact that the federal coalition's $213 million mobile phone blackspots program is having in my electorate of Capricornia, and more specifically to recognise one person who has been instrumental in achieving better services for her remote country location.
That person is Lynise Conaghan of Clarke Creek, about 2½ hours north-west of Rockhampton. Lynise was recently named the Isaac Regional Council's 2017 Australia Day Citizen of the Year. Shortly, I want to outline some of the amazing work that Lynise has achieved. But firstly, I want to briefly outline how my fight to get better mobile phone coverage around parts Capricornia is starting to pay off.
In the last two years we have seen funding for 10 new mobile phone towers, or major upgrades to existing towers, allocated across Capricornia. These commitments under rounds 1 and 2 of the coalition's mobile blackspots program will improve mobile coverage along major transport routes, in small communities and in locations prone to experiencing natural disasters.
So far, new towers have been allocated for Clarke Creek; Marlborough; Mount Chalmers Road, between Rockhampton and Yeppoon; Gargett, in the Pioneer Valley area of Capricornia, west of Mackay; Stanage Bay Road in the Livingstone Shire; West Hill, in the Carmila district; the Gregory Development Road—A, in far north-western Capricornia; and Bowen Development Road, in the Collinsville district, and there are two new mobile towers for the Bungundarra district near Yeppoon. Up to 21 of the 71 mobile blackspots nominated in Capricornia are being addressed. Along with this, major mobile black spots on the Bruce Highway between Marlborough and Sarina and on the main road between Rockhampton and Yeppoon will also be beefed up. And further coverage will be provided by handheld or external antennas to all or part of the following locations in the Livingstone, Isaac, Pioneer Valley, Sarina and Mackay districts: Cawarral Road, Finch Hatton, Pinevale, Keppel Sands Road, Gargett, Pinnacle, Marlborough, Mia Mia, Septimus, Clarke Creek, Mirani and Svendsen Road.
I want to return to Clarke Creek, where Lynise Conaghan was named the 2017 Isaac Regional Council's Citizen of the Year. Lynise lives on Barmount Station, about 215 kilometres north-west of Rockhampton in Central Queensland. According to the Isaac Regional Council she has:
… made significant contributions to Isaac, the Clarke Creek community, and the state and national education of geographically isolated children.
As I said earlier, among her key achievements was to successfully lobby for better mobile phone coverage to help local school students at Clarke Creek. Here, it took nearly 20 hours just to download the school curriculum, putting students way behind. It was also difficult to call for help or direct an ambulance when there was a farm or road accident in the area. And local beef producers had issues gaining immediate access to market information online to sell their stock.
When I was elected in 2013, I made it a No. 1 priority to help Lynise campaign. On a visit to the Clarke Creek community I once described it as 'a place worse than Africa' when it comes to mobile phone black spots and internet coverage. Thanks to the influence of Lynise, Clarke Creek is now enjoying better technology. Recently, Clarke Creek State School received the first hardware available to enable it to access new 4GX services via their new mobile base station. This was a first for Education Queensland.
Lynise Congahan tells me that our federal government's mobile blackspot initiative has been a huge game changer for small communities like hers.
I rise tonight to speak about the impact this government is having on Centrelink.
Those opposite often claim in this place to be business people. Well, they cannot run Centrelink, so I would hate to see them try to run a business. In fact, I am beginning to wonder if they are not deliberately making Centrelink so inefficient that one day, mysteriously, a market-disrupting private business will come along and they can privatise the whole system.
At least one in five debt recovery notices are false. This is a fail in any business. The human services minister, Alan Tudge, says that sending a letter to a non-debtor is not an error. It makes you wonder. The department 34,000 staff have been without a pay rise for 3½ years, despite increasing workloads, and they have also lost 5,000 jobs and had significant budget cuts. These workers are the frontline in the debt recovery debacle and are under the pump, with stories that they are told not to assist people when they make inquiries. The debt recovery debacle is on top of the DSP reviews being undertaken, as are changes to carers' and pensioners' claims and compliance.
I want to share Peter's story from my electorate as an example of the DSP review—the time and energy it is taking and the pressure it is putting on Centrelink workers. This is from my local newspaper, the Star Weekly. Peter was a full-time worker:
He worked full-time in a job that paid up to $2000 a week, he’d ride his bicycle for up to 40 kilometres …
But that all changed when … diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis three years ago.
A diagnosis of severe lumbar scoliosis soon followed, as did multi-level disc degeneration.
He began to shed weight – more than 30 kilograms … He now walks with a walking cane.
… … …
He also takes more than 20 different types of medication a day …
But despite all that, and letters from three different doctors and specialists saying that he can never work again, he is being forced to live on $270 a week, with his application for a disability pension refused by Centrelink.
He has appealed and it has been knocked back again, despite three doctors—three doctors!—saying that he can never work again. These are just some of the things that Centrelink employees are dealing with in this system.
There are also changes to pensions, as we know. In this place I have told the story before of a pensioner couple in my electorate, one in a wheelchair and one blind, who had to go to the city to get a new birth certificate because, even though they had been on the pension for 20 years, they needed to make a change. The compliance requirements were just outrageous.
Then, with the online system, there are the myGov failure rates. I have been on there myself. It took me an hour to register on myGov, with the system locking me out time and time again. It is an absolute disaster.
In my office last week staff had Centrelink hang up on them after they had been on hold on the phone for an hour and a half. Some people's claims are taking nine months to be processed. Last year students in my electorate waited until May for their youth allowance. What does that do to their capacity to pay rent, buy books and attend university classes? Last week I met with the National Welfare Officer for the National Union of Students, Jill Molloy. She told me firsthand about students who have contacted her in desperate situations because of the Centrelink wait times. Will that happen again this year? Will we have students dropping out of courses because they cannot get the support they need?
This government talks ad nauseam about red tape for business and how it wants to take away the red tape, but it thinks nothing of running down our social safety net. And it is going to get worse. Measures in the omnibus bill will introduce a minimum five-week wait for people to access Newstart—one week automatically and then four weeks in this legislation. Changes in Newstart mean some will be moved to youth allowance to take a 20 per cent cut. Just stop and think about that, Mr Deputy Speaker. Who is that going to hurt besides that young person? The person they pay rent to. Your famed investors will have people being evicted from their properties and they will not be getting their rent. There will be more change and more work for a system that is struggling as it is. Lo and behold, the government want to put a further layer of responsibility onto Centrelink. They want it to oversee the Paid Parental Leave scheme.
The only light on the horizon, as far as I can see, is that community sentiment is growing. People are talking, and that means the broader community are becoming aware. In my electorate I am being approached about the good old days of the Commonwealth Employment Service because people are so disillusioned with the online and JSA system and what they perceive as mutual obligation and Centrelink compliance regimes that are draconian and inhuman. For a government paying lip-service to wanting to reconnect with people, they have no idea. (Time expired)
The debate this evening is an opportunity to update the House on the connectivity issues in the seat of Bowman, in Brisbane and the Gold Coast. Bowman is an outer metropolitan seat. It includes the Moreton Bay islands. There is a huge volume of commuter movement between my electorate and large commercial areas around Brisbane, and increasingly Bowman's four major arterials are becoming the subject of community movements to see improvements in that infrastructure. Around the same time, and serendipitously, the Australian Automobile Association released its How safe are our roads? publication, part of the Australian Road Assessment Program, which is an impressive national effort to identify the highways that are most in need.
In my electorate of Bowman, Rickertt Road has already been identified—I think two years ago—as being the fourth worst road stretch in Queensland. Barely known outside of my electorate—and it is the northern half that use it—Rickertt Road has a single-lane right-hand turn that is not so much a fatality risk as the cause of huge congestion. That is contributed to by the early morning movement of traffic to large numbers of schools just outside my electorate, which is superimposed on peak hour traffic. The afternoons and evenings are not so bad because, obviously, school pick-up and end-of-work times are slightly separate.
This area features one of the few examples of a four-lane road narrowing back down to two. It is a quirk of history. The connecting communities money provided by the then Howard-Anderson coalition government funded an improvement in road infrastructure in my electorate to the end of my city boundary. The road then fell back to a single lane for the next two or three kilometres, and Brisbane was to do the duplication back out to meet it. We are now 10 years down the track and the duplication has not occurred. I had no hope of it occurring until just over a year ago, when the Brisbane City Council, the Liberal coalition government, announced that they would be supporting a duplication of most of the roads between Manly Road and the Rickertt-Green Camp intersection.
There was one obvious omission, one last intersection that was not covered, and I am delighted to say that at the last federal election the coalition committed to that final piece in the puzzle, a medium-term solution for people in the top half my electorate travelling to Brisbane every day. It is pretty hard down here to overstate just how important politically the issue of getting back and forth to work is for people in my electorate, particularly those who live in areas a fair way from work but also those who are in the hub-and-spoke structure that Brisbane is. Mr Deputy Speaker Coulton, maybe you are not familiar with large metropolitan areas and the importance of moving between home and work, but in Bowan people are constantly rat running to try to find the best way to work. Every tiny change to the road infrastructure system leads to a cascade of events where more traffic uses the improvement and things seem a little better. That is what we have experienced over the last year.
The particular element of Rickertt that I want to highlight tonight is the fact that large volumes of traffic turning right have been blocking the major two routes into the city. This will be a continuing challenge for Brisbane City Council but they have put money on the table, with the work sequenced over three years. My job as a federal MP is to find some potential opportunities to have some of that work resequenced and done earlier. The only thing that voters are thinking about is how soon this road will be fixed. They are not that interested in three- and four-year time lines, as we know from many issues.
More broadly, I want to look at three other areas. Old Cleveland Road still carries 40 per cent of all traffic from my city to Brisbane, with 25 per cent of that component simply trying to get onto the Gateway Motorway. Some revisions to the sequencing of traffic lights were sufficient to alleviate a huge volume of the congestion that we have seen there for the last five years. If there is one point I would like to leave you with tonight—apart from the constant claim from every MP that they want more money spent on roads—is that with commonsense traffic flow studies we really can tweak the road system and ameliorate some difficult situations for motorists.
Further south, the Beenleigh Redland Bay Road is the route between my city and Logan. The people using this road do not necessarily head straight into the Brisbane CBD but are tangentially heading down towards the Gold Coast. Again, it is a very important single-lane road. Wuduru Road is in great need of an upgrade. There are traffic lights all the way from Redland Bay through to Carbrook. And these areas are being negotiated now with developers, who have committed to really impressive upgrades, but probably the intersection that is most in need of being done, outside Carbrook State School, is yet to be considered.
In the bigger picture we have the second route between Brisbane and the Gold Coast. That potentially may run through Mount Cotton Road. It will be of incredible significance to my electorate if that does transpire. It is a piece of tourism infrastructure if nothing else, but there will be significant environmental concerns.
Finally, my other large commitment was to significantly upgrade the intersection on the Cleveland Wellington roundabout. The Shore Street roundabout is a real barnacle for many people, and we are hoping that the state government will not impede the federal commitment to see that roundabout improved.
It being 8 pm, the House stands adjourned until 9.30 am tomorrow.
House adjourned at 20:00
Last week in this place I spoke about the many excellent schools in my electorate and the great achievements of their students and their dedicated teachers. Today I want to highlight another such school, Monmia Primary School, as an example of what can be achieved with a small but significant amount of extra resources and funding.
This state primary school has students from around 50 different cultural and language backgrounds, and serves a community of socioeconomic disadvantage. With some additional equity funding over the past four years, Monmia Primary School has been able to introduce an innovative coaching program for literacy and numeracy teaching. This has allowed them to release teachers from the classroom to train and then coach their colleagues in best-practice teaching for reading, writing and maths. The program has also involved building a consistent approach to language across the school, from foundation year to year six—Invisible Learning—and helping all students to set literacy goals for themselves and take responsibility for their own learning.
The results have been phenomenal. In the latest NAPLAN results, Monmia Primary School was one of only three primary schools in the Brimbank Melton network region that is now high performing, despite ranking as a highly disadvantaged school in terms of its student family occupation, or SFO. The written results were brilliant, but spelling and numeracy levels were also shown to have improved significantly. Overall, there has been a huge growth in the literacy and numeracy skills of all students across years 3 to 5.
I want to congratulate principal Lorraine Bell, assistant principal Vineta Mitrevski and literacy coordinator Natalie Creasy, together with all their colleagues at the school, on their commitment to their students in ensuring that they fulfil their best learning potential.
Monmia Primary School was keenly looking forward, of course, to the additional funding under the Gonski reforms to enable this very successful program to continue. Without this vital funding, the full-time coaches have to return to classroom teaching, which will mean a significant watering-down of the program. It also means there are few resources to provide timely intervention with at-risk children. This is so important in ensuring that the literacy development of all children does not fall behind. The difference in the literacy development of the school students is clearly evident in the results, but this standard of excellence cannot be maintained without the financial support to continue the coaching and teacher support program.
This is just one school that has demonstrated what an incredible turnaround in learning outcomes can be achieved with relatively small but vital additional funding. This is why the Australian Labor Party is so passionate about defending and promoting the funding model known as Gonski. This is why we will continue to highlight the negative impact of the government's lack of commitment to our schools through its failure to deliver on the Gonski reforms.
In November last year, I informed the House of an ambitious project launched in my home city of the Gold Coast called the GC101 campaign. The campaign set out to sign up 101 local school leavers as apprentices in just seven weeks. As the local federal member and the Assistant Minister for Vocational Education and Skills I was proud to be part of this important campaign. It was coordinated by Australian Apprenticeship Support Network provider BUSY At Work, who worked with local businesses and employers, encouraging them to take on a new apprentice.
I am pleased to report to the House that the GC101 campaign was a great success. One hundred and two local people have commenced apprenticeships that will give them the skills they need to secure a job and a rewarding career.
In fact, around nine out of 10 people who complete an apprenticeship immediately gain full-time employment. On top of the 102 apprenticeships, the GC101 campaign saw 270 students enrol in school-based apprenticeships. I congratulate all those involved in the GC101 campaign who contributed to its success, especially those businesses and employers who took on an apprentice for the first time or hired a new apprentice for the first time in many years.
The Turnbull government's message to employers is that an apprentice is an investment to help you grow your business, and, as a result of GC101 campaign, many businesses have put themselves in a stronger position. Apart from helping tackle issues of youth unemployment, which fell nearly 2.5 per cent on the Gold Coast to 7.7 per cent in the latest ABS figures, the GC101 campaign helped promote the importance of, and the many options available through, apprenticeships. I am pleased to inform the House that, following the success of GC101, similar campaigns are now underway in New South Wales and Victoria. I congratulate the member for Gilmore, Ann Sudmalis, and the member for Dunkley, Chris Crewther, who are boosting apprenticeship numbers in their electorates. The Gilmore Apprenticeship Challenge was launched on 18 January, with a target of 52 new apprenticeships. The local member, Ann Sudmalis, has done an outstanding job promoting and supporting this challenge. I was honoured to join the member for Dunkley for the launch of his campaign just a fortnight or so ago. Some apprentices have already signed up to that campaign, and their target is 100 in 60 days.
These apprenticeship drives are a great example of the Turnbull government achieving better outcomes by simply taking a different approach—an approach that empowers local businesses with the knowledge and connections required to take on an apprentice. Giving the outstanding success of these campaigns, I am happy to work to roll this out in a nationwide capacity.
The issue of mental health, and addressing the stigma associated with issues concerning mental health, is of real concern, particularly in regional Australia. Homelessness is a scourge. Unfortunately, there is a correlation between mental health issues and homelessness. A wealthy country like Australia can and must do more to combat homelessness. However, this speech today is about two positive things that are occurring in my electorate.
Many years ago there was a wonderful piece of advertising prepared at the direction of Steven Jobs. The advertising message was iconic. Stripping away the commercial message prepared by a master communicator, the central message, in spoken word across the commercial, was as follows:
Here's to the crazy ones, the misfits, the rebels, the troublemakers, the round pegs in the square holes … the ones who see things differently—they're not fond of rules … You can quote them, disagree with them, glorify or vilify them, but the only thing you can't do is ignore them because they change things … they push the human race forward, and while some may see them as the crazy ones, we see genius, because the ones who are crazy enough to think that they can change the world, are the ones who do.
A small group of people in my electorate of Bass have decided to do something about suicide prevention and awareness. They have crowdsourced, cajoled, inveigled and convinced a range of people to support an event which raises awareness of mental health issues and suicide prevention and awareness. The event has received practical support from beyondblue, who have supplied information and materials. The spirit of the event is open to all comers, with free entry and an open mic, with poetry and musicians all providing their contributions as an open collaboration.
On the issue of homelessness, I must also highlight the efforts of another small group of passionate people called 'Launceston feeding the homeless'. This group decided that, like the issue of suicide prevention, it was not enough to sit idly by. Action was required. My constituent Kirsten established a Facebook page and started crowdsourcing donations of food and volunteers to deliver food in a public park—that is, Royal Park on the Tamar River. Again, her actions and the actions of her supporters have provided real and practical relief to people living at the extremes of our community.
There are many positive developments arising from community projects that have started in circumstances like this, with passionate people deciding that they will not sit idly by. Government must provide support at a practical level to ensure that the burden of cuts to social welfare does not fall on volunteers. A just society demands that we ensure that people do not fall through the cracks.
I urge people in my electorate to support Kirsten's passionate volunteers fighting homelessness and also to support the suicide prevention and awareness event which is to be held on Saturday, 18 February from 2 pm to 5 pm at the Greenwood Bar, Lloyds Hotel, Cimitiere Street, Launceston.
Last year I spoke here about important projects in my electorate the coalition government has committed to support. Today I would like to update the chamber about two projects that will boost sports and tourism in Brisbane's bayside area. I am pleased to report that work is progressing well at the Wynnum Manly Seagulls clubhouse and the Moreton Bay Discovery Centre.
My flagship commitment last year was to the Wynnum Manly Seagulls for a much-needed upgrade of their dressing rooms. The coalition pledged $400,000 in funding, which has since come through. The Wynnum Manly Seagulls football club CEO, Hanan Laban, has told me the project is now ahead of schedule. This is excellent news for local football and sporting groups in the bayside area. Hanan was kind enough to give me a tour of the project site last year. He told me that football and sports groups of all ages use their dressing room facilities. The project will open up access to many more groups, including women's sports groups, thanks to the addition of female changing stalls and facilities. I am proud to have delivered for the Wynnum Manly Seagulls football club, a not-for-profit organisation that relies on community support to operate. The project will make the clubhouse a sporting hub for the community and bring more people to the bayside area. I cannot wait to be there for the grand opening next month.
Another project that will attract more visitors to the bayside is the extension of the Moreton Bay Discovery Centre at Manly Harbour Village. The coalition has committed $450,000 to the centre to construct an extension that will house the Moreton Bay Discovery Museum. The deed of agreement for the project has now been signed, and work is expected to be finished by the end of the year. Chair of the Moreton Bay Discovery Centre Mr David Farley tells me the Moreton Bay Discovery Museum will house displays showcasing the natural, social and cultural history of Moreton Bay. It is a great addition to the Wynnum Manly Tourism & Visitor Information Centre and jetty cafe at William Gunn Jetty and will help attract more tourists to the area. I cannot wait to see these vital projects completed. I will continue to provide updates on these projects and others in my electorate as they progress.
On 14 January, hundreds of Tamils in my electorate of Parramatta came together with family and friends to celebrate Thai Pongal, the Tamil harvest festival. I am pleased to inform the House that tonight, for the first time, the Tamil community will come together from all around Australia with members of this parliament to celebrate Thai Pongal in this, the people's house.
Pongal is the most auspicious festival for the farming community in the Tamil month of Thai. It is primarily celebrated to convey gratitude to the sun god for bestowing the farmers with energy for agriculture. Part of the celebration is the boiling of the first rice of the season, consecrated to the sun—the Surya mangalyam. This festival has its own special meaning and traditions, which are tied to abundance, peace and happiness.
As part of the Pongal festivities this year, I attended the Jaffna Hindu College Old Boys Association's Pongal festival in Civic Park, Pendle Hill, as well as the Community Migrant Resource Centre's Parramatta Pongal at Centenary Square. Both organisations play a crucial role in fostering and promoting Tamil language, arts and culture and providing much-needed support and assistance to recently arrived refugees. I take this opportunity to recognise and acknowledge the outstanding work both organisations undertake in my community.
My electorate of Parramatta is home to one of the largest Tamil communities in Australia. You only have to stroll down Pendle Way in Pendle Hill or Aurelia Street in Toongabbie to see and feel their presence in my electorate. The Tamil community has a fascinating chapter in our Australian story. They came as both skilled migrants from India itself and as a wave of Tamils, which first reached Australia in the early 1980s, fleeing conflict in their homeland of Sri Lanka. Their story is one of how they have utilised the opportunities provided by this great nation to make tangible progress in their lives, educate their children and contribute to the economic growth and prosperity of their adopted home.
Tamils are one of the most educated community groups in Australia. The majority of them have served our community as doctors, lawyers and engineers. The prominence and priority they give to their children's education is remarkable. Like many other communities, they maintain close ties and affection to their roots, language and culture. They say language is the bridge to one's culture. The Wentworthville Tamil Study Centre in my electorate hosts more than 650 students on the weekends and plays an important role in imparting the language and knowledge to the next generation.
Tonight, as I said, we will celebrate Thai Pongal here in this House. The Tamil Arts and Culture Association has worked incredibly hard to bring Tamils in from all around the country, including many from my electorate, and I encourage all my colleagues to attend. Celebrations such as these remind us of who we are. Vaalgha Tamil, Valarga Tamil!
My electorate of Hume is full of bright young sparks. Last year, I presented my second annual STEM awards to recognise the amazing work of local students studying science, technology, engineering and maths. This is a personal way for me to encourage young people to engage with STEM and to expand their critical thinking and problem-solving skills—skills that will be absolutely essential for Australia's future success.
The 13 winners were of various ages and studied a range of disciplines. Some wanted to pursue careers in computer science, others in engineering and another was keen to become an app developer. What is especially pleasing is that they were all outstanding STEM mentors to their peers, a point made at the presentations by their teachers. Congratulations to: Ethan Wupper of Macarthur Anglican School, Lachlan Webster of Picton High, Travis Chin of Elizabeth Macarthur High, Tristan Klower of Goulburn High, Ellie Robinson of Crookwell High, Cameron Biggs of Mount Annan High, Brandyn Lee of Goulburn MET School, Ronin Allcock of Trinity Catholic College, Noah Sarkis of Wollondilly Anglican College, Mitchell Lyons of Mulwaree High, Rhys Smith of Boorowa Central School, David McGregor of Camden High School and Zaidyn Melrose of Elderslie High School.
These clever young people are a credit to themselves, their families and their schools. Their outstanding contributions to STEM also speak of the commitment and encouragement of their educators. Several Hume high-school students also recently attended an advanced technology boot camp in Sydney. They included Tiffany Ezzy from Goulburn High and David O'Brien from Camden High. They were at Macquarie University in January for the first DigIT cohort—a program that takes students' STEM to the next level.
If I may, I would like to address the base political pointscoring by the member for Chifley in this chamber yesterday. Unlike the member, I do understand how to drive organisational change because, unlike him—he has been a union official and a government relations hack for the duration of his career—I have spent my career building organisations and reforming organisations. My agency is delivering real changes that I know will help my constituents and the people of Australia.
The goal I announced recently of redirecting 10 per cent of ICT spending to innovative smaller companies—that is over $500 million per annum—is progressing well. The Digital Marketplace and important real changes will allow Australians from anywhere to sell their ideas to government. We continue to deliver important reform to key government services like myGov. The streamlining of the login process has delivered excellent results, including a 50 per cent uplift in usage in a month. On STEM support and on digital transformation more broadly, this government is delivering.
Last Saturday I was really fortunate to be able to attend an important celebration with the KU preschool community in Mayfield. It was a celebration to mark the official certification of the KU preschool at Mayfield as a Little Scientists House. Little Scientists is a wonderful professional development initiative delivered by the University of Newcastle's SMART Program. It trains early childhood educators, including four educators from the KU preschool at Mayfield, in ways to best incorporate science, technology, engineering and maths—or the STEM subjects—into play-based learning at preschool in order to really ignite that love for science and STEM subjects at an early age.
Childhood is, of course, the perfect time to foster a love for STEM, as kids are already natural scientists. They are curious. They are full of questions, and they are wonderfully unshackled by preconceptions. Through the program, KU kids are encouraged to follow their interests and to turn them into real-life investigations—for example, an interest in bugs can be examined by measuring them, putting them under the microscope, or learning more about them through research on the iPad. Not only are kids at KU realising that science is fun; their self-perception also changes as they start to see themselves as being good at science.
This is important because we know that in the future Australia is going to need all the scientists it can get. In fact, employment and STEM occupations are predicated to grow at twice the rate of other occupations, and the Australian Industry Group has warned that the shortage of STEM graduates will be a major challenge for businesses. It is clear that we must prepare our children for this future. The Little Scientists who build a love for STEM early on are much more likely to consider taking these sorts of subjects at school and might even continue this passion into university degrees and career choices.
I am particularly interested in how this sort of program can help turn around the underrepresentation of women in STEM courses and STEM careers. It is particularly shocking. The 2015 OECD report showed that fewer than one in 20 girls from OECD countries considered going on into STEM careers. It also found, notwithstanding similar capabilities in maths and science with boys, that a quarter of girls drop out of science in the final years of high school. So there is no doubt that early exposure and increased self-confidence has the capacity to make a big difference.
I am so pleased that programs like Little Scientists will be able to reach young girls, to show them that science is not daunting and that, in fact, it can be lots of fun. Congratulations to KU Mayfield Preschool and your partnership with Little Scientists and the University of Newcastle's SMART program for fostering the STEM stars of the future. (Time expired)
In February each year cricket clubs across the country come together to support the important work of the McGrath Foundation by taking time from their schedules to host a Pink Stumps Day. An initiative of the foundation, it is designed to raise much needed funds to assist them in their work to support families experiencing breast cancer.
I am very proud to say that these events have been enthusiastically adopted by many of the cricket clubs in my electorate of Deakin, with more and more clubs participating each year. I want to take time to acknowledge these clubs and the wonderful volunteers who put so much time and effort into making these events the success they have been in the past and will be in the future.
Last weekend I was pleased to attend the Ringwood Cricket Club's annual president's lunch, hosted by club president Mark Freeman, where all funds raised went to the McGrath Foundation. This Saturday I am looking forward to attending the Heatherdale Cricket Club's Pink Stumps Day cocktail afternoon, and I want to acknowledge Nicole Joseph and club president Andrew Kovassy for their work in putting this event together, the fourth year they have held such an event. Also this Saturday night I will be dropping into the Eastfield Cricket Club's third annual Pink Stumps Day fundraiser. President Dallas Leeming and event coordinator Lauren Beaton have done a power of work and I want to thank them both, in advance, for putting in such a great effort.
The following weekend I will also attend the Pink Stumps Day South Croydon Cricket Club's ladies lunch and I will take my wife, Anna, who is very much looking forward to it. Now in its third year, this club has raised over $5,000 for the McGrath Foundation. I particularly want to thank Lindy Dench, Daniel and Penny Barsenbach and the rest of the social committee who really do put on a splendid event every year.
Finally, I want to acknowledge the gold medallist, in a sense, of the Pink Stumps Day, the Bayswater Cricket Club, who are holding their fifth Pink Stumps Day this year. They are certainly a trailblazer in the east and have raised more than $16,000 for the McGrath Foundation over this time. I want to particularly thank the club president, Rohan Pollard, and the event coordinator, Lyn Shepherd, for the fantastic effort I know they will put in this year and, of course, have done in previous years too.
I say to all those clubs: thank you for what you are doing for the McGrath Foundation, for these families who so deservedly need your help. As somebody who can just come along and enjoy these events, I want to thank you too. They are great fun, they are great entertainment and they are a great way of bringing the community together in pursuit of a worthy cause.
The celebration of our national day, Australia Day, should be authentic and mature, where we can celebrate and mourn at the same time, honour all that is great about Australia and being Australian, remember the sufferings and our shortcomings, and commit to building a more cohesive and inclusive nation.
Over the past few years the debate about the date of Australia Day has become more and more visible. Some Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, and some non-Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians, have mixed feelings about celebrating this day marking the commencement of English colonisation, and this is understandable. But I would like to add a second—and, as far as I can tell, so far unspoken—argument about changing the date of Australia Day because, from a Western Australian perspective, 26 January has no historical significance whatsoever.
The settlement now known as Perth has been continuously inhabited for the last 40,000 years by the Wadjuk people of the great Noongar nation of south-western Australia. If we are to talk about European colonisation in WA, the Swan River colony was declared on 2 May 1829. While Western Australia's first English settlement was indeed an outpost of the New South Wales colony, when Albany was settled in 1827 in King George Sound—a place that was named on 29 September 1791—the first European interaction with Western Australia was more than 100 years earlier, when Dirk Hartog arrived at Shark Bay on 26 October 1616. While I do acknowledge that it was the colony starting in Sydney that led to the establishment of New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, South Australia and Tasmania, Western Australia was settled and established separately and occupies nearly one-third of the Australian land mass.
Yes, Western Australia did join the Commonwealth, albeit reluctantly; but why should a date marking the arrival of the First Fleet in Sydney have more significance for our nation than its equivalent date on the other side of the country? Our national day should be a day that every one of us can get behind, regardless of our origins, longevity in Australia and from which part of the continent we hail, and I am not sure that 26 January can make that claim. However, through all the conversations about changing the date of our national day, there tends to be a stumbling block on what the alternative national day should be. We federated on 1 January which is, of course, already a public holiday; and there has been an amusing campaign this year to look at 8 May as the date—that is, 'May 8; mate'—but I suspect that too many of the traditions of Australia Day involve warm weather for there to be a serious taste for a move towards May.
Here is my proposal. When our nation finally takes that final step towards full independence, when we finally stand up and become a republic, let us use that date as our national day. That will be a day we can all get behind. (Time expired)
Our mantra at the last election was 'jobs and growth', and it still is. Small business provides the jobs and growth the economy relies on. Small business is by far the biggest employer and it drives jobs, but the three levels of government need to get their parameters right for treating small business in a proper way so that they can grow and prosper. I have some examples here of where this does not happen.
A builder in Mundubbera set out to revive a building that had been used over the years for a backpackers' hostel, as Mundubbera is a big place for backpackers. He got his architect and the council certifier to go through the rules and regulations for revamping this used building. The council certifier and the architect drew up the plans in accordance with section 61 of the applied used buildings regulations—fire plan, signage, the whole lot—and they had it just about ready to go to work when the Queensland fire service inspector came in, unbeknownst to them. The inspector, who was there for 10 minutes at a cost of $2,700, told him that he had to put in new firewalls and better signage and so on and so forth, which cost another $200,000. Then the South Australia fire plan was introduced from South Australia. Without them even visiting the site, that cost him another $10,000. On top of that, it cost another $2,000 to audit the fire plan that was done in South Australia. The total cost for this project, over and above the budget, was $214,700 and, of course, he did not have the income coming in that he had planned on in the original budget. He missed the blueberry season; let us hope we can get all these things out of the road before the next blueberry season. He is already paying new insurance because the other policy has expired.
There is the Gin Gin quarry between Bundaberg and Mount Perry.
He commenced the process of getting approval in 2013 and to date he still has not got the approval. It relates to 65 hectares of quarry site that he had planned. He had the offsets and the dams and the water catchment areas all approved by the state government and then suddenly the department heads from Canberra and Brisbane visited the site and said: 'This project is too big. We've got to reduce it from 65 hectares to two hectares.' This is impossible when you have to put in roads and dams and crusher plants and storage— (Time expired)
I advise that the time for three-minute constituency statements has expired; however, if no member present objects I will allow the period for statements to continue for another 30 minutes.
I acknowledge the great work of the Assyrian Resource Centre in delivering services and conducting a range of programs assisting refugees in my Western Sydney community. This organisation is of particular interest to me, given that my electorate is home to one of the largest numbers of refugees in the country. Given the current political situation in the Middle East, coupled with our special humanitarian intake from Syria of the most persecuted and vulnerable people, we have seen settlement services in Western Sydney under great strain. For instance, we are now seeing a significant increase in Assyrian refugees and those from other Christian minorities from Syria and Iraq. There is a real need to ensure that we develop settlement services that are both efficient and effective.
One of the biggest issues for new migrants is housing. While short-term housing is provided for up to three months, after that many refugees are essentially left to fend for themselves in a very unfamiliar environment. This is further complicated by the lack of affordable housing in areas such as the Fairfield LGA, where the New South Wales government has already indicated most of the refugees from Syria will be settled. Australia's settlement services have already undergone several reviews, including one by the Productivity Commission. In its report Migrant intake into Australia, the commission acknowledged that Australia's settlement services are well regarded, but services are often limited and outcomes are not always positive. It went on to recommend, in the report:
The Australian Government should review the mix, extent and coordination of settlement services … for all permanent immigrants with the aim of improving their labour market and social engagement outcomes.
Carmen Lazar, the manager of the Assyrian Resource Centre, has advised me that while there are many organisations that strive to do their best, the lack of oversight and coordination is not generating the best outcomes. I believe we need to emphasise the role of community building for all migrants, with service providers ideally playing the role of facilitators in community building. This multilayered and integrated approach was proposed by the Assyrian Resource Centre in order to help overcome challenges for migrants in my electorate, and to promote positive developments for settlement services.
We know that Australia has already committed to receiving a large number of refugees from Syria. It is compounding issues in Western Sydney. We do need to pay greater attention to settlement services if we want to see positive outcomes. I very much appreciate the work of Carmen Lazar and her officers at the Assyrian Resource Centre, and I commend them for the great work they do in our community. (Time expired)
Firstly, I want to say a very special thank you to all of our firefighters throughout New South Wales who worked around the clock protecting life and property in many areas of the state over the last weekend—as they do right throughout the summer. Thankfully my electorate was spared from the worst conditions, compared to areas of the north, but we still managed a balmy 43 degrees at Henty on Saturday. There may well have been a hotter day at the annual Henty show, but no-one living can actually recall just when that might have been. The show has been going now for 113 years straight, except for one year when it was called off for weather—or World War I. No-one is actually quite sure.
At 110 degrees in the shade, all went ahead this year, although the horse events were pushed forward and the dog show held over to Sunday. I say '110 degrees' because that is the language the people of Henty used to describe the temperature to me on the day. The sideshows were, again, very popular, particularly the ones where the kids were able to get wet. The CWA had a lovely lunch. Val from Val's Kitchen in Henty had a huge table of preserves, with raspberry and chilli jam being the most popular, and Oriel McRae from Pleasant Hills scooped the pool—her apple shortcake was the best. Wheelbarrow races and sheaf tossing demonstrated that you do not need expensive equipment to have a lot of fun.
Despite the extreme heat, with some irony, the farmers I bumped into reported a pretty poor harvest this year due to their paddocks getting waterlogged over spring. But, as always, they look to the next season with ever-present optimism. The local cockies do have some explaining to do though, losing the annual Farmers Challenge to the kids from the Henty primary school. The children were all pretty pleased with themselves after pocketing $25 each for the win. Even the sheaf-tossing competition, which I mentioned, was won by an 11-year-old, also up against some pretty big local men—so we start them young and build them tough in Henty.
Although the odd modern convenience is still appreciated, my first task after this weekend is to find some funds for an air conditioner for the show secretary's office. You might wonder why on earth a town in the middle of the New South Wales Riverina would hold its annual show in summer. Believe it or not, the Henty diary is very busy, fitting in between the cricket and Hume Football League seasons and satisfying the rules surrounding the Sydney Royal Easter Show. The Henty Show goes on in February, rail, hail, shine or heatwave.
The committee also have to work around the annual Henty Machinery Field Days each and every September. One of the largest in Australia and longest running, it has been going since 1963 and has been built up to 600 exhibits of new agricultural equipment and technology for farmers, attracting 50,000 to 60,000 visitors annually. This year, also at the field day site, is the very first four-wheel drive and outdoor adventure expo, coming up next month.
I rise to celebrate the great depth of community spirit that exists in Melbourne's northern suburbs, particularly in the Scullin electorate. I was very pleased to spend 26 January at Nillumbik Shire in Diamond Valley and then at the city of Whittlesea to share in the joy of 200 new Australian citizens and their families, to share in their joy at completing their journey to full participation in Australian life and to share their stories and the diversity that has already and will continue to enrich our community. It is such a privilege to be able to participate in citizenship ceremonies, something I know that all members of this place will agree with me on. And it was such a privilege to be able to share with them some of the wider benefits of active citizenship.
At both citizenship ceremonies I attended, I was very pleased to see some outstanding individuals in our community recognised for their voluntary contribution to Melbourne's north. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to a few individuals who were recognised locally and who deserve to be recognised in this place. Firstly, the Nillumbik Shire Council Citizen of the Year was Nikki Waterfall, who established the Diamond Creek parkrun three years ago because, as a new mum, she was interested in the local community and bringing people together to be healthy and active. The parkrun she established, really entirely off her own bat, is now one of Australia's largest and, I am told, one of Australia's most successful. I say 'I am told' because, while Nikki has kindly suggested that I join the park runners, five kays seems a long way for someone of my age and condition. But I congratulate Nikki for tis vital work that she has done not just in boosting health and wellbeing but in really boosting community in Diamond Creek.
I also acknowledge the wonderful contribution of Tabitha Anderson, the Whittlesea Council Young Citizen of the Year. She has played a great role as part of the Scullin Youth Advisory Committee, and she is a young woman who is already a role model. Trevor Carroll has been a consistent advocate for inclusion and disability in the city of Whittlesea, particularly on issues of public transport. He has been a frequent visitor to my office on a range of issues and he is a powerful advocate. It was so pleasing to see him recognised in respect of his activities. Finally, Elizabeth Pratt was named Whittlesea Council Senior Citizen of the Year. At 92, she has spent 90 of those years in the city of Whittlesea and has always given to others.
It was inspirational to see these four wonderful people recognised on Australia Day. I take this opportunity to also recognise them here and to acknowledge what an impact they have had.
I rise today to update the House on the flooding that wrought havoc in my electorate of O'Connor at the weekend, where the authorities are still assessing the extent of the damage. Before I go any further, I would like to express my deepest sympathies to the friends and family of the 68-year-old man who drowned in floodwater near Esperance. My thoughts are with those who are missing, and I hope they are reunited with their loved ones soon.
The great southern wheat belt and south-eastern wheatbelt regions, where infrastructure has been severely damaged, now face a long road to recovery. Many members in this chamber would have seen footage of roads crumbling and bridges swept away under the weight of floodwaters. Access to many towns has become extremely difficult, exacerbating the challenges of those communities. The Pallinup River and the Phillips River bridges on the South Coast Highway have also been swept away.
I want to briefly share some of the numbers from the Bureau of Meteorology, which help paint a picture of the events that played out in O'Connor. The Shire of Ravensthorpe, arguably the worst affected area, has recorded 239 millimetres of rain in the last seven days. I am going to take a moment to read some comments from Ian Fitzgerald, the chief executive of the shire, which convey the urgency of the situation:
We have been severely impacted. Access to Esperance in the east and Albany to the west has been cut, which are our supply lines for us. We have limited access to the north but that is by four-wheel-drive only. We managed to get trucks in from Perth with limited supplies today and we are working with our neighbours in Esperance to find alternative routes. We have elderly people in homes that are stuck and medication is beginning to become an issue.
In the town of Ongerup in the south-eastern wheatbelt, we saw 165 millimetres of rain through the same period. For the record, that is nearly half of the town's annual rainfall in a single week—99 millimetres alone fell on 10 February. Hopetoun recorded 166 millimetres, and the list goes on.
Shelley Pike, the chief executive of the Gnowangerup shire, told me earlier that the damage to the shire's road network is likely to be at least $6 million. This will be one of at least 15 shires in my electorate with a significant damage bill. Shire work crews, emergency service personnel, Western Power and SES volunteers have been working hard to mitigate the damage, and I commend and thank them for their efforts.
I have spoken to the Minister for Justice, Michael Keenan, who is monitoring the situation closely, and I thank him for his attention to this issue. The government is currently in discussions with our Western Australian counterparts about activating the standard categories of Natural Disaster Relief and Recovery Arrangements. We await further advice from the Western Australian government, but I want to reassure the people in my electorate that the federal government is ready to assist them when we can. We always have and we always will.
I rise to talk on an issue that is of great concern to not only my constituents but also a great number of Western Australians—and that is the recent grubby and desperate deal done between the Premier Colin Barnett and the One Nation Party and the decision by the Liberal government to preference One Nation above their Nationals counterparts. Not only has that caused deep divisions over in Western Australia, the ructions are certainly being felt over here in this place. We have already seen the Deputy Prime Minister at odds with the Prime Minister and the cabinet. We have seen a former Prime Minister distance himself from any form of decision-making that involves preferencing One Nation. We are seeing those more moderate members of the Liberal Party contort themselves into proportions that have previously never been seen before, as they try and spin their way into justifying this desperate and grubby deal.
Just in case we needed any further evidence as to why it is a desperate and grubby chance to cling to power, let's have a closer look at exactly what those candidates for One Nation have to say, and ask yourself the question: does one really want to be in bed with this party? In this context, Michelle Meyers, the candidate for Bateman, has published words to the effect of justifying the reason why the push and campaign for marriage equality is going so well as being a result of:
…a carefully contrived but disingenuous mind control program, melded together…
… … …
Utilising many of the strategies developed by the Soviets and then the Nazis, they have gone on to apply and perfect these principles so as to make them universal in their application…
But—I hear you ask, Madam Deputy Speaker—wait, there's more. Let us have a look to see what the One Nation candidate for Murray-Wellington, Mr Slater, has had to say about marriage equality. He said that allowing same-sex marriage would lead to the legalisation of polygamy. And that is just the tip of the iceberg.
Let us have a look to see what Lawrence Shave, the One Nation candidate for Dawesville, has had to say about those in homosexual relationships. In a letter to the editor, he called upon the former Justice of the High Court, Michael Kirby, to resign. Because he has admitted to living in a homosexual relationship, he 'fails the test of public trust and judicial legitimacy'. I stumble over my words because the deeper one digs into this grubby relationship, the worse it gets.
We see here that the candidate for the Pilbara, Mr David Archibald, is of the view that chilli pepper powder will prevent cancer. What would Robert Menzies think? What will John Howard think when he is in the state of Western Australia next week? God only knows. (Time expired)
I would like to report to the House three great events that happened in the Goldstein community in the past two weeks. We had the celebration of the Hampton United Cricket Club's 90th anniversary, with an extended tea break—which we all enjoyed—for their first 11 game. Club president David Pearce welcomed the guests for this celebration, and Russ Moore, the MC, gave a historical view of the club.
From its humble beginnings in 1926 with one senior team, known then as the Hampton Methodists Cricket Club, it won its first premiership in 1931-32. The club has grown over the years to its peak in the period of 1984 to 1988, when it fielded 10 teams, six senior and four junior, making it the biggest club—with Bentleigh Uniting—in the CMCA. Its most successful year on the field was 1996 to 1997, with all five senior teams making the finals and four teams winning through to the grand finals, producing a record-equalling three premierships in one season. But the strength of this club is its community spirit. That is what makes it strong, and that is what we celebrated on its 90th anniversary.
We also had on Australia Day at Middle Brighton Pier the Rotary Club of Brighton, which, for the eighth year, supported the Swimland Great Australia Day Swim. Over a thousand swimmers participated in open water events around the pier, breakwater and marina, which provides a spectacular vantage point for spectators. Live entertainment, good weather on the day and food stalls lining the concourse in front of the Middle Brighton Baths helped to create an exciting community atmosphere. It was new this year that swimmers could enter and compete in the 650-metre and 1,400-metre open events for both an individual and a team award at no additional entry fee.
Coming together for the Australia Day swim is now a must-attend event in Goldstein, and I look forward to attending next year. We really should congratulate the Rotary Club of Brighton's president, Dale Hoy, and his team. Dale Hoy and his team did a fantastic job of bringing people together, engaging with the community and providing a platform from which we can launch our values to the country.
Finally, continuing on the swimming theme, I want to acknowledge Dr Geoff Toogood and his swimming compatriots Mike Gregory, Paul Hoffman, Michelle Fullerton and Andrew Fidler, who, from 1 January of this year, have managed to swim 3,027 kilometres just off Brighton. They have done so to try to raise the profile of the 3,027 people who, tragically, committed suicide in 2015. Their task is to come together and raise the profile of this important issue, and their hope is—through their sacrifice and their energy—not just to raise the profile but to ensure that we work together as a community to make sure they swim less next year. Congratulations to Geoff and your team.
This morning I attended the share-the-love-for-volunteer-support-services event hosted by Volunteering Australia. In attendance was my electorate's local volunteer support service, Volunteering WA. I have a special place in my heart for volunteers. Having worked in community services for much of my life and also having set up my own not-for-profit organisation in 2013, I know firsthand the amazing and wonderful work that volunteers do, often under very trying circumstances.
In Cowan, my electorate is home to hundreds of incredibly hardworking volunteers and volunteer organisations from all walks of life, providing essential services in a whole range of areas. One of them in particular that I would like to mention today is the one set up by Dee Clayden. Dee is a constituent in Cowan as well as an experienced early childhood teacher and mother of three. She established Ashdale Special Families in 2015 with two other local families after her daughter was diagnosed with autism.
Ashdale Special Families is a support and friendship group for families with special children. They meet fortnightly at the Pearsall Hocking Community Centre. They aim to provide a support network for families of children with special needs and an opportunity for these families to come together in a supportive environment to share skills, parent networking and experience. It is a wholly volunteer program, and without the work of their very precious and very valuable volunteer facilitators the group would not be able to do what it does. Volunteers do not only consist of the direct families themselves but also grandparents and, of course, other family members in Cowan.
Another volunteer organisation I would like to make special mention of is Youth Futures, which has also been working in the Cowan electorate and across Perth since 1988 to provide homelessness, education and support programs to young people. It provides professional services that increase communication participation and enhance wellbeing for young people, particularly young people at risk.
As I said earlier, I have a very special place in my heart for volunteers and the vital work that they do. I would call on both sides of parliament to take a bipartisan approach to valuing volunteers and acknowledging the value that they make to our society. Volunteering Australia has found that the economic, social and cultural value of volunteering to WA is greater than $39 billion dollars. For every one dollar invested in volunteering, $4.50 in benefits are returned to the community. Indeed, I recognise their value, and I am sure other members here also do. (Time expired)
Bounty Boulevard State School is represented by some 48 different nationalities in the North Lakes area, one of the fastest growing areas in the Moreton Bay region. The school itself has almost 1,400 students and is the largest primary school in Queensland. It is tasked with educating the children of North Lakes, a suburb that in 2011 had 19,000 people and today has 30,000 people.
Bounty Boulevard State School, like other schools around the nation, has just welcomed its new leaders. I was fortunate to be at the school's badging ceremony on 3 February to usher in young Aneka Knott and Samuel Savage as the 2017 Bounty Boulevard State School captains. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate both Aneka and Samuel and to thank them. They are an impressive pair, and I can confidently say that Queensland's largest state school will do well in their capable but small hands. There are other great leaders there as well: the vice-captains, the school leaders, the house captains and all the year 6s who will play a leadership role this year, as well as all the teaching staff and the principal.
The badging ceremony was a wonderful event. I think the only way that it could have possibly been better is if the whole school could have shared the occasion under the one roof. I know from my long-running discussions with the school community that most parents would likely agree. At present the school has no undercover space which can hold a full school assembly—from grade P to 6 as well as teaching staff and other staff and parents—an Anzac Day ceremony, a presentation or a graduation. There is nothing at the moment for Queensland's largest state school.
The school's P&C is especially active. It does a sterling job and has led the push to secure funding for the much-needed school hall. But you do need to sell a lot of lamingtons to raise enough money for a school hall, and they certainly could use a helping hand. A petition attracted some 800 signatures and was referred to Queensland's education minister, Kate Jones, last year.
I have written twice to the state education minister, Kate Jones, advocating and pleading with the state Labor government to fund a school hall for Bounty Boulevard State School and had two replies: one on 10 May and one on 7 December last year. All that Ms Jones could do was blame her predecessor, but Ms Jones knows too well that the federal coalition government has committed $1.1 billion in additional funds this year alone to state schools. What I need her to do is kick the can and fund the hall. In the lead-up to this year's state election, I call on both sides to fund it urgently.
I had a glimmer of hope for my community groups, the tourism industry and local councils when I heard that the government was doing a Building Better Regions Fund. There can be no doubt that I live outside Sydney and that my electorate of Macquarie is outside Sydney. The AEC excludes us from its map of Sydney. The points in my electorate closest to the Sydney CBD are at least a 60-kilometre drive away. Aside from the city fringe suburbs of the Hawkesbury and, perhaps, some suburbs of the lower Blue Mountains, both local government areas are predominantly a series of villages with tiny populations, scattered across the ridges of a World Heritage national park—a few hundred, or at most, a few thousand people. In fact, large tracts of my electorate are so remote that the only NBN access is through Sky Muster or fixed wireless. We are told the population is too sparse even for FTTN.
But are we eligible for the Building Better Regions Fund? Well, I want to be absolutely precise and explain that there are eight places eligible for these grants in my electorate: St Albans, Mount Wilson and Mount Irvine, Mount Tomah, Bilpin, Megalong Valley, Blackheath and Mount Victoria. But is the rest of the electorate—the majority of the electorate—eligible? No. Why not? No reason. The grants program classifies us as a 'major city' of Australia. Well, go to Linden, or come to the tourist village of Leura, and tell me that you are in a major city. People do not flock there at weekends, because it reminds them of the CBD! And what about Ebenezer, Sackville and Kurrajong? Check them out on Google and tell me if you reckon they are major cities of Australia.
The Minister for Regional Development says that this project ensures smaller councils do not compete with major capital city councils for funding. Well, that does not explain why the electorate of Robertson, for instance, is eligible, in spite of having the same classification as my electorate. Yet, of course, it has Gosford at its centre—the third-largest urban centre in New South Wales.
Let's compare and contrast. The exclusion zone for this grants program extends 110 kilometres west along the Great Western Highway, to prevent Blue Mountains City Council from being able to fairly access it for important projects. It also extends 85 kilometres up the Bells Line of Road to Kurrajong Hills and 86 kilometres up the Putty Road beyond Colo, effectively reducing eligibility for the whole of the Hawkesbury. But Gosford is included in the program—it is 76 kilometres from Sydney's CBD and it is considered more regional than the Blue Mountains or the Hawkesbury. So the decision to largely exclude Macquarie from eligibility for this program shows one thing: it shows the contempt with which the Liberal and National parties treat the people of the Hawkesbury and the Blue Mountains.
Today I had the very great privilege of meeting a remarkable member of the Ryan community, Mr Jim Marshall, who was at parliament with friends and fellow survivors, nurses, oncologists and medical experts, to tell us—with no punches pulled, I can assure you—about living and dying with prostate cancer.
While it is his surname that is synonymous with Marshall Lane in the suburb of Kenmore in my electorate of Ryan, where he grew up on his father's farm, I rise to speak in respect to his first name, Jim—or should I say JimJimJimJim?—as it is under that name and website that he has made a significant contribution, not only to the Ryan community but to Australia as well.
Jim is a unique character who has suffered the ups and downs of the 'big C'. Diagnosed with prostate cancer in 2009, Jim has experienced a tumultuous ride that affects many Australians with cancer. To his credit, Jim developed and continues to run a nationwide support group for men with advanced prostate cancer.
The support group is easily accessible via Jim's website, aptly addressed JimJimJimJim.com, which provides men from all across Australia with a forum to ask questions, seek assurance and find further information concerning the dreaded disease that is prostate cancer. Calling themselves the Australian Advanced Prostate Cancer Support Group, they do not purport to provide a medical service, nor do they seek to offer medical advice. What they do offer is a forum whereby men at all stages of prostate cancer from prognosis to diagnosis to remission, and their families, can share experiences with others and question the guest speakers as they participate in a 1800 group call line. For a group of people who are suffering and battling through the same disease, an outreach group such as the Australian Advanced Prostate Cancer Support Group is often a godsend.
There were many Jims in the room today. In fact, all the gentlemen who are fighting advanced prostate cancer were wearing a 'Jim' name badge because they are all in it together. At today's event, Jim Marshall was presented with a Max Gardner Award for Distinguished Service by another Jim, Jim Hughes AM, national Chairman of the Prostate Cancer Foundation of Australia.
The fact remains that prostate cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer in Australian men. With more men dying of prostate cancer than women of breast cancer, now is the time to have an open and frank discussion about this life-changing condition. Mr Deputy Speaker, did you know that one in seven men risk getting prostate cancer by the age of 75, and by the age of 85 this increases to one in five? These are real statistics that affect real men across Australia: sons, fathers, brothers and friends.
I encourage men, not just those in the Ryan electorate, to talk to their doctor about testing for prostate cancer as part of their annual health check-up. Taking the lives of more than 3,000 men annually, prostate cancer is serious. But, through the Australian Advanced Prostate Cancer Support Group, sufferers are no longer isolated.
In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded.
I speak today in relation to the Closing the gap report. It is a very disappointing and profoundly despairing document that we have seen handed down by the Prime Minister today. I am aggrieved about it, and so should many people be aggrieved about it. This is a government that came in, I think, with the best of intentions to reform Indigenous affairs but unfortunately, in its first budget, cut $534 million from the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander programs across the country. It did not listen to the voices of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, and in the first budget it cut $15 million out of assistance that had already been budgeted for by the previous Labor government for the National Congress of Australia's First Peoples, the peak Indigenous body. Thereafter it established an Indigenous advisory council that really represented no-one and continued to claim that there was an efficiency dividend in relation to these budget cuts only.
The truth is that the Closing the gap report today is really the consequence of so much mismanagement across Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander affairs. I say that because the report is stark. It says that target after target is not being attained. We are seeing a failure to halve the gap in child mortality. We are seeing failures in terms of closing the gap in life expectancy. We are seeing failures to close the gap in school attendance. We are seeing failures to close the gap in reading and numeracy for Indigenous students. We are seeing failures to close the gap in terms of employment. The words 'not on track' are littered through the report.
This backs up the Auditor-General's report. When I was the shadow minister for Indigenous affairs, I wrote to the Auditor-General requesting that the Auditor-General turn his mind to the preparation of an audit report in relation to the Indigenous Advancement Strategy, the centrepiece of the Abbott and now Turnbull government's Indigenous affairs policy. Much fanfare heralded the Indigenous Advancement Strategy in May 2014. They committed $4.8 billion over four years from 2014-15, cutting $534.4 million over five years, much of it in Indigenous affairs and much of it in preventative health programs.
The consequences were that many organisations that had been working in community control across the country failed to get the funding program that they needed in terms of certainty and employment. The outcomes were therefore a consequence of the failure of the Abbott-Turnbull government. In 2014-15, the first year of the strategy, the department focused on transitioning 3,000 funding agreements across the country. The Auditor-General found:
… the department did not effectively implement the Strategy.
A failure of administration. Also:
The department's grants administration processes fell short of the standard required to effectively manage a billion dollars of Commonwealth resources. The basis by which projects were recommended to the Minister—
Senator Scullion—
was not clear and, as a result, limited assurance is available that the projects funded support the department's desired outcomes. Further, the department did not:
•assess applications in a manner that was consistent with the guidelines and the department's public statements;
•meet some of its obligations under the Commonwealth Grants Rules and Guidelines;
… … …
•establish performance targets for all funded projects.
The performance framework and measures established for the Strategy—
the centrepiece of the Abbott and Turnbull government's Indigenous affairs policy—
do not provide sufficient information to make assessments about program performance and progress towards achievement of the program outcomes.
This is a damning report by the Auditor-General of the government's whole strategy in Indigenous affairs.
The grants administration was appalling. There was a kit provided before the opening of the grant funding for these organisations which are at the front line of delivering services for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and whose main work is about closing the gap in Indigenous disadvantage. Approximately half of the applicants under the grants program of the Indigenous Advancement Strategy did not meet the application documentation requirements. There may be benefit in the department testing its application process with potential applicants in future rounds.
There was an inconsistency with the guidelines in the internal guidance. So this is the consequence of this government's Indigenous affairs policy. We are seeing it today. The best I can say about this report is that it actually looks like a report. In previous years we have had what looked like a brochure—a brochure that nearly had more pictures that words on it—that had been handed down as the Closing the gap report. It is a damning indictment of this government's Indigenous affairs policy.
I have been with the member for Lingiari when the minister talked about resetting, restarting and renewing in speech after speech. How many more times is this government going to do that? They have failed to acknowledge their failures this area, but at least the department has agreed with every one of the recommendations of the Auditor-General. So there is hope yet that the government may get this right in terms of Indigenous affairs.
In the time remaining, let me say a few things about what they could do in this space that might actually help. How about refunding the National Congress of Australia's First People the $15 million that Labor made a commitment to do? How about showing the respect towards the Redfern Statement that they fail to do in the last election campaign? I went to the National Congress of Australia's First People and announced Labor's policy in Indigenous affairs and showed respect for that, as I showed respect for the Ngunnawal and Ngambri people who are the custodians of this particular place. I pay my respects to them today. I showed respect in Redfern for that.
The recommendations of the peak bodies across the whole area, from Family Violence Prevention Legal Services through to the First Peoples Disability Network, the National Congress of Australia's First People, the Lowitja Institute, the Healing Foundation—they all stay the same thing. They all say: 'Across the forward estimates, how about you restore the funding cuts? How about you actually reform the Indigenous Advancement Strategy? It might be a good idea to listen to what Labor has been saying for about four years and listen to what the Auditor-General has been saying. How about you actually do what you said when you were in opposition and have failed to do now you are in government: how about you develop justice targets for closing the gap? How about you take funding Family Violence Prevention Legal Services seriously? How about you actually meet under COAG and put this on the table at COAG meetings?'
We know that, in some parts of the country, Indigenous men are more likely to go to jail than to go to university. We see that an Indigenous woman is 34 times more likely to be hospitalised by partner abuse than a non-Indigenous woman; an Indigenous adult is 15 times more likely to be imprisoned than a non-Indigenous adult; an Indigenous child is 24 times more likely to be in detention than a non-Indigenous child. This is a national shame, a disgrace and a tragedy, and the government is not taking it seriously.
The government should also be doing something about the number of Indigenous kids who are more likely to be living not with their parents but in out-of-home care. They are 10 times more likely to be in out-of-home care than non-Indigenous kids We have tens of thousands of Indigenous kids across the country who are vulnerable and at risk in this area, and we need to establish a national target in relation to this issue. The government should be listening to SNAICC, the peak body that has been talking about this time and time again, but the government is refusing to listen.
How about empowering Indigenous girls through education? How about doing a Clontarf-type program for girls, like the Stars Foundation, and roll it out across the country? Do you want good practice? Look at what they are doing in the Northern Territory. Do you want to talk about best practice? Look at what the Institute of Urban Indigenous Health is doing with the Deadly Choices program in preventive health, in empowering young people and making them proud, and in supporting culture and community-controlled health services. Look at what they are doing, do good practice and fund them. That is what the government should be doing.
The government should also be looking at doing something about glaucoma, which is a Third World problem that is still in Australia. They have to address that issue. Sure, Hugh Taylor and other people have been doing great work in that area, but we have to do so much more to address the fundamentals, the basics, of that. If you look at addressing those fundamentals, you will do better. How about funding Indigenous education under the Gonski needs-based funding, which will help 195,000 Indigenous kids get the education they need? If you look at the fundamentals and the social and economic determinants, then you may close the gap. Then the government will have something to be proud of, and so will we as a country.
I acknowledge the Ngunnawal and Ngambri people, custodians of the land on which this parliament stands. I also acknowledge the Wiradjuri people, who represent the Riverina and Central West area that I proudly represent in this place.
Since the redistribution of the electorate boundaries a lot of people have asked me: what does the bottom of the electorate around Yerong Creek and Wagga Wagga have in common with the top of the electorate of Forbes and Parkes and right up to Peak Hill? It is true that the Central West relates more to Orange and Dubbo, while the southern part of the electorate around Wagga Wagga relates more to the natural geographical area Riverina, coordinating with the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area, as well as the Snowy Mountains areas of Tumut and Tumbarumba. But the one thing these areas have in common is the fact that they are all Wiradjuri country.
I also acknowledge the member for Lingiari. Forty-two per cent of his constituents are Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. I know the great work that he has done not just in his electorate but on a national stage to help the plight of the Aboriginal people he represents, and I acknowledge that.
As the small business minister I also want to acknowledge the fantastic work that Senator Nigel Scullion, the Indigenous affairs minister, has done for procurement for Aboriginal small businesses, because we know that the best way out of welfare is a job. We know that the best way to get ahead in this world is to have income, to run a business and to be able to make a profit that way.
The original target set for contracts for Aboriginal procurement in 2015-16 was 0.5 per cent of Commonwealth domestic contracts. This acknowledged the very low base, given the Commonwealth procured only $6.2 million from Indigenous businesses in 2012-13. In just the coalition's first year we have so far surpassed the targets. Under the coalition's new procurement policy, the Commonwealth has awarded more than 1,500 direct and indirect contracts to almost 500 Indigenous businesses. These contracts are worth a total of more than $284 million—almost 46 times the value of Indigenous contracts awarded by the Commonwealth in 2012-13. That is a credit to Senator Scullion.
The coalition is immediately bringing forward to this financial year its 2020 target to award three per cent of contracts to Indigenous businesses, nearly three years ahead of schedule.
Although more than half—56 per cent—of the total value of Indigenous business contracts were awarded in the building, construction and maintenance sector, what makes the IPP so remarkable is the range of businesses which have successfully tendered for work under this policy. These include businesses which produce information and communications technology products, as well as service providers in the recruitment, legal and financial industries. Through the Council of Australian Governments we are continuing to work with the states and territories to get them to introduce their own Indigenous procurement policies, and I call on them to redouble these efforts.
I want to acknowledge some of the Aboriginal people who are making some really good initiatives and being really fine role models in the Wiradjuri areas that I represent—namely, Kath Withers, Isabel Reid and Gail Clark. Each of them do wonderful welcomes to country. Whether it is Australia Day or any other event that is going on in and around Wagga Wagga and Coolamon, these three wonderful Aboriginal elders are always there and always talking about inclusivity and the need for all of us to be united.
We heard from the previous speaker about Clontarf, which has a great program at Mount Austin High School—a fantastic rugby league program—which has been rolled out to get more Indigenous youth not just playing sport but interested in turning up to school and participating in that way that makes sure they get a great education. We heard from the Prime Minister today about how education is the great enabler for Indigenous youth.
Stan Grant senior—father of Stan Grant, who we know through the media—has done some great work with a couple of editions of the Wiradjuri dictionary to make sure that the language used over thousands of years is in a form that not only is able to be used now but will last forever. Hugh Wyman, Vietnam veteran and a great mate of mine, is always helping out Aboriginal youth by talking about the great positives there are in society today and getting the younger generation interested in taking part in everything that is happening not only on a sporting front but also, particularly, in military representation and making sure that Aboriginal veterans are always at the forefront of our minds.
As I say, I represent an area in New South Wales which is large and diverse but which is all Wiradjuri country. The 6.1 per cent of the population in the Riverina electorate is made up of Indigenous people. As the Prime Minister and others have mentioned today, closing the gap remains a priority for this government; it remains a priority for our parliament.
To reiterate some of the key highlights of the report released today, as a nation we have made progress in specific areas. There have been significant improvements in the proportion of Indigenous 20- to 24-year-olds achieving year 12 or equivalent. At higher levels of education there is almost no employment gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. There are significant improvements in health. We have seen a significant decline in mortality rates, greater access to antenatal care, reduced rates of smoking, reduction in mortality from chronic diseases and declining infant mortality rates.
Just before I came into the chamber to talk on this important motion, I met the chief executive officer, David Butt, and senior policy adviser, Alexis Mohay, from the National Rural Health Alliance, who outlined the key priorities of the alliance. One of those is to improve the health outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, which worsens with increasing remoteness—and the member for Lingiari would know that better than anyone. The alliance says in its key priorities document:
We need greater focus on improving child health, education and well-being and to support Indigenous families to give them the best start in life. It should involve a holistic early childhood strategy which informs high quality, locally responsive and culturally appropriate programs with stable, long-term funding.
One of the other key priorities of the five that the National Rural Health Alliance—a former chairman of which is Doctor Paul Mara from Gundagai in my electorate—says are important, is supporting:
…the best start in life for mothers and babies, focusing on the first 1,000 days—from conception to the age of two.
We heard the Prime Minister annunciate this very message in his wonderful speech today. The alliance believe that the best investment in the long-term health and wellbeing of children, Australian's future, is in ensuring that they have the best possible start in life. There would be no-one in this room, no-one in this building, who would not agree with that.
The alliance argues that we should build on the First 1000 Days program, which targets Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, as an exemplar program to support women and children across all communities.
But other key factors of the report released today are that reading and numeracy are improving for Indigenous children, and that is a wonderful thing. There has also been a significant increase for Indigenous female employment over the longer term.
Whilst we celebrate our achievements, as a government and as a parliament we do not hide from the fact that there is much more to do to support our Indigenous population. In the Riverina and central west, there are areas in which we need to improve. Some I am hopeful we can address, including encouraging better school attendance. As at 2015 in the Riverina, 87.4 per cent of Indigenous children attended school compared to 92.6 per cent. Supporting Indigenous people to find work—the Indigenous unemployment rate is 17.1 per cent compared to 4.9 for the non-Indigenous population. Those figures certainly give us room to improve.
On a national level, the government has targets. These targets are important and focus our attention on the areas in which we, as a country, need to do much better. The government will continue to work to halve the gap in child mortality for Indigenous children under five by 2018; close the gap in life expectancy by 2031; have 95 per cent of all Indigenous four-year-olds enrolled in early childhood education by 2025; close the gap in school attendance by the end of next year; halve the gap in reading, writing and numeracy for Indigenous students by next year; halve the gap in year 12 attainment by 2020; and halve the gap in employment outcomes by 2018. They are big goals, and I appreciate some of them are long-range goals, but they are goals that we must achieve, not just for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people but for all communities, because together, as one, we need to do these and together, as one, we need to stand as a nation that is proud of our record for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.
Can I firstly acknowledge the traditional owners of this great land that we are on, the Ngunawal and the Ngambri people, and acknowledge the traditional owners of all Aboriginal lands—all Aboriginal nations—right around this country, most particularly in my own electorate of Lingiari, which traverses 1.34 million square kilometres, one-sixth of Australia's landmass, and has a sizeable proportion of the remote Aboriginal population.
I thank the member for Riverina for his contribution. I will come to a couple of points that he made shortly. I also acknowledge the member for Blair's contribution.
I will say at the outset that I watched both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition today and I thought they both spoke well. I was particularly impressed by the Leader of the Opposition's commitment to two new Closing the Gap targets. The first was the justice target, which I think was long overdue. The second was the issue to do with out-of-home care, which is a vexed issue but something that we must confront as a nation and something that is long overdue.
I do, however, want to concentrate most particularly on two elements of the Closing the gap report, which I commend the government on. It is, as the member for Blair said, actually a good report because it lays down, in a very bare way and a very straight way, the issues that are confronting us in our attainment of these targets that are before us. I want to talk in particular about the life expectancy target and the halving the gap in child mortality in 2018 target. I just make this observation about the child mortality target: this is the first year that we have gone backwards. In the nine years, this is the first year that we have gone backwards. The key point that the report points out is:
The target to halve the gap in child mortality by 2018 is not on track this year.
As I say, this is the first time. We know that they have declined. On the surface, we seem to be doing well, but, if we are actually going to meet these targets, we need to do a damn lot more. It is of particular interest that many people now have started to twig that, if we really want to have an outcome here, we have to actually invest in what works.
The report itself talks about the need to focus on preconception and maternity-care services through to early childhood services for children up to eight years of age. I agree with that, and it is something I know is at the forefront of Labor policy. We have taken a decision to take this early childhood area very seriously and support the First 1000 Days proposals, which are now well and truly within the lexicon of the health debate and something we should be supporting.
If we are ever going to close the gap in this infant mortality space, and more importantly close the life expectancy gap in the longer term, then we must make sure all children get the best start in life. This means starting to communicate with parents-to-be prior to conception, working with them for the first thousand days and looking at opportunities that exist—as has been happening in the congress, the Aboriginal health service in Alice Springs—using the Abecedarian model of education opportunity for kids 18 months and older. We must actually channel kids so they get the health care they require and, at the same time, the education opportunities that will benefit them and make sure they grow up into healthy adolescents and then adults.
That is of primary importance, but what goes with it is a whole lot of other things. We need to make sure that housing is being properly addressed and that there is food security. But all the wraparound things that go to making sure a young child is in a safe, caring environment, can live a productive life, learn well, be healthy at the end of their adolescence and enter adulthood with the opportunity for further education are fundamentally very important. If we do that properly then closing the gap will be something we can achieve.
Whether we hit it in 2031, however, is a very different question, because that is probably the most difficult target for us to achieve. This report outlines, in particular, that if we want to close the Indigenous life expectancy gap:
… Indigenous life expectancy would need to increase by 16 years and 21 years for females and males respectively, with average annual life expectancy gains for Indigenous Australians of between 0.6 and 0.8 years required.
That is a really difficult task, but it is not beyond us to address it. It requires us to take seriously the addressing of the continuing issues of chronic disease and further addressing the issue of tobacco consumption, which is highlighted in this report.
I will just add, as an aside—it is not my desire to politicise this debate—that the Labor government, and I as the minister, introduced anti-smoking measures which measures were pilloried by the then shadow Treasurer, now ambassador to Washington, who did not believe we should be funding these programs. How short-sighted he was, because what this report points out, very starkly, is that these programs and other preventative health measures are the things we should be investing in if we want to make sure that the diseases which are now so apparent amongst Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are to be addressed.
I want to quote from Dr Fadwa Al-Yaman, an Indigenous health expert at the ANU and also with the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. She said, referring to tobacco and, most importantly, to higher cancer mortality rates that they:
… were largely a result of more prevalent risk factors such as smoking, cancer not being detected until later stages, inadequate education about health risks and issues with access to healthcare.
Unfortunately, time is too short for this discussion because there are many components for us to get to the nub of this to address it properly. But what we must do is what the Leader of the Opposition said today, which is that we need to work with those things that actually are working themselves and that are getting the better outcomes.
He point to the National Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisations around this country and the magnificent work they are doing to improve the health outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people right around this country. They are the best examples of comprehensive primary health care in the nation. What we do not want is for them to be white-anted by some competitive-funding model, which has the potential to happen. So I say to the government: invest in what we know works. I am sure that if we do that, we can get better outcomes all round.
I note also—and the Leader of the Opposition spoke about this today—that there are programs that actually do work well.
The Deadly Choices program through the Institute of Urban Indigenous Health, which the member for Blair referred to—a highly progressive organisation—started with four health clinics in Brisbane and now has 18, delivering comprehensive primary health care across the urban population of Brisbane for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people—some 50,000 to 60,000 people. The number of health checks is increasing. I note that one of the very positive signs that come out of this report today—something which I think we all should take note of—is that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander one- to five-year-olds have the highest immunisation rate of any group nationally, and that has a lot to do with the work which is being done by these health organisations, and we need to commend them for it.
As I said, there is a lot more we could say about this, but one of the things we on this side of the chamber are determined to do is to try not to politicise this debate. We will be critical of the government for bad policy and, we will say, poor decisions, but it is my intention to work as closely as I possibly can as the shadow minister who is responsible for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health. We have had discussions about working together to try to get the best outcomes we possibly can across this parliament. That is not to say we will agree with everything and it is not to say we will not be critical, but we can attempt to work together in a constructive way for the benefit of the nation, and that is something this parliament should be doing in any event. Similarly, we have started discussions with the minister who is responsible for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander affairs, Senator Scullion, about having a similar approach, trying to make sure that, where there are points of difference, we put them aside and try to do the things we can agree upon so the benefit goes to the whole community.
I say again that we have a lot to do in this country if we want to achieve the objectives that are set out in the Closing the Gap targets. I commend this report, but most importantly I commend the new targets, which have been stressed by the Leader of the Opposition—that is, new targets for justice, hearing and out-of-home care. We can do this, but we have to be listening and working with Aboriginal people, not telling them what is important. They know what is good for them. We need to work with them to get the best possible outcomes that we can.
I, like my colleague the honourable member for Lingiari, support the previous speakers that have spoken so eloquently on this topic to date. I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak today on this very important issue, which I believe goes to one of the most important societal issues that we face in Australia. In the first paragraph of my maiden speech, I said:
The lot of our Indigenous peoples has been racked with poverty, ill-health and lack of opportunity since European settlement.
As we have learnt from today's report, our work is far from done in achieving some semblance of equality. We can and we must do much better.
I have a very simple mantra when it comes to representing the people of my own constituency. In all of my work on behalf of the people of Fisher, I aim to help make the Sunshine Coast a great place to learn, a great place to work and a great place to retire to. In short, I want to help make Fisher the place of choice for education, employment and retirement. As parliamentarians, we collectively owe that same duty to all of our nation's First Australians. When I was a young barrister, I was regularly briefed by the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Legal Service. I represented a number of our First Australians when it was necessary for them to interact with the courts. I saw firsthand the struggles that many of our Indigenous people face with imprisonment rates far, far in excess of the non-Indigenous population. I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge my friend and colleague Tim Hishon, who is the leader of ATSILS on the Sunshine Coast, and his team and the great work that they do for Indigenous peoples on the Sunshine Coast.
I learnt through that contact that all Australians, whether Indigenous or not, thrive and prosper when they are given access to a quality education, when they have access to meaningful and productive employment or the chance to create their own, and when they are able to save for their own future.
A lack of proper education and training, a lack of purpose in our prime years and a lack of independence in our twilight years are the enemies of a good quality of life. Though sometimes we hear a great deal about what sets First Australians apart from their country men and women, we all share those fundamental truths. Though cultures and approaches to meeting these basic human needs have varied by place and time and continue to do so, all successful societies have sought to give their people the knowledge they need, a way to support their families and dignity in their old age.
When we assess the results of this annual report, we should review it against those three tests. Are we as a federal government helping Indigenous Australians to get the education they need to succeed? Are we helping to create the conditions where they can access good jobs and create new jobs themselves? Are we ensuring that Indigenous Australians have access to the good health care and the financial provision they need to enjoy a long and fulfilling retirement?
Like others, when I make this comparison, I find in the data from this report a great deal of work to do but also a lot of individual success to celebrate. Most importantly, I find hope for the future. The statistic that I believe should make us all cautiously optimistic is the fact that, for those Indigenous Australians who have a tertiary education, there is next to no employment gap. We should take a moment to consider the implications of this fact, remarkable in the scale of achievement it represents and a sad reminder that this should need to be an achievement at all. Where Indigenous Australians have been able to access fully the high-quality education that our country provides, they have also succeeded in finding work to the same extent as non-Indigenous people. We know well the benefits that flow from this.
Sadly, the statistics from the report demonstrate that, once you drill down below tertiary education into the vocational education sector, certificate IV and certificate III, the numbers drop off somewhat significantly. For instance, for certificate IV level education, there is a 12 per cent gap. For certificate III, there is a 12 per cent gap. Once you get down into year 11, there is a 24 per cent gap. So there is much work to be done at an educational level.
Repeated studies have shown that even short periods of unemployment can cause all types of individuals and their families to suffer poverty, housing stress, family breakdown and social isolation. People out of employment are statistically more likely to access healthcare services and are more likely to suffer from a range of chronic illnesses both mental and physical. Long-term unemployment makes individuals in all communities significantly more likely to be involved in crime, while, for children growing up in jobless households, rates of behavioural problems, alienation and future unemployment are materially higher.
Without work, of course, individuals are also unable to set aside the money they need to support themselves in retirement. For those First Australians who have a tertiary qualification, they are now able in our society to secure the life benefits of good-quality, meaningful employment just as non-Indigenous Australians can. Their hard work, skills and commitment are being recognised and utilised by employers. This has come about through the effort, ambition and determination to succeed among First Australians themselves. They also have been supported in their achievements by government through its targets for Indigenous procurement and employment and by the concerted efforts of corporate Australia.
This development is the model and the inspiration to show us what can be achieved together and how. At its heart is the individual educational success of hardworking First Australians. We should therefore welcome the fact that the government's Remote School Attendance Strategy has helped to reverse a long-term decline in school attendance in remote communities. We should welcome the increases in reading and numeracy among Indigenous children and the high percentages now enrolled in early childhood education.
Most of all, we should welcome one area—and it is an important one—where we are currently on track to meet our 2020 target: the increase from 45.4 per cent in 2008 to 61.5 per cent in 2015 in the percentage of Indigenous 20- to 24-year-olds who have achieved their year 12 or equivalent. These figures represent the gap of the future, though we should celebrate the achievements of our young Indigenous Australians and acknowledge the progress that is being made, at the moment—but, at the moment, the gap remains too large.
When it comes to the test of employment, the situation is similar. Progress has been made since '94, as we have seen among tertiary educated Australians. The employment gap has almost been overcome, and in the past 30 years there has been an overall increase in the Indigenous employment rate. However, the fact that since 2008 that rate has been decreasing is one of the most concerning figures in this report. On all sides of the House we must refocus our minds on how to overcome this worrying trend.
Finally, on the test of retirement, again, we see hope for the future. As the employment outcomes for tertiary educated First Australians improve, so too will their ability to save for their retirement. Beyond that, the total Indigenous mortality rate has declined by 15 per cent over the last 17 years, and rates of smoking are also down. These statistics represent a longer, healthier and more comfortable retirement for many Indigenous Australians now and into the future. However, once again, a great deal more work is needed. We need to significantly improve employment rates, in order to help more families contribute to super, and we need to close the gap further on access to health care, to support longer and more active lives.
In summary, on our tests of education, employment and retirement we have come a long way in recent years and the government should be commended for its focus on these issues. Sadly, however, the task ahead of us remains as large as that behind. I am confident, however, that the Prime Minister and the Minister for Indigenous Affairs are pursuing the right approach, strengthening ties with First Australian representative groups, committing to programs like Empowered Communities and moving toward enablement rather than transactional government.
I too rise, today, to join with many colleagues on the 2017 Closing the Gap statement. I will begin by acknowledging the traditional custodians of the land, the Ngunnawal and Ngambri peoples, and I pay respect to their elders both past and present. I also acknowledge the Wathaurong people, who are the traditional custodians of the land surrounding my electorate in parts of Ballarat. I also want to thank Congress this morning for their terrific presentation of the Redfern Statement. It was a very powerful message, bringing that statement here into this place to tell us as community leaders what they expect and what they demand of us if we are to close the gap.
This year's Closing the gap is released at a time of positive progress in Indigenous representation in our parliament. In our shadow ministry in this place and in the other place, Labor is proud to have taken steps to increase the voices of Indigenous people in this parliament, a platform which we look forward to building into the future and it is already making a significant difference. The appointment of the member for Hasluck as the Minister for Indigenous Health should also be recognised and commended.
While we celebrate progress within parliament, the stark reality is that closing the gap in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health and equality, unfortunately, remains a persistent challenge for us and is, sadly, still a distant goal. The Closing the gap report released today is a sobering reminder of the substantial work needed to address the Closing the Gap health targets. The target to halve the gap in child mortality by 2018 is not on track this year. The target to close the gap in life expectancy by 2031 is not on track this year. The Indigenous mortality rate from cancer, which is the second-leading cause of death, is rising and the gap is widening. Cancer, in particular, and the low survival rates of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders is something that needs much more investigation and much more understanding. When I have spoken to services providers, for example, in the Northern Territory—in particular, in the cancer centre there—there is a huge amount of work that needs to be done to not only provide access to services but also it is about the treatment methods that are being made available for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders.
We are doing very well, and I recognise the government's commitment in terms of eye health. I think there is further work that needs to be done in terms of ear health, particularly otitis media.
There are some positives to note. There has been a nine percentage point decline in Indigenous smoking rates for those aged 15 years and over between 2002 and 2014-15. Smoking cessation programs in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities do make a difference, and funding for them matters. This will, of course, contribute to improvements in health outcomes into the future. The total Indigenous mortality rate declined by 15 per cent between 1998 and 2015, with the largest decline being from circulatory diseases. Tracking progress, of course, is critical to knowing what strategies to close the gap are actually working and where we need to do more, but if we are not actually achieving progress, if we are simply tracking the contribution of underlying problems, policymakers cannot expect meaningful change.
There is a road map on how to proceed, and that is the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Plan. The plan, developed in true partnership between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, articulates a vision for closing the gap in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health inequality. It outlines a life course approach to developing health policy, and targets the social determinants of health. It addresses the important issues of chronic diseases so prevalent in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities across this country. And, very importantly, it prioritises the fundamental importance of Aboriginal community controlled health organisations in providing comprehensive primary health care and preventative health programs.
I note the government is pursuing patient-centred medical homes. We already have an example of that in this country, and they are called Aboriginal medical services. They have been doing comprehensive medical care for quite some time and they are the best in the country at it. I recognise in particular my own Aboriginal medical service, the Ballarat and District Aboriginal Co-operative, who, again, do terrific work throughout my own community.
I think it is critically important that Primary Health Networks, as they are working through competitive tendering, have formal MOUs with Aboriginal community controlled health organisations and that they do not throw out programs that have been working or organisations that have been working in the health space purely because of the motive of competitive tendering. It is critical that Aboriginal community health organisations are central to the work of improving health and life expectancy for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders. If the PHNs do not go down that path, I think that would be a very serious mistake.
Unfortunately, whilst we do have a national plan, we have yet to see any funding attached to that plan. It is all very well to have a plan. It is all very well to have developed an implementation plan. But, without the funding to actually do the work, it remains a document that will be testament in the years to come to why we have failed to close the gap in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health. In order to make substantial inroads to meet the Closing the Gap targets in health, the government needs to commit to properly funding ACCHOs as well as the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Plan.
As noted during the election campaign, one program that I would commend to the government is Deadly Choices. If you want a preventative health program that is in fact working in terms of getting smoking rates down and making sure that there are comprehensive health checks undertaken and follow-up work, it is one of the few programs that has seen significant success across this field. I note that in the election campaign we committed to fund it further and roll it out across the country, and I hope very much that the government follows suit.
Future budgets must adequately resource the implementation of the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Plan if it is to have any success. Labor will always support a bipartisan approach to this issue, and the implementation plan in particular is essential for driving progress towards the provision of the best possible outcomes for investment in health and related services. As we heard today, the Redfern Statement grants us an opportunity to refocus and recommit to working with the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community to improve participation in and delivery of health services.
While measures of inequality are a sharp reminder of how far there is to go, they should drive us to be more determined than ever to enact change. The Closing the gap report is a reminder that supporting treatment models driven by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples that are culturally appropriate from their inception has to be at the core of health policy.
Today we have united as a parliament to reflect on our progress towards meeting the Closing the Gap targets, but this is only one part of the picture. We need to unite to enact change, not just share words, in this place. Rhetoric is just that. It needs to be matched by action. It does matter when you cut funding programs for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health programs, in particular in areas of prevention but in broader areas as well. It does matter when you make changes to tendering processes where Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and organisations do not have a seat at the table. Addressing the disparity in health outcomes for Australia's first people must be a priority of this parliament. I do not want to be here again next year and the year after and the year after, again despairing that we have been unable to meet or see improvement in those targets.
I was encouraged to hear the Prime Minister say that he has asked his Minister for Indigenous Health to look in particular at the area of cancer survival rates. There is more that can be done and more that should be done, but it will require the will of the government to invest more comprehensively in cancer services that are available for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, understanding that treatment closer to where people live is critical. That is not always easy to deliver, nor is it cheap to deliver, but it is something that the government needs to do if it is going to have a serious impact on cancer survival rates.
Again I say that the area of ear health is really critical. We are seeing children who have already had substantial damage done to their ears who are finding it very difficult to learn in a challenging learning environment. It certainly sets back their education, their employment and their life opportunities substantially if we are not tackling that area. There is work being undertaken and, again, I commend that work to the government and suggest that, if we do want to continue to close the gap, those are two areas that we could do some easy and early work in.
I rise today to speak on the Prime Minister's Closing the gap report 2017. Where are we today? It is 2017, and we are inching slowly towards closing the gap, but, as we have all heard today from the Prime Minister, there is no doubt that we need to do more today. Yes, we are making inroads into education—as we heard from the Prime Minister today, there is now no gap between tertiary educated Indigenous Australians and non-Indigenous Australians in terms of employment outcomes. That was a good start, which is fantastic news, but there is still a massive gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians when it comes to both getting into tertiary education and completing tertiary education.
We have missed our targets on child mortality, education, life expectancy, employment, incarceration rates and literacy. Indigenous Australians are 2.8 times more likely to commit suicide than non-Indigenous Australians. As long as there remains a gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australia, I commit to working to close it. I am very proud of the decision we have taken to have a suicide prevention trial site in the Kimberley and in the Mid West, and I look forward to working with both of those working groups.
We—not just as the government but everyone in this place—really do need to do more. We need to live and breathe this issue, just as our First Australians live and breathe their plight every day—morning, noon and night. As the Chair of the Standing Committee on Indigenous Affairs, I strongly encourage every member of this House and the Senate to acquaint themselves with the issues that Indigenous Australians face every day and to consider how they themselves might foster the grassroots growth and support that is required to make a real dent in regard to the issues that we are discussing today.
The Standing Committee on Indigenous Affairs released an interim report last May on the first steps for improving educational opportunities for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students—and we have continued with that inquiry this term—which included a number of recommendations on how we might help address some of the issues that we are seeing in this report that we are discussing today.
Education is the key to this. Education creates job opportunities, which flow into health outcomes, social outcomes, social welfare outcomes—all of it. The first recommendation in the report of the standing committee was around changes to ABSTUDY and a redesigned system, making the program more accessible and more workable. The government has gone some way to addressing this recommendation already, which I will touch on a little later.
My electorate of Durack has the third-highest Indigenous population of any federal electorate in Australia, and it includes some of the poorest and most disadvantaged Indigenous Australians in this country. Some of the worst health gaps, employment gaps and education gaps are found in parts of my electorate. It really is very heartbreaking and pitiful.
Another recommendation in the interim report was to redirect funding for furthering programs that directly relate to Indigenous girls' programs—we hear a lot about boys' programs—like the Girls Academy and the SHINE program, which I am a huge supporter of; the SHINE program is based in my electorate, in Geraldton. As our future mothers, it is critical that these young Indigenous women get the education they deserve—no less—so that they can be the future leaders in their communities, and so that they can fulfil their own dreams.
Just recently I put my money where my mouth is and hired a 17-year-old SHINE program graduate to work in my electorate office in Geraldton. Let me tell you: she is an absolute cracker and she is going to become an incredibly valuable member of our team. What an opportunity, and she has grasped it with both hands. We are all so proud of her. I encourage all members of this House and the Senate to think about the commitments they make in public and think about employing a local Indigenous lady or man in their office, because we can all be richer for this experience. I put the challenge to my colleagues that they too might be able to take that opportunity.
There is no lack of will to change the outcomes for Indigenous Australians. There is no lack of funds available to change the outcomes for Indigenous Australians. But there has been a lack of change in the day-to-day lives for Indigenous Australians; there is no denying that. This is not a partisan issue. This is not a coalition versus Labor argument. It is not even a state government versus federal government argument. This is an issue that every Australian feels very deeply, one way or another, and it is an issue that I feel very deeply. But as long as this gap exists, the poorer our country will be for it, because there is untapped potential. Even from a pure economic perspective, there is untapped potential, especially in northern Australia.
There are programs that this government is delivering that are producing real results. The Indigenous Rangers program has been a fantastic success in my electorate of Durack, and I know there are many successful ranger programs.
I recently spoke on the reforms that the government is implementing to make university more accessible to Indigenous Australians, and this is an issue that I am deeply passionate about. These changes, based around changing the ABSTUDY program to be more workable and accessible to more Indigenous Australians, are aimed at improving Indigenous tertiary education participation and completion rates. As I said earlier, we know that tertiary-educated Indigenous Australians and tertiary-educated non-Indigenous Australians sit on an equal footing when it comes to employment opportunities. It speaks for itself.
We know that the benefits from employment are boundless. Full-time employment allows a person to realise their aspirations. It allows them to start a family on firm foundations. It allows them to enter the housing market. It allows them to take responsibility and ownership of their life. This legislation aimed to move away from judging our performance as a government by the number of Indigenous students, and to focus instead on Indigenous graduates. By focusing on Indigenous graduates, we can create educated Indigenous leaders, who can hopefully one day replace all of us in this place and carry on this work.
The Minister for Indigenous Affairs, Nigel Scullion, also made a statement to the Senate today regarding the government's work around this issue and has committed to identifying what programs work and what programs do not.
We need to support the programs that empower Indigenous people to make their own decisions, take ownership of their lives and their own communities instead of having well-meaning government and government departments telling them how to live their lives.
The challenges that Indigenous Australians face, they are significant and can be difficult to fix. We know that. This government needs to be robust in its leadership on this issue, and I sincerely hope that we are able to do that. It is not easy; I accept that. I do believe, however, that political correctness can get in the way of closing this gap. We must call the issues as we see them, be brave and work towards solutions without fear of offending our First Australians. We have been too soft—all of us have been too soft. We cannot continue to be soft, because lives are at stake.
The problems are not insurmountable. We have seen that. We are very slowly making progress, but it is not fast enough. Indigenous Australians are still more than 2.8 times more likely to commit suicide; they are overrepresented in our prisons; they have a shorter life expectancy than their non-Indigenous counterparts. But the reality is governments cannot do this alone. We do need a full court press to really close the gap and the disadvantage that Australian Indigenous people experience, and to achieve this, if we are doing it as a team, it requires local Indigenous leaders. They have got to step up to the plate. They have to step up, they have to speak out—and that includes those grassroots operators who often are the ones with the answers but who often do not get a voice. We as a government have got to make sure they have got a voice. In my electorate of Durack, I look forward to working with those people so that we can all make a difference and close that gap once and for all.
I would certainly like to begin my remarks with an acknowledgement of the traditional owners of this place that we meet on, the Nambri and Ngunnawal peoples. I pay my respects to their elders past and present, and, indeed, their future leaders. I would also like to take some time to acknowledge the traditional owners of my own home town of Newcastle and the wider electorate, which encompasses Awabakal, Worimi and Wonnarua people and their country.
It is a bittersweet experience to speak today on the ninth Closing the gap report, which provides some important feedback for us all in this House on the progress—or, as the case might be, lack of progress—towards redressing what is an enormous disparity in outcomes between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians on a whole range of issues, but with a particular focus on the health inequalities. I would like to acknowledge at the outset and say thank you to the Indigenous men and women who took time to come and address us as members of parliament this morning in a ceremony in the Great Hall. They presented the Redfern Statement, which was a document crafted during the last election, to all members of parliament. It is a document that should be beyond party politics and divisions; it is something that each of us, from whatever seats we might occupy in this House, whatever parties we might belong to, can sign up to and subscribe to. The message I took home this morning from the presentation of the Redfern Statement was really just how urgent a need we have in this country to reset the relationships that we have with Indigenous Australians.
I will come back to that issue, because it is a challenging one. Indeed, it is very much a reason why I stand here, in my fourth year, speaking on the Closing the gap report in this parliament, because it gives me no pleasure to again report that we are only on track on one of the metrics in that Closing the gap report.
But it is important that we stand and confront those issues, because the Closing the gap report really reflects an issue that goes to the very core of our identity, to the significance of our identity, to our understandings of our history and, indeed, the building of our nation. So it does cause a little existential angst when we are being asked to look honestly and squarely at some of the really complex but deep and lingering impacts of a colonial history which is the founding basis of this nation.
It is uncomfortable at times—and rightly so—but it is something that we non-Indigenous Australians certainly have to face very squarely. As I said this morning, the message from the elders and senior people who contributed to the forming of the Redfern Statement is that we really need to bring some honesty to our debates in this House and the community. We need to acknowledge our failings, to redouble our efforts, to commit to breaking that cycle of failure, because it is an extraordinarily heavy burden that we ask Indigenous Australians to carry each and every year when we simply fail to live up to the targets that we have set ourselves.
There was much conversation today around the need not to be focused on the deficit side of people's experience or, indeed, the language that we use in our debates to acknowledge many of those achievements. I will come to some extraordinary achievements that are happening in communities and on the ground, but, again, I feel very strongly the need to emphasise the requirement for a really honest appraisal of the current situation and where we need to head from here.
Certainly, in terms of the targeted achievements, I think the Prime Minister this morning flagged a number of the areas where there was room for some optimism. The year-12 attainments are a target that we do appear to be on track for, and that is absolutely terrific news, but all of those other targets, many of which go towards areas around education, employment, infant mortality and life expectancy are still shocking and appalling, and none of us should rest easy whilst those inequities continue to exist in our community.
I am not going to go through each and every one of those targets—I think that there has been good coverage of those in the debates—but I would in my limited time like to take up the challenge that was presented this morning to talk about some of the successes in Indigenous communities. I really want to celebrate here in this national parliament the work of a number of programs that are happening in my community in Newcastle. I pay particular tribute to the work of Dr Kelvin Kong, a Worimi man whose life as Australia's first and, at this point, only Indigenous ear, nose and throat specialist has been dedicated to the eradication of ear diseases in Indigenous communities, which, as we heard from the member for Ballarat earlier on, is such a particular problem in so many Aboriginal communities.
I had the extraordinary pleasure of meeting him and getting to understand just a small window into the life of Kelvin Kong when he took time to talk to me about the issues confronting the Aboriginal community.
He talked about the size of the problem around otitis media, in Newcastle, our region, and the work he undertook to shrink waiting lists of hundreds of Aboriginal kids who had been trying to see him for what is a very simple surgical procedure to restore hearing capacity for kids.
He has such a deep understanding of the lived experience of those kids and a profound knowledge of the world that is opened up to children once they are able to hear, and hear correctly, and opportunities that can unfold for them. He has done extraordinary work to reduce the incidence of otitis media around Newcastle, but he travels extensively across Australia to try to deliver and share his skills and expertise with as many Indigenous communities as possible. We should absolutely celebrate people like him and his work. Indeed, as a national government we should be providing whatever resources and support we can to ensure that ear health is right there amongst the priority areas for Indigenous kids in Australia.
Deadly Choices was also mentioned as a terrific program. It is—but, regretfully, due to funding cuts, that program was not kept on in my area of Newcastle, to the deep regret of many of us. There are many areas that do not get touched on in this report that are deeply serious issues for our Indigenous communities. They go to the continued forced removal of children from kin and country, the outrageous rates of incarceration for Indigenous people and the escalating levels of family violence. These are serious issues, serious challenges. They can be uncomfortable conversations that we have to have, but we have to have honest, open conversations and partnerships with our Indigenous men and women.
As I rise to respond to the ninth Closing the gap report tabled by the Prime Minister today, I begin by acknowledging that we are meeting on Ngunnawal country and acknowledge and pay my respects to their elders, past, present and future.
Closing the gap remains a priority for the coalition government and I have been monitoring this report's progress closely in my time of representing the electorate of Robertson on the Central Coast and also as a member of the coalition's backbench committee on Indigenous affairs. There is a relentless determination that I see in this parliament to ensure that we do close the gap, which becomes more urgent with every passing year.
I know it is a priority not just for the Prime Minister and this side of the House but for all of us in this place, as has also been seen by the broad support for the Parliamentary Friends of the Close the Gap Campaign. The purpose of the group is to raise awareness of the national effort to close the gap as a forum for policy discussion, provide opportunities for local engagement with communities and ensure that we have the latest information on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health initiatives and best practice outcomes. In fact, it is the areas of health, education and employment that so often provide the vital snapshot of where progress is being made to close the gap and where we need to further focus our efforts.
This year we have seen progress in the Closing the gap report in several key areas, which I wish to mention briefly. There have been significant improvements in the proportion of Indigenous 20- to 24-year-olds achieving year 12 or equivalent. At higher levels of education there is almost no employment gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. There is a significant decline in mortality rates—including in chronic diseases and infant mortality—a greater access to antenatal care, reduced rates of smoking and a significant increase in Indigenous female employment over the longer term.
I welcome these improvements and commend them to the House but, sadly, there is so much more work to do. As always, the response will require courage, collaboration and an awareness of the complexity of each issue. For example, the target to halve the gap in child mortality for Indigenous children under five by 2018 is not on track nor is the target to close the gap on life expectancy by 2031.
I echo the Prime Minister's genuine sadness on this point and endorse the need to escalate our efforts to reduce smoking rates during pregnancy, continue to improve immunisation rates, lift rates of antenatal care, reduce foetal trauma and keep our children safe.
We have seen improvements in reading and numeracy for Indigenous students, but this target is not on track. The national school attendance target is also not on track, while incarceration rates and rates of child protection are too high. While meaningful improvements are being made in many areas, today's report states that we are only on track to meet one of these targets. I am confident of the leadership of the Prime Minister in this area, with the support of the Minister for Indigenous Affairs and the member for Hasluck, Ken Wyatt, the first Indigenous member of the House of Representatives and now the first Indigenous minister to be appointed to a Commonwealth government. Together, the task must be to stay the course, look at what has worked over the last decade and where greater efforts are needed.
One example is the Empowered Communities initiative, where we are supporting Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islander people to be at the centre of decision-making in their regions. The Indigenous-led model is now in eight regions across the country, generating strong Indigenous governance to build capacity and ensure more community responsibility for decision-making.
On the New South Wales Central Coast, the CEO of the Darkinjung Local Aboriginal Land Council, Sean Gordon, is leading this initiative with vigour. His response to the latest Closing the gap report was also that we must stay the course as a government in our effort and commitment towards closing the disparity gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. Sean told me that, while there have been great improvements in some of the target areas, we must also acknowledge that there is still a lot more work that needs to be done, especially in the areas of early education and employment. Darkinjung is reporting real success in addressing Indigenous disparity through a fantastic partnership with Barker College and the establishment of an alternative schooling model, as well as a partnership with Lendlease to deliver employment and procurement opportunities on the Central Coast.
Also on the Central Coast we have the Barang organisation, forging strong community networks, developing local Indigenous leadership and optimising investments in the Aboriginal community. The Barang organisation is a fantastic organisation in my electorate on the Central Coast. It includes the extraordinary NAISDA Dance College, based at Mt Penang, and the Bara Barang Corporation, which provides services, like support for young people, through community and arts programs.
This local response to a national issue is seen increasingly across the Central Coast, where three key health providers have formed a partnership to develop, promote and implement strategies that will make a difference in the lives of our Indigenous community. The Central Coast Local Health District, Yerin Aboriginal Health Services, and Central Coast Primary Care are working together to improve access to education, employment and health services in our community.
The Hunter New England and Central Coast Primary Health Network is also working to develop a pilot project aimed at supporting Aboriginal health practitioners. The project aims to not only increase the availability of primary healthcare services in Aboriginal communities but support Aboriginal students through study into employment.
These are local projects that involve boosting health, employment and education outcomes for local Aboriginal people. In light of the ninth anniversary of the apology to the stolen generation, this ought to be a reminder that, while we recognise the importance of words, we recognise that it will be actions that will set us on the path to closing the gap. We reaffirm and stand by that apology but use it as inspiration to press forward and ensure that closing the gap for our First Australians is, and will remain, a key priority.
At the outset, I acknowledge the Ngunnawal and Ngambri people, the traditional custodians of the land in Canberra, but also the traditional owners of the wonderful community I represent in Kingsford Smith, the Bidjigal and Gadigal people.
Closing the gap begins with respect—respect for Aboriginal people, respect for their history, respect for their culture, respect for their connection to their country and respect for their precolonisation contribution to the development of Australia. At the moment, in our nation, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people still face discrimination in our community. In respect of the Closing the gap report that we are debating here this evening and the targets, there is still a hell of a lot of work to do before Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are considered on a par with the health, welfare and educational standards of non-Indigenous Australians.
On average, Indigenous Australians die 10 years younger than non-Indigenous Australians, and this has not changed, fundamentally, since 1998; there has been no significant decline in child mortality rates since 2008; we are not on track to halve the gap in employment by 2018; and there is still a 10 per cent difference in school attendance. With reading, writing and numeracy it is only in year 9 that numeracy is on track to halve the gap by 2018. There is a long way to go and a lot of work to do if we are going to close the gap, and more work to do to respect Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.
This morning many of us attended a very humbling and important event in the Great Hall of Parliament House—the handing over of the Redfern Statement to the Prime Minister by leaders of Australia's Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community. The Redfern Statement is a statement that was drafted in June 2016, in the lead-up to the last election, by the National Congress of Australia's First Peoples and signed by another 17 organisations that work in and around the Aboriginal welfare, health and education space. The policies of this document and its statements, basically, are encompassed in a few words: policies made with communities—rather than to communities.
The document calls for the restoration of the $500 million in cuts that were made by the Abbott government in their 2014 budget that have been maintained, and are supported, by this Turnbull government. These cuts are resulting in disadvantage for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and are some of the reasons we are not meeting the targets that were set by the Close the Gap initiative many, many years ago. These include cuts to Aboriginal legal services, cuts to health programs, cuts to domestic violence programs and diversionary programs for at-risk youth.
The document includes a new justice target for Aboriginal incarceration. It is shocking that, upon graduating from high school, a young Aboriginal man is more likely to go to jail than to attend university and get a degree. That is something that Australia needs to be ashamed of and that we need to rectify. I am very proud to be part of a Labor team, led by Bill Shorten, that has recognised this and has said that, if we are elected to government, we will include a new target in the Close the Gap initiative: a justice target to specifically work to reduce the rates of Indigenous incarceration in this country.
The document also includes a commitment to justice reinvestment and diversionary programs that are working in many communities, and a standalone department of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander affairs. Currently, the work of government, in respect of delivering programs in this policy space, is part of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, and we have seen what an absolute disaster that has been under the Abbott and Turnbull governments, with resignations, in-fighting and the Aboriginal community despairing of the way that this policy area is being managed by the Turnbull government.
The catchcry of the Redfern Statement this morning for those present was a very powerful one and a very insightful one, and something I certainly support—that is, we have the solutions. Aboriginal people and their communities have the solutions to many of the problems that have been identified in Closing the gap and that we all know about in terms of welfare, life expectancy, and educational and health outcomes. Aboriginal people have the solutions to many of these problems and they are sick and tired of being told what is good for them.
It goes back to the issue I mentioned in the opening of this speech. It is about respect. It is about having respect for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, their ability to identify problems and issues within their communities and their ability to work together and to work with government at all levels to put in place solutions to deal with these issues and to get better outcomes. If we cannot trust Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to do this, if we cannot show them the necessary respect to give them this autonomy to find solutions to these problems, then we are not going to be able to work to close the gap on the issues and on the indicators that we are shockingly missing targets on at the moment.
I am very glad that this was a theme that was touched upon by Bill Shorten in his reply speech to the Closing the gap report this morning. He spoke about empowering communities, empowering Aboriginal people and, most importantly, listening and showing respect. This was demonstrated this morning when Senator Pat Dodson spoke to the Labor caucus about the campaign for Indigenous recognition and for closing the gap in this country. It has been proven that respect for Aboriginal people, listening to them and providing them with autonomy to come up with solutions does work. I point to two programs that I am very proud are located in the community of Kingsford Smith.
Peter Cooley and Sarah Martin are two Indigenous entrepreneurs who run a company called First Hand Solutions. They are the instigators of the Blak Markets at Bare Island, which have been very popular, and the Catch N Cook program. Peter came to see me to tell me some months ago about a program that was very important for young Aboriginal men who were falling out of the education system. It is again about Aboriginal people providing the solutions to these problems. Peter's focus is on getting those kids to connect again with their country and getting them to connect again with their culture. That culture and that connection with country—that inspiration about the Dreamtime, bush tucker and understanding of the land and country—can set people back on a path to education, bettering themselves and having pride in and being proud of their Aboriginal heritage and culture. I was very pleased that late last year Labor's education spokesperson, Tanya Plibersek, visited La Perouse Public School with me and spoke to Peter and some of the kids who have gone through that program and saw its success. It is something I am very proud of and am very proud is happening in our electorate.
The second program is the Aboriginal Health College, which is located at Little Bay in Kingsford Smith. Every year I go along to the wonderful graduation and see the many Aboriginal people who graduate from these programs with diplomas. There are training programs at all levels providing health education. They provide health programs throughout the country. Their catchcry is: Aboriginal health education in Aboriginal hands. There is no better way to put it. Each year I see the pride of the graduates, who have gone through and worked hard to get their certificates. The work they are doing in the community is inspirational. Once again it proves that Aboriginal people have the solutions. It is about respect, and that is what we should be focusing on in closing the gap.
It being 6.30 pm the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 192B. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
Tonight I rise to discuss the pain that is being felt in my community over this government's Centrelink robo-debt-recovery-system failure. Sadly, this government has failed us yet again by the way it has abused the system, once again attacking the most vulnerable in our community.
Labor have time and time again made clear our commitment to a transparent and efficient Centrelink system. We support Centrelink cracking down on people who are trying to rort our welfare system. But it is obvious that the Turnbull government cannot even get a crackdown right. They came out last year with all the bells and whistles claiming they were going to claw back $4 billion believed to have been incorrectly paid to welfare recipients. They were out there spruiking the new automated system that would match a welfare recipient's details with information from the Australian Taxation Office and generate 20,000 debt notices a week—up from 20,000 a year—in their so-called crackdown when it came in in July.
They had the cheerleaders out in support. Victorian Senator Derryn Hinch said it was 'bizarre' that billions of dollars were being wrongfully paid to welfare recipients. He congratulated the government for going after the greedy. Queensland Senator and Liberal buddy Pauline Hanson called the welfare system 'wrong' and pushed her agenda to issue identity cards to supposedly reduce the rates of fraud. But the icing on the cake was when the Minister for Human Services himself promised to jail anyone who owed money to Centrelink. To quote Minister Tudge:
We'll find you, we'll track you down and you will have to repay those debts and you may end up in prison.
Doesn't the minister know that studies like the HILDA report in 2016, from the Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, show that Australian welfare dependency is at historical lows? He is clearly not alone because this came after a mass email campaign by the police and Centrelink that also threatened welfare recipients with jail if they did not provide accurate information.
This country should pride itself on helping out the most vulnerable in our society. It should be able to say to people, 'In times of trouble, we are there to help you.' But instead this government is out there chasing them down, chasing down people for debts they never owed, and it is just plain wrong. I have lost count of the number of constituents who have come to me worried and upset about the system's calculations of their debts. I have heard so many stories of the stress it puts on people with disabilities, on families with children to support, on honest people trying to just keep their heads above water. These people work hard just to make ends meet, and Labor have made a commitment to them to make sure we provide an accessible Centrelink system when they need it. This government, however, is slapping down debt after debt without properly assessing each case, which means that hundreds of Australians are left feeling helpless and abandoned. It is not the Australian way.
Take for example a woman from my electorate of McEwen who worked for Centrelink for 15 years, and yet even she has fallen victim to this welfare sham. After falling ill for a period of time, she was forced to take leave and benefited from Centrelink's sickness allowance during that time. When she received a message from the automatic debt recovery system saying that she owed $1,200, she immediately realised that they had calculated her debts incorrectly.
I wrote to the Minister for Human Services to raise her concerns, but this should not have happened in the first place. I wrote this letter back in December, and I have only just received an interim response from the department, so I imagine there are probably a few thousand letters on the minister's desk awaiting his signature on matters like this. Luckily for this constituent, she knew the system well, and she was able to correct the calculations. But what about all of those people who do not know the system? What about how this debt recovery system deeply affects them?
Another one of my constituents came to me about Centrelink's wrongful assessment of her debt. Throughout her law degree at Monash University she received Centrelink payments. After graduating, she was contacted and informed that she owed almost $7,000.
Why? Because Centrelink assessed that she was not a full-time student between February and October 2016. She was then forced to pay this money, to pay this so-called debt, besides the fact that it is an ongoing appeals process. It is plain outrageous. For a 25-year-old recent graduate seeking employment and living at home, these debts caused emotional distress and strained relationships with family. Centrelink later on admitted that she did not have to repay the debt, but it was far too late. She felt that it was unconscionable and unfair because the error led to the disaster of her family relationship breakdown.
The Centrelink automated debt-recovery system targets so many residents in McEwen I continue to receive these countless messages asking for help and guidance to navigate the system. Recently, I was approached by a couple from Doreen, telling me that Centrelink assessed they owed $4,000 for a period in which the husband was briefly unemployed—working on a casual and part-time basis between 2011 and 2012. This couple were shocked because not only were they struggling to support their family but also they were sure they had diligently reported all their earnings to Centrelink's requirements. These people, despite the minister's assertion, were neither ignorant nor careless. Like many others, they felt lost because they knew it would not be easy to prove their earnings from a casual job over five years ago. And of course, Centrelink did not stop there. No, they added a recovery fee to their debts, which was another layer of insult and financial injury. The couple contacted Centrelink a few times, and got conflicting answers about where their debt stood.
It is concerning that this mismanagement of documentation under this government and Centrelink is so negatively impacting the constituents in my electorate and many others around Australia. The couple was considered guilty until they proved their innocence. It is demoralising and it is inexcusable. Centrelink forced them into a repayment plan and the couple told me that Centrelink's actions had caused a lot of unnecessary strain—on a family just trying to survive.
There are many people in McEwen who are being forced to pay unnecessary debts like this all the time. And it is not just the financial stress it is the emotional stress and the pain that they feel when they are being treated like criminals for something they have not done. It is an exact failure of this government and this government's ability to manage an economy and to manage a welfare system.
Some say that 20 per cent of these debts identified in the Centrelink data-matching system are wrong. That is 20 per cent. But who knows what the figure actually is. Even The Age's economics editor, Peter Martin, suggests the rate of mistakes in the initial letters could be as high as 90 per cent. Where is the government's apology on this? The system is flawed, yet the government has done nothing as usual.
Prime Minister Turnbull's former digital transformation chief, Paul Shelter, said that if Centrelink were a commercial company with a 20 percent failure rate it would be out of business. So why, exactly, are we expected to sit around and accept this abject failure? This is dealing with peoples' finances. It is dealing with people's budgets. It is jeopardising their mental health, their family relationships and their ability to stay afloat. It is unacceptable. These are law-abiding citizens paying debts that they do not owe, because they trust the government—which, as we have learnt, is a bad thing to do—because Centrelink's bureaucracy is too much to deal with and because, sometimes, the necessary records get lost in the system.
We have seen whistleblowers reveal the truth that the government is constantly trying to hide. We have been told that Centrelink staff are being ordered not to use records in Centrelink's possession to change the debt notices. We are told that Centrelink staff reviewed hundreds of debt notices and only found a few dozen were correct. We are also told that Centrelink staff were advised to only lightly assess the debt conclusions, letting most of them get through. What kind of system is this?
This government is trying to make money by scaring and harassing the people who can least afford it, and forcing the people of Australia to pay ridiculous debts that do not exist. Tell me, did the government also contact IBM to set up the robo-debt system? The whole mess seems pretty similar to the government's last debacle, which, of course, was the census. These kinds of avoidable mistakes have made constituents lose confidence in Centrelink to properly record and store the documentation they submit.
They have no confidence in getting timely service and attention, either in person or on the phone.
The Centrelink automated debt recovery system is, to put it simply, a catastrophe. The government is dragging innocent Australians into their absurd system, labelling them as fraudsters and expecting them to fork out thousands of dollars that they never owed. We are not going to stand by and let this havoc continue across my electorate. It is time the minister came out and apologised for his failings.
In the introduction to her book, Well may we say ... the speeches that made Australia, author Sally Warhaft observes:
Even when we know that words are not enough, sometimes, offered humbly and humanely, they are all we have.
I cannot think of a more appropriate sentiment with which to begin this speech about 65 brave Australian nurses who endured the unthinkable 75 years ago today. There are no words that can truly do justice to these remarkable women who experienced atrocities and tragedies so awful they are difficult to recount.
The story of these 65 Australian nurses begins with their evacuation from Singapore as it fell on 12 February 1942. It was on the 12th that they boarded the small ship the Vyner Brooke along with many civilians and children. On board the Vyner Brooke and under the direction of matrons Olive Paschke and Irene Drummond, the 65 nurses gave up their quarters to civilians and took charge of serving food from the limited rations. The matrons determined early on that, in the event of an evacuation, the nurses would be the last to leave the ship. The ship was loaded far beyond its capacity and being small and alone on the sea, it was a target for the Japanese, despite the best efforts of the ship's captain to hug the coastline of the islands of Indonesia as they fled.
And so, 75 years ago today on Valentine's Day, the little Vyner Brooke was attacked by nine Japanese aircraft who bombed it no less than 30 times in five minutes, before damaging it so badly it began to sink. Many were killed during the attack. Even though the ship was quickly sinking, as per the orders of the matrons, the nurses ensured all other passengers left the Vyner Brooke before they jumped into the sea to cling to debris. Many of the nurses could not swim. All were at the mercy of the current. Injured and drifting, 53 nurses somehow made it to Bangka Island; 12 did not.
I acknowledge the wonderful work of the Australian Mint for releasing a coin today, which I have here with me, to commemorate the anniversary of this terrible tragedy. Of those who did make it to shore, some were captured by Japanese troops and taken to Muntok on Bangka Island, where they were held with civilian women and children. Eight of these nurses would tragically die in 1945 just before the end of the war. Nearby, 22 nurses, including several who were badly injured, along with civilians and servicemen from other ships, were washed up on Radji beach, Bangka Island. Matron Irene Drummond coordinated the 100 or so survivors. It was Matron Drummond who held her nurses together, when upon their surrender the Japanese troops proceeded to first kill the servicemen, who were surrendering with them, and then the civilians. It was Matron Drummond who said to her nurses as they marched into the sea to be machine-gunned, then bayoneted to death by the Japanese, 'Chins up girls. I'm proud of you and I love you all.'
Miraculously, Sister Vivian Bullwinkel survived this atrocity. Wounded and in shock, she not only dragged herself out of the sea but after coming across a badly wounded soldier cared for him for days until he was well enough to walk with her to the village of Muntok. Sister Bullwinkel survived the conditions in the internment camp that claimed the lives of eight of her fellow nurses and later gave evidence to war crimes tribunals in Australia and Japan. I cannot summarise the courage and dedication of these nurses better than Dr Brendan Nelson, the Director of the Australian War Memorial, in his address to the Bangka Day Memorial Service at the Women's Memorial Playing Fields in my electorate on Sunday, 12 February 2017. Describing the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, Dr Nelson said:
The most prominent image chosen in the centre facing Anzac Parade across the lake to the parliament is neither the light horseman nor a Naval Officer.
It is a nurse.
In her hands is a basin containing instruments. Immediately above her head is the Red Cross—universal symbol of charity. Further above it is a pelican feeding her young directly from her bleeding heart, the ultimate symbol of the quality named below—Devotion.
To completely subsume yourself into the people and the cause to which you have committed.
Straddling Anzac Parade are our nation’s sacred Memorials.
The nurses’ memorial simply says, Beyond all praise.
The brave and selfless actions of the 65 nurses who boarded the Vyner Brooke on 12 February 1942 demonstrated their courage, stoicism and devotion beyond all praise. It is our duty in this place to remember them and commemorate their brave and selfless actions.
In my electorate of Boothby, we do so through the Women's Memorial Playing Fields. The playing fields sit in the middle of the 130 square kilometres of my electorate. The playing fields' eight-hectare site was established by Liberal Premier Sir Thomas Playford in 1953 to encourage women's sport and as a war memorial to our servicewomen, particularly the 21 nurses massacred on Radji Beach. The service held to commemorate these women has been running for seven decades, and on Sunday we were honoured to be addressed by Dr Nelson to mark the 75th anniversary of the Bangka Island massacre.
The memorial at the Women's Memorial Playing Fields is one of the few Australian war memorials dedicated to women. As Dr Madeleine Turner writes in her honours thesis, Unsung heroes: the Australian Service Nurses National Memorial and the politics of recognition, it was not until the late 1990s, after a long, hard-fought struggle, that Australian service nurses were honoured with their own national memorial on Anzac Parade in Canberra. The Women's Memorial Playing Fields in my electorate of Boothby are more than just a war memorial. Through the presence of women's sport they are a living memorial, mainly to the 65 nurses of the Vyner Brookebut also to all servicewomen who have given their lives for our nation and our freedom.
Unfortunately, the playing fields and the memorial are in desperate need of an upgrade so they can continue to recognise our servicewomen and support our sportswomen in a fitting way. The memorial service and the memorial to Australian nurses and servicewomen is administered by a small but dedicated group of local volunteers, none more so than the president of the memorial playing fields, Mr Bruce Parker OAM, who received his honour for the work he has done there. Each year, volunteers from the trust and the sports clubs cater for hundreds of people at the service, as they did on Sunday with Dr Nelson and the trust patron, Mrs Lan Le, wife of our governor, His Excellency Mr Hieu Van Le AC. Each year, they make the case for assistance for funding to upgrade the modest memorial and the playing fields. Both are desperately in need of a refresh so they can cater for more visitors to the memorial, so more people can understand the importance of the site and so more women and, I would hope, men can play sport at the site.
I was disappointed to learn that the trust's attempts to gain tax-deductible gift status were refused. Like so many grassroots community groups who are doing invaluable local work and who want to raise significant amounts of money from within their community to fund local projects, they could not gain tax-deductible gift status. This is a policy issue I intend to pursue so that our local volunteers and local community projects can get the assistance that they deserve. I recognise this may be a difficult task. The area of law relating to charities is complex and carries the weight of centuries of case law and now federal legislation. However, I believe the true meaning of charity has strayed from where it began: in our homes and in our local communities.
Today, too many big charities have no grassroots members, do no work in our local communities, often benefit from generous government grants and often exist almost exclusively to attack our local businesses. These big charities reap the generous rewards of tax-deductible gift recipient status and associated perks like fringe benefits tax exemptions, while our community groups are reduced to begging governments for money for local sporting or war memorial upgrades. The best example I can give of this phenomenon is the Foundation for Alcohol Research and Education, otherwise known as FARE. They were created with a $115 million federal grant; have no grassroots members; spend most of their time attacking our family-owned pubs, wineries and breweries; and claim all the benefits of charitable status, including tax-deductible gift recipient status.
As the member for Boothby and the first woman to have ever held the seat since it was established in 1903, I believe it is my responsibility to do all I can to fight for the Women's Memorial Playing Fields and the memorial to our Australian servicewomen. I may not succeed, but I owe it to our Australian servicewomen and our Australian sportswomen to do my very best.
As children go back to school in Tasmania, as parents go back to work and as our tourist season has reached its peak in recent weeks, Tasmanian infrastructure is under strain. Tasmanian infrastructure is under strain for two reasons. One, because of the amount of road works, which were funded by the former Labor government back in the 2013 budget, that are finally being done to our roads. They were delayed by the state Liberal government. Two, because of the state Liberal government's lack of investment in tourism infrastructure, particularly in our national parks, but also in dealing with the traffic congestion around Hobart's streets. It has been many years since we commissioned a study, under the former Labor government, to look at the traffic flow in Hobart. It recommended some extension of clearways in peak times. The state Liberal government have done absolutely nothing about that for the last three years—nothing. Just 12 months ago they commissioned a committee to tell them what needed to be done to deal with congestion in Hobart's streets. It recommended the extension of clearways in peak times, which we had told them the year before. Today, very little has happened in terms of dealing with peak hour traffic in Hobart. Due to our geography, because of the large mouth of the Derwent River and because the southern outlet of the Tasman Bridge and the Brooker Highway are the main inlets in to Hobart, there are constraints about what can be done, but the state Liberal government has done absolutely nothing about planning for this.
Over the last three years they have also invested very little in our national park infrastructure. It was former Labor governments, state and federal, that invested in infrastructure in our national parks. At the last federal election federal Labor committed, as part of our tourism package to Tasmania, a $42.5 million package where were we were going to invest in the Three Capes Tracks, but also in Cradle Mountain for the upgrading of infrastructure, which everybody says is needed. Unfortunately, the Liberal Party did not match Labor's commitment during the election campaign. They committed $1 million for Cradle Mountain, but that money has also not been forthcoming. So tourism infrastructure in Tasmania is under great strain and our road infrastructure currently is being developed, but late and badly planned by the state Liberal government. Indeed, some of the construction of the Midland Highway has had to be repeated because of bad weather and the timing of it. In 2013, federal Labor committed $500 million to the Midland Highway upgrade. The current Liberal government committed only $400 million, so it is spending $100 million less on the Midland Highway, and all we have seen with the projects is delays.
I want to talk, in particular, about a delay that is incurring in my electorate. On 31 January the state Liberal minister turned a sod on the Summerleas Road-Huon Highway intersection. Again, this was money that was committed in the budget in 2013 by federal Labor. Indeed, we committed $17.5 million for the upgrade of this section. In estimates in 2014 we asked the government what it was doing about that and whether it had negotiated with the state Liberal government. There has been great failure by state and federal Liberal governments to get this road construction underway. I was pleased to see a turning of a sod on 31 January, but unfortunately since then very little has happened. I think the minister went and turned a sod simply because he knew that I was watching him and he knew that the community was watching him. Indeed, there is very little major construction work happening at all in that area, and having wasted the quiet summer break, when they could have done the work, they are now, as school is going back, trying to start construction. It was clearly a stunt by the Liberal state minister to go and turn that sod at the Summerleas Road-Huon Highway intersection and pretend that something was happening, because local residents tell me that there is still no significant work underway—none at all.
The state Liberal government has a bad record for planning and it is compounded by the federal Liberal government cutting funding from Tasmania for infrastructure—for example, the Midland Highway cut. We have also had a cut to rail revitalisation. We have not seen the investments that we need for Cradle Mountain. We have seen the Hobart airport runway extension delayed—that too is now underway, thankfully. It seems that the state and federal Liberal governments just cannot get it together to properly fund infrastructure in our state.
At the last federal election there was again a commitment for the Hobart airport roundabout. Labor committed $32 million and the Liberal party committed $24 million.
Given that the Summerleas Road-Huon Highway intersection has now taken almost four years—before anything has happened—I am really concerned that we are going to wait another four years before we deal with the Hobart airport roundabout and the flyover that is needed there.
They just cannot get it together. We have congestion in Hobart. We have tourism infrastructure under strain. We have delays on infrastructure in my electorate. We have delays on infrastructure that has been promised elsewhere. We have had cuts to rail infrastructure. They just cannot get it right. One might ask, 'Why can't they get it right?' I think it is because the federal Liberal government is no longer committed to Tasmania. They lost some seats there, so they seem to have given up on Tasmania. We saw that this week when they wanted to move a major approvals office out of Tasmania. My colleagues here, the member for Braddon and the member for Bass, have called them out on that and asked what is going on. But clearly there is no commitment from the federal Liberal government to plan long-term infrastructure in Tasmania, and we have seen that via the cuts that I have talked about.
We have also a state Liberal government that seems completely inept. It appears to me that they have now sacked so many public servants in the Department of State Growth, and the roads and transport section, that they do not have anybody left to plan anything. Indeed, there was a situation where we had some issues with the timing of lights where they had to hire some consultants to come and tell them how to get the timing right for the lights. They did this and now we have another problem and it still cannot be fixed because there are not enough public servants in our state departments.
Federation Chamber adjourned at 18:5 7