I have received a message from the Senate informing the House that Senator Bernardi has been discharged from the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, and Senator Abetz has been appointed a member of the committee.
I seek leave to move the following motion:
That the House:
(1) notes that:
(a) yesterday, the Government introduced legislation amending the Native Title Act;
(b) the Government has had six months notice that legislation of this type might be required and has taken no action until this week; and
(c) the Leader of the House has given notice of his intention to force this bill through all stages of debate before 2 pm today;
(2) affirms the effect of the Government's approach means that Members of the House will be compelled to vote on a change to the Native Title Act without having had a chance to conduct any consultation with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities;
(3) condemns the Prime Minister for condoning a failure to consult with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities in the same week where he quoted the words of Chris Sarra "Do things with us, not to us"; and
(4) calls on the Government to abandon this approach and allow time for proper consultation with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities.
Leave not granted.
Before I call the Manager of Opposition Business to restate the motion, I say to the member for Dawson, the member for Corangamite, and members on my left and right: it is Thursday. It is the start of the day, but I am going to treat this no differently to question time. We are expecting some divisions soon. I would think about whether you want to be here for them.
I move:
That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Manager of Opposition Business from moving the following motion forthwith:
That the House:
(1) notes that:
(a) yesterday, the Government introduced legislation amending the Native Title Act;
(b) the Government has had six months notice that legislation of this type might be required and has taken no action until this week; and
(c) the Leader of the House has given notice of his intention to force this bill through all stages of debate before 2 pm today;
(2) affirms the effect of the Government's approach means that Members of the House will be compelled to vote on a change to the Native Title Act without having had a chance to conduct any consultation with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities;
(3) condemns the Prime Minister for condoning a failure to consult with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities in the same week where he quoted the words of Chris Sarra "Do things with us, not to us"; and
(4) calls on the Government to abandon this approach and allow time for proper consultation with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities.
When the Native Title Bill came to this parliament originally, there were—
I move:
That the member be no longer heard.
Order! The question is that the Manager of Opposition Business be no further heard.
Is the motion seconded? The member for Barton.
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I second the motion.
I move:
That the member be no longer heard.
The question is that the member for Barton be no further heard.
The question now is that the motion moved by the Manager of Opposition Business be agreed to.
I move:
That the motion be put.
The Leader of the House has moved that the question be put.
The question now is that the motion moved by the Manager of Opposition Business be agreed to.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
This bill introduces changes to ensure that details of the working holiday-maker employer register are not made public. It also ensures information sharing between the Australian Taxation Office and the Fair Work Ombudsman, is undertaken in situations in which an entity is actually or is reasonably suspected of non-compliance with a tax law.
Through minor amendments to the taxation laws, this bill removes the ability for details of the employer register to be made public on the ABN Lookup.
This change will not affect the operation of the employer register or the rules applying to employers of working holiday-makers. All employers of working holiday-makers will still be required to register with the ATO in order to withhold at the 15 per cent tax rate.
The register addresses concerns about the exploitation of working holiday-makers and will provide valuable data on working holiday-makers. This amendment being introduced today does not affect the requirement for the ATO to report this information annually to the Treasurer, for presentation to the parliament. This reporting process involves aggregate employer information and will not identify any working holiday-maker employers.
This bill also ensures information sharing between the ATO and the Fair Work Ombudsman will be limited to situations in which an entity is actually or is reasonably suspected of non-compliance with a tax law.
Full details of this bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
This bill being introduced today is an important part of the government's commitment to creating a fairer tax system, supporting our small businesses and creating a level playing field for all Australian businesses.
The bill fulfils the government's commitment to extend the application of GST to low-value goods imported by Australian consumers from 1 July 2017. It also gives effect to the agreement of the Council of Australian Governments in 2015 to extend GST to low-value imported goods.
These changes are about ensuring that Australian businesses, particularly small retailers, do not continue to be unfairly disadvantaged by the current GST exemption that applies to imports of low-value goods.
Importantly, this bill also tackles the growing risk that the current arrangements pose to the integrity of the GST base. With the continued growth and normalisation of cross-border shopping, we cannot afford to simply ignore the impact of these outdated arrangements on the tax system.
As a result of the reforms being introduced today, low-value goods imported by consumers will face the same tax regime as goods that are sourced domestically. This is how a fair and modern tax system should work and I am proud that Australia is taking the lead in this respect.
Under the current GST law, GST will generally apply to supplies of goods within Australia regardless of the value of the goods. However, supplies of goods located outside of Australia will generally not be subject to GST. Further, while the importation of goods is generally subject to GST, a $1,000 low-value threshold exemption applies.
The GST low-value threshold exemption disadvantages Australian businesses and jobs, and poses a growing risk to the integrity of the GST base, with the continued growth in online shopping.
The government, with the support of the states and territories, is absolutely committed to applying the GST to low-value goods imported for consumption into Australia by 1 July 2017. It will stop the unfair and distortionary benefit enjoyed by foreign sellers since the introduction of the GST in 2000.
Under these new arrangements, imported goods with a customs value of $1,000 or under will have GST collected at the point of sale, using a vendor registration model. Under this model, overseas vendors that have an Australian turnover of $75,000 or more will be required to register for, collect and remit GST on low-value goods supplied to consumers in Australia as well as any other taxable supplies they make.
This measure will also apply to online marketplaces—also called 'electronic distribution platforms' or EDPs in the bill. Online marketplaces that assist in the importation of goods into Australia will essentially be treated as a 'supplier' under this measure, and be required to register for, collect and remit GST.
Including online marketplaces ensures that only a limited number of entities need to collect the GST, rather than the multitude of small, individual vendors making supplies through these online marketplaces that compete with Australian retailers here in Australia. This represents the most efficient system for collecting GST and limits the costs of compliance.
This measure also extends to 'redeliverers'. Redeliverers are often used by Australian consumers in cases where the overseas retailers do not deliver to Australia. The redeliverers provide offshore mailbox or shopping services in relation to the goods and then assist with their delivery into Australia. Redeliverers will be affected by this measure where the actual supplier would not be liable for GST because of a lack of knowledge about the ultimate destination of the supply, due to involvement of a redeliverer. In such cases, the redeliverer is the entity that is best placed to know the status of the goods and the location to which they are delivered.
A simplified online GST registration system will also be available for nonresident suppliers of goods. This simplified registration system will help nonresidents comply with these new rules.
In August 2015, the Council on Federal Financial Relations agreed to the vendor registration model, commencing 1 July 2017. The government has also consulted extensively on the design of the registration model. Public consultation on the draft legislation was also undertaken last year.
These changes build on the government's 2015-16 budget measure—which is now law—to apply the GST to digital products and other services imported by consumers from 1 July 2017, also using a vendor registration model.
We now live in a world where online cross-border shopping is a normal and often daily activity for many Australians. This reform to Australia's GST is a significant world first, but it is consistent with the direction of international tax policy in this area.
It is only a matter of time until others jurisdictions follow suit. In 2015, the OECD examined and reported on options to move away from cost-intensive border collection processes, including for low-value goods. Australia's reforms align with the most effective elements of that report to deliver a new reality for taxation of trade in Australia.
The European Union also announced late last year that it too will reform its treatment of imported low-value goods. They too recognise that there can be no substantive reform without a key focus on the taxation of goods by the supplier at the point of sale.
With this bill, Australia is leading the way in delivering a GST model that is fit for our modern world and our modern global economy. Importantly, this measure will finally stop the unfair and distortionary GST low-value exemption enjoyed by foreign sellers since the introduction of the GST in 2000 and establish a level playing field for our domestic retailers here in Australia and protect the integrity of our GST base.
Full details of the measure are contained in the explanatory memorandum.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
From July this year, the qualifying age for the age pension will begin to gradually increase for both men and women from 65 to 67 years, with the qualifying age increasing by six months every two years, commencing on 1 July, until fully implemented on 1 January 2024.
This bill gives effect to a need to make a mechanical amendment aligning the existing upper age limit in the Disability Services Act 1986 to the qualifying age for the age pension set in the Social Security Act 1991.
This will ensure rehabilitation services can continue to be provided to individuals under the Disability Employment Service-Disability Management Service program (known as the DES-DMS program) until they reach the age pension eligibility age.
The DES-DMS Program is supported by the act; specifically section 18(a), which at present limits the age of the target group to persons who have not attained 65 years of age.
This mechanical amendment contained in the bill proposes replacing the existing upper age limit for the DES-DMS program in section 18(a) of the Act, with a reference to the age pension qualifying age as determined by the Social Security Act 1991.
In making this amendment, the existing Disability Services Act 1986 will be 'future proofed' and able to meet future challenges, as the incorporation of such a reference, aligns the upper age limit in section 18(a) of the act, to the pension age in the Social Security Act 1991.
This need is due to the pension reform package legislated in 2009, which brought about improvements to the longer term sustainability of the pension system, and adjusted the age pension qualification age to reflect that Australians are living longer than ever before. It is estimated that someone retiring today who qualifies for the age pension can expect to receive it for an average of 20 years.
This minor amendment ensures job seekers with temporary or permanent disability, injury or health condition who require the assistance from DES-DMS, and who may require flexible ongoing support but are not expected to need regular, long-term support in the workplace, have the best support and assistance possible to prepare for, achieve and maintain employment.
The increase to the age pension qualifying age will also mean that there will be people with disability who are aged 65 or older but who have not reached the pension age, on income support with mutual obligations to seek work, who under the current provisions of the Disability Services Act 1986, could be excluded from receiving support to meet those obligations.
Current estimations are that without the amendments made by this bill, and as soon as in this year, there are approximately 200 vulnerable people being affected and left without support, and those numbers would increase until July 2019, and further again beyond that time.
It is therefore vital that the DES-DMS program can deliver rehabilitation services and employment support to people who are expected to continue seeking work, in addition to working people with need for such support.
The amendment made by this bill ensures that the DES-DMS program can adapt to changing circumstances and future challenges, and provides confidence, ensuring that over time, the essential rehabilitation services and employment support, which people rely on, is able to be delivered.
This government is committed to supporting people with disabilities, as I believe is the common goal of the members of this House
It is imperative that this bill be passed to honour these commitments.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
It is important that the government laws for the prevention of marine pollution are adequate, up to date and consistent with our international obligations.
The bill I present today, the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Amendment (Polar Code) Bill 2017, will ensure that our framework for preventing marine pollution remains consistent with international requirements.
The bill will amend the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Act 1983 (known as the POTS Act) to implement domestically our international obligations stemming from conventions adopted at the International Maritime Organization.
Through the IMO, Australia has been integral to the development of the International Code for Ships Operating in Polar Waters (known as the Polar Code). The Polar Code is implemented through amendments to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, as modified by the Protocol of 1978, and the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1974. The Polar Code has been developed to supplement existing IMO instruments to increase the safety of ships' operation and mitigate the impact on the people and environment in the remote, vulnerable and harsh polar waters.
The Polar Code addresses the specific risks of operating in the Antarctic and the Arctic polar waters and specifies a range of operational and structural measures. It covers ship design, construction and equipment, as well as seafarer training and qualifications, search and rescue capabilities, and environmental discharges.
This bill will amend the POTS Act to ensure Australia implements its international obligations into domestic law, by ensuring that the stricter discharge requirements for oil, noxious liquid substances, sewage, and garbage that exist for certain ships operating in polar waters, as set out in the Polar Code, are reflected in Australian legislation.
Marine Orders will also be amended to properly implement the Polar Code. Marine Orders are legislative instruments made under the POTS Act by the Australian Maritime Safety Authority's Chief Executive Officer.
Australia has a strong national interest in Antarctica, including in the safety of shipping and the environmental protection of Antarctic waters. Australia has responsibilities in a very significant portion of the Southern Ocean, including search-and-rescue coordination, environmental protection, hydrography and nautical charting, and safety of vessels operating in the area.
Australia has been actively engaged in the development of the Polar Code, in order to influence and improve safety and pollution prevention outcomes in respect of Antarctic waters. Australia's Southern Ocean maritime interests are best advanced through internationally agreed arrangements that are consistent with Antarctica's unique legal and political status.
Australia's implementation of these amendments is consistent with our longstanding support for the protection of life and safety at sea and the marine environment, and with our active backing of, and participation in development of the Polar Code.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Crimes Amendment (Penalty Unit) Bill 2017 will ensure our courts can continue to punish breaches of Commonwealth law with strong, financial penalties that help to deter future offending and keep Australian communities safe.
Penalty units are used to set the maximum fines which can be imposed for offences in Commonwealth legislation and territory ordinances.
Commonwealth penalties are generally expressed in terms of penalty units rather than specific values. This means that any updates to penalties are applied efficiently and consistently across the statute book. The Commonwealth penalty unit is also indexed to the Consumer Price Index (CPI) every three years, to ensure that financial penalties keep pace with inflation and maintain value over time.
The bill will increase the amount of the Commonwealth penalty unit from $180 to $210, with effect from 1 July 2017. It will also delay the first automatic CPI adjustment of the penalty unit until 1 July 2020, with indexation to occur every three years following that date.
Strong penalties are a central tenet of an effective justice system. This bill will strengthen courts' ability to impose appropriate punishments on serious offenders, including those involved in organised crime, white-collar crime, fraud and cybercrime. This measure is estimated to result in increased revenue to the Commonwealth of $80 million over the next four years, which will support the government's efforts to repair the budget and benefit everyday Australians.
Tackling crime and improving community safety is a top priority for this government. The Crimes Amendment (Penalty Unit) Bill 2017 underlines this commitment by strengthening the value of the penalty unit and ensuring that our financial penalties remain an effective deterrent and punishment for those breaking Commonwealth law.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
VET Student Loans Ombudsman
Student loans to pay for tuition fees provide important financial support for vocational education and training students who would otherwise be unable to afford to study because of upfront fees.
Most training providers whose tuition fees are funded by student loans do the right thing, providing high quality training that gives their students the skills they need to get a job, or get a better job.
Unfortunately, however, it is common knowledge that Labor's failed VET FEE-HELP scheme was exploited by a number of unscrupulous providers and their agents. In particular, disadvantaged Australians were targeted, including those with a disability, those with low levels of literacy, Indigenous Australians and older Australians.
People were signed up for loans but had little understanding of what they were signing up for; taking out loans for courses which they did not need and did not have the capacity to complete.
That is why the Turnbull government axed Labor's failed VET FEE-HELP scheme and established a new, student-centred, robust, outcomes-focused VET Student Loans program.
VET Student Loans rebuild Australia's income contingent loan program for vocational education and training from the ground up, restoring confidence in the VET sector and better protecting students.
As part of VET Student Loans, the government announced it would establish a new VET Student Loans Ombudsman, giving students access to an independent complaints handling mechanism with the power to adequately investigate their concerns.
The submissions made to the Senate inquiry into the VET Student Loans Bill 2016 late last year demonstrated the significant stakeholder support for the government's announcement. For example, the Consumer Law Action Centre said:
An ombudsman will assist the sector to rebuild its reputation and the trust and confidence of students, parents and employers. The fact that the Government is acting quickly to establish this service is welcomed, as accessible and free dispute resolution is complementary to a rigorous consumer protection environment.
Similarly, the Australian Council for Private Education and Training (ACPET) noted:
An ombudsman also offers the vast majority of providers the protection of knowing that those who do the wrong thing will be weeded out.
The VET Student Loans Ombudsman will be operated through the Commonwealth Ombudsman, whose independence will help in restoring confidence in the VET sector.
The VET Student Loans Ombudsman will be able to investigate complaints, and compliance by providers with legislation in relation to loans, for both the new VET Student Loans program and under Labor's failed VET FEE-HELP scheme, and make recommendations to address concerns.
The unfortunate actions of a small number of unscrupulous providers and their agents have left some students with significant debts and damaged the reputation of our many high-quality VET providers.
This government recognises the critical importance of assisting these students with their complaints and repairing the reputation of the sector, and this is why I introduce this bill today.
Australian Research Council amendments
The bill also increases the funding caps in the Australian Research Council Act 2001in line with inflation and ensures that the Australian government can continue to provide support for thousands of research projects.
The Australian government is making a significant investment in science, research and innovation—committing $10 billion across all portfolios in 2016–17 alone.
Through our $1.1 billion National Innovation and Science agenda (NISA) the Turnbull government is supporting research, incentivising innovation and entrepreneurship, rewarding risk taking, and promoting science, maths and computing in schools includes, including through:
Through the Australian Research Council (ARC), the Australian government is investing in excellent fundamental and applied research that helps improve the quality of people's lives, supports Australian industries and businesses, and ensures our nation remains at the cutting edge of research, innovation and global competitiveness.
Such research has and continues to play an important role in both addressing the most challenging and significant social and economic problems of our time, and ensuring taxpayers money is invested wisely.
In November last year, the government announced more than $416 million in Australian government funding through the ARC's National Competitive Grants Program.
This funding supported research projects including: developing high-speed optical wireless technology; helping to better understand speech and language difficulties in children; and understanding how people with disabilities use smartphones to navigate and use essential services.
In January this year, the government also announced the first research projects awarded funding under the new continuous Linkage Projects scheme, including research that will: improve our national rail track system; develop better coal seam gas water treatment; and improve the efficiency of Australia's mining sector.
Australia's higher education system must have adequate research funding and facilities to ensure we attract and retain world-class academics, working with industry, and teaching the next generation of researchers, policymakers and entrepreneurs.
Unlike the former Labor government, which left a funding cliff for NCRIS in June 2015 and announced $6.6 billion in cuts to university funding, the Turnbull government, through the NISA, has secured the future of the NCRIS network and its 1,700 highly skilled technical and research staff.
High-quality, accessible and sustainable research infrastructure is a crucial investment in Australia's future.
The amendments in this bill, to extend funding through to 2019–20, provide certainty to Australian researchers to continue to deliver critically important research, build partnerships with industry and the community, and realise excellent research outcomes for Australia and the world. I commend this bill.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Today, I introduce a bill to implement two government measures.
Schedule 1 of this bill makes minor technical amendments to the income tax law to ensure that two National Innovation and Science Agenda (NISA) measures operate in accordance with their original policy intent.
These measures are the Tax Incentives for Early Stage Investors measure and the New Arrangements for Venture Capital Limited Partnerships measure. Together, they are designed to promote a culture of entrepreneurship by connecting start-up companies with investors who have both the requisite funds and business experience to assist entrepreneurs to build successful, innovative companies.
These two measures, together with the minor technical amendments in schedule 1, demonstrate the government's commitment to encouraging and supporting innovative new businesses.
The amendments will clarify the tax law to provide certainty for investors who are looking to invest in start-ups and certain venture capital arrangements through a single interposed trust and will ensure that these investors are able to access the capital gains tax concessions provided by the Tax Incentives for Early Stage Investors and the New Arrangements for Venture Capital Limited Partnerships measures.
Schedule 2 of the bill amends the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2011to streamline the process by which the Australian Securities and Investments Commission may share confidential information with the Australian Taxation Office for its use in the performance of its functions.
The amendment mirrors the existing arrangements in place for the Australian Securities and Investments Commission to share information with the Reserve Bank of Australia and the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority. It will enable more timely collaboration between the Australian Securities and Investments Commission and the Australian Taxation Office during investigations into illegal or high-risk activities, for example, illegal phoenixing activity.
Full details of the two measures are contained in the explanatory memorandum.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to parliament: the Australian Federal Police Facility Security Enhancement Project.
The Australian Federal Police's property portfolio is a key enabler of the Federal Police's capabilities, enhancing the organisation's readiness, capacity and ability to carry out its responsibilities for law enforcement, investigations and national security.
A recent vulnerability assessment determined that eight AFP facilities were high-risk and required strengthening to reduce the threat of unauthorised access. As a result, the AFP proposes to undertake refurbishment and construction works on owned and leased premises. Refurbishment and construction works will focus on improvised explosive device protection, intruder resistance protection and system response capability. Providing secure facilities is a critical component of property being an enabler for the AFP to deliver its services at a level expected by the Australian government.
The committee has conducted an inquiry and is of the view that the project signifies value for money for the Commonwealth and constitutes a project that is fit for purpose and expedient to carry out. On behalf of the government, I would like to thank the committee for once again undertaking a rigorous and timely inquiry. Subject to parliamentary approval, the works are expected to commence in February 2017 and to be completed by December 2017. I commend the motion to the House.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: JP500 Phase 2A—Electronic Warfare Operations Support Facility Project.
The Department of Defence is proposing to construct fit-for-purpose facilities and associated infrastructure that is capable of supporting the new systems installation for current and emerging countermeasure technologies at the Edinburgh defence precinct in South Australia.
This multiphase project aims to bring the Australian Defence Force's electronic warfare capabilities in the land and maritime environments up to a level that is commensurate with current air electronic warfare capabilities. The proposed facilities will help to ensure Defence Force platforms fitted with electronic warfare systems can achieve and maintain battle worthy capabilities. The project works include various laboratories, workshop preparation areas, information facilities, meeting rooms, offices, breakout areas, amenities, equipment hardstand areas and car parks.
The committee has conducted an inquiry and is of the view that the project signifies value for money for the Commonwealth and constitutes a project that is fit for purpose and expedient to carry out. Subject to parliamentary approval, construction is expected to begin in mid-2017, with completion expected by mid-2018. I commend the motion to the House.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: LAND 17 Phase 1B/1C—Construction and upgrade of indirect fire support facilities.
The Department of Defence is proposing to construct new and refurbished facilities and infrastructure to support the introduction, operation and deployment of the new Australian Defence Force artillery capability at eight Defence locations across Australia. This multiphase project will give the Australia Defence Force a new suite of ammunition, artillery command and fire control systems, and new delivery platforms for Australian Regular Army units across Australia.
In its report, the committee has made a recommendation in relation to contamination issues and has requested that Defence provide regular updates to the committee regarding the containment and management of contaminated areas and to also keep the community informed. Defence acknowledges the recommendations of the committee and will implement them to the extent that it does not compromise Defence operations and security.
The Public Works Committee has conducted an inquiry and is of the view that the project signifies value for money for the Commonwealth and constitutes a project that is fit for purpose and expedient to carry out. On behalf of the government, I would like to thank the committee for once again undertaking a rigorous a timely inquiry. Subject to parliamentary approval, construction is expected to begin in early 2017, with completion expected by early 2018. I commend the motion to the House.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: Woomera Range Remediation Facilities Project.
The Department of Defence is proposing to deliver new and refurbished facilities and infrastructure that are capable of facilitating the operation of a new range for safety and control system at the Woomera Range Complex in South Australia. The project will provide purpose-built facilities that will enable more frequent and more sophisticated trials in support of future testing and evaluation of air platforms and weapons. The project also proposes to upgrade and establish new communication sites on the range that will be supported with road upgrades and the expansion of a fibre optic network. The works will provide the Australian Defence Force with purpose-built facilities to support the introduction into service of a new, state-of-the-art, integrated range control system at the Woomera Range Complex in South Australia.
The committee has conducted an inquiry and is of the view that the project signifies value for money for the Commonwealth and constitutes a project that is fit for purpose and expedient to carry out. Subject to parliamentary approval, construction is expected to begin in mid-2017, with completion expected by mid-2018. I commend the motion to the House.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Main Building Refresh Project, Geoscience Australia Building, Symonston, Australian Capital Territory.
Geoscience Australia is proposing to refurbish its main building in Symonston in the Australian Capital Territory. The Geoscience Australia building was purpose built in 1997 to support its primary research activities for the Australian government, industry and stakeholders. In addition to office areas, the building contains a dedicated laboratory and physical storage infrastructure.
In 2012, Geoscience Australia examined its ongoing business requirements for long-term accommodation beyond 2020. This resulted in Geoscience Australia renewing its lease of the Symonston facility through to 2032. That is a long way away, but it is important that we move on these particular things now, appreciating the fact that it is 15 years into the distance. Renewing leases is important. Also, making sure that we get value for money for the Commonwealth and, through it, the taxpayers is essential. The proposed works will further consolidate Geoscience Australia's operational footprint, improving the built density and providing opportunities for sublease that would generate additional revenue for the Commonwealth.
This is happening in the ACT and the government is committed to making sure that the ACT is looked after very much. Public servants are doing a fantastic job in so many departments. I know that, having been the Minister for Small Business since last July. Just last week, I was able to visit many of the public servants in my portfolio area. They were appreciative of the fact that I visited them at the ACCC, Treasury and, indeed, many of the other portfolio areas. I look forward to going to the Royal Australian Mint tomorrow.
The proposed works that I am discussing here with Geoscience Australia cover more than 19,000 square metres and include replacement of floor coverings and painting of internal wall surfaces. The work also includes changes to the overall fit-out to allow more flexible workspaces that will improve the delivery of core services for the government. The estimated cost to deliver the project is $17.50 million, excluding GST, and includes all costs such as builders' costs, furniture, fittings and equipment and workstations. It also includes provision for contingencies, cost escalation and associated design professional fees. A lease incentive towards fit-out, negotiated in 2013, will fund this initiative.
Subject to parliamentary approval, the refurbishments are expected to begin in mid-2017 with completion expected by late-2018. I commend the motion to the House.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Proposed fit-out of leased premises for the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, 15 William Street, Melbourne, Victoria.
The Administrative Appeals Tribunal proposes to undertake a fit-out of its leased premises at 15 William Street, Melbourne, Victoria, to accommodate the amalgamated Administrative Appeals Tribunal. In the 2014-15 federal budget, the government announced that the Migration Review Tribunal, the Refugee Review Tribunal and the Social Security Appeals Tribunal would be amalgamated with the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. This amalgamation delivers savings through operational efficiencies by consolidating property holdings and streamlining 'back office' administrative processes. The Tribunals Amalgamation Act 2015 gives legislative effect to that policy.
The move to a single location for the tribunal in Melbourne will allow for resources to be rationalised, particularly in the sharing of public facilities such as hearing and conference rooms across jurisdictions. The project will provide new working accommodation for tribunal staff and members, and hearing rooms and other facilities necessary for the conduct of administrative reviews. The design of the new fit-out will allow the amalgamated Administrative Appeals Tribunal to improve services to clients by using new technologies to deliver services more efficiently and effectively and by providing a single point of access for most Commonwealth merit reviews. The estimated total cost of the project is $15.68 million, excluding GST, which includes construction costs, management and design fees, furniture, fittings, workstations, staff costs, contingencies and escalation allowances.
Subject to parliamentary approval of the project, construction is expected to begin in mid-2017 with practical completion scheduled for late 2017. I commend the motion to the House.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That Notice No. 11, government business, be postponed until a later hour this day.
In moving the procedural motion, I realise it is not a matter that needs to be debated. To explain to the House what that means: the debate management motion on the native title amendment will not be brought back to be debated today. The debate will begin in the normal course of events on the actual legislation itself, which we believe will largely be a bipartisan matter and will allow the normal processes of the House and business to be gone through.
Question agreed to.
I present the report of the Publications Committee sitting in conference with the Publications Committee of the Senate. Copies of the report are being placed on the table.
Report—by leave—agreed to.
by leave—I move:
That Ms Swanson, Mr Zappia and Ms Sharkie be appointed members of the Joint Select Committee on government procurement.
Question agreed to.
I rise today to speak on the Native Title Amendment (Indigenous Land Use Agreements) Bill 2017 with regret, because this is a bill which was introduced to the parliament only yesterday—barely 24 hours ago—without the slightest indication that it was going to be brought back for debate today. Happily, the Leader of the House has just announced that the bill, despite earlier indications, is not going to be brought to a vote in this House today, which is entirely appropriate. But it remains inappropriate that anybody in this House should have been forced to speak about a significant bill which makes important changes to an extraordinarily important piece of legislation—the Native Title Act.
It is a matter of great regret to the opposition that the government has chosen to proceed in this manner. I say that because, although the opposition entirely understands the need for this legislation, it is legislation which has been prompted by a decision of the full Federal Court in a case called McGlade, which was handed down on 2 February this year. I repeat: the opposition understands the need for this legislation to be brought to the parliament, but the opposition is at a complete loss to understand—and I would believe that all Australians witnessing this would be at a complete loss to understand—why the government has seen it as necessary to bring the bill on for debate scarcely 24 hours after it was introduced to the parliament.
At a procedural level, it is the case that the Senate will not be able to debate this bill today, even if it were to have been voted on in the House of Representatives—which, happily, the government is now not proceeding with. It will also not be able to be debated in the Senate during the next sittings of the Australian parliament, commencing on 27 February, because those are sittings during which the Senate will be conducting Senate estimates. The first opportunity for this matter to be considered by the Senate, even if it is able to be fully debated in this House, will be the week commencing 20 March.
In the meantime, appropriately, this bill has been referred to a Senate committee for inquiry and report and, as I understand it, that report will be delivered on 17 March. That is a prompt and efficient inquiry by the Senate committee that is going to deal with this which, as I understand it, is the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee. It could have taken longer, but it will give an opportunity for this bill to be considered by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities across Australia; it will give an opportunity for this bill to be considered by land users across Australia who interact with the native title system; and it will provide an opportunity for all those Australians who have an interest in native title matters to properly consider the import of this bill, and that is appropriate. What is not appropriate is the government seeking to rush through this legislation.
Could I say that the Native Title Act—an act passed by the Keating government in 1993—is, in my view, one of the most important laws passed by this parliament. I say that, because this is an act which gave legislative form to the fundamental change to Australian law created by the High Court's decision in Mabo. In doing so, the Native Title Act has been instrumental in redefining the relationship between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and the wider Australian nation. The main objects of the Native Title Act, of course, include providing for the recognition and protection of native title; establishing ways in which future dealings affecting native title may proceed, and to set standards for those dealings; and establishing a mechanism for determining claims to native title.
I might read from a beautifully-put description of the importance of this legislation from a recent report—or not now so recent, because it was published in June 2015—by the Australian Law Reform Commission entitled Connection to Country. It is a report that deals with a reference that I gave to the Australian Law Reform Commission as Attorney-General in 2013. It deals with some very important aspects of the Native Title Act, most notably the difficulties that have arisen in a procedural sense under the Native Title Act in dealing with connection to country. In the introduction to this excellent report, the Australian Law Reform Commission said this:
For Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, the recognition of native title has immense significance as acknowledging their first occupation of Australian land and waters, and it brings the potential for tangible benefits. The recognition and protection of native title is a central object of the Native Title Act—and the Preamble identifies the beneficial purposes of the Act. Reforms of connection requirements, authorisation and joinder are important to ensure that native title law and legal frameworks achieve efficiencies but remain consistent with such beneficial purposes.
Relevantly to the bill that is before the parliament, the Native Title Act also provides for a process by which native title groups can negotiate agreements with individuals or corporations for the use of land or water. The requirements for the making of these Indigenous land use agreements, or ILUAs, are also set out in the Native Title Act. The law and practice of native title, including ILUAs, has significantly and necessarily developed over time. There have been a number of significant court decisions and, at times, amendments have been made to the Native Title Act to ensure that it better fulfils the important purposes for which it was established.
I want to make clear that Labor accepts and understands the important role that ILUAs have played in the native title system and Labor understands absolutely why this legislation is being brought before the parliament; it is to deal with the a decision of the full Federal Court of Australia made on 2 February. It is a decision which has far-reaching implications for approximately 150 existing Indigenous land use agreements that have been made under the Native Title Act, most of them made in the last seven years—as we understand it, in the short time we have had to examine the problem—in the period since another decision of the Federal Court by a single judge in a case called Bygraves in 2010. That decision which invalidated a particular Indigenous land use agreement in Western Australia—in fact, invalidated four Indigenous land use agreements in Western Australia—is also a decision that has far-reaching implications for future Indigenous land use agreements that are now under negotiation right across Australia, in every state and territory.
In addition, Labor accepts that some legislative intervention is required to ensure that existing Indigenous land use agreements that were made in accordance with the law, as it was understood before the decision of the full Federal Court in the McGlade case, are not invalidated. Further, Labor accepts that there are some changes to the Native Title Act which are likely to be required to ensure that Indigenous land use agreements that are currently under negotiation, as well as Indigenous land use agreements that have not yet been even conceived or for which negotiations have not yet even commenced, will be able to be effectively negotiated. So changes to the Native Title Act are going to be required to deal with those two issues—that is, the issue of the effect of the Federal Court's decision in McGlade—that affect being to likely invalidate some 150 existing Indigenous land use agreements; and the second problem, which is the procedure to be adopted going forward in relation to Indigenous land use agreements that are now under negotiation or Indigenous land use agreements for which negotiations have not yet commenced.
It is extraordinary that this incompetent Attorney-General and this incompetent government should seek to bring this bill on for debate a mere 24 hours after it was introduced in this parliament, at a time when the government let alone the opposition has not begun to consult with Aboriginal communities across Australia and has not properly consulted with anybody affected by these changes—nor could it because the bill was only actually introduced to this parliament yesterday. That is an extraordinary way to proceed. It is an extraordinary way to proceed in the week of the fine Closing the Gap speeches delivered in this place by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. In his Closing the Gap speech, the Prime Minister quoted the words of Chris Sara, where Chris Sara implored this parliament and implored Australian governments to 'Do things with us not to us'. What do we have? Two days later, after those fine words from the Prime Minister, we have the government rushing on for debate a complicated bill about native title—to be sure, a bill that the opposition accepts is necessary to deal with a problem created by a decision of the full Federal Court but one for which there needs to be consultation.
It beggars belief that the government would seek to rush it on in this way when the government has not itself consulted, and the government knows that the opposition and all the other parties in this parliament have not had any opportunity to talk to land councils across Australia, have not had any opportunity to talk to native title representative bodies across Australia, have not had any opportunity to talk to native title practitioners across Australia—all of whom will have something to say about the amendments that are to be found in this bill.
It is not to the point for the government to say that the bill is a relatively short one. As we all know, short bills often contain words of tremendous importance and of tremendous significance. It is possible to change entirely the effect of an existing act of parliament with the replacement of a single word. So the shortness of the bill is not the point; it clearly makes very important changes to the Native Title Act. It is an extraordinary regret to the opposition that, far from there being consultation with the Indigenous community Australia, far from the government seeking to do things with the Indigenous community of Australia who will be impacted by these changes, the government is rushing this legislation on for debate in this parliament. It is entirely a betrayal of the sentiment that was expressed in this place just a couple of days ago by the Prime Minister. We have a government here, regrettably, that is intent on continuing to do things to our First Australians rather than with them, as Labor would do.
We have requested a briefing on this bill and, as yet, it has not been provided. We requested a briefing last week from the Attorney-General and were provided with a briefing by officials from the Attorney-General's Department, who outlined to the opposition the difficulties that have been created by this decision of the full Federal Court in McGlade, but not at that briefing and not subsequently has the government sought to say that this bill is so urgent that it has to be brought on for debate scarcely 24 hours from when it was introduced in this parliament. Might I say, the government could have prepared for the outcome of the McGlade case. It knew that this was coming and it was warned that this was coming, but, instead, seemingly caught unawares by the decision on 2 February, the government has scrambled. It did not have any legislation at all last week to show us, and yesterday it rushed this bill into the parliament, again without an explanation as to why it is so urgent.
Might I remind members of the House that, when Labor were last in government, we recognised that there were aspects of the Native Title Act that needed to be closely examined in order to ensure that the act continued to operate effectively to serve its key purposes. Those purposes include providing for the recognition and protection of native title, establishing ways in which future dealings affecting native title may proceed and setting standards for those dealings, and establishing a mechanism for determining claims to native title.
To that end, as Attorney-General, I referred to the Australian Law Reform Commission a range of aspects of the Native Title Act, and asked the Australian Law Reform Commission to look at making improvements. That included requesting them to examine and make recommendations in relation to connection requirements relating to the recognition and scope of native title rights and interests, including, but not limited to, whether there should be a presumption of continuity of acknowledgement and observance of traditional laws and customs in connection; a clarification of the meaning of 'traditional' to allow for the evolution and adaptation of culture and recognition of native title rights and interests; a clarification that native title rights and interests can include rights and interests of a commercial nature; confirmation that connection with the land and waters does not require physical occupation, or continued or recent use; and empowerment of courts to disregard substantial interruption or change in the continuity of acknowledgement and observance of traditional laws and customs, where it is in the interests of justice to do so. Finally, in this reference to the Australian Law Reform Commission, I asked them to look at barriers imposed by the act's authorisation and joinder provisions to claimants, potential claimants and respondents' access to justice.
In relation to those areas, and in light of the preamble and objects of the Native Title Act, Labor in government, and I as Attorney-General, requested that the commission consider what, if any, changes could be made to improve the operation of Commonwealth native title laws and legal frameworks. The Australian Law Reform Commission's report, entitled Connection to country, was published in June 2015. It included some 30 recommendations for changes to the Native Title Act, and also recommendations that expressly dealt with two of the sections of the Native Title Act that are the subject of amendments in this bill.
So it is not as if the government has not had before it, for nearly two years, recommendations of the Australian Law Reform Commission about, in part, the very subject matter of this bill. Regrettably, in keeping with this government's near complete lack of interest in all things to do with native title, and, I regret to say, near complete lack of interest in making the Native Title Act work better, the government—and the Attorney-General, Senator Brandis, in particular—has completely failed to respond to the law reform commission's report for almost two years.
This government seems to have done nothing to address identified problems with the Native Title Act. It is not doing any unkindness to this Attorney-General to say that he has said nothing substantive about native title in the almost 3½ years that he has, regrettably, been the minister responsible for the Native Title Act. The one announcement that I can recall Senator Brandis, as Attorney-General and minister responsible for the Native Title Act, making in relation to native title matters was to restore funding to the native title respondents fund. That, of course, is the fund established in the aftermath of the passage of the Native Title Act, which provided, and was intended to provide, funding for test cases, and ensured that respondents, namely people who oppose native title claims—mostly mining companies and pastoralists—could get funding from the federal government to ensure that they were adequately resourced to put their side of the argument.
In government, as Attorney-General, I did not see any need for that fund to still be in existence some 20 years after the Native Title Act had been passed. The time had well passed for test cases to be litigated and decided—that has happened—and we abolished the native title respondents fund. But this government, and particularly this minister, decided it was an appropriate thing to restore funding to the native title respondents fund; this, of course, was at the same time as they were busily cutting funding from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander legal services, community legal centres and legal aid commissions, and, indeed, the whole of the legal assistance sector.
What we have here is a government that has drafted this legislation in a mad rush and is seeking to have it debated in this House without any proper consideration—without consideration by Aboriginal communities, by land councils and representative bodies, by the legion of academics who are expert in native title law, or by the legion of barristers and solicitors across Australia who are expert in native title law.
If it were not enough that the government has utterly failed to respond to an Australian Law Reform Commission report that is nearly two years old, we now know, courtesy of the front page of The Australian on Monday morning, that Senator Brandis, the Attorney-General and the minister responsible for native title, was expressly warned about the potential impact of the McGlade decision—or, at that point when he was warned some six months ago, the McGlade litigation, because there had not yet been a decision. But it was entirely clear to anyone looking at that litigation—litigation, of course, is a public activity in this country—that there was the potential for this decision of the full Federal Court to displace several years of practice in native title, and, in doing so, to cause some considerable disruption to the native title system.
As it happens, the full Federal Court in the McGlade decision expressly recognised the consequences of its own decision, which was determined not by what the consequences for other ILUAs would be but, rather, by a question of statutory interpretation. I am not wishing to dispute in any way the decision of the Full Federal Court, which was a matter of statutory interpretation. I am here dealing—and the government needs to be here dealing and this parliament needs to be here dealing—with what the practical consequences of it are. But Senator Brandis was warned of this some six months ago. This is what the article in The Australian said:
A leaked letter to Senator Brandis shows indigenous groups pleading in August—
that is, August 2016—
for 'urgent' technical amendments to the Native Title Act to thwart this month’s Federal Court decision that has invalidated land-use agreements across Australia.
Any competent government would have acted on that warning. They would have been working through the issues that they were warned about last year and consulting with the Indigenous community, with companies potentially impacted, and so on. If we had a competent minister and a competent government, we could have been ready in this parliament on the very day that the McGlade decision was handed down with a response that had been properly prepared. But this minister and this incompetent government did nothing about what clearly was potentially going to be a problem, so now the government are scrambling to cover up their incompetence by seeking to rush through debate on this bill without consultation. It is incompetence and the government are seeking to cover up that incompetence, because the flurry of activity that the government have brought about here is in no way a substitute for the orderly way in which this government should have approached the problem.
Might I say that it is clear from the bill, on its face, that significant compensation might need to be paid to individuals and groups impacted by the bill. Did the government seek, in the second reading speech that was delivered in this House by the Minister for Justice yesterday, to explain in any way this compensation provision, which is known as a 'historic shipwrecks clause'? No. They simply put it in the bill and thought perhaps no-one would notice that part of the fix being put in place would necessarily involve, in order to avoid the bill being treated as an unconstitutional piece of legislation, the government providing for compensation to be paid to anybody that says they have been deprived of a right of action by the validation of the 150 or so agreements that may be invalid as a result of the McGlade decision. The government have not explained how much it might cost. Why is that? It is because this government do not have the faintest idea. It is because they have not taken the time to find out.
The government has not even sought to explain to this parliament or put before this parliament a list of the 150 or so agreements that may have been invalidated by the McGlade decision. As I understand it from the inquiries that we have been able to make since 2 February, it will include a number of national park agreements—that is, Indigenous land use agreements that concern national parks. It will include Indigenous land use agreements affecting agricultural ventures. It will certainly include Indigenous land use agreements affecting very large areas of land in every state and territory of Australia. It will certainly include Indigenous land use agreements that affect mining ventures. Some of those mining ventures may already have been completed—in other words, the mine dug, the resource extracted, payments made to traditional owners and the venture completed, but with a potential invalidation which might lead to all sorts of consequences different from those intended by the traditional owners when they negotiated the agreements in the first place. The government has not told this parliament how many agreements might be affected—why this parliament is being asked to pass validating legislation—because the government has not taken the trouble to find out. Even though it has had plenty of time and plenty of warning about the potential effect of a decision that was being litigated, that for some months has been reserved and that has now resulted in a decision, on 2 February, the government was seemingly totally unprepared for it.
How could a government be so incompetent in dealing with an act of parliament that is of such significance to Australians, namely the Native Title Act? I think that that can be answered in four words: Attorney-General George Brandis. What has he been so busy with that he could not take the trouble to consult about the native title report of the Australian Law Reform Commission, which he received almost two years ago? What has he been so busy with that he could not take the trouble to respond to the warning that he was given six months ago? I do not have the time to explain what he has been so busy with, but we should not be surprised that this hapless Attorney-General has messed things up once again.
This, though, is too important an issue to allow this bill to be rushed through without proper scrutiny by this parliament. I am pleased that the government has now said—contrary to its position late last night and earlier this morning—that it will not put this bill to a vote today. That is entirely appropriate. But nor should it have brought this bill on for debate at a time when the opposition have not been able to examine the bill through our party processes and have not had the opportunity for our excellent Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Caucus Committee to examine and debate the bill and its consequences. As it happens, we have within the federal opposition now three Indigenous members of caucus, one of whom, Senator Patrick Dodson, is someone who has had deep, long, personal experience of native title matters stretching right back not just to the inception of the Native Title Act but well before then.
Let's just think about what the Attorney-General might have been doing that prevented him from actually looking at what needed to be done on this bill. Perhaps it was reading a book of poetry during an estimates hearing? Perhaps it was claiming more than $1,600 in taxpayers' money to attend a mate's wedding? Perhaps it was bungling the announcement of the royal commission into Indigenous incarceration, which happily now has been put back on an even footing despite the incompetence of the Attorney-General? Perhaps it was misleading the Senate on the advice that was given by the Solicitor-General on a key national security question?
Perhaps it was spending time forcing an excellent Solicitor-General from office, because of the power grab that the Attorney-General was engaged in? Perhaps it was pressuring the President of the Australian Human Rights Commission to resign because this Attorney-General did not like Professor Triggs? Perhaps it was spending more than $15,000 on bookshelves for his own office—
The minister on a point of order?
Yes, Mr Deputy Speaker. I would be grateful if the shadow minister could return to the topic of the bill in line with the orders on relevance.
It is not a point of order.
A bit sensitive over there on the other side! Returning to the topic more directly: we know what the views of this Attorney-General are about racial discrimination. They are deeply connected to this native title bill that is before the parliament. This is the Attorney-General that said in the parliament that people have a right to be bigots, you know! We see here his attitude to the Aboriginal people of this country, by rushing on this bill for debate— (Time expired)
I rise to speak on the Native Title Amendment (Indigenous Land Use Agreements) Bill 2017.
Native title has been a revolution in Australian law. I remember the Mabo decision of 25 years ago and the way in which that changed the way we viewed land law and the way in which there was effectively a new type of land law in native title that had been created by the High Court.
I remember a number of the debates around the Native Title Act, introduced by the Keating government, and then the surprise that greeted Australians with the Wik decision of the High Court—and perhaps one of the most lengthy and divisive debates ever witnessed in this parliament, being the debate around the Wik legislation at the time.
I had the privilege of working for my predecessor as member for Berowra when he was Attorney-General. One of the responsibilities for which I had the privilege of assisting him with was native title. In a conclusion to the issue of the Wik case, shortly after the 2004 election we travelled to Aurukun and were present for the final determination of that Wik case. It was a really extraordinary occasion to be there at Aurukun with a couple of the original claimants who had brought the original High Court case there some half a decade earlier, and to see the resolution of those matters.
One of the key things that came out of the Native Title Act, and one of the important things in native title, has been the way in which agreements have been made around the claims. Indigenous Land Use Agreements have been a very important part of agreement making in the native title space, and an important part of ensuring that there is some development, progress and prosperity given to successful Indigenous communities that have made a claim and been registered.
In relation to this bill, everyone is in agreement that urgent amendments are needed to remedy the implications of the recent Federal Court decision. These changes will ensure certainty in agreement making and enable native title holders to continue to use native title in beneficial ways. The government has moved quickly to introduce amendments that will restore the status quo in this space, and we ask the Labor Party to stand beside us to consult on these amendments and help the government move forward.
The government intends to move this bill through the House and then spend the next four weeks consulting before it gets considered by the Senate. States, territories and Indigenous stakeholders, and other affected parties, are calling for these amendments. The Queensland Labor Premier in particular is urgently seeking a resolution.
The government remains committed to the Indigenous Land Use Agreement system. As I said, it has been a very important system in delivering outcomes for Indigenous people and Indigenous communities. It is the best way of facilitating agreements between native title holders and parties who wish to do business on native title land. That includes many of the pastoralists, miners, tourism operators and so on who operate on native title land. These amendments simply restore the status which prevailed before the decision in McGlade.
The bill is a response to the decision of the full Federal Court in the McGlade case. It will remove the requirement that was stated in that decision for all registered native title claimants to sign an Indigenous Land Use Agreement. More particularly, for ILUAs, or Indigenous Land Use Agreements, concluded after the coming into force of the bill, the bill will provide that not all registered native title claimants are required to sign the ILUA. That was one of the subjects in that McGlade case.
For agreements lodged with the National Native Title Tribunal, but not registered by the Native Title Registrar, it will provide that those agreements are not taken to be invalid, merely on the ground that not all registered native title claimants have signed the agreement. Similarly, it will provide for agreements that have been registered but were not signed by all registered native title claimants.
The Native Title Act 1993 provides that any act done after 1 January 1994 is invalid to the extent that it affects native title—defined as a `future act' in the Native Title Act—unless the Native Title Act otherwise provides.
One means of validating future acts provided for by the Native Title Act is an Indigenous Land Use Agreement. Parties to an Indigenous Land Use Agreement may agree that an act which would otherwise have been invalid can proceed, in exchange for which the non-Indigenous party or parties will pay compensation or agree to do some other act benefiting the native title holders. By way of example, mining and pastoral projects will often require an Indigenous Land Use Agreement so as to avoid affecting native title rights and interests.
The Native Title Act sets out a range of provisions as to who must be parties to an Indigenous Land Use Agreement and how it is to be authorised by the claim group, negotiated and lodged with the National Native Title Tribunal. Crucially, in order to validate any future acts, the Indigenous Land Use Agreement must also be registered by the National Native Title Tribunal.
In 2010, the Federal Court decided that in order to be a valid Indigenous Land Use Agreement, at least one member of the registered native title claimant for an area had to sign the agreement. That was the orthodox position in precedent under the QGC case in Bygrave and others. That stood as the accepted interpretation of the Native Title Act until 2 February this year, when the McGlade decision was published.
McGlade overruled Bygrave, holding that the correct interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Native Title Act required all registered native title claimants to sign an Indigenous Land Use Agreement in order for it to be capable of registration. Going forward, the decision may make it more difficult for native title respondents, including government, pastoralists and mining companies, to negotiate an Indigenous Land Use Agreement with local native title holders.
The decision affects two groups of Indigenous Land Use Agreements that have already been signed: those which have been lodged with the tribunal, but not registered, and those which were registered in reliance on the decision in Bygrave. There are 123 Indigenous Land Use Agreements in the latter category, of which 109 are in Queensland. And you can understand, with that large number in Queensland, why the Queensland Labor Premier is particularly concerned to seek an early resolution to this matter.
Those on the government side would ask those opposite to actually stand behind us and help us consult on the amendments moving forward. The government wants to move this bill through the House and then spend some time doing the consultations over the next four weeks before it is considered by the Senate. Everyone is in agreement that the urgent amendments are needed to remedy the implications of that Federal Court decision in McGlade, and I think that these changes will ensure certainty in agreement-making and enable native title holders to continue to use native title in those many beneficial ways in which they have, in the various native title claimant groups right across our country. I commend this bill to the House.
I rise on behalf of the Labor Party to talk to the Native Title Amendment (Indigenous Land Use Agreements) Bill 2017. I want to do this in three parts: I want to reflect on what native title means to Indigenous people; I want to examine what this bill does; but I also want to make comment on how this debate has progressed so far this morning.
First of all, I would like to say that, for native title, this legislation is critically important, not only for Aboriginal Australians but for all Australians. I have some personal connection to the original Native Title Act in the sense that my late partner in life, Rick Farley, was the executive director of the Farmers' Federation when the original native title legislation was being put in place and worked very closely with the then Prime Minister and, of course, the Farmers' Federation and other groups, to bring about what was an absolutely historic piece of legislation—historic in the sense that it, for the first time, put land tenure around Aboriginal occupation and Aboriginal ownership of land. But it also did something else quite remarkable for us in this country: it brought together farmers, environmentalists, and, of course, governments and also Indigenous people. And for a piece of legislation of that importance to do that was remarkable. Through the careful way in which it was negotiated—the very long debate in this place and the incredibly complex consultation process—we ended up with a piece of legislation that, as I said, brought people together. And it established native title land tenure for the first peoples of this country. I think that is a very important point to make. And of course Rick Farley was also a member of the first native title tribunal. So I do have some quite personal connection to this piece of legislation.
Labor is the party of native title and land rights and, as I said, it was Paul Keating who was the Prime Minister when this legislation was first put through. I was also a member of the national Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation in 1997, when the then Howard government launched an unprecedented attack, led by Minister Herron, who was the Aboriginal affairs minister at the time, on that piece of legislation, trying to wind it back. I think that was the most divisive debate that we have seen in this country, on the 10-point plan to wind back native title. So I do know what I am talking about, and I understand the importance of this piece of legislation.
It was the Keating government, as I said, that introduced native title, and I say from the outset that, continuing in that tradition, it is very likely that Labor will also support moves to protect the integrity of native title. The recent Federal Court decision outlined by the shadow Attorney-General had the effect of invalidating currently-operating ILUAs. Indigenous Land Use Agreements have been in place, along with the native title legislation, as a way of establishing the way in which pieces of land with many interests can be used. These ILUAs in many ways provide agreements and direction, particularly for state governments but also for individual Indigenous communities and individual Indigenous nations.
Can I also add to the words that have been said this morning about the clumsy, lazy way in which the Attorney-General has not dealt properly and has not dealt respectfully with this legislation or with Indigenous peoples. There is nothing outrageous, there is nothing wrong, with wanting a consultation process. And there was no need—absolutely no need—for the rush in bringing in this legislation: introducing it last night and then having it debated and possibly decided on today.
So this is a mess of the government's own making—completely disrespectful to Indigenous people, completely disrespectful to the intent and the spirit of native title, and completely unnecessary in terms of the way in which I was treated in this chamber by the Leader of the House for the government. Gagging me was not a very wise thing to do. And it was disrespectful to the spirit of this place and what we have dealt with this week: the fine speeches from both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition in terms of the Closing the Gap report; the wonderful ceremony that we had in the Great Hall on the Redfern Statement; the fact that both the government and the opposition signed that Redfern Statement. And then to end the week with this unnecessary, unedifying stupidity was the making of the Attorney-General and the making of the Leader of the House. I am pleased that sense has come into this discussion and decency has come into this discussion on the way in which this legislation is going to be managed today, but it was unnecessary, it was unedifying, and it was certainly not in the spirit of what has taken place in this House over the last few days. If the Attorney-General does not think that this is not going to be well understood out there in the Aboriginal community, then he is making a very big mistake—a very big mistake indeed.
The court ruling in Western Australia has enormous implications for many projects around this country. There are 123 currently registered agreements, and others which are in negotiation. But those opposite have known for months, as the shadow Attorney-General said, that there would be a need for this piece of legislation. They knew for a very long time and did nothing to prepare for that court decision. The implications are far-reaching. Of course Labor understands perfectly well that there need to be amendments to the native title legislation, but what is at hand here is the way in which it has been dealt with by this government: without respect, without integrity, without any thinking about the way in which it is going to affect people, and certainly without understanding of or care for the message that it will send out to the Aboriginal community and the broader community about the attitude of the Attorney-General towards Indigenous people and Indigenous issues.
This is about land tenure. This is about the fundamental thing that underpins Aboriginal culture and Aboriginal people: connection to country; connection to land. It is fundamental to who we are as first peoples. It is also something that transcends for all Australians. All Australians understand in their hearts about country and understand in their hearts about the environment. They understand the way in which we identify ourselves as Australians through country—through the colour of the sand, through the colour of the mountains, through the bush, through rivers and through all of those things that make up our environment. That is one of the ways in which we define ourselves as Australians, and to just push that into the face of Aboriginal people by the way in which this has been dealt with is reprehensible. I will make sure, as Labor will, that people understand that.
I do not want to debate this legislation at any great length—I think the shadow Attorney-General has done that very well—but I do want to say that changes to native title can have huge impacts for Aboriginal communities and private businesses. This parliament deserves the opportunity and should provide the opportunity for consultation with those that will be affected. The Attorney-General's actions fly in the face of the sentiment expressed by the Prime Minister just a few days ago. I have absolutely no doubt—and I have known the Prime Minister for some time—that he was genuine about those sentiments, and he must be absolutely furious at the way in which the incompetent Attorney-General has managed this. How can we possibly consider this legislation given only a day's notice? How can Aboriginal communities consider the implications? How can businesses consider the implications? This is simply ridiculous.
When Labor were last in government, we recognised that aspects of the Native Title Act should be closely examined to ensure that the act continued to operate to effectively serve its key purposes. These purposes include:
(a) to provide for the recognition and protection of native title; and
(b) to establish ways in which future dealings affecting native title may proceed and to set standards for those dealings; and
(c) to establish a mechanism for determining claims to native title …
Those things are fundamental to the Native Title Act, and those things are what Labor put in place when we were in government and recognised native title.
In June 2015, the Australian Law Reform Commission tabled its report, which included some 30 recommendations for changes to the Native Title Act. The ALRC's report included recommendations to change two of the key provisions that are subject to this bill. In keeping with this government's complete lack of interest in Indigenous Australians—or certainly Senator Brandis's—there has been a great failing to respond to the Law Reform Commission's report.
The Leader of the House said:
The convention has always been that the bill should be introduced and then debated the following sitting week, not the next day. Only in the rarest circumstances is the parliament required to have a bill introduced and then debated the next day.
This is not the rarest of circumstances. This bill does not have to be passed today, and I am pleased that sense has prevailed, because Labor will not support legislation which has been introduced in a rush, particularly when it comes to the issue of native title. It is a complex area of law. It is a complex piece of legislation. It has far-reaching impacts not just for the Indigenous community but also for the business community. On that basis, it cannot be rushed.
It is clear from this bill that significant compensation may need to be paid. I watched the advisers box when the shadow Attorney-General said that and I hope that that is being considered. How can you rush a bill like this through with the implications that it has for so many people for compensation and for the way in which we take forward Indigenous issues in this country? It is an insult to the highest degree not just to me but to the parliament, to the people of Australia and, particularly, to First Australians. I do not know the Attorney-General very well, but I hope this is not an indication of how seriously he takes Indigenous issues and how assiduously he applies himself to his job. He is the highest lawmaker in the land. How can he be so sloppy? How can he be so lazy and so incompetent? He has dragged the government into what is now an embarrassing situation. That is what the Attorney-General has done. He has embarrassed his government, he has embarrassed this parliament and he has certainly sent a message to the Indigenous community and the business community that native title, and therefore Aboriginal people, do not matter. I do not accept that from the chief lawmaker of the land. We should be getting better.
In closing, native title is important to Indigenous people, but native title did something very remarkable after the Mabo decision. It, for the first time, created law around the way in which land issues could be dealt with between Aboriginal people, governments and businesses. That is not insignificant. That is not something that should be rushed through and gagged. I take offence—particularly with the way in which I conduct myself: hopefully with grace, decency and fairness—that I would be gagged in this place. I was not going to get up and rubbish anyone. I was going to talk about the legislation and the lack of consultation that came along with this legislation.
I think that there have been lessons learnt today. I hope there have been lessons learnt. Labor will protect native title. Labor will work with the government on making sure amendments go through on the native title legislation for the benefit of everyone. For us to be rushed, for the community to be rushed in this way is completely unacceptable, and I say that very firmly.
I rise to speak on the Native Title Amendment (Indigenous Land Use Agreements) Bill 2017. I was around at the time when discussions on native title commenced and I remember sitting with Rob Riley, who has since passed away, and Peter Yu, Dennis Eggington and many other great leaders, talking about what the Native Title Act would mean and the opportunities it would create. The other important element was the empowerment in many forms not only in terms of determining use of land but in determining opportunities to create economic empowerment in a way that meant that we sat as equal partners within those negotiations with all parties.
The Mabo and Wik decisions and the Native Title Act were probably salient points in the history of this nation. They changed the relationship between all Indigenous Australians and all entities of Australian society. They created a sense of understanding that registered across the whole of Australian society. Whilst many may have reacted with unkind responses—I did hear a state premier who made the comment 'there goes our backyards' under native title—that was never the intent.
The act had served Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities well up until 2 February, when the full Federal Court handed down the McGlade v Native Title Registrar decision, which then had unintended consequences that had not been thought of. The McGlade decision created uncertainty in the native title sector regarding the status of areas of the ILUAs. That meant that area ILUAs registered without the signatures of all RNTC members, including members who were deceased, were agreements which did not meet the requirement for ILUAs as defined under the act and that area ILUAs lodged for registration which did not comply with McGlade could no longer be registered.
And so it is obvious and natural that a government would respond by looking at the remedy to ensure that all of these agreements have the status that is expected by those Indigenous communities and areas where these agreements have been entered into. Certainly in phone calls I have received land councils have asked that we do something to remedy the outcome of that decision and have supported any legislation required to address the issue of uncertainty created by the Federal Court.
To this end, the Attorney-General has proposed that the amendments to the act will achieve the following. They will secure existing agreements which have been registered on or before 2 February 2017 but do not comply with McGlade. I think that is a very relevant, salient point to give absolute certainty to all of our traditional owners and all of our communities who have native title agreements that are in train and that have been negotiated in good faith between all parties. They will enable the registration of agreements which have been made and have been lodged for registration on or before 2 February 2017 but do not comply with McGlade and will clarify who must be a party to an area ILUA in the future unless the claim group determines otherwise.
Those are important changes. They do not alter the intent of the Native Title Act. They give certainty in Commonwealth legislation to the agreements that have been struck. None of us ever foresee the decisions and ramifications of the full Federal Court and what the implications are until those decisions are handed down. Whilst we might have some prior knowledge of what might be an unintended consequence, we cannot act on that with the degree of certainty implied until those decisions are made. I hope that in this debate we focus on the amendments that are being suggested. I certainly have heard criticism of the Attorney-General, which is not the basis for the change. From what I ascertain from talking with colleagues on both sides, everyone is in agreement with the amendments that are needed to remedy the implications of the recent Federal Court decision. Their commitment to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people across this nation has not altered. On that basis, I hope that we would focus on the amendments proposed and not on the peripheral matters that I hear being raised.
The certainty that is needed is not only with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people but also with those parties who have entered into the agreements, so that they can plan the way forward as agreed and honour those commitments.
This bill will move through this House, it will complete its journey and then it will spend time in the Senate, where for the next four weeks consultation will be occurring through the committee process within the Senate. I think that is an important element of this whole debate, because it will allow others to contribute to the impact of this decision and also for them to present their point of view on the importance of these amendments being moved expediently through the parliament, both this chamber and the Senate, to enable their planning and their consideration of land use to proceed in the way that had been planned.
When we tackle this complex issue and take it from personal perspectives, then I think we demean the value of the amendments, and I would hope that the rest of the debates that I hear are about the way in which we, collectively, in this chamber, support those amendments, which will make a difference to the decision that arose out of the full Federal Court.
When I look back on the Closing the Gap targets and our failure to meet them and when I look at the economic pathways and opportunities that are available to Indigenous Australians through native title land use agreements, I see an avenue bringing together opportunities for all of us to effect the changes that will close the differences in the levels of disadvantage that have prevailed in this country for so long. I certainly appreciate the comments made by my colleague the member for Barton in terms of what land means to us, what country means, the beauty and the richness of connection to country and the relationship that is important to all Indigenous Australians. But, equally, we have to also acknowledge that, when the Indigenous land councils express a view that they want government to make the amendments so that they can continue with their negotiations, that is also an important step in listening to the voices that prevail, who have negotiated these agreements over a period of time and who can see the economic advantage that is important to the people they represent.
I ask all colleagues in this House to focus on those very particular issues. And, whilst there might be views about the Attorney-General that are being expressed, they are not the primacy of this debate and the debate of this legislation. What we need to do is demonstrate that we are totally committed to the way in which the intent of native title—as negotiated in this chamber over a lengthy period of time, and Paul Keating's commitment and stance on what was being pushed for and eventually achieved, gave a great opportunity to create those economic pathways. But it is not just economic pathways; it is also the importance of country. Having native title means that association continues and becomes very critical in the way in which our culture continues to maintain its existence with Mother Earth and the surrounds that have been important for periods in excess of 60,000 years.
I would ask all members to focus on the amendments, to allow the Senate process of consultation over that four-week period to occur and to collectively stand together. I ask Labor to stand with us on this, in terms of the amendments, because, as my colleague sitting opposite me the Shadow assistant minister for Indigenous health knowns only too well, when we are out in communities and sitting in the red dirt, talking to people, land is always raised. The use of land has always been paramount in many of those discussions.
I know that there will be individuals and groups that will be disappointed with the full Federal Court decision, because what they see is the potential for an opportunity to slip away. On the basis, I would ask that we give credence to the process in this House, but that we focus on the amendments and that, equally, we stand together to ensure that this bill passes through to the Senate, so the Senate is able to do its committee work and then deliberate in its considerations.
I also ask the Greens to stand with us on this issue. I know that Senator Rachel Siewert has played a significant role in being a champion for many of the things that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people aspire to. I know that, when she has been out within the communities, her heart and her soul are enmeshed within the thinking of those discussions. She and I have had some great conversations about many of the issues that have arisen out of peoples' reliance on country, their reliance on land and their reliance on the opportunities. So I would also ask the Greens to stand with us on this one, to right a wrong, in one sense, to make the amendments ensured through both Houses, so it gives back to all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people the certainty they deserve and the certainty they have always anticipated and expected with native title.
There is one reason and one reason only why the government was trying to rush this legislation through this week and have it wound back by this House. There is one reason why the government came here and put a motion on the Notice Paper to try and gag this debate until this House stood up to them: Adani—Adani, Adani, Adani.
In their rush to build a coalmine, this government is prepared to ride roughshod over Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders. When it comes to making laws, this government rolls out the red carpet for multinational coal companies but slams the door on our first Australians. Everyone knows that this government is prepared to defy the science and defy the will of the people of this country who do not want public money going to prop up an uneconomic coalmine that is going to be a climate bomb. So, to avoid that scrutiny, the government comes in here and says, 'We're going to rush legislation through, even if it means potentially taking away the rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians.'
When you look at the approach the government have taken this morning and everything they have said this week during the Closing the Gap statements and at other times, you see that it is just words. It is outrageous that the government thought it was good enough to ask every member of parliament in this place to vote today on a bill that, as we have heard, deals with some incredibly complex matters and potentially takes away people's right to determine what happens on their land.
I was very pleased to support the opposition's motion to wind the government back, and I am sure that is part of the reason that the government have realised the error of their ways and are now saying that they are not going to rush it through. But the Labor opposition is paying ducks and drakes on this, because something happened in the Senate today that betrays everything that Labor did in here this morning as just sound and fury—sound and fury signifying nothing. What happened in the Senate today—and we have heard it from the shadow Attorney-General—is that the government and the opposition have agreed to a quick and dirty inquiry into a fundamentally important piece of legislation; a quick and dirty inquiry that will allow this bill to be rushed through potentially on the next sitting day. The Senate is sitting today? When is it next sitting so that it could debate this legislation? On 20 March. So the government and Labor have agreed, 'We'll give the Senate one sitting day to consider this, and we'll stitch it all up in between, we'll hope that the inquiry comes down with a recommendation and then we'll push it through the Senate'—a few weeks for an inquiry that affects the fundamental rights that people have to their land and their country.
We have heard from both the Labor opposition and the government about the complexities in negotiating this legislation in the first place. We know—because the court case was brought that has led us to this position—that there are many differing voices within the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities that need to be heard. Whilst there might be some issues about the technical drafting of the law that might need to be addressed—and everyone, including the Greens would look at that—we also know that something as important as dealing with native title should not be rushed through this parliament. The ABC rural and regional advocacy bill got a six-month inquiry in the Senate. The sports betting reform bill got a six-month inquiry in the Senate. If those issues are worthy of several months of deliberation by a very busy committee that has a number of inquiries on its plate, then surely this—given its potentially significant consequences that we have just heard from both sides—is deserving of consideration.
The member for Hasluck, the shadow minister—who I respect—got up and made some very kind comments about our Senator Rachel Siewert, who is responsible for this area and for this bill for the Greens. As the shadow minister said, Senator Siewert has a significant amount of respect amongst Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities in this country. Senator Siewert got up this morning and asked the Senate to allow until 8 May for the Senate to look at this bill so that we could hear from all of the voices around this country—all the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander voices, not just the ones that the old parties want to hear from; so that we could hear from everyone—about the impact of this legislation. But Labor and government said, 'No; we are going to insist on a quick and dirty inquiry and push it through quickly,' which just shows that everything that happened here this morning was show for the press, show for the cameras, and, behind the scenes, they are on their way to doing a deal to ram this through.
Maybe this is good legislation—maybe it is. Maybe this is legislation that is worthy of being passed. Maybe it is legislation that requires being amended to satisfy concerns. Maybe it is legislation that deserves to be opposed. That is what a thorough examination of this would uncover. But, no, Labor and Liberal in the Senate today have nailed their colours to the mast and said, 'The most important thing is that the Adani coalmine go ahead and if that means we have to have a quick and dirty inquiry and ride roughshod over people's rights then we will do it'—and that is a disgrace. It cannot be justified to have a one-month inquiry into such an important matter, especially when the point has been made that involves such complexity and it is going to fundamentally affect people's rights.
So why does the government, with Labor's support, want to make it this happen. We are talking about a coalmine in Queensland that is carbon bomb. There have been reports that have suggested that the decision of the Federal Court might affect the ability of that carbon bomb to go ahead. That is why the government is coming in here. If all the coal in that coalmine in the broader Galilee Basin is dug up and burnt, it is going to produce as much pollution as the entire European Union countries all put together do in a year. We are talking countries' worth of pollution sitting under the ground in the Adani coalmine in the broader Galilee Basin. Faced with that, many, many people around the country are saying, 'This coal needs to stay in the ground.' People are saying that, once it is dug up and burnt, it may be too late, because we only have a very small carbon budget left. We can only burn a certain amount of the coal that is in the ground before it becomes too late.
But so keen are Liberal—and it seems Labor—to build it that they will throw people's rights to the wind. So keen is the government to build it, that they are prepared to put a billion dollars' worth of public money into it, when that could be spent on schools, hospitals or renewable energy. So keen are Labor and Liberal to do it that they will change Queensland laws to make sure that it goes ahead. And now it seems that so keen are Labor and Liberal to get the Adani coalmine happening that this bill will also be caught up in their mad rush to burn more coal.
If this bill were to be put to a vote today, I suspect there are many people who would not support it, because it is not right that people be asked to vote on something that they have only seen from yesterday. I hope that we are not going to see a truncation of the speaking list here so that the sound and fury happens but the bill actually goes through with a gag in all but name. But I hope the spirit of what we have heard here this morning translates also into the further scrutiny of this bill in the Senate and that the opposition reconsider their decision to side with the government for a quick and dirty inquiry and instead allow a full inquiry that will allow all voices to be heard.
As you go through this bill, and as you look at the court decision, you understand that there are many significant things that are covered by this bill. For example, this bill and the court decision deal with issues of what happens when native title claimants are deceased. One question that has been thrown up is: does the recent Federal Court ruling then throw into question agreements that have been struck if someone is deceased? Everyone would say that is a legitimate question that deserves a bit of examination.
But caught up in the government's drafting of this very short bill with very big implications is this fundamental point: what we are dealing with here is a full court decision that said, in a nutshell, that for certain agreements to be valid you need to have the agreement of all native title claimants. What the court decision turned on was what 'all' means. Does it mean everyone? What happens if there are claimants in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities who object to what is being done notionally on their behalf? That is a very serious question that we will need to grapple with. What happens if there is a difference of views?
The government's answer is to come in and say, 'We want you to very quickly sign up to something that says that if there is dissent it doesn't really matter, because we are going to effectively legislate away people's rights to have a different opinion.' That is what this bill will do, and that is why there are many people who are concerned about it. There will be some who say, 'Support it.' There will be some who say, 'Oppose it,' and there will be some who say, 'Support it with some changes.' But we owe it to everyone who is affected by this bill to have a good hard look at it.
This bill, of all the bills that we consider, should not be caught up in the government's new coal culture wars, but that is what is happening. This bill has been caught up in the government's push to build a coalmine, and that is disgraceful. What is also very upsetting is that the push to get this bill through quickly is potentially being aided and abetted by an opposition who also want that coalmine built. So I have a very simple proposition—let's separate this bill out from the push to build a coalmine. Let's consider this bill on its merits. Let's give this bill the kind of inquiry that the Senate usually gives for matters this important. Let's give it the kind of worth and merit review that you might give the sports betting reform bill.
We did not even propose six months in the Senate. We propose that it come back in May. But no, it is going to be rushed through, and that is very disappointing. But there is time for people to change their minds and I hope that some common sense prevails and that we do not see this bill rushed through. If it gets put to a vote here today, the Greens cannot support it, not because we think that it is necessarily legislation that we would oppose but because we should not be asked to vote on it today. So I hope that we are not going to see a truncation of the speaking list and we are not going to be forced to vote today.
But the fact that the government would even consider pushing this to a vote today should ring alarm bells for everyone. Why is this so urgent for the government? Adani, Adani, Adani. This bill should not be caught up in the government's coal culture wars. This bill should be considered on its own merit. It should not be pushed to a vote today. It should be allowed time for proper scrutiny so that all voices around this country can be heard about a matter that will be of fundamental importance to many of our fellow Australians.
I have great pleasure speaking on the Native Title Amendment (Indigenous Land Use Agreements) Bill 2017. I do not take pleasure, though, in the manner in which we have been forced to speak on it. It was rammed into the House this morning at the request, no doubt, of the Attorney, who, as the shadow Attorney, the member for Isaacs, has pointed out, has had some months to deal with this issue. He has been advised and warned, as The Australian informed us, that this issue needed to be addressed. The article in The Australian stated:
A leaked letter to Senator Brandis shows indigenous groups pleading in August for "urgent" technical amendments to the Native Title Act to thwart this month's Federal Court decision that has invalidated land-use agreements across Australia.
This urgency was some months ago. It was not today. The Attorney was aware of the issues well before the court case was determined. It was very well understood.
Ms Henderson interjecting—
I would advise you to speak about things you know about and not things you do not know about. I might just remind you and remind the House that I was part of the Keating government and indeed on the cabinet committee that finally negotiated the Native Title Bill. So I am aware of the detail that was involved in that legislation. I am aware of the late-night sittings. I am aware of the negotiations that took place and the fact that aspects of the bill were watered down to satisfy crossbenchers in the Senate. Part of the reason, I think, that we are in this fix is what happened in the final days of negotiating the bill through the parliament in the first instance.
Let's not deny what the Attorney-General has done here. He has fully embarrassed the Prime Minister, who only earlier this week in this place, in high rhetorical flourish, said a number of other things. He said:
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.
He used the words of Chris Sarra at the beginning of his speech:
'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.'
Rushing this legislation in this place does not do that
It is worth pointing out that I am in this place now, in this debate, when I would otherwise be in the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Indigenous Affairs discussing matters to do with Indigenous affairs. Why wouldn't the parliament, the Attorney and the Prime Minister refer this legislation for an inquiry by the House committee, for example? Is it not appropriate? It is an existing committee of the parliament. Its purpose is to look into issues to do with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. It is in a very good position—with some expertise, I might say—to look at the nature of these proposals.
I commend the member for Barton for her contribution. She brings to this place a great deal of insight and should be venerated for that insight, as too should the member for Hasluck. I think, with great respect to him, that he has been put in a very invidious position by the Attorney, as has the Minister for Indigenous Affairs, Senator Scullion. I am certain that they, having heard the Prime Minister's words about being concerned that we as a community work together with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, would be very worried by the haste with which the Attorney sought to have this bill dealt with today, rammed through the parliament without so much as a 'by your leave'.
We are not mugs around here. Some of us know what goes on. Some of us, like me, have a background in native title. My background is both as a legislator in this place and from then working as a consultant on native title negotiations when I was out of this place for a couple of years. So I understand native title, and I understand the primacy of understanding, acknowledging and dealing with the interests of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and, most importantly, making sure they are giving their informed consent to any agreements.
I note that the decision of the court in McGlade v Native Title Registrar created uncertainty in the native title sector regarding the status of ILUAs. It meant that area ILUAs registered without the signatures of all registered native title claimant members, including members who are deceased, did not meet the requirements for ILUAs as defined under the act, and area ILUAs lodged for registration which do not comply with McGlade can no longer be registered. That creates a problem. The member for Melbourne talked about Adani. That may well be an issue. I have no doubt that there is a view in the minds of some in this place that we have to do all things possible to accelerate Adani—not in my mind. But I do know—I think the figure is somewhere in the vicinity of 140—that there are ILUAs which were regarded as valid prior to McGlade but which have effectively been invalidated by the McGlade decision.
So something has to be done. There is no doubt about that, and that was recognised by native title rep bodies around the country. But you cannot rush stuff into this place in the way which has been done without thinking about what was in the mind of the Attorney. As the shadow Attorney-General pointed out, he had the Australian Law Reform Commission review 20 years of operation of the Native Title Act. The Law Reform Commission made a series of recommendations to the government for action. None of those recommendations have been addressed or considered by the Attorney.
I do not know what goes on in the Attorney's office, or in his mind for that matter, but clearly native title and issues to do with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are at the very recesses of it, because if he were on the job we would have been having an informed discussion some time ago about the recommendations coming out of the Australian Law Reform Commission, and we would be looking at what amendments might be required to make the act more effective. But the Attorney has had two years to come up with responses. He has not sought advice from native title bodies. He has not sought to hold consultations. He has not given exposure draft legislation or explanatory memoranda. We have a problem with the Attorney-General. He is asleep at the wheel. Something needs to be done.
In the case of this current legislation, the bill proposes to amend the Native Title Act to remediate the effects of the decision by the Full Court of the Federal Court in McGlade v Native Title Registrar. I will not go through what the court said but, as I said, it has cast in doubt the validity of a number of ILUAs. If these ILUAs were invalidated as a result of the McGlade decision, it could have significant adverse consequences for those projects, the relevant Indigenous groups and large sectors of the Australian economy. That is clear.
That does not mean, however, that we should not be concerned about some elements of this legislation. Specifically, item 5 of part 1 of the schedule amends section 251A of the Native Title Act to enable a native title claim group, when authorising the making of an ILUA, to authorise particular registered claimants—whether one, some or all of the registered claimants—to be the party of the ILUA or to authorise a process whereby the party or parties to the ILUA will be determined. If the claim group does not stipulate which of the registered claimants is to be party to the ILUA, then the amendments in item 1 of part 1 of the schedule cause the default position to remain unchanged, being that all registered claimants are party to the agreement must therefore sign the ILUA to be effective. That is important. But what is also important is the possibility that a group might delegate the responsibility to sign an ILUA to an individual or a small number of individuals who might be influenced by others. That raises the very vexed question of what 'informed consent' means in this context.
We have to argue and we have to ask very carefully of this legislation: what are the unforeseen impacts of this bill? That is why an inquiry is important. That is why we should not be considering this legislation today without an inquiry taking place in the first place, not post the fact, as is the case now. It also raises other significant questions. There is the whole issue of some claimants or some native title holders who might in their own minds believe that, if an agreement is reached, their native title will be extinguished forever, therefore they are not prepared to do it. What rights do they have under these proposals? They might subsume their rights to that of the group, saying a majority of the group may give the responsibility of signing an agreement to an individual or group of individuals, but those individuals might have no interest in protecting the rights of those others who have a concern about the extinguishment of native title. Is that a fair and reasonable suggestion? Why aren't their interests been properly represented? These are some of the things which I know are of concern to people right around this country.
There is no question that where I live, in the Northern Territory, Aboriginal people take the issue of decision-making responsibilities very seriously, and they know that having the right people speak in the right place in the right way is a key and fundamental issue. We need to ask ourselves whether the amendments proposed here actually go against that principle. We need to be very clear in our minds about the impact of the proposed amendments on the rights of Aboriginal native title holders right around the country. We have to seemingly do something to validate those previous agreements. But I do think we need to be contemplating more seriously whether or not we should not be looking at other amendments to protect the rights of all native title holders.
We know that the government has been sitting on the Australian Law Reform Commission proposals and recommendations for some time. But Justice Reeves's decision in Bygrave, and the McGlade decision require us to be deliberative. We need to have detailed parliamentary consideration of them and their implications. We need to make sure there is appropriate and proper consultation with native title holders and their representative bodies. The way we were expected to come in here this morning and hurry through this bill gives no hope of that. It just highlights that the high rhetoric of the Prime Minister earlier this week means nought. It means nought. And that is a shame.
I really respect the member for Hasluck, and we on this side of the parliament would want to think we could work in a proper bipartisan way around issues to do with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. Yet we are asked to accept this fiction that the bill has to be through the parliament today, without us having the right to give it proper scrutiny. Now, that is not appropriate, it is not fair and it is not reasonable, and something needs to be done. I would say to the members opposite: if it is your intention to ram this through the parliament today, as it seems to be, then it is very clear to me that the people of Australia are being conned by the Prime Minister and, most importantly, being let down absolutely by the Attorney-General. I am not sure what the functional relationship is in this government between the Attorney-General and the Minister for Indigenous Affairs, and other members of the cabinet, but it is very, very clear there is no discussion, because I think Senator Scullion would be appalled by the way in which this matter has been dealt with.
There are very serious issues at stake here that need us to do a lot more in considering them, rather than ramming this piece of legislation through today. No question, things have to be done—no question. Nevertheless, it is not appropriate in the context of this parliament to make us in the House of Representatives not able to give it true and proper consideration, which we are not being allowed to do as a result of the decisions taken by the government today.
I will not delay the House long. Obviously, the Labor Party are in the position in this debate where we have had to argue about legislation which we have not had a chance to consider and on which we have not had an opportunity to consult. Obviously, that has put a limit on the number of speakers who are able to speak today and also has put a limit on the quality of those speeches in terms of the extent to which they have been able to mount a final argument.
The thing for the Labor Party when it comes to consultation with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities is that that consultation is real. We do not know our final position until we have conducted that consultation. I say that to the government.
I also say it to some of the environment groups that wanted to see this legislation through the lens of one project. The Labor Party cannot support a view of Aboriginal self-determination that says, 'We will support self-determination when it agrees with our environmental agenda and oppose it if it does not agree with our environmental agenda.' If you have that view then, put simply, you do not in fact believe in self-determination. When the Labor Party consider this bill our sole focus in arriving at a final position will be Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. That will be the consultation we will be conducting and that is how we will be arriving at our decision.
I caution anyone wanting to consider this issue through the lens of one project in one part of our country and simply say: how can we possibly ignore all the other places in Australia where this legislation will be relevant? Also, how can our position on self-determination be determined by whether or not Aboriginal communities agree with us? If we have been serious about any of the arguments that have been made in the House this week, we need to be serious about the fact that native title is there because the title is then owned by the traditional owners. That is the meaning of the term.
I want to put that on the record to make clear the way in which Labor will be arriving at our position. There is a better debate to have once the consideration has concluded and once the consultation has concluded. Unfortunately, that better debate will happen only in the Senate because of the timing and the manner of this debate. I leave on the record that we may well be in a situation where Labor in the final analysis is voting in favour of this bill but where we land will be determined by the consultation we conduct and that consultation will, quite properly, be with the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities who have been left out of the discussion up until this moment.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.
Is leave of the House granted to move the third reading immediately?
Leave not granted.
I move:
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the motion for the third reading being moved without delay.
We have seen Labor agree to a gag on this Native Title Amendment (Indigenous Land Use Agreements) Bill. They came in here this morning and said that there is a whole list of speakers and this should not go through, but now we are pushing this bill through quickly. This bill is going through now, today. This bill is going through today when we have said that there has to be proper scrutiny. Members of this place should not be asked to vote on this today.
We agree.
Why then are we proceeding to the third reading immediately? Members should not be asked to vote on this today. We can come back and debate it when the parliament resumes, as would be the normal process. But instead we have this agreement cooked up that says that this bill is going through this House today. Why is this bill going through this House today? Why are members of parliament being required to vote on this today?
Because there are no more speakers.
The Leader of the House interjects and says that there are no more speakers. Exactly. Why are there no more speakers? Why were there members willing to put their hand up to say that they wanted to speak but are now not going to speak?
This is an outrageous way to conduct this parliament about such an important piece of legislation. The government introduced the bill yesterday and brought it on today. Usually you would wait longer than that, because that is what the standing orders require to give members of this place time to read the bill and consult with their communities. To now have a backdoor arrangement that sees this bill progressing through at 12.30 pm when it was brought in here first thing this morning is an insult to the way this place is meant to operate.
There are 150 people who sit in this chamber. Those 150 people have diverse communities and many of those communities have different interests. We deserve the time to be able to talk to those communities about what is in this bill before we decide our final position on it. Instead, we are moving to the third reading straight away. The government is saying, 'Let's get this through here.' The government is saying, 'Let's get this through this place today before question time.' Well I am not having a bar of it and I am very disappointed that the opposition are having a bar of it.
This bill should not be proceeding through this place today. The ordinary process would be that it comes back in the next sitting week. The Leader of the House knows that and the Manager of Opposition Business knows that. By pulling speakers off the list and by moving to the third reading straight away the normal processes of this House are being abused and we are proceeding to a vote the day after the bill was introduced, and that almost never happens in this place. So everything we heard this morning about standing up to the government and demanding proper process counts for naught, because this bill will go through. This bill will just go through because the old parties have agreed on it.
I cannot recall any other recent time where there has been an agreement to stop the full debate of a bill. Other members of the crossbench saw this bill yesterday. Not everyone in this country votes for Labor or Liberal. Not everyone sitting in this chamber is a member of the Labor, Liberal or National parties. Members of the crossbench got this bill yesterday. In the ordinary way this place operates, the members of the crossbench would not be asked to come back and debate it today. They would have a few sitting days to go and consider a bill and consider their position on it, which means we would come back next sitting week. This government, with the opposition's support, has denied them that opportunity. You have said: 'Well, we've got the numbers. It doesn't matter what members of the parliament say. We've got the numbers, so we're just going to push it through.'
You are doing it in a way that means people cannot even go back to their communities, find out what their communities think, and then come back here and report on it. They may have come back and supported the bill. The Greens may have come back and supported the bill, because it might be the right mechanism in response to the Federal Court decision. But to say that we do not even have the chance to go away and read it sets a very dangerous precedent indeed. For Labor and Liberal to gang up and say they are going to use their numbers to introduce a bill one day and then pass it the next so that no-one even has the time to read it, let alone get advice on it, is a very dangerous precedent for this place.
That's not what is happening. Labor hasn't agreed to it.
There are calls that the opposition has not agreed to it. Well, the opposition could have objected to the third reading being moved today, but they did not. The opposition could have had all those who lined up to speak come up and speak, but they did not. Everyone knows what is going on. You are running dead on this so it can get through this place today. That is what the opposition are doing and they know it. Despite the valiant attempts of the Leader of the House to defend the opposition, that is exactly what is happening. So I do not grant leave and I oppose the suspension of standing orders, because ordinary process—a thing called democracy—should apply in this place.
The government did not even have the courtesy to make a case as to why standing orders should be suspended. The government has not even bothered to explain to this parliament why this bill is so urgent that we cannot go through the usual process of coming back here next week and debating it. The Leader of the House thinks, 'I don't even have to explain to the members of parliament who haven't had a chance to read this why this is so important, because I've got the numbers.' Labor and Liberal have got together and they have the numbers. Well, that is contemptuous of members of this parliament. For the Leader of the House to not even put an argument about this being so urgent but to just say, 'I'm going to move a suspension and you can lump it,' suggests that democracy is now hanging by a very thin thread in this place. Democracy is hanging by a very thin thread if legislation can pass because the opposition pulls speakers and because the government wants it to happen very quickly.
If it can all happen within a day, then what is the point of having members of parliament? We might as well just hand over all power to the government if this place is not going to do its job and allow every one of its 150 members to go back to their diverse constituencies, ask their constituents what they think about the bill and then come back here and debate it. There is a reason that standing orders contain a provision for a gap of time between a bill being introduced and when you can debate it. It is a very good reason. It is called democracy. It is called finding out what your constituents think, having a think about the bill and then coming back and putting your view.
When the government and the opposition together say, 'It doesn't matter—we're not going to allow that normal process to operate,' then that is a very dark day indeed, and it will have repercussions for the future, because the crossbench in this place is growing. There are 25 per cent of people around this country who did not vote for either of the old parties or their coalition partners. That is because they are sick of this place being treated as a rubber stamp. They are sick of this place being one where the government just comes in and says, 'We've got our riding instructions from someone else, so we're going to push it through.' Every member of this place deserves a chance to sit and read a bill and talk to their constituents about it.
The fact that no case has even been made as to why standing orders should be suspended suggests that the Leader of the House agrees. The government know that what they are doing is wrong, which is why they cannot even come in here and mount an argument for it. They cannot even put one single argument as to why standing orders should be suspended, because they know that they are silencing and short-circuiting the right of every member of this place to go and find out what their constituents think and come back here and put a reasoned argument.
I would hope that everyone who is watching and scrutinising what is going on now knows this for what it is: this bill is being rushed through, despite all the sound and fury. All the sound and fury this morning was sound and fury signifying nothing, because this bill is going to get through, presumably. The opposition did not object to the third reading been moved immediately. Maybe they will object to the suspension of standing orders to cover themselves a bit, but they could have objected to this bill being rushed through. They could have had all their speakers come up— (Time expired)
I suggest that the member for Melbourne leave it to Donald Trump to present alternative facts. What we just heard in that speech, and the characterisation of the Australian Labor Party, was extraordinary and without foundation at all. Labor could not have been clearer both during the conduct of this debate and in the argument we brought to the House this morning that we object completely to the way the government has handled this debate; we object completely to being put in a situation where we are expected to be able to make a case on a final position on this legislation without being able to conduct consultation. That puts us in a position where the speeches that you would want to make on this native title bill can only be made by a number of members who will present the problems that we face, but not one of us is able to speak on a final position.
When parliament comes back in a couple of weeks time we would have been in a position to do that, because the consultation would have occurred—and that consultation would have been real. But for the member for Melbourne to have looked at the predicament that we are in and say that somehow that means we are siding with the government is extraordinary. If he wants to do the 'full of sound and fury' quote from Macbeth, why not quote for himself the words that come before it—'a poor player that struts and frets his hour upon the stage and then is heard no more'—because that is exactly what we got from the member for Melbourne. Do not start quoting the wrong section of that soliloquy when it is you who is going to demonstrate the words that come before it—that is what the member for Melbourne just did.
The member for Melbourne, in the presentation he just gave, also sells short to the Australian people the frustration that is felt in this room today with the behaviour of the government of Australia, sells short to the Australian people just how many of us there are who are furious at the way this government is treating a serious issue on native title. Let us not forget: when the Native Title Act was introduced, the House of Representatives debated it for 17 hours. A few years later it was amended, and the House of Representatives had 14 hours of debate. Today, let us not pretend we have had even one hour of debate, because we have not. It is not debate when one side of the chamber has not yet been able to conduct the consultation required to arrive at a position at all. If the member for Melbourne or anyone else thinks that somehow we are having a proper debate in the course of proceedings in this chamber today, they are sorely mistaken.
Native title is a critically important issue for this nation—a critically important issue for this nation—and it should receive the opportunity for proper debate. It is an atrocity that we are in the circumstance now where that debate will be left only to people who have been elected to the Senate. We have been put in that situation because the government sought to bring this bill on for debate today, and from the moment that was clear the Labor Party was on its feet, at 9.30 this morning, calling on the government to not take that path. But it is not simply whether or not a vote happens today—there should not have been any debate on the issue today. That would have been the correct course. Make no mistake about the outcome of this being pushed through today. The outcome of this being pushed through today is that it will then go nowhere, because the next week that we sit Senate estimates is on anyway. So we could have debated this in the House of Representatives when the parliament returns and it would have made no difference at all to the timing of the bill—absolutely no difference at all.
I made clear in my speech—in fairness to the member for Melbourne I think he was moving to the chamber while I was on my feet—the challenge members of the opposition face in speaking on a bill when we have not had the chance to arrive at a final position. Of course that means that what has gone on in this chamber today has not been a debate on legislation—it has been a debate on process, because the government's process has been a disaster and on native title and consultation with the first Australians that process matters. We will be voting against the procedural motion and we trust that the government will think carefully about the appalling process that has been followed today. (Time expired)
We are not keen to delay the process of the Native Title Amendment (Indigenous Land Use Agreements) Bill through the House, but I think it is important that the government respond to some of the things that have been said in this debate and explain why we do need to deal with this bill in an urgent way. This bill does nothing more than restore the status quo that was understood before the decision that was handed down by the Federal Court. Importantly, it is important to note that this decision was only handed down by the Federal Court on 2 February. The government clearly saw the decision, and realised that we needed to respond and respond in an orderly and also timely way—and we need to do that because we are required, when dealing with such fundamental issues as land title, to provide certainty both for the claimants and for industry and others who will be affected by this.
It is also very important to note that, as far as I am aware, there is no significant stakeholder that has concerns with what is being proposed here. The National Native Title Tribunal—
How do you know?
How do I know? Because they have been putting out statements asking the government to deal with this bill in an orderly and timely fashion. Let me read the media statement of the National Native Title Council, representing all claimants around the country, to enlighten you: 'The National Native Title Council is urging the parliament to support the passage of the Native Title Amendment (Indigenous Land Use Agreement) Bill 2017.' That was issued today, 16 February, and they represent all of the claimants around the country. They are urging this parliament to act, urging this parliament to provide the certainty that they require. This bill does nothing more than restore the status quo as it was understood.
The opposition is concerned about the consultation process that has taken place. We have moved as quickly as possible to inform the opposition about what the government is proposing here. A briefing was provided to the shadow Attorney-General and also to Mr Clare and Senator Dodson last week, and we provided the bill to the opposition as soon as we could, on Tuesday morning. We drafted this bill as expeditiously as possible, noting the fact that we needed to deal with this matter as quickly as possible, and once the government received the bill we consulted with the opposition and the most timely way possible. We have acted in good faith here. I think that everyone should understand that there is a requirement to deal with this bill in a timely manner.
There is a rationale for what the government is doing here. Yes, it is an unusual process, but sometimes the parliament needs to act. Once this bill passes the House it will go before a Senate committee, which will have a month to consider it. They will be able to have appropriate consultation with affected parties. That will allow the opposition, the crossbenchers and the government to do the consultation that is of course important when we are making important to the native title arrangements.
I would again remind the House that we need certainty in relation to land title in Australia. When that certainty is called into question the parliament needs to act decisively and it needs to act to restore that certainty. All parties in this debate are calling on the government to do that—including Labor premiers, by the way. I would urge the parliament to pass the bill.
Minister, you have no idea what consultation means: talking to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people around the country. The claims that have been made by the minister are patently false. Forty-two per cent of my electorate are Aboriginal people. I will guarantee that not one of them is aware that this bill is before the parliament today or what is in it. Yet we are expected to believe that somehow or other this decision is being made based on informed discussion with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. Nothing could be further from the truth. Minister, you treat Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people with absolute disrespect with the way in which you are trying to get us to go through this legislation today.
We understand that this court decision has made some issues for us. We appreciate that and we understand there is an issue about validating acts and agreements which have now been potentially invalidated as a result of the court decision. But that does not obviate the need for us to talk to people and consult properly.
I ask the government: you have a committee of this House which was actually meeting an hour ago, so why wouldn't you have charged it with the responsibility of doing some work and then coming back to this House before the next sitting? Why not? Is it because you think only the Senate does work around here? What do you think we do here? Do you think I should go back to my electorate and go around the community asking people what they think of this legislation and its importance, and getting the views of people who may want to express it to me?
We know that the native title rep body sees some significant issues around this, but we also know they have a responsibility, as we do, to talk with and represent the interests of native title holders wherever they might be around this country. We cannot be said to be doing that by rushing this legislation through this parliament today. We cannot be said to have done that.
As I have said in a previous contribution, I doubt that the Minister for Indigenous Affairs feels enlightened by what is going on here or, indeed, believes it is a great idea. I am sure he would believe—without wanting to put words in his mouth, of course—that there needs to be proper consultation before we hurry this legislation through any chamber of this parliament, let alone passing it through here. The minister has just admitted that there has been no consultation prior to this bill being put before the parliament. He is saying that the consultation is going to happen after the fact—that post the passage of this legislation in this House there will be consultation.
Further consultation!
Further consultation? There has been no consultation.
Rubbish!
The government Leader of the House says it is rubbish. Let me ask this question: who do you think has been consulted? You have had a media release from a person who represents a peak body for the native title rep bodies. Does that mean the native title rep bodies have talked to their native title claimants or the people who have been involved in the agreements?
They are the peak body for all the native title bodies.
Minister, you have no idea how this place operates or how they operate. Do you think native title holders say, 'Listen, we'll give the peak body the right to represent our interests on all things and they can talk on our behalf even though we don't know what they're talking about—we call that informed consent'? I don't think so!
In the years I have been in this place, every time we have had an issue around Aboriginal issues—I can refer to ATSIC. In getting rid of ATSIC there was no consultation. They say, 'We get in here and we want to amend this law without consultation.' Labor has a proud tradition of sitting with and listening and learning from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. Let me say this: it might well be that we have cause to support elements of the government's legislation or indeed the whole piece of legislation. But until we have had the discussion with the people who may be affected by it, how can we make that decision, let alone have an opportunity to talk in caucus about these issues? It is time for us to take stock here in this place and to start treating people properly and not with the ignorance that is being done currently by this government. (Time expired)
The question is that the motion to suspend standing orders moved by the Leader of the House be agreed to.
I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
The question is that this bill be now read a third time.
Bill read a third time.
As I mentioned yesterday, the NDIS is deeply personal to me, and I find the government's National Disability Insurance Scheme Savings Fund Special Account Bill 2016 quite offensive. The funding issues are well known; they were not suddenly spirited away. The NDIS is fully funded, as had been discussed previously. In reality, this is just another case of confected outrage or of the government looking for ways to wriggle out of the commitments it gave before the 2013 and 2016 elections. That is what this whole argument is—it is a politicised confection, a big pavlova of rubbish used to politicise what previously had been supported in a bipartisan manner.
Anyone who has followed Australian Defence expenditure on major items of capital equipment since the ordering of the F-111 in 1963 will struggle to find an instance where there wasn't some sort of cost overrun coupled with an extended delay of delivery. And more than the odd one or two would make any alleged shortfall in the NDIS forward budgeting look pretty puny indeed. Let us be real about it too. Anyone obliged to estimate how things might play out over 10 years down the track with respect to a new, vast and complex scheme would know the hazards involved. It still seems to be part of the coalition mindset that some forms of spending and government largesse—the proposed unfunded and untargeted corporate tax breaks are a contemporary example—are scrutiny free. Spending on the poor and weak, though, always sends some minister's inner bean counter a full spreadsheet of frenzies. This government want to demonise some people—the poor and the weak—and do not understand the psychology of what they are doing to families who have been waiting for the NDIS for years.
The NDIS remains Australia's most important reform in the area of social policy since Medicare. I can name personally many families in my electorate of Macarthur who are extremely grateful for this support—many families who I have seen over many years who feel just that little bit lighter now that now a burden has been lifted from their shoulders. Despite some understandable and not unanticipated growing pains, it is a huge opportunity to improve substantially the life chances and the daily lives of over 450,000 Australians. If government is, as Barack Obama wrote in his last days in office, something of a relay race, then there is plenty of credit to be had by the government which successfully brings this game-changing scheme from the planning and early development stage to full fruition. But if it is to claim credit for any good work, this at times begrudging government needs to rid itself of a mindset that sees NDIS as some sort of fiscal irritant and start seeing it as an opportunity to build something lasting that makes a real difference to people's lives.
This bill has been presented in a way that has caused an unnecessary divisiveness in its efforts to pin social welfare recipients up against each other. People with disabilities are sick of being used as a pawn in the Liberal government's game of political football and they are sick of being seen as a burden and a drain on resources. The Treasurer may well be seeking to make come cheap political points, but he should reflect on why we have the NDIS and what it is doing for families all across Australia. I include some of the core objectives of the NDIS that were agreed upon unanimously: support the independence and social and economic participation of people with disability; enabling people with disability to exercise choice and control in the pursuit of their goals; and promotion of high-quality and innovative supports to people with disability.
In 2011, the Productivity Commission recommended that Australia replace existing systems with a unified national insurance scheme to provide long-term, high-quality care and support for all Australians living with a disability. There is a real opportunity to see if self-empowerment and user choice can be extended to more services and other forms of assistance delivered by government. The NDIS is life-changing for so many Australians and something that the Labor Party will always fight to protect. I have seen dramatic changes with early intervention and support for people with disabilities. Now these children have the means to fulfil their potential, and their families acknowledge that we are all now part of their journey. I want to see all of us in this parliament be unified in our support of the NDIS, as we all move forward in a true gesture of bipartisanship as a real Commonwealth. The families that I have cared for rely on the NDIS. This government needs to change its mindset. It needs to see this system as a way of supporting people who are a part of our society and have as much right to partake in the benefits of living in the Australian society as we all do.
I support the NDIS wholeheartedly. I was encouraged that it was bipartisan and I am very disappointed that we are now seeing conflict and politicisation of what was previously a unanimous vote in this parliament for a scheme that will change the lives of many of the kids and many of the families whom I look after. I really encourage the government and, in particular, the Treasurer and the Prime Minister to reflect very hard on what they are doing. I ask that they see the NDIS as a true bipartisan benefit to all of Australia.
Before I start my speech, I want to acknowledge and thank the member for Macarthur for that outstanding contribution. He underscored the point that this is a bipartisan initiative that has support from both the major parties. It is vitally important that that is not forgotten today. The attacks by the government on the NDIS, particularly what we have heard in recent days about the funding issue, ignore the fact this extraordinary initiative, this nation-changing initiative, actually has bipartisan support—a point very well made by my colleague the member for Macarthur and one that we should not forget.
When we are looking at these issues, we have to remember those vulnerable families in our communities, those families who are doing it really tough. There is one family I always think of when I am talking about disability issues. They are people from overseas, from a CALD background, with relatively limited English. I met them at Koomarri in my first term. Their daughter has quite a severe disability and she had just graduated from Koomarri from one of their transition-to-work courses. The mother was in tears—she was probably in her 60s and her daughter was in her mid-20s—and was absolutely terrified about what would happen when she passed away or if she got sick. How on earth would her daughter get on? Who would look after her daughter? Her husband was in ill-health and had just retired. I recently found out that he tragically died from a brain tumour.
This is a family of very modest means doing it tough in many ways, particularly now with this daughter and her poor mother on her own now after going through the tragedy of losing her husband from a brain tumour. This poor woman who is now on her own is absolutely frightened, fearful, scared witless and staying up wide awake at night worrying about what will happen to her daughter should something happen to her, should she fall ill or pass away. These are the people we need to be thinking about when we are talking about the NDIS. That is why I applaud the member for Macarthur for that point and the fact that this is an initiative that has bipartisan support and we should not forget that. I cited that one experience of the family that I met at Koomarri in the first year of my first term. It is with the experiences of Canberrans in mind that I rise to speak against the National Disability Insurance Scheme Savings Fund Special Account Bill 2016.
The ACT is one of the eight initial trial sites for the NDIS and the first state or territory to be fully operational under the NDIS rollout. We have had our fair share of experiences. I have had a lot of conversations with Canberrans about the rollout and about the agency, about what is working and what is not working, about their individual tailored plans, and about the challenges that they are sometimes having with the agency in getting what would seem to be bleedingly obvious services, or bleedingly obvious supports, to help with their lives and give them greater autonomy, greater independence and greater choice. It does seem that there are some interesting deliberations at times.
When I talk on this bill, I think of the experience of Elise, who has been waiting for months on approval for a medical bed from the NDIA's technical advisory committee. The reason for the delay is a backlog in the committee's consideration of individual cases, and this has been a significant issue for my electorate. There are some really interesting assessments of what people can and cannot have. I have a friend who has a leg disability, and he needs supported shoes. But he was essentially told by the agency that he only needed one pair of shoes per year and that two pairs of shoes was a bit of an indulgence. The backlog that has been caused by the committee's delay in consideration of individual cases is causing anxiety and delaying treatment for Canberrans, as well as many other Australians, I am sure.
It is the number of Canberrans who have a debilitating mental illness and do not qualify for the NDIS; it is the questions we get asked about what the difference is between disability and impairment when it comes to eligibility; and it is the number of Canberrans who are waiting on meetings to review and update their existing plans. It is the experience of a mother of four children whose daughter is unable to attend primary school due to severe health issues. Her health issues are so severe that they leave her bedridden and in paralysis. The mother tells me that her daughter is unable to access the NDIS, and she cannot receive any assistance payments. It is also the experience of Brianna, who has asked why there is no support for carers by enabling respite options. These are just some of the stories of vulnerable Canberrans that stay with me—and they do stay with me—like the story of that couple with their daughter who I met at Koomarri all those years ago. They have helped to inform my views on this legislation.
The reason for my opposition is that the government has failed to make its case for the bill. This bill in its current form fails to address concerns that disability organisations, the key stakeholders, outlined in submissions and evidence presented to a Senate inquiry in October last year. These concerns focused on the government's targeting of vulnerable Australians on the disability support payment to help fund the NDIS. These organisations saw through the government's smokescreen. There was no way that they would support this bill, which would see future funding provided on the back of payments torn from other vulnerable people, like so much of what this government does.
The only argument that the government has made is that Labor did not fund the NDIS. That, of course, is not true, as we have heard in this chamber over this last week. Labor absolutely did fund the NDIS, and let me remind my colleagues opposite of how we did this, because this has been the topic du jour of the last few days.
In the 2013-14 budget, Labor clearly set out how the NDIS would be funded for 10 years—well past the transition to the full scheme. Our plan to fund the NDIS included $6.5 billion in reforms to the private health insurance rebate, $6 billion in retirement incomes reform, and $20.6 billion in other long-term savings proposals. These long-term savings included changes to tax concessions for fringe benefits, changes to tax concessions for net medical expenses, changes to the indexation of tobacco excise, and increases to import processing charges. As we know, the Medicare levy was also increased by 0.5 percentage points to two per cent. Together with the contributions from state and territory governments, these measures covered the cost of the NDIS for 10 years. Coalition members should remember this because they voted for almost every single one of the savings measures.
Labor referred the bill to a Senate inquiry so that we could better understand what the government is attempting to achieve in establishing the special account. The inquiry report was tabled in November 2016, and it makes for interesting reading. Both in their submission and in evidence provided to the inquiry, the minister's own Department of Social Services proved that the NDIS is fully funded. What the special account does is hypothecate funds from consolidated revenue, and either sets them aside or quarantines them for a particular purpose: the NDIS. But the NDIS is already fully funded. Any future additional funding would come from consolidated revenue as these funds are allocated towards government priorities during the budget process. Based on this, the government needs to explain why a special account is needed, and—this is the important thing—what priority will be given to disability support and the NDIS by this government.
Submissions from key stakeholders showed significant legitimate concern for the NDIS savings fund and the special account. Alan Blackwood, from the Young People in Nursing Homes National Alliance, said:
… the alliance does not support the savings fund as constructed in the bill.
… … …
… the notion of a funding shortfall, portrayed in the bill and the minister's speech is, actually, concerning and perplexing.
Stephanie Gotlib, from Children and Young People with Disability Australia, said,
It is believed that the creation of this special account … places essential disability services and support as non-core business of the Australian government, with their full funding being dependent on other budget-saving measures identified by the government of the day.
This bill gives the minister significant discretion over what happens to funds in the social services portfolio, with very little external oversight. External oversight is provided only for those decisions that must be brought to this place for debate by both sides of parliament.
This bill would legitimise government cuts in the social services portfolio. Stakeholders raised concern about the level of discretion that the minister would have in relation to the funding of the NDIS. Information provided by the department in its submission caused concern amongst disability organisations in relation to how funds would be credited to the special account. In particular, ACOSS said:
This has rightly caused concern amongst the disability sector, as a core part of the NDIS is the independent management of Commonwealth and State government funds by the NDIA. In addition, the funding cap sends a message that funding for the NDIS could be restricted, and consequently services and supports made available under the scheme would be limited. There is already a level of unease amongst the community and the disability sector that means-testing and tightening of the definition of ‘reasonable and necessary’ supports could take place if the scheme is inadequately funded.
This bill creates a new special account that key stakeholders believe must be a smokescreen for more cruel cuts imposed by this Turnbull government on vulnerable Australians. For example, the government's 2016 budget identified savings of $2.3 billion to be credited towards the NDIS special account over the forward estimates, but the devil is in the detail. Unpacking the $2.3 billion figure shows that $711.2 million comes from savings identified in the transition of states and territories to the full rollout of the NDIS. The remaining $1.6 billion in savings is attributed to social services payments, subject to legislation on savings proposals being enacted by parliament. This means that the bulk of the savings are coming from cuts within the Social Services portfolio. Isn't this a bit reminiscent, Mr Deputy Speaker, of what is also happening at the moment on child-care and other social benefits?
Many of the disability organisations who provided submissions to the inquiry were opposed to this. ACOSS strongly opposed the link between savings in the area of social services for people with a disability to fund the NDIS because of the false economy that it creates. The example that ACOSS provided to the inquiry is the movement of up to 90,000 disability support pensioners from the DSP onto Newstart allowance after they have been subjected to medical reviews. The impact on many of these people would be the loss of $175 per week, which will push some into poverty.
Children and Young People with a Disability said:
Addressing the present NDIS funding gap through savings made from other areas of the budget will take vital funding away from vulnerable people and requires the NDIS to compete for funding with other areas of need … Given that the DSP is an essential income support program that provides a vital safety net, tying NDIS funding to reduced DSP spending creates a concerning tension between two areas of essential services.
The Australian Network on Disability sought assurance that existing social services would not be adversely impacted. Unfortunately, they did not get the assurance they were looking for.
What we have seen from the Turnbull government is an attempt to now hold the NDIS hostage with a disgraceful political game of brinksmanship. This government is seeking to use $5.6 billion in cuts to families, new mums, pensioners, people with a disability, carers and young jobseekers to fund its policies. With this policy, it is the people with a disability who will be hurt the most, with people being moved onto Newstart. This is a disgraceful act of political brinksmanship. People with a disability do not deserve to be treated with such contempt by the Turnbull government. The Liberals have no right to hold the NDIS hostage to their cruel cuts. It is just endless. I remind Australians that what we are seeing now is 2014 all over again.
This government is making one group of vulnerable people fund another group of vulnerable people—robbing Peter to pay Paul. It might be the order of the day for this government, but we are not going to have one bit of it. Australians will not accept more cuts from this government under the guise of funding the NDIS. The National Disability Insurance Scheme has already been funded. The NDIS—designed, funded and introduced by Labor—is being delivered on time and within the budget. Already thousands of people are having their lives transformed by the NDIS. People with disabilities and their families and carers know that Labor will always protect them—unlike this government, which is constantly attacking vulnerable people, constantly pitting one group of vulnerable people against another. It is absolutely appalling. Labor will protect those who are most vulnerable in our community.
Most of my generation, as we grew up, did not see people with disabilities in our communities. We did not see kids with disabilities in our schools, we did not see them in our sporting clubs—we did not see young people with disabilities. The truth was not that they were not there. They were in someone's back room; they were kept out of society. They were seen as being an impediment to a family. Mr Deputy Speaker, our generation—and I am talking about those who make up this parliament—are going to be judged on how we treat people with disabilities. They do not want compassion; they want inclusion. They want to make sure that they get all the opportunities to live the most fulfilling life that they possibly can and reach their potential. That is what we want for our children and that is what families of children with disabilities want for theirs.
This week the Prime Minister spoke about how proud he was to have been here when we had the apology to the first peoples of this nation—and it was; it was a very moving period. But can I say how proud I was—as, I would say, was every member who sat in this House—when we introduced the NDIS legislation. We knew we were making a change for the better for our community. We knew we were moving to do something about an issue that we had spoken about but that local families had always had to deal with themselves. Disabilities are not an issue for families; they are a matter for community. If you look at the distribution of disabilities in our community, you will see the pattern follows the same bell curve as the distribution of intelligence. That is why the NDIS was so important. And what we have seen this week is the government moving to change how we are going to fund it.
The member for Canberra mentioned robbing Peter to pay Paul. I would use another analogy: it is robbing the poor to pay the poor. When we talk about people with disabilities we are talking about people who need every bit of assistance they can get to live the most fulfilling lives they can. I can speak from personal experience. I want my grandson to have the best opportunities in life, but he is on the autism spectrum. I know what this might mean for my daughter and her family. We do not need to play politics with this. We do not need to go out and say, as those on the other side say, 'We are going to maintain a $50 billion tax cut for big business, but if you want to have these other issues dealt with we are going to take that out of pensions, we are going to take that out of disability support, we are going to take that away from some of the poorest and most vulnerable in our community.'
That is not how you play politics in this country! What people expect is leadership. That is certainly not leadership. I think that Laura Tingle belled the cat when she wrote in The Australian Financial Review this week that the government's latest attempt to pass the savings, playing off the poor against the disabled, is just appalling.
Order! The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour, and the member for Fowler will be given an opportunity at that time to continue his remarks.
St Albans Common in the electorate of Macquarie was granted to early settlers and residents of the Macdonald Valley by Queen Victoria, and has been successfully managed since 1824 by valley residents in accordance with the original deed of grant. The trustees and commoners have been the custodians of this living heritage for nearly 200 years. The connection is very deep, with working bees, musters, care and maintenance done voluntarily by the commoners themselves.
But a promise last year to exempt the common from New South Wales state legislation has been broken by the New South Wales government. The proposed legislation basically abolishes the concept of a common, and with it 200 years of New South Wales history. The government wants to replace the elected trustees with land managers appointed by a minister. This amounts to a seizing of control of a community asset paid for by the commoners since its inception. It creates a potential for control of this amazing area, which is loved by those who live in St Albans. You can only be a commoner if you are a resident of St Albans. This will take this asset out of their hands and puts it into the hands of people whose interests may not be aligned with the community.
The New South Wales government needs to keep its promise to the people of St Albans and to the Macdonald Valley. It needs to keep its promise and it needs to keep its hands off our St Albans Common.
Strong rural and regional growth is critical to Australia's future, and investments in infrastructure and decentralisation are the cornerstones to this growth.
The National Party, as part of the coalition government, is driving this investment in regional Australia. As the member for Murray, I welcome the announcement that the Senate Finance and Public Administration References Committee will be holding an inquiry into the operation, effectiveness and consequences of relocating corporate Commonwealth entities, as well as the economic, environmental and capability implications.
The Deputy Prime Minister last week said:
The Nationals believe in decentralisation which is spreading job opportunities across Australia.
He also said:
There are significant savings in moving to regional areas …
I submit that the City of Greater Shepparton, which is very reliant on the Murray-Darling Basin Authority, needs to be the home of a relocated Murray-Darling Basin Authority.
This authority would have the outstanding opportunity to be totally connected with its stakeholders in the greater Goulburn Valley. This would only enhance better outcomes for the environment, the economy and, in particular, agricultural production. Relocating the authority to Shepparton would have the absolute support of the local community.
The mayor of the City of Greater Shepparton, Dinny Adem, said, 'Decentralisation would not just sustain Greater Shepparton but it would grow Greater Shepparton.' The CEO of the Committee for Greater Shepparton, Sam Birrell, has said that the Committee for Greater Shepparton totally supports the Murray-Darling Basin Authority moving to Shepparton. And Peter Thomson of Geoff Thomson Fruit Packing is also completely in support of the Murray-Darling Basin Authority moving to the Goulburn Valley. (Time expired)
When Rob Stokes, the former planning minister in New South Wales, left his position recently, he started to call for the Warringah pool in his electorate to remain open. It is a shame that when he was planning minister he did not show the same respect to my community when he set in motion the demolition of the Parramatta War Memorial pool.
The community is as outraged as you can get about this. On the weekend they were once again out, hanging their togs on the fence to show their contempt for this decision. I urge the new Premier, Gladys Berejiklian, to reverse this decision and to protect community assets. It is also happening at a time when our councils have been abolished and when there is no democratic input into these decisions. In that 18-month window we will lose one of the great community assets.
The Parramatta pool is one of the best in New South Wales. It is Olympic standard. It has 10 lanes, it has an Olympic diving tower—only one of two in the Sydney area—it has a water polo pool and 160,000 people use it each year. And each week, 300 people go to learn-to-swim classes.
We had 22 drownings on our beaches in the two months to January and 225 near-drownings. Our lifesavers are telling us that half our people are reaching adulthood unable to swim. In areas like Parramatta, where our communities come from countries where swimming is not taught to children, we need that capacity. There will be 300 people a week who will not have anywhere to learn.
It is a war memorial pool, and it was built by crowdfunding in 1956—by the people's money—and we have the right to keep it. Change your mind, Premier!
On Tuesday next week, in the small community of Mareeba, west of Cairns, there will be a huge outpouring of community loss and grief at the funeral of Noeline Ikin, a very special woman who has fought for regional Australia to the very end. Noeline typified the values that regional communities hold dear: honesty, integrity, determination, a willingness to get her hands dirty and absolutely zero tolerance for bureaucracy.
A former Etheridge Shire councillor, Noeline spent 12 years as CEO of the Northern Gulf Resource Management Group and was awarded Etheridge Shire Council's Citizen of the Year in 2016. As the LNP candidate for Kennedy in the 2013 election Noeline comprehensively won the primary vote against the sitting member, only to miss out due to Labor directing its preferences to Mr Katter.
She was raring to do battle all over again in 2016 and was endorsed as the candidate until she was struck down by diagnosis of a brain tumour. In typical Noeline style, she was a fighter to the end. Her brother, Warren, said that one of her last sentences in her semiconscious state was 'Bloody government!'.
What an absolute champion, she will be missed right across the north. My deepest condolences to Noeline's husband, Trevor Arnett, to their three beautiful daughters, Kiralee, Gabriella and Tabitha, to extended family members and to everyone who was privileged to call Noeline a friend.
Vale Noeline.
Here is a good question for the government: what have coalition governments ever really done for Australia? What has this mob done lately for Australians? The same as all coalition governments of the past—nothing but hot air and hollowness, filled with cynicism and pathetic slogans.
In contrast, Labor governments and the labour movement have fought for and introduced: Medicare, which you are trying to bring down; weekends without work; all breaks at work, including your lunchbreak; paid vacations; sick leave; social security; the minimum wage; collective bargaining; employer anti-discrimination laws; the eight-hour work day; overtime pay; child labour laws; occupational safety and health laws; the 38-hour work week; workers' compensation; unemployment insurance; pensions, which you are cutting; workplace safety standards and regulations; employer health-care insurance; collective bargaining rights for employees; wrongful termination laws; sexual harassment laws; disability financial support; holiday pay; privacy rights; pregnancy and parental leave, which you are trying to cut down; military leave; and public education for children. All this mob can do or does is to try and tear down what we have achieved in government—a record of achievement that has introduced policies for the betterment of Australians and all Australia.
Mr Deputy Speaker, did you know that there are more than 40 million songs in circulation around the world today? If you tried to listen to them back to back, you would be listening for over 200 years. It is a disconcerting thought to consider how much music we will never get to hear—and, indeed, the opportunity cost of having listened to so much Nickelback, when I know, Mr Deputy Speaker Coulton, that all you want to listen to is Sandstorm by Darude.
Thankfully, a Brisbane business, Nightlife Music, has a democratic solution to the issue of the songs playing at your local pub, your gym or even a sporting stadium. Their music archives are so grand and their technology so good that they have just partnered with Spotify to roll out their product crowdDJ.
I recently met with Mark, Stuart, Phil and the team at their headquarters in Milton. They have taken their business from just two people to over 120 employees in about 30 years.
They have benefited greatly from this government's R&D tax incentives, and they are now engaging with this government's innovation agenda. And I should add that they will benefit, incidentally, from stopping Labor's lockout laws in Queensland's pubs and clubs.
It is great to be working hard for businesses like them and, as a result of the meeting, I am now a proud member of the Parliamentary Friends of Music, led by the member for Boothby. It is, Mr Deputy Speaker, a Nickelback-free zone.
Last night, my fellow ovarian cancer ambassadors the member for Higgins and Senator Sarah Hanson-Young and I hosted our fifth annual Ovarian Cancer Awareness Month drinks for female politicians and media. I want to thank all my colleagues—thank you so much—in both chambers, for attending yet another highly successful event. I also want to thank the ABC's Sabra Lane for MC-ing so beautifully. And thanks to the ABC's Eliza Borello for organising the attendance of journalists for the last four years, and to the ABC's Jane Norman for taking over that role now. Reminder, Jane: you are now in charge! But particular thanks go to Ann-Maree Mulders, who shared her powerful and deeply moving story of living with ovarian cancer.
Ovarian cancer is the most lethal of female cancers. But early detection can save your life. So please, understand the common four symptoms: abdominal or pelvic pain; increased size of your abdomen or persistent bloating; needing to urinate often or urgently; and feeling full after eating a small amount.
I have been an ovarian cancer ambassador for six years, and in my discussions with women I find there is a common misperception that a Pap smear can detect ovarian cancer. It cannot. A Pap smear cannot detect ovarian cancer. I really want to bust this myth. I repeat: Pap smears do not detect ovarian cancer. Know; ask; act. Know the four symptoms.
Last Saturday I had the great pleasure to tour the Manly Warringah Gymnastics Club in Cromer. The achievements of this club are nothing short of astounding.
The club has 2,371 members and over 220,000 visits per year. Employing 50 full- and part-time staff, it is the largest gymnastics club in NSW and the second largest in the nation. The club is entirely community owned and receives not a single cent from the government.
With coaching staff like Ming Lu and Xiaoquing Li, medal-winning coaches for the Chinese team at the Sydney 2000 Olympics, the club has had remarkable success. Forty per cent of the state team that went to the national championships were from the Manly Warringah Gymnastics club. In light of International Women's Day, it is important to note: the girls' team took more than 20 individual and all-round medals at the Prime Invitational in Singapore.
The club is in need of new premises. Presently the roof is too low and the building does not have adequate floor space for the club's needs. With a membership drawn from over 55 postcodes, the club services a significant area beyond the Northern Beaches. I will continue to push for new premises for the club to ensure its secure future on the Northern Beaches.
I rise today to share with the House the state of funding for the Women's Legal Service Victoria. I met yesterday with Helen Matthews and Joanna Fletcher, like many of my Victorian colleagues, to hear of the terrible, terrible state of affairs in terms of their federal funding and what those cuts will mean on the ground for Victorian women.
There is a $200,000 cut which translates into 600 Victorian women who will lose access to family violence services—to legal support in the Family Court. This is an absolute disgrace, and we need this money put back into the system immediately. As if it is not bad enough that this government has cut money from community legal centres, which will see 36,000 people potentially not get the legal support they need, this is critical—and it is critical, on the day we have a breakfast for International Women's Day, to listen to our Prime Minister talk with aspiring rhetoric about domestic violence and taking action. Take some action today, Prime Minister: reverse this cut for Victorian women, for women suffering in domestic violence situations—for them and their children. Let us make sure they get justice, Prime Minister. Reverse this cut. Do as you say you are going to do. Walk the walk; talk the talk.
Of the 65 nurses who boarded the SS Vyner Brooke as Singapore fell, this week in February 1942, only 24 returned to Australia. This was the single biggest loss of Australian nurses during the two world wars. Today I want to remember our nurses who never came home, whose lives and personalities are recorded in Ian Shaw's book On Radji Beach. These are the names of the 12 nurses lost at sea after the Vyner Brooke sank: Louvima Bates, Ellenor Calnan, Mary Clarke, Hulda Dorsch, Caroline Ennis, Kathleen Kinsella, Gladys McDonald, Olive Paschke, Lavinia Russel, Marjorie Schuman, Mona Wilton and Annie Trenerry. These are the names of the 21 nurses massacred on Radji Beach, Bangka Island, 75 years ago today: Irene Drummond, Elaine Balfour-Ogilvy, Alma Beard, Ada Bridge, Florence Casson, Mary Cuthbertson, Dorothy Elmes, Lorna Fairweather, Peggy Farmaner, Clarice Halligan, Nancy Harris, Minnie Hodgson, Ellen Keats, Janet Kerr, Mary McGlade, Kathleen Neuss, Florence Salmon, Esther Stewart, Mona Tait, Rosetta Wight and Bessie Wilmot. These are the names of the eight nurses who died in the internment camp in 1945: Wilhemina Raymont, Irene Singleton, Pauline Hempsted, Dora Gardam, Gladys Hughes, Winnie Davis, Rubina Freeman and Pearl Mittelheuser.
Lest we forget.
Today I am calling on all members of parliament, in particular members of the coalition parties, to back my call to save the National Affordable Housing Agreement, because we know it is under threat. It can be saved if all members of parliament stand together and ensure that affordable housing still has a place in the national political agenda.
A few weeks ago, the Deputy Prime Minister of this country showed how out of touch he was with people struggling throughout regional Australia when he said that affordable housing is not a problem in regional Australia. Well, I can tell you it is. In fact, the degree to which he is out of touch was only surpassed by the Minister for Urban Infrastructure, who said that this was not an issue that people are thinking about throughout Australia.
Both of them should come to the Illawarra, where over 1,500 people are homeless on any night of the week. He should come and visit Julie Mitchell, who runs the Wollongong Homeless Hub, a place where they look after over 52,000 visitors over a three-year period, and they do a fantastic job. He should come and talk to Narelle Clay of Southern Youth and Family Services, who recently said:
Ending the NAHA would affect tens of thousands of children and young people who are homeless, tens of thousands of women escaping domestic violence, and tens of thousands of adults with mental health problems in our community.
He should listen to these people and do the right thing.
The current system of training doctors is failing the communities of western New South Wales and it is failing country communities across Australia. Charles Sturt University has a plan to do something about it by training doctors in the country for future practice in the country through the Murray Darling Medical School. The existing system is simply not delivering the results that our country communities need. The argument that there is an oversupply of doctors is met with ridicule across rural Australia. Unfortunately, the older universities are treating the current training system as a closed shop. We do not criticise the efforts of the established universities and their clinical training programs in rural areas, but less than 10 per cent of Australian medical graduates trained at the urban universities choose to work in rural areas. The cold, hard fact is that their efforts, well intentioned though they may be, are simply not meeting the needs of country Australia. The established universities and their medical deans know it, and they want to continue the closed shop. I have got their latest correspondence, but what the so-called Group of Eight universities need to understand is that the push for the Murray Darling Medical School is community driven. It has the full support of the communities of central western New South Wales. We are not backing down and we are not going away. One hundred and eighty training places out of 3,100 is all we are seeking. The closed shop must end.
I rise to condemn this Prime Minister and this government for their conduct in this place in the last 24 hours in attempting to ram through substantial legislation in relation to a historic land rights agreement between the Aboriginal people and the government—that is, the Native Title Act.
Make no mistake, we all agree that the substance of the Native Title Amendment (Indigenous Land Use Agreements) Bill 2017 has merit, but the substance is very different to the form of this Prime Minister and this government. How is this for consultation: a second reading speech of five minutes long was made yesterday morning, and then the government shut down the third reading debate this afternoon. There was been no consultation by this Prime Minister or this government—and this Prime Minister had the hypocrisy to stand up two days ago and say:
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 …
This bill demonstrates no credibility, no consultation and rank hypocrisy. What little credibility this Prime Minister had evaporated this morning and it is gone forever. (Time expired)
I rise today to congratulate Maleny Dairies on their outstanding win in the 2017 Australian Grand Dairy Awards last Thursday. This local business in my electorate of Fisher had their Farmers Choice Full Cream Milk named overall champion in the milk category. Judged by a panel of 24 industry experts, these awards recognise the quality, excellence and refined skills of Australia's best producers. The award is a further testament to the hard work and entrepreneurship of owners Ross and Sally Hopper.
As I have previously reported to the House, Maleny Dairies is a family owned business with deep roots in our community. Ross and Sally continue not only to produce the highest quality milk—
Not as good as Tassie!
but to partner with eight other farms in the area, offering a high rate per litre and helping each farmer to keep their cattle healthy and their businesses viable. There are no Tasmanian winners in this one! At a difficult time for our nation's dairy farmers, this kind of approach can make a big difference to many families. I have no doubt that such sustainable farming practices play a significant part in their award-winning products.
Maleny Dairies is a fantastic example of why this government is committed to supporting small businesses. It is from companies like this that the community enjoys growth and innovation. Congratulations once again to the Hoppers, to the whole team at Maleny Dairies and to their suppliers on this magnificent achievement.
I have just been to a barbecue—which is a great, Aussie thing to do—hosted by the Parliamentary Friends of Rare Disease. I bet many members in this House do not realise that two million people across our country live with rare disease. That equates to 5,000 people in each of our electorates. I want to thank the member for Hindmarsh and the member for North Sydney, who hosted the barbecue with Rare Voices Australia.
I met a wonderful man called Chris Walker. He has two little grandchildren, Jordan and Logan, who are seven and four. They have an incredibly rare condition. In fact, there are only three people in the world that have their condition. They spend 15 hours a day being fed through the superior vena cava of their bodies, yet one of them is going to school. But they cannot get onto the NDIS. I am so pleased to see Jane Prentice in the House. I know she can help these people and I am really urging her to do that.
We have some amazing people in Australia who are battling some of the rarest diseases in the world. We have a first-class health system. We have this incredible National Disability Insurance Scheme. Surely some of these people can be helped through the scheme. I know it is possible to help people like Logan, Jordan and Chris, who desperately needs some respite because, between him, his wife and the mum, they are the only ones who care for these little boys. We can make it possible.
I am pleased to rise today and reflect on the Turnbull government's reforms of the VET FEE-HELP system, Labor's failed policy, last year. Here is why. Last week I was contacted by a young constituent burdened by a VET FEE loan scam. In 2014 she was contacted by a training provider who got her details off a website. After receiving a number of calls she was signed up to a course with assurances that it was the right decision and promises of work upon graduation. A month later the training provider contacted her to advise she was a student completing her diploma in business administration.
It was not until a dispute over the completion of work that the student began to question whether her course was nationally recognised. After weeks of unanswered emails and phone calls, the student received two responses: the first advising that she still had not completed the work, and the second advising that she was no longer enrolled. After three months of trying to contact the training provider, she gave up. In 2015 she tried to contact them again and has still heard nothing back. Come tax time, she realised she had incurred a $9,000 VET FEE debt with nothing to show for it.
Unfortunately, her case has been replicated across the country. I will give you the benefit of the doubt. We will put it down to the law of unintended consequences, but ultimately it is a Labor stitch-up. You have saddled young Australians with bad debt, and they are suffering for it. I am very heartened that the Turnbull government is taking action to reform it. (Time expired)
For this year's International Women's Day I will be hosting the Inaugural Women of Lindsay Awards in Penrith to celebrate the incredible and dedicated work of the women in my community who are achieving remarkable things despite the many barriers. I have established these awards to recognise and pay tribute to the amazing women we have in our community who do not receive nearly enough praise for their important work. The awards will be presented over breakfast at the Lakeside Restaurant, and we will be joined by special guest Annabelle Daniel, who is the CEO of Women's Community Shelters.
This is an organisation that has partnered with communities to fill the gap between the huge demand for services for women fleeing domestic violence, and the over-crowded, underfunded shelters that have borne the brunt of state and federal Liberal government cuts. We are so lucky to have Annabelle join us, and I look forward to sharing the event and her story.
I would also like to make a brief mention of the International Women's Day breakfast I attended this morning at Parliament House along with a number of my colleagues, including Leader of the Opposition Bill Shorten, who launched our new policy and strategy for women, called Setting the Agenda, through the status of women committee, which I am proudly the secretary of, to address the one in three women who experience family violence, the 17 per cent gender pay gap and all the other barriers women are facing.
In particular I would also like to thank the President of the UN Women National Committee Australia, Elizabeth Shaw, who joined with us to celebrate the important work happening right now to improve gender equality not just in Australia but throughout the world.
I want to reflect on the Prime Minister and his speech today where he talked about making sure there is fifty-fifty representation on government boards and cannot achieve it in his own party. (Time expired)
Today I call on telecommunication companies to provide accurate and truthful information to consumers when they purchase an NBN broadband plan. Increasingly, retail service providers are confusing customers with the way they present their claims about broadband speed. In many cases RSPs are simply misleading consumers.
In one recent case involving a constituent in Grovedale, Geelong, Telstra was forced to refund monies after promising to deliver up to 100 megs of download speed when in fact it could only deliver between 30 and 40 megs. This was nothing short of misleading. This conduct must not be tolerated.
The Australian Consumer Law prohibits a corporation in trade or commerce engaging in misleading or deceptive conduct. The ACCC, I am very pleased to see, has raised its concerns after finding that complaints to the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman about internet data speeds increased 48 per cent in the last year, making it the single largest issue for consumer complaints during the year. I am absolutely delighted that the Minister for Communications is considering the ACCC's broadband performance monitoring pilot program and that he also has welcomed the ACCC's work on developing detailed guidance for RSPs. We cannot let consumers be misled by these telcos.
It has only been two months in 2017 and a lot has changed in the world, a lot of it because of what has happened on the other side of the Pacific. A country that you may have your views about but, frankly, a lot of us have a lot of time for and admire is going through a lot of change, and that change is not just confined there. It possesses the potential to change politics here in this country.
I do not think we as a group of politicians should be following the trend down; we should be lifting things up. In the discourse that we have, as robust as Australian politics is and as much as we do enjoy the theatre of politics, there are a number of things we have got to ensure. One is that we cannot follow this view persisting right now in the States that believes that, by demonising one group, you lift the others. In actual fact, bringing people together is a test. That is a test for us here. The politicians that bring people together will be the ones that should be commended.
The other thing is that we have got to be able to find a way to have that discussion without telling mistruths. We should not be following what we have seen in the States, where you tell a blatant mistruth and get away with it. A few days ago we had one person in this place tell a straight mistruth about the Leader of the Opposition. You should not be able to do that. We have got to do better. (Time expired)
Mr Speaker, I am sure you have seen the scene from A Few Good Menwhen Jack Nicholson's character, Colonel Nathan R Jessep, says to Tom Cruise's character, Daniel Kaffee, 'You can't handle the truth!' Well Labor cannot handle the truth. Labor cannot handle the truth that you cannot rely on renewable energy too much—on solar and wind—when the sun ain't shining and the wind ain't blowing. So the truth is you have to have an integrated energy grid that can still supply energy to households but that does not have an overreliance on renewable energy when the storage capability, because of solar and wind, is not there. The truth is that, and Labor and the Greens have to learn that truth.
In accordance with standing order 43, the time for member's statements has concluded.
My question is to the Prime Minister. In question time on 22 February last year, the Prime Minister ruled out increasing capital gains tax saying, 'Increasing capital gains tax is no part of our thinking whatsoever.' Given that Mr Phillip Coorey in the Financial Review reports today that the government is planning to increase capital gains tax on property, can the Prime Minister confirm once and for all: is the government going to make changes to capital gains tax?
The only party that is committed to increasing capital gains tax is the one opposite. Their recklessness with tax policy, increasingly higher taxes, higher deficit and higher debt—they approach it with the same recklessness that they have energy policy, mindless of the damage that they do to Australian families and to Australian businesses right across the nation.
Ms Plibersek interjecting—
The honourable member calls out for a bit more clarity. Well, it would be nice to see that from the members of the opposition—one bumbling interview after another. Despite the indefatigable and courageous members of the press gallery forging on, trying to get an answer—they tried four times with the Leader of the Opposition but could not get an answer on the ABC about the cost of the Renewable Energy Target. They could not get one from the member—
The Prime Minister will resume his seat. Just before I call the Leader of the Opposition, I caution members about interjecting. I have said what I said earlier in the week; they all remember it. The member for Sydney has been warned every day this week and this morning at about 9:31 am, so don't be surprised: if you interject again, you will be out of the chamber. It is a promise. The Leader of the Opposition on a point of order.
Just a point of order on relevance: yes or no—are you going after capital gains tax changes? Yes or no?
Going after capital gains tax changes is the opposition; it is the Labor Party; it is the only major party in this chamber that has a set of economic policies, every one of which is guaranteed to undermine investment and undermine employment—every single one. Whether it comes to tax, whether it comes to energy, whether it comes to regulation—right across the board—they want to stop trade, stop investment and stop employment. And when they are asked about it, the incoherence is extraordinary—absolutely extraordinary!
Last night, David Speers, doing his best, asked about the Renewable Energy Target. He asked the shadow Treasurer about the Renewable Energy Target. Mr Speers said, 'What about the impact to the budget?' It is a fair question. And this was the answer from Chris Bowen, 'And … the … the … again … the electricity … ah … trading scheme post, you know … it … it … it… where some people, where some … um … it cancels each other out, so yes.' That was the answer.
In this age of cyberwarfare, has a malevolent hacker intercepted the honourable member's neural circuits and inserted a random word generator? What is going on? What does it mean? Is it in code? We have some of the finest cryptographers in the world—will they be able to crack it? The extraordinary thing is, he is often very coherent. As he said in his book, Hearts & Minds, 'It's a Labor thing to have the ambition of reducing company tax, because it promotes investment, creates jobs and drives growth.'
My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister update the House on how the government is supporting hardworking families and businesses by ensuring that power is affordable and reliable, including in my electorate of Goldstein?
I thank the honourable member for his question. Everything we are doing is backing the hardworking families and businesses in the honourable member's electorate and in every honourable member's electorate, including the honourable member for Paterson's electorate, who is concerned about the future of the Tomago Aluminium smelter at the same time that she is advocating the end of coal-fired energy in the Hunter Valley. That is going to be very interesting. I would encourage her to have a chat to the management and the workers about how they are going to go without any baseload power.
The opportunity to get ahead, to find a job, to start a business, to raise a family—those opportunities are what we are building in Australia today, and they depend on the security of energy, of national security of safety but, above all, they depend on the security of electricity supply. We have seen in South Australia the consequence of the radical Labor energy experiment—
Mr Brian Mitchell interjecting—
The member for Lyons is warned!
Rubbish!
The member for Isaacs booms out 'rubbish'. It was a rubbish idea; you are quite right. These moments of candour on your part are very helpful. It was a really rubbish idea to have 40 per cent of your state's energy coming from wind power and doing nothing about storage, nothing about backup, except praying that you would be able to keep sucking energy out of Victoria's brown-coal generators. That is not a plan; that is complacency—it is negligent; it is Labor sloth.
The honourable members opposite know very well that their 50 per cent renewable target will drive up the price of power. They know that Australians will have to pay a lot more on their power bill because of their policies, but they will not say by how much. The Leader of the Opposition, himself, no financial slouch—formerly a director of a superannuation fund and formerly the assistant Treasurer; he has a whole history of looking at public finances—could not give the answer. He could not give the answer. Four times he was asked and four times he ducked the question, until Sabra Lane aptly summed it up by saying, 'Leader of the Opposition, you're out of time.'
We saw last night, too, the shadow Treasurer and that interview which is possibly the biggest train wreck of four or five they have had this week on the subject.
And that's saying something!
It is; that is right. The Deputy Prime Minister is right: they have been competing to have the worst interview on renewable energy. And the reason that they are so bad is they cannot say that they are heading towards the South Australian catastrophe of unplanned, massive commitments to renewable energy with no idea how to provide the security and the affordability that households and businesses deserve.
My question is to the Treasurer. In question time on 29 February last year the Treasurer said that any increase to capital gains tax would be 'one big fat tax on investment' and a 'punishing tax on investment'. Given the Financial Review reports today that the government will increase capital gains tax on property, how can this Liberal government provide any economic leadership when the Treasurer constantly contradicts himself?
The only party in this parliament that has a policy to introduce capital gains tax is those opposite.
Ms Plibersek interjecting—
The member for Sydney will leave under 94(a) and the member for Wakefield is warned.
The member for Sydney then left the chamber.
The only party who is represented in this chamber that has a policy to introduce capital gains tax is those opposite—and they took it to the last election and they were rejected at that election. They were rejected absolutely at that election. What we are doing on this side of the House is focusing on the issues that are impacting not only on household budgets but also on business budgets. The policies of those opposite—whether it is on capital gains tax, whether it is on negative gearing, whether it is on other taxes they want to increase and impose further burdens on Australian businesses and households—is ripping away the affordability that is presently there and seeking to be provided for by this government.
But I am reminded about contradictions by those opposite. The Prime Minister has already referred to the stunning interview given by the Leader of the Opposition—and I will spare you all of the ums, the it's, the ups, the bahs, the wells, the I don't knows and all the rest of it, as he sought to look through the fog of whatever it was that he was trying to say yesterday. This lot are led around in the dark in this fog of ideological opposition to sensible policies to deliver affordable energy for this country—and we saw that fog of uncertainty and that fog of ideology clouding the mind of the shadow Treasurer.
What worries me about the shadow Treasurer is that he is supposed to be the voice of economic sense and credibility on that side of the House. That was on full display with Mr Speers last night as he sat there trying to 'decrypt the code', as the Prime Minister said, with the member who was before him on that day. The problem with this shadow Treasurer is that he cannot stand up to this Leader of the Opposition, who is hell-bent on a cynical populous path. He is more left wing now than the French Socialist government in opposing company tax cuts, which he once wrote about, once believed in and once tried to achieve but will never support when it is not put forward by himself.
Will the Prime Minister advise the House on the importance of affordable and reliable power for Australian households and businesses, including in my electorate of Corangamite and across Geelong?
I thank the honourable member for her question. In the honourable member's electorate of Corangamite, in Geelong, you are seeing a revival of manufacturing, of advanced manufacturing, tied to Deakin University. It is an example of the innovation that is delivering strong growth in jobs in manufacturing. We visited Carbon Revolution, an extraordinary place where we saw workers from Ford Motor Company who were there creating the lightest wheel rims in the world—the finest Australian technology leading the world. But that business and so many others depend upon affordable power, just as Portland Aluminium does in the member for Wannon's electorate and, indeed, as the smelter in the member for Paterson's electorate does—which her policy of banning coal-fired power will surely put an end to.
The reality is this: Labor have a 50 per cent renewable energy target but they cannot say what the cost will be. They are pressed to say what the cost will be. They will not reveal it and, more importantly, they have no idea how to maintain not just the affordability of electricity but also the reliability of electricity, because they have no plan to provide the backup or the storage that you need with a large amount of renewables. This has been a comprehensive failure of planning on the part of the Labor Party.
So confused are they that they do not even know whether they have one policy or two. I have to return to that cracking interview by the shadow Treasurer where Mr Speers asked: 'What about the renewable energy target? Are you able to say what it would cost?' Shadow Treasurer:
Well, well, what we have is two Labor policies—the renewable energy target and then there's the goal of getting to 50 per cent renewable energy.
Mr Hammond interjecting—
The member for Perth is warned.
He continued:
The 50 per cent renewable energy is underpinned by a range of policy measures, including, for example, the trading scheme which we announced, which would have no impact on electricity prices—no impact at all.
Oh, yeah, that would be right!
Hang on—
says Speers—
Are you saying there's a difference between a goal and a target?
Shadow Treasurer:
Well, there is a renewable energy target … um … and then we have the 50 per cent aspiration.
Oh, so it is only an aspiration. I see a Gillard moment coming on—
Mr Hill interjecting—
The member for Bruce will leave under 94(a).
The member for Bruce then left the chamber.
as he crab-walks away, leaving the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Port Adelaide stranded there on their 50 per cent reckless target, which we know will destroy jobs and destroy businesses and burden households with unaffordable power bills. (Time expired)
Mr Perrett interjecting—
The member for Moreton will leave under 94(a). I am not going to warn him every day.
Mr Perrett interjecting—
I warn you, and then you acknowledge it, and then I warn you again. I am sick of the acknowledgements, frankly.
The member for Moreton then left the chamber.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Today the Prime Minister has repeatedly refused to rule out changing capital gains tax. Is the Prime Minister aware that the finance minister has ruled out changing capital gains tax?
The one thing we are all aware of is that the Leader of the Opposition is proposing to impose a 50 per cent renewable energy target on all Australians to shatter Australian business, destroy jobs and hurt households. When he has been asked—four times—for an answer, he cannot say—
The Prime Minister will resume his seat.
Mr Speaker, a point of order.
I think I can predict the point of order. I will just get in first and say that the Prime Minister is entitled to a preamble. The Manager of Opposition Business jumped at the 15-second mark.
An opposition member interjecting—
Whoever was interjecting then, you are lucky the Manager of Opposition Business was in your road. The Prime Minister is entitled to a preamble. I will ask the Manager of Opposition Business to resume his seat unless he was planning to raise a point of order other than on relevance. The Prime Minister well knows he will need to come to the substance of the question, which was on tax, but he is entitled to a preamble.
The opposition knows and the Australian people know that we are a party of lower taxation. We stand for encouraging investment, encouraging employment and supporting the Australian economy as it grows and delivers the opportunities Australians need.
At the last election the Labor Party went in with a daily double of an increase in capital gains tax and an outlawing—a banning—of negative gearing, each of which was absolutely calculated and designed to undermine investment and undermine employment. We opposed those measures then and we oppose them today.
My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Energy. The government tells us that Australia should be able to achieve the policy trifecta of energy—that is affordable, reliable and secure. Feedback from my electorate is that energy also should be sustainable.
Across Australia there are more than 60 groups developing community energy projects. The most popular are community solar projects. In Indi alone 24 per cent of households have rooftop solar. The community initiative Totally Renewable Yackandandah continues to drive amazing change at the grass roots level.
My question is: what support can the minister and the government offer to communities in rural and regional Australia to help us move to a community energy model?
I thank the member for Indi for her question and congratulate her local community for taking positive initiatives to integrate renewables effectively into the grid and to create more sustainable communities. She has personally told me about the experiences of Wangaratta and Benalla councils, which have proceeded with lower energy lighting, and the work that that is doing to lower their fuel bills and also to lower their carbon footprint.
At the federal level, the Clean Energy Finance Corporation has been working in the electorate of Indi to support local businesses. In fact, thanks to government support, Nu Fruit in Wangaratta has installed rooftop solar to supply more than 10 per cent of its electricity needs. Wodonga Rendering and Wodonga Abattoir can stay competitive as exporters by lowering their costs thanks to a trigeneration plant which provides heat, chilling and electricity, as well as lowering emissions. Local apple and chestnut grower, Nightingale Bros, will cuts its energy costs by 40 per cent by replacing refrigeration facilities with a new ammonia-based cooling system and smart controls.
The Turnbull government has announced a $5 million solar communities program. That is doing work to provide up to $15,000 for installing rooftop solar PV. The key point here is that Australia has the highest penetration in the world on a per capita basis of solar PV.
Whether it is through our Clean Energy Innovation Fund and the Southern Cross Renewable Energy Venture Capital Fund—which is investing well over $5 million in GreenSync, an Australian company which specialises in innovative technology management—whether it is the work we are doing at Coober Pedy or King Island, where diesel is being replaced by renewable energy power systems supplying over 65 per cent of the island's energy needs, the Turnbull government is getting on with providing increased funding and support for the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and ARENA to undertake important storage, battery storage and pump hydro facilities, as well as local solar initiative projects and supporting business to lower their fuel costs and lower their carbon footprint.
My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister, the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources. Will the minister outline to the House the effect of electricity prices increases across agricultural producers and processors, particularly in my electorate of Maranoa? How is the government protecting hardworking Australian businesses and families from unsustainable pressures on their hip pocket?
Dr Mike Kelly interjecting—
The member for Eden-Monaro is warned!
Dr Mike Kelly interjecting—
The member for Eden-Monaro will leave under 94(a).
The member for Eden-Monaro then left the chamber.
I thank the honourable member for his question. Agricultural production is forecast to reach a record $60 billion in 2016-17, and $12.5 billion of this is in beef cattle—almost $1 billion across the 2,878 beef cattle farms in the Maranoa and Darling Downs region. Being a former constituent of Maranoa, I am very aware of that.
Teys Australia, one of Australia's largest processing sectors, employs directly 4,000 people, and another 13,000 jobs are associated with it within regional Australia. They process around 1½ million head of cattle in feedlots in Condamine, Maranoa, Jindalee, Riverina, Charlton and Mallee, and have processing facilities in Rockhampton, Capricornia, Beenleigh, Forde, Biloela, Flynn, Tamworth in New England, Wagga and Naracoorte.
The average processing cost in Australia is $300 per head. Unfortunately, the average processing cost in the United States is $150 per head and in Brazil it is $130 per head. So if you want to have more processing you have to keep control of your costs. If you do not want to encourage more cattle into the live cattle trade then control your processing costs. But you cannot control your processing costs when, as they say, the costs are spiralling out of control.
Total energy for Teys this year will be $39 million. What we have seen in places such as Naracoorte in South Australia is that, in the last three years, the costs have gone up by 60 per cent. In Rockhampton they have gone up by 57 per cent, in Biloela 40 per cent and in Beenleigh 28 per cent. That is from 2015 to 2017. Power prices are forcing people out of jobs, out of manufacturing jobs. It is quite simple: you can either have cheap power or cheap wages. We do not want cheap wages; we want to make sure people are well paid, so we must have cheap power. You would think the party that represented better wages would want cheap power, but they do not. What they want is dearer power and this dearer power is going to force out manufacturing jobs.
We are looking for a coherent explanation of what they have, so let's try it. Let's try some famous speeches. The first famous speech: 'We will fight on the beaches.' Who said that—'We will fight on the beaches'? Churchill on 4 June 1940. 'Four score and seven years ago.' Who said that? Abraham Lincoln. But this has to be one of the best speeches. Who said this: 'And … the … the … again … the electricity … trading scheme post, you know… it … it … it … where some people, where some … um … it cancels each other out, so yes.' Who said that? Bowen. He is up there.
The Deputy Prime Minister will refer to members by their correct title.
The member for McMahon. And again, the impact cancels each other out. Mate, your incomprehensible impact cancels out everything your party— (Time expired)
My question is to the Prime Minister. Today the member for Bennelong repeated his call for reform of capital gains tax and negative gearing. If the Prime Minister will not listen to first home buyers, will he at least listen to a member of his own back bench saying the system needs to be reformed? Why does the Prime Minister refuse to simply say whether he rules out changes to capital gains tax or not?
The finance minister dealt with that this morning and Sabra Lane dealt with the Leader of the Opposition yesterday. What a pathetic performance—could not even say what his renewable energy target would cost, just like he had no idea what his negative gearing policy at the last election would do to housing prices. The reality is—
Mr Frydenberg interjecting—
The Minister for the Environment and Energy will cease interjecting. I should have warned him the other day. He is now warned! The Manager of Opposition Business, just as he rose to his feet the Prime Minister was speaking about negative gearing, which was the subject of the question. So I am not sure if he wants to take the one and only point of order he has now or save it.
Mr Burke interjecting—
The Prime Minister has the call. He is completely in order.
It is perfectly obvious the Manager of Opposition Business has no interest in the standing orders but plenty of interest in interrupting the way in which we are revealing the absolute shallowness of the Labor Party's policies, their recklessness, the damage they are doing to Australian families and households. Spare us the fake empathy, if you please. Every member opposite knows there are businesses and jobs in their electorate which their policy puts at risk, and none more so than the members from the Hunter Valley. The member over there, the member for Hunter, represents an electorate, the jobs in which are based on energy, on affordable energy, on strong, reliable baseload power, and he is a member of a party that wants to shut it all down.
The Prime Minister will resume his seat.
Mr Fitzgibbon interjecting—
The member for Hunter is warned!
Mr Pyne interjecting—
The Leader of the House will cease interjecting. The Leader of the Opposition on a point of order.
Relevance. I just want to say to the Prime Minister: there is no shame in just answering a question. Yes or no? Are you going to make the changes or are they off the table?
The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The Prime Minister has the call.
The member for Hunter may reflect on the maiden speech of the member for Paterson when she said:
While coal is still a vital source of employment, we are a region in transition. Just as nearby Newcastle has blossomed beyond steel, the Hunter will transition from coal to newer, cleaner industrial bases.
What are they going to be? Is it going to be gas at $100 a megawatt hour? Ask the people at Tomago Aluminium. Ask them whether they can afford $100 a megawatt hour. What is the Labor Party's plan? We are putting in place energy storage. We are taking on the challenge of providing the storage and the backup that Australia's energy system needs.
Honourable members interjecting—
The Prime Minister will resume his seat for a second.
Mr Hammond interjecting—
And on that note, the member for Perth, who has been warned, can leave under 94(1).
The member for Perth then left the chamber.
I am going to make very clear before I call the Prime Minister back: if members are going to interject wildly, as I have said before, they leave me no option but to ask them to leave under 94(a). They will choose how often they are in the chamber. Many have worked very hard to get in the chamber. It surprises me they then work so hard to get themselves out of it once they are here. The Prime Minister has the call.
Thank you, Mr Speaker. This issue of energy is all about competence. It is about competence and Labor's incompetence, its failure to put in place a plan.
Honourable members interjecting—
I see members from South Australia interrupting. Well may they seek—
The Prime Minister needs to bring himself back to the question of tax in the remaining time.
Thank you, Mr Speaker. There is no bigger burden on Australian households than Labor's effective tax on energy, which they are imposing, and it is a tax levied by Labor incompetence.
My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Will the minister update the House on the importance of a pragmatic and credible approach to energy security internationally and in my home state of Western Australia? Are there any alternative approaches leading to an increase in cost-of-living pressures for hardworking Australians?
I thank the member for Swan for his question and note his interest and concern about energy security. Nations around the world that want to grow their economies need access to reliable, affordable and secure forms of energy and, if they want to be internationally competitive, it is absolutely vital to grow their manufacturing and industrial base.
Western Australia is the engine room that drives export income for Australia. It is essential for our economy and for jobs in Australia that Western Australia continues to be internationally competitive when it comes to exports, and that means Western Australia needs reliable, accessible, secure sources of energy—
An incident having occurred in the gallery—
Do I stop?
No, Minister. Please continue.
Western Australia is having to be energy self-sufficient, because it is not part of the national electricity market. This means that, at times of high consumption or during hot weather, we need reliable baseload power and cannot rely on other states to source our energy. It is absolutely essential that Western Australia has affordable, reliable baseload power. Fortunately, we have an abundance of natural gas which provides about half of our energy needs and 70 per cent of electricity production in Western Australia.
Last week it was revealed that the Western Australian Labor Party intended to introduce a 50 per cent renewable energy target in Western Australia. Even Labor's energy spokesman was caught on tape committing Western Australian Labor to a 50 per cent renewable energy target in the middle of South Australia's power blackouts, where that state has a 50 per cent renewable energy target.
In the House last week I said, 'The next thing you know, Mark McGowan will crab walk away and do a Julia Gillard and say, "There will be no 50 per cent renewable energy target under a government I lead".' I was kidding—I did not think in my wildest dreams that that is what he would do, but—deja vu—there he stood, Julia Gillard-like, and said, 'There will be no 50 per cent renewable energy target under a government I lead.'
Western Australians can be assured that that is exactly what Labor will do. The great Labor lie is saying one thing before the election and doing precisely the opposite after the election. Should Western Australian Labor be elected at the state election, Western Australians will be subjected to the same chaos that we have seen in South Australia. We need reliable energy for our state. (Time expired)
My question is to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister rule out changes to capital gains tax?
I refer the honourable member to my previous answer, in which I confirmed that the statement made by the finance minister this morning was absolutely correct, and that the government has no intention or plan to change capital gains tax or negative gearing. That is our position and has been our position. The only party with a commitment to increasing capital gains tax and abolishing negative gearing is the Labor Party. That is their commitment.
It is the investment that they are threatening, the jobs they are threatening and, indeed, the real issue today—in addition to Labor's failure on tax and their failure to support investment and jobs—is their reckless approach to energy policy. They will talk about anything except their failure to protect the jobs in the Hunter Valley, in South Australia and right around Australia—jobs that depend on reliable and affordable energy. Labor is incompetent. It has failed to put in place the measures to protect those jobs. And here he comes: the defender of the biggest glass jaw in Australian politics.
The Prime Minister will resume his seat. The Manager of Opposition Business? Has the Prime Minister concluded his answer?
I have finished it, yes.
Mr Rob Mitchell interjecting—
And so are you, the member for McEwen. You can leave under 94(a).
The member for McEwen then left the chamber.
My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer update the House on the importance of a stable and secure energy network to the Australian economy.
Mr Keogh interjecting—
Mr Dick interjecting—
What are the impacts of higher electricity prices and less stable supply on job security and the hip pockets of hardworking Australian families?
The member for Moore will resume his seat. The Treasurer will resume his seat. The members for Burt and Oxley were interjecting right through the question. I am now going to get the member for Moore to repeat his question and, if there is a repeat of that, they will join their colleagues outside the chamber. They will leave me no choice.
My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer update the House on the importance of a stable and secure energy network to the Australian economy. What are the impacts of higher electricity prices and less stable supply on job security and the hip pockets of hardworking Australian families?
I thank the member for Moore for his question. When the Prime Minister and I met earlier this week with the Committee for Adelaide, they reminded us that South Australia was the canary in the coalmine when it comes to the reckless energy policies of those who sit opposite. They see the experiment, that terrible experiment that is being played out in South Australia under the matched renewable energy policies of those opposite who sit in this chamber. What we are seeing in South Australia is what happens when Labor policy grabs hold of our energy grid.
We have seen experiments from the Labor Party before when they were in office. We saw their experiments on border protection; we saw their experiments on policies that set fire to people's roofs and led to the terrible tragedies that we saw. We saw the experiments they put in place which saw overpriced school halls, and the complete catastrophe that drove our budget back into deficit and presents us with the debt burden that we have today.
Energy security is critical to businesses and households, and what we saw last night from the shadow Treasurer was not only an exposition of incoherence and incompetence but, if you wade through all of that—as I said, all the ifs and the buts and the aye-ayes and the well, wells and all the rest of it—
Mr Thistlethwaite interjecting—
The member for Kingsford Smith will cease interjecting.
on four separate occasions last night, the shadow Treasurer said that there would be no impact on electricity prices of a renewable energy target of 50 per cent. He said it on four separate occasions—absolutely no impact on electricity prices for households if you forced renewable energy at 50 per cent. On top of that, he said there would be absolutely no impact whatsoever on the budget. Now, it took a while to decipher that from his comments, but on four occasions he said 'there is no impact'.
What sort of a fantasy land is the shadow Treasurer living in when he thinks if you forced investment in renewables—and I do not know where he thinks the subsidies are going to come from for the $48 billion of additional investment that needs to be made or how he thinks that is going to flow through into energy prices for households. But is it any wonder that those opposite think that that is some sort of sensible policy? In the alternative reality in which they live, they think that it will have no impact on electricity prices. The shadow Treasurer has given the Leader of the Opposition a blank cheque when it comes to reckless renewable energy policies and abandoning the all-of-the-above approach that has been pursued by this side of the House. The coalophobia of those opposite treating coal like it is a great Jabberwocky is very concerning. It is going to cost jobs and it is going to cost business. (Time expired)
My question is to the Treasurer. On Tuesday, the Treasurer called for Labor to come up with our own alternative revenue measures. Yesterday, the Treasurer could not recognise Labor's reforms to capital gains tax as exactly that. Was the Treasurer or his office responsible for the leaks to The Australian Financial Review today, or was it the Prime Minister's office or his other opponents within the cabinet?
The only party represented in this parliament that wants to increase taxes and, in fact, is itching to increase taxes is the one that sits opposite.
Mr Brian Mitchell interjecting—
The member for Lyons has been warned.
The Labor Party are the party who want to increase taxes. There is a reason why they want to increase taxes and we saw it when they were in government. They want to increase taxes because they cannot bring themselves to ensure that governments can live within their means. On this side of the House, we are committed to ensuring that we spend every taxpayer dollar sensibly and fairly in a way that protects future generations and delivers the important services that are necessary, that Australians rely on. We have to make sure it is affordable and sustainable and responsible. Those opposite gave away on that pledge a long time ago, and we saw it at the last election.
At the last election, the shadow Treasurer, assisted by the then shadow finance minister who actually sacked himself in that portfolio after the last election, we saw a policy which was going to increase taxes, increase the deficit and increase debt and increase spending. That requires quite a level of determination, if you are determined to the ruin the finances of this country. This side of the House will not indulge in that sort of fiscal recklessness. What we are doing is ensuring we take the pressure off households. We are going to take the pressure off households whether it is by our policy on child care or particularly by securing energy affordability. Those opposite are on a very reckless path, which would see Australians pay more for everything, particularly for energy—it feeds into every single layer, whether it is the household budget or the business budget.
What they are putting forward are higher prices on electricity and higher prices on child care. And by the reckless policies of refusing to understand how the housing market works, they also want to inflict that sort of pain on Australians who are trying to buy homes as well. Also, they are trying to do it to those who rent properties. On average, around 20 per cent of the incomes of those who rent properties goes on their rent. Those opposite want them to pay higher rents. One of the things we have in this country, and we have had some success with it, is trying to avoid the sorts of excessive rents that we see. But there are many Australians who still struggle with their rents, and the policies of those opposite we know will just drive up rents. That is why they are reckless.
My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Energy. Will the minister update the House on how the government is prioritising a stable, secure, affordable energy supply, which supports jobs for hardworking Australians? What hurdles stand in the way of providing a secure and affordable electricity supply to families and farmers in my electorate of Flynn?
I thank the member for Flynn for his question and acknowledge that in his electorate and neighbouring electorates a number of cane growers have seen electricity prices increase by more than 100 per cent in recent years, and that is really putting pressure on their business. As the Prime Minister has made very clear, our priorities are energy security and energy affordability, as we transition to a lower emissions future. A big part of the equation going forward is storage and that is why the Prime Minister and I today announced that the Clean Energy Finance Corporation will be contributing $54 million to the Kidston Renewable Energy Hub to ensure that a large solar project can go ahead and that a feasibility study can be undertaken to be co-located with a 250-megawatt pumped hydro scheme. This is on top of more than $200 million we have already committed for storage related projects.
When it comes to energy policy, those opposite are very confused. You can imagine this: 18 months ago, the member for Port Adelaide goes over to the Leader of the Opposition and says, 'Look, we've got to outgreen the Greens. Let's get together and work out our energy policy.' The Leader of the Opposition says, 'Why don't you go and speak to the member for Watson and find out where we should do it.' He goes to speak to the member for Watson, who says: 'I've got a great idea. Let's have an off-site and I know where to go. Let's go to the Thredbo. If you don't like that, let's go to Uluru. Let's go and have an off-site and let's come up with policies to outgreen the Greens.' Then the member for Port Adelaide says, 'I've got an idea, a 50 per cent renewable energy target.' Then the member for Sydney says, 'Let's not call it a target; let's call it an ambition.' Then the member for Hunter does not like a target, does not like an ambition, and the member for Hunter says, 'Let's call it an aspiration.' But the member for McMahon does not want to be outdone. The member for McMahon comes out and says, 'Let's not call it an aspiration, or an ambition, or a target; let's call it an objective.' But then the member for Watson—he always has to have the last word—goes out on Sky and says, 'It's not an ambition; it's not an aspiration; it's not a target.' Do you know what it is? It is a goal.
We heard that it does not have any impact on prices, according to the member for McMahon. The member for Sydney said yesterday it will lower prices. The final word goes to the Australian Energy Market Commission. This is what the AEMC said when it looked at extending their renewable energy target to the amount that the opposition wants:
… as existing generators exit the market, wholesale prices can be expected to rise and consumers will face the full cost of the subsidy.
That is the reality of your Labor policy: higher price for consumers. (Time expired)
My question is to the Treasurer. Why should Australians believe the Treasurer when he says the government is not considering changes to capital gains tax, given that, just this week, the government has claimed that the National Disability Insurance Scheme is at risk and not at risk, that tax increases are being prepared and not being prepared by the government, and that the Abbott government 'zombie measures' are being retained and also being dumped? How can this Liberal government provide economic leadership when the Treasurer contradicts himself every day?
Our position is crystal clear: we are working to bring the budget back to balance by 2021. We have set out the measures that are required to do that, and they are the projections that are set out in those documents and were confirmed again in the MYEFO statement at the end of last year. After that document was released in December 2016, the AAA credit rating was once again affirmed by all three ratings agencies. It is this government that continues to have the policies set before this parliament that will take us back into balance.
There is only one group of people who sit in this parliament who are working against that objective, and you really have to wonder why. Those opposite have been accused of trying to talk down the economy to risk Australia's AAA credit rating for their own benefit. I have not made that statement, but I can understand that suspicion. It would be a pretty dog act for those opposite to seek to frustrate the savings measures of this government purely to pursue their own cynical political objective of trying to force a downgrade of the AAA credit rating.
Those opposite need to come to terms with the responsibility they have to sit in this chamber and consider these matters. We have made it crystal clear how this budget can come back to balance by dealing with the expenditure challenges that we have, and to make sure that government lives within its means. Australian householders live within their means; businesses live within their means; but those opposite refuse to do it. They continue to demand higher and higher spending. They continue to demand that this government not take the necessary steps to ensure that our welfare budget is sustainable so it can support the Australians who desperately need it and so it can be targeted to meet their needs.
Those opposite are engaged in a very cynical game. They come into this place and they sneer and they smear and they cheer and they carry on, but what they forget is the very serious business that this parliament is trying to conduct, and that business is to clean up the mess that they left behind. They set fire to that budget, and they pour petrol on it every single day from opposition. That is what they need to come to terms with. They need to be accountable for the votes and the actions they take. Cynical populism and opportunism may be the career record of the Leader of the Opposition, but they are no job application to be Prime Minister.
My question is to the Minister for Revenue and Financial Services. Will the minister advise the House on how making our childcare system more affordable, flexible and accessible for all Australian families will create jobs and relieve the cost-of-living pressures for them? Is the minister aware of any problems and alternatives that may occur?
I thank the member for Gilmore for her question and for her powerful advocacy on behalf of her constituents, who believe that it is so important to have access to affordable child care. She, like them, knows that access to affordable child care means that mothers and fathers who want to increase their work hours, who want to spend time studying or training, or who want to in fact return to the workforce are able to do so, and that there is no barrier in place.
By providing access to affordable child care, the Turnbull government is giving Australian families real choices about their lives. It is a critically important economic reform. Our fully funded childcare reforms will help around 129,000 families by abolishing the rebate cap for those families that earn less than $185,000. Those who are high-income families earning more than $185,000 will have an increased cap of up to $10,000 each year.
This is very important because there has been new data released today that shows that thousands of families have hit the childcare assistance cap just weeks into the new year, and that means out-of-pocket costs for them. Just two weeks into the new year, more than 3,600 families hit the $7,500 rebate cap for access to early childhood education and care services. We know that families usually face this childcare cost cliff in the middle of the year, and it cripples household budgets. It means that one parent usually has to go out and earn a living just to pay for childcare costs, and will often result in a parent working fewer hours than they otherwise would work, or a child being abruptly withdrawn from their child care or early learning opportunities. Our reform package provides those families with real relief for those out-of-pocket childcare costs. It ends the stress of reaching that childcare cost cliff, and it empowers parents to be able to make decisions about their families and their work lives.
Those opposite are being reckless with Australian families. They have complete disregard for Australian families because they are standing in the way of these critical reforms—reforms that were introduced into this place only last week. They are going to leave around 129,000 families worse off if they continue to block these reforms. Those opposite went to the election promising that they would continue the current system. They then went to the Press Club and they said that they were going to have a national conversation. But the truth is that they have got no plan other than hurting families. Get out of the way of real reform.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister's office, the Treasurer's office or the finance minister's office, or any junior Treasury minister's office, requested any advice or any modelling in relation to capital gains tax changes?
The business of government is not going to be delved into by this fishing expedition. The reality is that, as the honourable member knows, Treasury officials—
The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order.
If we are not allowed to ask questions—
No, on a point of order.
On a point of order on ministerial responsibility according to Practice: if we are not allowed to ask about the business of government, why are we here?
Mr Dreyfus interjecting—
The member for Isaacs has been warned.
The government has been paying very close attention to the damage that would be caused by the capital gains tax proposals of the Labor Party and the impact they would have on investment and on incentives, and indeed so damaging would Labor's approach to capital gains tax be that we, recognising that, have actually gone further to provide exemptions from capital gains tax to encourage investment in early-stage companies. So the honourable member knows very well that Treasury officials look at a whole range of options, a whole range of studies. We get submissions from various parties, from various interest groups associated with the budget. And it would be remiss not to examine all of those proposals and to pay respect to them as well.
But the fact is that what we know is that the plan we took to the last election delivers more investment and more jobs. The plan that Labor took to the last election was to discourage investment, to raise taxes, to do nothing to encourage employment. Most reckless of all, their plan on energy is absolutely guaranteed to deliver the least reliable and the most expensive electricity. You do not need a Treasury official to model that; you have only got to look at South Australia. Their energy plan is guaranteed to deliver the least reliable electricity and the most expensive electricity, which is driving jobs away, discouraging investment and putting families at risk with higher and higher bills, and that is what Labor would deliver to the whole of Australia if they had their way. They do not have the competence; they do not care; they are filled with ideology, with a failure to put in place the measures to keep the lights on and ensure Australians can afford to pay their power bills, afford to invest and employ and drive those opportunities every Australian is entitled to aspire to.
My question is to the Minister for Social Services. Will the minister inform the House on the government's commitment to the NDIS and its plan to fully fund it? Are there any alternative approaches that would hurt hardworking families?
I thank the member for her question. Of course, the member knows that the NDIS is a massive reform project and the member knows that even the most worthy and important expenditures and reform have to be paid for. The member knows that they can either be paid for through savings, or taxes, or borrowings. Of course, the government's commitment to the NDIS is absolute. We are also determined to try to fill the funding gap left by members opposite of $4 billion with savings rather than taxes or borrowings.
The member also asked about alternative approaches, and I think one was illustrated by an answer that the Leader of the Opposition gave to Ms Sabra Lane on radio yesterday morning. The question was put to the opposition leader:
Labor never fully explained how it would pay for the scheme.
The response was:
Well, I was there in 2013 when Jenny Macklin outlined that we would increase the Medicare levy and we would make other savings.
To the credit of the Leader of the Opposition, at least he did not answer it in morse code, like the shadow Treasurer, but there is still a slight problem with the answer in that not one of any of the members opposite can provide us with any details or any firm figures around what these mysterious 'other savings' are. It is all very 1960s. They used to say that if you could remember the 1960s you were not there. Well, the Leader of the Opposition was right there alongside the member for Jagajaga. He just cannot remember what the $4 billion worth of savings were. And that is simply not good enough.
He was pressed again at a doorstop yesterday morning:
Mr Shorten, in Labor's 2013 budget papers, you describe some of the money going towards the NDIS as selected long-term savings. What are those savings?
Answer:
You have to refer to the budget papers.
So to a question that says the budget papers are not clear on what these other savings are, the answer is: refer to the budget papers. That is an amazing answer to a $14 billion funding gap in the most important reform that either of these two governments has ever engaged in.
You know, there was nothing in the budget papers—nothing that would provide any explanation. There was an off-Broadway sort of budget glossy which had a thing called 'Chart 3'. That did point to savings. One of the savings it pointed to was with respect to health insurance. That saving was first announced on 22 October 2012, with the member for Lilley saying:
… the savings taken will help return the budget to surplus …
It was re-announced in MYEFO, saying: 'The saving in this measure will be redirected to partially offset the cost of the dental health reform package.' And then it was re-announced in the budget glossy as being applied to the NDIS. The member for Lilley did not spend it once, he did not spend it twice; he spent it three times—unfunded. (Time expired)
The member for Jagajaga.
I seek leave to table a Treasury document, tabled in Senate estimates, that outlines how the Labor government fully funded the NDIS.
Government members interjecting—
Have a look at it!
Government members interjecting—
Opposition members interjecting—
Does the member for Jagajaga actually want me to ask whether leave is granted?
I know what they will say!
Leave not granted.
My question is to the Prime Minister. The Melbourne Energy Institute has found that his plan to build new coal-fired power stations would cost $62 billion. Given that this cost would have to be passed on to households, will the Prime Minister confirm the cost of his coal plan announced at the National Press Club as $62 billion?
It is funny—I can just say that we on this side are not the only ones in this House who actually believe in clean coal. Listen to this quote from the member for Grayndler, who said in this place:
One count was the Prime Minister suggesting that somehow I did not support clean coal technology. If he cares to check my website, he will see at least 73 speeches and press releases referring to support for clean coal technology, including me as the major speaker at the clean coal conference, …
That is the alternative Leader of the Opposition!
Now listen: we understand on this side of the House that you need to be technology neutral. As the Prime Minister has outlined, Australia is the largest coal exporter in the world. Our coal is low in sulphur and low in ash. What we have seen right throughout Asia is more than 700 of these high-efficiency low-emission power stations. So we are absolutely serious about investigating the cost of doing this in Australia. We understand that we have 24 coal-fired power stations, all of which they wanted to close when they joined with the Greens to pass a motion in the Senate to encourage the closure of coal-fired power stations.
What does your plan cost? Why can't you answer it?
So we are absolutely serious about clean coal technology.
This is what the Chief Scientist of Australia, Dr Alan Finkel, said about clean coal technology:
…- existing coal and new coal – with CCS [carbon capture and storage] is a very legitimate low emissions technology.
We are absolutely serious about maintaining baseload power in the system. Those opposite have a 50 per cent renewable energy target for which they do know what the cost is and they do not know what the implications on the network are—and they do not even know what it is called!
We on this side of the House have a much different policy—we are technology neutral when it comes to our policies. We will not go down the path of an emissions intensity scheme and we are not going down the path of closing coal-fired power stations. We are not going down the path of a 45 per cent emissions reduction target and we are not going down the path of a 50 per cent renewable energy target.
You can't answer it!
We are serious about investigating clean coal technology.
I will just finish: the CO2 Cooperative Research Centre in Melbourne looked at the levelised cost of a new coal-fired power station and found that it could actually be cheaper than gas and wind.
The only reason I have not asked the member of the Kingsford Smith to leave the chamber—he knows he has been interjecting and I have asked him a couple of times to cease interjecting—is that he is not a serial offender in that regard. But he will not interject again for the rest of question time.
My question is to the Minister for Justice and the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on Counter-Terrorism. Can the minister update the House on threats to community safety posed by illegal firearms? Are there any threats to the government's approach to cracking down on firearms trafficking?
I thank the member for Mackellar for that question.
The Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission estimates that there are up to 250,000 guns within the Australian black market. Most worryingly, they are increasingly held by criminals or organised crime groups, like outlaw motorcycle gangs. This pool of weapons poses an ongoing threat to community safety. Just as one of these guns can do serious harm, anyone who smuggles one is only going to use it for a serious criminal purpose.
The latest information we have is that guns are used in 11 per cent of murders, almost 20 per cent of attempted murders, six per cent of kidnappings and nearly seven per cent of robberies. And criminals in every Australian jurisdiction are using illegal firearms to protect their criminal interests, to strike fear and to intimidate and to commit acts of violence and crime. This is why it we on this side of the House are committed to taking tough action against people who smuggle guns.
On Monday night in the Senate we introduced a bill that was debated in good faith, and government supported amendments, to further decrease the maximum penalty for gun smuggling. But, astonishingly, the Labor Party stripped away the most important element of that bill: a mandatory minimum sentence for gun smuggling. On this side of the House, we believe that if you smuggle a gun you should go to jail for a long period of time. But apparently Labor do not believe that, and their explanation is that it is long-held Labor policy that they always oppose mandatory sentencing. It is a principle that they would never deviate from.
This is interesting, because I have come across this document: A Secure and Fair Australia, brought to us by Julia Gillard and Labor.
What year?
From 2010. In it it says:
In May 2010, Federal Labor introduced tough new people smuggling offences. They included penalties of up to 20 years imprisonment and mandatory minimum terms …
The shadow minister for justice was asked about this at an interview on Sky News. She said, 'Oh well, that was a long time ago.'
Well, it was not that long ago. This document was brought to us by the member for Gorton, so it is not that long ago, and it was supported by none other than the member for Parramatta, who said at the time:
Importantly, it extends mandatory minimum penalties for people-smuggling.
… … …
I am proud to stand to support this bill, because we must fight to stamp out the organised crime of people-smuggling …
It was also supported by the member for Moreton—I doubt he is still here—and he said in the debate: 'The amendments demonstrate that the Rudd government is serious about stopping people smuggling.' Well, we are serious about stopping gun smuggling. That is why we want a mandatory minimum sentence, and, if you were serious about gun smuggling, you would have supported the measure. (Time expired)
My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to his earlier answers where he has defended his industry minister's describing One Nation as 'more sophisticated'. Given it is now reported that One Nation—which the WA Liberal Party is preferencing above the Nationals—has advocated killing Indonesian journalists and made hate-filled, derogatory attacks on gay people, Muslims and Indigenous Australians, does the Prime Minister stand by his earlier answers? How long can the Turnbull government continue to pretend that One Nation is just like any other party?
I am not going to be verballed by the member for Watson. The reality is, as he knows, that political parties in our preferential system assign preferences in their own interests. And I may as well ask whether the member for Watson agrees in free heroin; whether he agrees in abandoning the American alliance; whether he agrees, for example, in loosening Australia's gun laws? I think not. The fishers and shooters party was preferenced by the Labor Party, in the Orange by-election just recently, ahead of the National Party.
The reality is that all political parties in Australia, particularly at the federal level with compulsory preferential voting, allocate preferences in their own interests, and, when we allocate preferences, we do so for the purpose of ensuring that more Liberal and National members are elected to parliament. That is our objective.
Has the Prime Minister concluded his answer?
No.
The Leader of the Opposition on a point of order?
On relevance: why is this Prime Minister putting his own interests—
No, the Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The Leader of the Opposition might not like the answer, but there can be no claim the answer was not relevant. The Prime Minister is completely relevant to the question.
What we saw there was the biggest glass jaw in Australian politics. We had his snivelling personal explanation, earlier in the week—almost bursting into tears—that the mean people on the government side had said nasty things about him. He cannot take it. And he cannot take the truth about his own hypocrisy. And there he is, standing up here, abusing the standing orders, defying the Speaker, to give his torrent of abuse.
Well, I will say this: if the honourable member for Watson wants to know what my views are or my party's views are on those issues, then you look to us. And we stand for a non-discriminatory immigration program. We stand behind Australia, the most successful multicultural society in the world. We support the United States alliance, the bedrock of our security—which is not what the Greens party supports. And we do not believe that heroin should be free, either. And I do not think the Labor Party does either—but they preference the Greens again and again and again. The hypocrisy from the Labor Party is insupportable—the duplicity, the inconsistency, from the Leader of the Opposition; his snivelling pleas for mercy. This glass jaw has to be revealed for what it is. He can't take it. He can't deliver. He can't govern.
Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
I would like to inform the House of the retirement tomorrow of Robyn McClelland, the Clerk Assistant (Committees), after a career spanning four decades in the Commonwealth Public Service. It is a pleasure to make these remarks today while Robyn is present here, in the chamber where she has worked as Clerk or Deputy Clerk, and there at the table, for 18 years.
In the 25 years Robyn has been with the Department of the House of Representatives, she has worked with 11 speakers, seven prime ministers, and four clerks. She has worked in all the Clerk Assistant roles and as the Serjeant-at-Arms. Throughout this time, Robyn has worked with diligence and professionalism in the best traditions of parliamentary service.
The ability to draw on Robyn's expertise on practice and procedure has been of enormous value to me as a member of the House, as a committee chair, and of course, more recently, as Speaker. Her advice is always delivered quietly—which is sometimes difficult to hear, in this chamber—but forthrightly. Last week I was pleased to join the Clerk at a well-attended departmental function marking Robyn's retirement—a great demonstration of the incredibly high regard in which she is held by all her colleagues.
By any measure, Robyn's career has been one of exceptional achievement and service to members of this parliament. I trust all honourable members will join me in thanking Robyn for her many fine years of service, and to wish her, and her husband, Sam, who is in the Speaker's Gallery today, and their family, every happiness in her retirement.
Mr Speaker, the Leader of the House will have more to say, as is the custom, but I just want to say, on behalf the government—and I am sure this is a unity ticket: Robyn, thank you so much. Twenty-five years sustaining our democracy—a remarkable service. Australia is stronger for it, and we are all better for your wisdom. Thank you.
The Manager of Opposition Business will make longer remarks. I would just like to make this observation on behalf of Labor. You started your career in the Public Service as an administrative trainee some time ago. You have served this parliament. And, when people look at the conduct of this parliament, they quite often are not as happy with what they see, but what they do not see is that, to the extent that this parliament operates and operates well on many occasions, it is done upon the efforts of you and all your colleagues.
Some people here know you very well and others know you less well, but all would be aware that you are a modest person and that you also believe that much of what you have done is, in a large part, due to all of your colleagues. I think that you are like many modest people: you do not seek praise and you do not seek flowers and recognition, and, like all modest people who are remarkably professional and excellent, you probably do not realise how much you are loved and respected by the people for whom you work. There is a lot often said about our public servants, but I tell you what, Robyn: you are a great public servant. Thank you very much.
On behalf of the government, and as Leader of the House, I would like to add my own personal remarks of thanks to Robyn McClelland. I would like to associate myself with the remarks made by the Speaker. Mr Speaker, as you, the Manager of Opposition Business in the House and I, as Leader of the House, know, we rely very heavily on the clerks and the deputy clerks on a daily basis when this House is sitting to keep the parliament operating in the way that it does so professionally and expertly.
Around the world, the Australian parliament is regarded as a model for democracies of how to conduct parliament and how to allow it to exist successfully. Representatives of many countries come to see this parliament in operation, to meet with the clerks and the deputy clerks and to understand our processes. A large part of that reputation is built on the work of the Clerk, the Deputy Clerk and other people who assist. Robyn McClelland has been doing it for 18 years at the table. She has seen a great deal in that time, as has the Clerk, David Elder. I have been here that entire time. I have to say that Robyn McClelland is an absolute pleasure to deal with and always has been. She is very professional and, as the Leader of the Opposition said, very modest. She is a great public servant and a great supporter of this parliament. I have always been very grateful for your objective, unbiased advice whether I have been in the opposition or whether I have been in the government—that is another feature of our parliament. We will miss Robyn, and I think David will particularly miss Robyn as well. You will be very hard to replace. Thank you very much for your service.
It is with great sadness that we see Robyn leave the parliament. When I arrived in 2004, it was Robyn who gave a whole series of presentations at our induction. I remember asking a question that the answer was not known to. Three days later, a detailed paper arrived that Robyn had prepared for me explaining exactly what the circumstances would be. That question went to the counting of the ballot for Speaker. It has turned out that I have never had the opportunity to invoke the advice that I was given!
Of all the sections of the Public Service and of all the different sections of our own parties, it is interesting to note that the clerks probably have the best-quality information, and they have never leaked against anyone. It is an extraordinary thing. Contestable for all of us—and it is contested every day in the parliament—is how well we serve the people we are answerable to, but there is no question at all about the way the clerks serve the parliament. Robyn has been an extraordinary example of that. The moments that each of us have loved most and loved least in this parliament have all been based on clerks' advice. Robyn, we wish you and Sam well. Do not underestimate the extent to which we are filled with gratitude. We wish you well but we will feel the loss.
Robyn, I know there is one thing you hate, and that is debates that go on for too long—especially when one speaker is repeating precisely what the previous speaker just said. My iteration in this is to once more thank you for your service to our nation. You have served the nation in many forms for four decades. That is commendable and it is a life well lived. No doubt you have an abundance of life in front of you that you can now spend with your husband. Good luck, old trout—I am sure you will fare better than us!
I add my congratulations and my respect to Robyn McClelland on what is a remarkable 40 years of service to the public sector, beginning at the Australian National Audit Office, the National Library and the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal before you arrived here back in 1991. You have been serving at the table here for some 18 years, and in that time you have shown expertise and, indeed, a great deal of character.
My colleagues have spoken about the advice that the clerks give to people. What is also the case is that you often receive requests from both sides about the same thing. You often have to keep in confidence an inquiry about whether a particular motion or position taken in the parliament would be in order and provide assistance to make sure that it is in order, and then give advice to the other side on how they might undo the first lot of advice! You do so in a way that has the total respect of everyone that you have worked with. The other thing about being at the table here is that you work under pressure. Quite often in the heat of battle, it is the people at the table who have to stay calm, make sure that practice is complied with and give advice to the Speaker or whoever is in the chair. You have always been professional, clear and calm in that advice—unlike, it must be said, the rest of us, who can only aspire to that objective. You have been a pleasure to work with. I wish you, Sam and your family well. As a former Leader of the House, as a former Manager of Opposition Business, as a member of parliament but also as someone who runs into you around the building, you always have a smile, a 'hello' and a cheer, and a professional approach to your work and diligence here. You will be missed by all of us. I wish you well.
I seek to make a personal explanation.
Does the Manager of Opposition Business claim to have been misrepresented?
Yes—by the Deputy Prime Minister.
The manager of Opposition Business may proceed.
On Tuesday in question time, the Deputy Prime Minister said, 'He is actually the shadow water minister, and the whole time there he has never asked me one question about water—not one.' At one level he is right: I have not asked one; I have asked three, on 21 November last year, on 28 November last year and on 29 November last year. The confusion may have arisen because questions were asked but answers weren't given!
I seek to make a personal explanation.
Does the member for Hunter claim to have been misrepresented?
I do indeed.
The member for Hunter may proceed.
During question time today the Prime Minister claimed that I supported or support a policy to close down coal fired power generators. That is patently untrue, and what the Prime Minister has not discovered is that the coal fired power generators in the Hunter are reaching the end of their commercial lives. I seek leave to table a speech I made on Monday which proves that the Prime Minister misled the House today. Thanks, Christopher!
Is leave granted?
No!
Leave is not granted.
I seek to make a personal explanation.
Does the member for Paterson claim to have been misrepresented?
I do.
The member for Paterson may proceed.
During question time today and on Tuesday the Prime Minister said I wanted to close down coal fired energy plants in my seat which provide power to the Tomago smelter, also in my electorate. That is completely untrue. I will always stand up for Australian jobs, including those jobs in my electorate, and it is a great pity the Prime Minister cannot say the same. I seek leave to table my speech, which indicates that the Prime Minister—
Was your speech made in the House?
It was indeed, sir.
I am not going to allow you to seek leave to table something that is in the Hansard.
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 have received a letter from the honourable Leader of the Opposition proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:
The Government threatening families, working Australians and the National Disability Insurance Scheme.
I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.
More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—
Australians are demanding more of their parliament and more of their politicians, but this week they would have been severely disappointed by the actions of this out-of-touch, desperate and divided government. This is a government who have no agenda and no authority, and all they seek to do is respond by promoting one flawed economic proposition. They will do anything to Australians in order to pass a $50 billion corporate tax giveaway. We have seen this week every day greater and greater energy by this government to take middle- and working-class Australians hostage in their actions to pay for an unfunded $50 billion tax cut.
On Monday they said that the only way that people can ever get childcare reform is if pensioners lose $14 a fortnight, if families lose $750 a year. The only way they think that you can get childcare reform is by telling young unemployed people that they have to go a month without receiving any money whatsoever. It is a flawed strategy which pits one group of Australians against another group of Australians, but, watching the sensitivity of the Prime Minister's grotesque defence of preferencing One Nation, we see they have no problem with pitting one group of Australians against another. We heard the Prime Minister describe One Nation: 'all parties do it'. No, Prime Minister; not all parties preference the sort of candidates One Nation is running.
On Tuesday, not content with taking family payments, pensioners and young unemployed people and putting them against people who want to see improvements in child care, the Treasurer, that marvel of conservative engineering, came out and said, 'The only way that you can have the National Disability Insurance Scheme funded is if you vote to cut pensioners, if you vote to cut young unemployed people, if you vote to go after family payments.'
Then on Wednesday, not content with their attack on child care on Monday, with their attack on the National Disability Insurance Scheme Tuesday, this increasingly desperate government let the cat out of the bag. The Treasurer and the government said that, if Labor does not give in to the blackmail of the government and vote for unfair cuts harming vulnerable Australians, the government will increase the taxes of all Australians. I never thought I would hear any government threaten the Australian people that they will all have to increase their taxes unless they go along with harmful cuts to the less well off in our society.
But the real poverty of the government's conservative proposition was seen again today. They cannot even maintain a position. Today in the morning and yesterday they said that they were looking at capital gains tax reform, and in the afternoon, after the Minister for Finance slam-dunked the Treasurer behind the scenes, all of a sudden the government has now said: 'We will not look at reforming negative gearing. We will not look at reforming capital gains tax deductions. We will keep looking after the really well off, and instead the only way that you can have any change is by going after the vulnerable.'
And why are they contorting themselves? Why are they going so hard on the National Disability Insurance Scheme? Why are they threatening to raise the taxes—unspecified so far? It is because they want to pay for their $50 billion corporate tax cut. It is the $50 billion corporate tax cut which is the real issue here. It is flawed economics. What they want to do is take $50 billion out of the nation's ATM and give it back to large businesses. Labor will support reform for businesses up to $2 million—that is 83 per cent of small businesses, we will support that—but what this government wants to do is take $50 billion, in the next 10 years, out of the nation's ATM and, of course, they have not explained to anyone where they are going to replace it from. That is why we have seen some of the funding for the NDIS on the chopping block. That is why we see pensioners being told, 'If you go overseas for longer than six weeks, that's it. It doesn't matter how long you paid taxes for in this country, that's it.'
This government wants to give $50 billion in corporate tax reforms to the big companies; they want to hand the bank $7.4 billion. The Commonwealth Bank just announced a profit of $4.9 billion. They really need a pay rise from the government, not at all. And no less than Goldman Sachs has said that something like $30 billion of the $50 billion in corporate tax giveaway they are giving out of the budget back to large companies will go overseas. So the money will not be invested in Australia; it will head back overseas—that is what Goldman Sachs has said. The money will go to big banks to increase their profits; the money will go to multinationals. This is the government, who, whilst they do not generally believe in foreign aid—the only foreign aid they want to give is corporate tax relief to large foreign companies.
This $50 billion corporate tax giveaway is not going to generate jobs. It has been proven, modelled and researched that we will see economic growth of one per cent in 10 years time—that is 0.1 per cent GDP improvement a year. That is a rounding error. They are spending $50 billion out of the Australian economy and they are going to give negligible economic benefit.
Then you also look at what will be forgone. When you take that $50 billion out, the question you have to ask is: what is the opportunity cost of that $50 billion? How many schools will not be supported? How many hospitals will not be property funded? How many apprentices will not receive the support they need? How many older Australians will have a dignified and proper aged pension forgone, because of the corporate tax giveaway? This is the proposition of the government this week. The only plan they have got is $50 billion of corporate tax giveaway, and they are asking ordinary and battling Australians to pay for the $50 billion. Labor is not going to have a bar of that whatsoever.
Then we look at the proposals they are actually trying to do in terms of the tax cuts. The National Disability Insurance Scheme—this is a dishonest government. This National Disability Insurance Scheme was funded and, if the minister wasn't so dilatory in terms of the pursuit of his task, he could simply go to the budget papers in 2013 and see it is there, so it is not necessary. There are other alternatives for this government to fund the changes it needs to make. You do not have to give the $50 billion dollars away. And, what is more, you do not have to give negative gearing tax concessions ongoing in the next 10 years. That will save $36 billion to $37 billion. This is a government with the wrong priorities.
The government has given Australians, this week, a false choice. It has said that the only way you can have child care is by cutting other working people's benefits—wrong! It has said that the only way you can have childcare reform is by going after and undermining the security of the National Disability Insurance Scheme. This is a government who has made it perfectly clear on Wednesday, and not resiled from, that tax increases are on the table. This is a government who is contemplating actively—unless they can blackmail Labor into giving up working- and middle-class people and the scarce benefits they enjoy—making all Australians pay more tax. But what they never do is look at the other alternatives.
Labor stands here to positively suggest to the government that, if you drop your $50 billion in corporate tax cuts, we will support you. We will actively support the government, if they choose to reform negative gearing and, by the way, give first home buyers an equal go on the market against investors. We will actively work with the government in terms of capital gains tax reform.
This is a government who does have more choices than it presents to the Australian people. But how has the government responded this week? Has the government actually tried to say what it is going to do? It has not. Instead, every time we call the government out on their propositions, what have they done? They have just flipped the switch to negative.
Labor stands here, promising the Australian people that we will work to make this parliament work. We will work with the government to make sensible reforms, and we think that the most sensible reform that could be made is the government dropping the $50 billion tax cut. For me, it is a very simple equation. If you are given a choice between properly funding Medicare or giving large companies a corporate tax cut, we will choose Medicare. If you have to choose between docking a month's money off an unemployed person who earns $13,750 or if the choice is to take $8.80 a week off someone on $13,000 Newstart or giving large corporations a corporate tax cut, we will choose to stand up for the less well-off. If there is a choice between taking $14 a fortnight off a pensioner in energy supplements or giving corporate Australia a $50 billion tax cut, we will choose the pensioners. If there is a choice between letting a family on $60,000 keep a $750 family payment or giving corporate Australia a $50 billion tax giveaway, we will choose families. Labor will stand up for the Australian people. We will put people first, and we will fight and fight and fight the government's rotten corporate tax giveaway.
I thank the Leader of the Opposition. At the heart of the motion that he has put in his contribution just now is an accusation against the government and a denial of the proposition of fact that the government has consistently put. The accusation is that somehow the coalition government is not committed to the NDIS. The denial of fact of the proposition is the proposition that the NDIS, designed by members opposite, was not fully funded.
I want to deal first with the notion of the commitment to the NDIS. The NDIS trials commenced, in effect, three years ago and, over several trial sites, there was the rollout and transition of Australians into the NDIS. As of 1 July last year, the full rollout, the full transition, of the NDIS occurred in Australia. There is nothing that speaks to the commitment of the coalition government to the NDIS as strongly as the fact that it is happening. It is being rolled out Australia wide. Aside from the ACT, where the process was interrupted by an election, the full population of Australia is now covered by bilateral agreements with each of the states. In fact, the only reason that there was a delay with respect to one of those states, significantly Queensland, was that the Labor government there refused to sign on to the same bilateral that they later signed on to. But, in any event, the bilaterals are signed.
As of 1 July, the rollout began in earnest. At the end of that first six months, the government met 85 per cent of what was a very ambitious estimate for the people who should have transitioned in the first six months. In fact that was much higher than the transition results in the trial stages, which were around 75 per cent. At the end of December, at the end of the first six months, there were 63,482 Australians transitioned into the NDIS. We transitioned in more people in six months than had been transitioned in the full three years of trials. There are now 5,000 service providers in this amazing enterprise recognised and registered; $1.7 billion has been paid to providers and participants; and the processing of payment claims is now running at a success rate of 95 per cent. We inherited a blueprint from members opposite, and in many respects the blueprint is a sound one and in some respects it is somewhat clunky. In any event, nothing speaks to the commitment of this government to the NDIS more than the fact that it is happening. The opposition are very good at making announcements; this government is very good at making things happen. The accusation that there is some lack of commitment is simply not borne out by the facts.
The second proposition that has been put by members opposite is that it was fully funded, that there is no funding gap. This transition that commenced on 1 July last year will find its fruition in the year 2020 when we will reach full scheme, based on estimates. At that point, it was estimated that 460,000 Australians would be participating in the NDIS Australia wide. A reform of this nature—the most massive reform in a generation—comes with an enormous administrative effort, great complexity and, of course, a massive expense. It is a worthy expense and an expense which of course everyone supports, but, like all reform expenses, it has to be paid for.
We accept several of the funding sources that were nominated—and were nominated in budget papers—by members opposite. In 2020 when the NDIS reaches its full scheme operation, the Commonwealth will be spending, along with the states, $21.4 billion. The Commonwealth will fund 52 per cent of that total expenditure, at $11.1 billion. We accept the legitimate and preserved form of funding left by members opposite was the existing Commonwealth funding for disability programs, which rolls into the scheme. That is $1.1 billion. We accept that there was an increase in the Medicare levy and that the Commonwealth's share of that is $4.1 billion. We accept that there is a return, by agreement, to the Commonwealth of fundings previously provided to the states, often in the form of grants, and that is $1.8 billion.
Those figures, adjusted for 2020, amount to $7 billion. The Commonwealth's expenditure, as estimated in the budget papers produced by members opposite, is $11.1 billion in the year 2020. That leaves a funding gap of $4.1 billion, which has never been satisfactorily explained. You would think that, for a reform as important, as long awaited and as extraordinarily large as the NDIS, a $4 billion funding gap in 2020 would have been sufficiently explained in the budget papers. When you hear both in the media and in this House members opposite claim that it was fully funded, you will hear the phrase again and again that that $4.1 billion was funded through 'other savings'—the mysterious 'other savings'. The notion that, for a reform enterprise as large and as expensive as the NDIS, it would be acceptable to present in parliament that it is good enough to suggest that $4.1 billion can be adequately described with the term 'other savings' is absolutely ridiculous—and members opposite have struggled time and time again.
When you go back to the history of this matter, you will find that the 2012-13 budget papers do not identify where that $4.1 billion is going to come from. They do not identify savings that were linked to the NDIS that, when projected out to 2020, filled that $4.1 billion funding gap. Anyone here can be invited to look through those 2012-13 budget papers. The answer simply is not there. Of course, this presented something of a problem at budget estimates in the relevant year. There was a budget glossy that was produced at the time—not the budget papers that form part of the parliamentary record, but a budget glossy—and that did contain a chart. The chart nominated private health insurance reforms, reforms to retirement incomes and the mysterious 'other' long-term savings.
I would briefly note with respect to those two broadly identified savings measures, private health insurance changes and reforms to retirement incomes, that, as noted in question time today, those private health insurance changes were spent three times over. The member for Lilley explicitly said that those savings would be taken to help return the budget to surplus. He later explicitly said that those savings would be redirected to partially offset the cost of dental health reform. And the claim now is that they are being applied to the NDIS. The golden rule of public finance is: if you make a savings, you can only spend it once. Many have tried to spend it twice, but few have tried to spend it three times. The same can be said of the reforms to retirement incomes. They were first announced as savings to return the budget to surplus. They were then announced, or claimed, to be allocated to the NDIS. I might just add that this budget, 2012-13, which is said to contain the mysterious answer to the other savings—which it does not—predicted, at one point, a budget surplus in 2012-13 of $1.5 billion which turned into a budget deficit of $18.8 billion. This is the document that we are supposed to search for the credible answer as to how this $4.1 billion funding gap in 2020 is going to be filled—a document that predicted $1.5 billion and delivered an $18.8 billion deficit. What a joke!
Then we end up at Senate estimates after this 2012-13 budget, and that glossy table—which I think the member for Jagajaga attempts repeatedly to table, which is pointless because the thing is utterly meaningless—becomes the subject of questioning in Senate estimates. Under 'other savings', that chart attempts to point to things that were in the 2012-13 budget—which, of course, in that budget were not linked at all to the NDIS, but it attempts to point to those things nonetheless. Senator Fifield, who was responsible at the time, of course asked the obvious question that anyone would ask: if you say that they were other savings and you even make an attempt to point to them, can you quantify them? Can you wrap numbers around these other savings that add up to $4.1 billion? Senator Fifield said:
I might just return to the helpful document you provided at the start of proceedings today and try my luck.
Try his luck he did!
This relates to chart 3, 'DisabilityCare Australia' on the last page of the document. There is a category 'Other long-term savings' … for 2013-14 to 2022-23. Are you able to further disaggregate that by each of the measures there over the time scale?
The Treasury representative answers this way: 'The short answer is no'. That is a very awkward position, isn't it?
They left a government a massive expenditure on an incredibly worthy reform. They failed to fully fund it. They claimed repeatedly, in the most vague, ridiculous and nonsensical ways, that it is fully funded through other savings, and they left this government with the hard work. Well, the work is being done.
This side of politics will not be lectured by the member for Pearce on public finance. This is a man who was a great disaster as WA Treasurer. This is a man who every day woke up and tripped over the billions of dollars of iron ore royalties and wasted the lot. He left the Treasury of WA in a massive black hole, so he has a massive hide to come here and lecture us on public finance.
This MPI is about the true nature of government. Nothing reveals the true nature of government than the last week's events. We have seen the NDIS held hostage by this government's brutal cynicism—a hostage-taking condemned not just by the Labor Party but by great Australians who are passionate about helping our disabled Australians. Most notably, Kurt Fearnley—a great Novocastrian, a great paralympian and a great advocate for disabled Australians—condemned this government and he condemned the minister now walking out of the chamber for treating the NDIS as a political football and for being politically opportunistic.
We have also seen this week the omnibus bill—a bill that leaves 1½ million Australian families worse off. We have also seen debate around a $50 billion corporate tax cut. We have seen an emphasis on an energy debate where their only policy, according to Danny Price, is to jack up electricity prices by $15 billion. The Prime Minister's chosen economic electricity expert is saying their policy would jack up power prices by $15 billion.
And yet they have the hide to lecture us about them being the worker's best friend. They have the chutzpah to say that they are interested in looking after workers when all they have produced is a tax on workers. We will not be lectured about protecting workers and jobs by this mob. This is the party of Work Choices, a party that opposed superannuation, a party that cut the pension and a party that cut Newstart.
I am proud to be a Labor Party MP. I am proud to be from a party that stands up for workers and communities and stands up for the disadvantaged in this country and says we will improve their lives, unlike the Liberal-National coalition, which is intent on tearing them down. It is no surprise that is their attitude. Look who leads them: a man whose biography is entitled Born to Rule. Mr Deputy Speaker, you only have to see his actions in this place that demonstrate that mentality.
A good indicator of someone's attitude is the topics of speeches they make in the House. It is always useful to go back to Hansard, so I went back to Hansard and looked through the number of times Prime Minister Turnbull—before he was Prime Minister—talked about creating jobs. He was in this place 11 years before usurping Mr Abbott. Guess how many times he mentioned creating jobs?
An opposition member: None!
People here are very pessimistic! The truth is, in an 11-year career he mentioned it 18 times. Interestingly, that is the same number of times he mentioned rugby, sailing and wine. It is also the same number of times he mentioned chardonnay, cafe, Ferrari, poultry and luxury. Such is his commitment to the working people in this country.
We also saw it in his first major thought piece when he was an MP—when he was busily trying to get Prime Minister Howard's attention. What was the centrepiece of his coming out party? It was a 30 per cent top tax rate. Nothing for working people, but a 30 per cent top tax rate for the very well-off. We also saw this attitude in parliament this week, when he talked about energy prices as the most important thing dominating family budgets. Electricity prices are really important, and we do not diminish that point, but the fact that he never mentioned mortgages in all this is very illuminating. It demonstrates that this guy does not understand the cost of living pressures that families face.
It is no surprise. One only has to go back to what Brendan Nelson said about him. Brendan Nelson is hardly a friend of the Labor Party, but he said of the current Prime Minister that he has a narcissistic personality disorder and that he has no empathy. Everything we have seen this week—taking the NDIS hostage, cutting family payments, trying to cut the pension and attacking unemployed Australians—demonstrates that.
The truth is that history will condemn this Prime Minister. History will condemn his party as cynical, petty, divisive and myopic. History will condemn them. They are a government deeply out of touch that will shortly be condemned to the dustbin of history.
It is a concern. The people of Australia are under threat. They are under threat from an opposition with no plan. They under threat from an opposition and a Leader of the Opposition who use scare tactics on the most vulnerable people in our community. They stop at nothing to play politics with those in need.
The Leader of the Opposition is an expert at spruiking the spin, but he never has a plan. He never has a real solution and he never has the support, whilst we come up with actions to deliver for families, for working Australians and for those with disability in our community. If the Leader of the Opposition had any true reason to support the people who need it most he would support the current legislation in this parliament. He would support our plan for child-care reforms which will assist more than one million Australian families and make child care more affordable, more flexible and more accessible for people who need it most. These reforms will provide better futures for our children and positive relief where it hits families the most: the back pocket.
That is the point: if we want to support families in Australia today, we need to help them with the rising cost of power, and yet those on the other side support reintroducing a carbon tax. They support 50 per cent renewables. They do not care about the cost of power, about the cost of energy for the people who need to pay it—the families.
Ms Keay interjecting—
I take that interjection. You are saying, 'Give them a supplement.' Where from? Where are you going to find the supplements to supplement and compensate people for another spectacular carbon tax like your last one?
Ms Keay interjecting—
Yes, bring up more taxes. That is the way to solve your problems. That is because you support the Greens who want to introduce taxes or do you have a magic pudding where you just keep spending money three times over? That is the problem with those opposite: they really do not understand basic economics. They do not understand that you cannot use the same money three times over. They do not understand that, when Wayne Swan says he has delivered a surplus, he has not.
The assistant minister will use members' correct titles.
Sorry. I do apologise. They do not understand. The former Treasurer, the member for Lilley, Mr Swan, said he delivered a surplus. In fact, those on the opposite side were so excited they printed brochures declaring they had delivered a surplus, but sadly they had not. Even their forward estimates, which indicated a surplus, from where they were going to take money to pay for the NDIS, resulted in an $18 billion deficit. That is a bit of a difference from a surplus. That is the problem with the economic and fiscal irresponsibility on the other side of this chamber.
The coalition does have a plan. The other plan we have that is in legislation in front of this parliament today is to support the mothers who get no paid parental leave at the moment. They are the people they should be caring about—the thousands of mothers or would-be mothers out there who do not get any paid parental leave at all, and yet they are blocking that legislation. They are stopping the most needy in our community from getting any support at all. They should be ashamed of the lack of support for women and for mothers and for families in this community.
The NDIS is indeed a life-changing program.
A Labor reform.
And it is. As I said, the Labor Party—great architects, very bad at delivering. In fact, incapable of delivering. Everything they do—pink batts; you name it. They are incapable of delivering these programs. And, once again, they are not delivering the funding so that we can roll out NDIS to everyone. So how can we ever trust the hypocrites who present to the common man yet again and fail to provide for the future by imposing debt? They impose debt on families, they impose debt on the working person and they impose their lack of funding on the working families of Australia and the most vulnerable in our community. Even the Leader of the Opposition in his speech once again brought up that wonderful 'Mediscare' campaign that they dared to inflict on our community. As the Prime Minister says, the problem with socialists is they soon run out of other people's money. (Time expired)
Before I call the member for Longman, I might remind members that the MPI is not a team sport. I now call the member for Longman.
Yesterday, during the debate on the government's attempt to muddy the waters around the future certainty of this funding, I spoke about the high level of hope and goodwill towards the delivery of the NDIS that I have experienced from my community since I became the member for Longman. That hope and goodwill came from not just people with a disability but also their families, supporters and carers. There is passion and hope in the voices of the people who speak to me about what they see as a better future—a future where they are able to make better choices about their care. For many there is hope of a level of independence that they have never, ever experienced before, and for many of the increasingly elderly carers of disabled adult children there is security in knowing that their child will continue to be cared for after they pass. But what I can tell you is that none of them have expressed a desire to achieve that at a cost to other members of the community who are also doing it tough. Not one of them have suggested to me that the cost of their brighter future should be borne by people who are unemployed or families doing it tough or, bizarrely, through a reduction of their own Centrelink payments or those of their family.
The bipartisan promise made to them was a scheme funded appropriately through the Medicare levy, where every taxpayer would pay according to their income. That is the fundamental difference in outlook from those on this side to those on the Treasury benches. We believe in lifting our community up. They believe in tricked up but trickle-down economics. We do not believe that you lift people up by attacking them. We do not believe that you encourage families to succeed by giving less. We do not believe that you shift people from unemployment by forcing them into homelessness and poverty. We do not believe it, the people of my electorate do not believe it and Australians do not believe it. The attempt by this government to rob Peter to pay Paul, while at the same time handing out $50 billion in corporate tax cuts to the big end of town, is about the least Australian thing you can contemplate a government doing. Almost $7½ billion of those tax cuts are to the big four banks alone. On this side of the House, we do not think the big four banks need another extraordinary bonus—
Ms McBride interjecting—
They need a royal commission. You are absolutely right. That is what they need. People in Longman are sick and tired of seeing CEOs of big companies getting richer while they continue to struggle. People in Longman are sick and tired of seeing the big banks ripping them off while the government refuses to take action to rein them in and now proposes handing them back $7.4 billion in tax cuts. The people in Longman are tired of having to fight to get a basic service, such as a post office, or acceptable mobile phone coverage while this government proposes handing back $30 billion in tax cuts to multinational companies based offshore. Quite frankly, the people of Longman are sick and tired of being sick and tired. Having heard the stories of the organisations and the people who work in the communities that are represented by the member for Petrie—and it is a bit of a shame he has just walked out of the chamber—or the member for Dickson, that are just beside me, I know that Longman really is not alone here. Not a single person has bailed me up in the street to ask me to support cuts and to be more generous to banks, but what they do stop and talk to me about is the pressure on them as working families—older Australians and the disabled. They want a government that cares about the NDIS and that cares about jobs. They want to see apprenticeships and traineeships for the kids. They want high-quality, affordable child care for their kids and their grandkids. They want corporate Australia to pay their fair share.
This government's priorities are twisted. They care far more about delivering to their corporate mates than to the good people of Longman. If they cared about it, they would demonstrate it by putting to bed their cruel cuts to pensioners, working families, the unemployed and the disabled and would, instead, figure out a way not to cut tax to multinationals, but to ensure they actually pay their fair share. This government needs to stop using the NDIS and the people who it is bringing so much hope to as political footballs and instead deliver the NDIS that they deserve.
The dialogue we are getting from the opposition benches these days compared to what has happened in this country for the last 30 years means we have never had a more separate and stark choice between government and opposition for 30 years. For 30 years, both sides of politics, whether Labor were in government or out of government or whether we were in government or out of government, had a few core beliefs about what was good for the economy.
The Leader of the Opposition today gave his MPI, which had things like the NDIS and all that stuff written in it, but all he spoke about for over half of it was corporate tax cuts. For nearly the whole time, he focused on corporate tax cuts. I will give a history lesson to the opposition benches. The two Labor people, or the two prime ministers, who began corporate tax cuts were Bob Hawke and Paul Keating. Bob Hawke and Paul Keating understood, as did the Howard government, that they wanted to provide better government services. Hawke and Keating wanted to provide better government services, and so did the Howard government, and both governments understood that doing that would grow the economy. We have had almost 20 years of uninterrupted growth, parallel with lowering company tax rates, lowering personal income tax rates, lowering tariffs and getting our economy to be more open and international.
Unfortunately, that has now changed. This Labor opposition has shown that they want to go back. We are not the government of the fifties and sixties; they are. They want to go back to tax and spend. You want to do something? You want to spend some money? Go and tax someone. Well, if you do that, then put them back to 80 or 90; put them back to 60 and 70. And do you know what will happen? We will lose jobs and we will shrink our economy like you have never seen before.
I want to read something from the Financial Review this week, from the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry. It says it has examined tax revenue data collated by the Australian Bureau of Statistics—so I hope we all still have faith in the ABS.
Dr Leigh interjecting—
I have read some of your books, and I know what you think about corporate tax rates, the member for Fenner. As they said, they thought you were from the AWU, not the ANU. So the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry says it has examined tax revenue data collated by the Australian Bureau of Statistics over the past three cuts in the corporate tax rate, undertaken—listen to this—by both Labor and the coalition government. I have given them that history lesson, as they may have forgotten. It says that, in each case, the revenue collected from company tax has increased within two years.
Dr Leigh interjecting—
The member for Fenner will sit silently!
Furthermore, it says that, as the rate of company tax has fallen—get this: this is important too; I would love the academic to get this bit—the proportion of company tax as a share of total government revenue has risen. Who would have thought? I would have thought that, hopefully, an academic would have got that. Revenue from company tax rose from $8.6 billion in 1987-1988—and, just for the history lesson, you were in government then—to $12.7 billion in 1988-1990 after a 10-point cut in the rate, while the company tax as a share of government revenue rose from 11.4 per cent to a 14 per cent increase.
That is what we are talking about. It would be lovely, if we lived in a closed world. If we lived in a closed world, we could do and tax what we like. But we live in a very open and global trading economy and, whether we like it or not, we have to be competitive. We also have to be competitive in company tax rates. But, to go on, revenue rose from $26 billion in 1999-2000 to $35 billion in 2002-2003—again after a one percentage point as a share of revenue after the coalition cut the tax rate from 36 to 30 per cent. That is what history tells us.
We have other international history lessons. Ireland—Ireland cut its tax rate. Ireland was going broke in the eighties. They had a corporate tax rate of 60 per cent, which they lowered to 10 per cent, and, within three years, they were collecting more at 10 than at 60 per cent. But that has been a standard belief of both sides of politics for 25 years. We are— (Time expired)
It is disappointing to see the level of cynical politics that this government is willing to engage in to pass these bad cuts. In the most Machiavellian of ways, in this bill they have tried to force a choice upon people where, indeed, there is no need to choose. They are pretending that, in order to properly fund the National Disability Insurance Scheme, we need to leave millions of families, pensioners, working parents, young people and those who are the most vulnerable in our society, worse off.
Putting the question in these terms conveniently distracts from the fact that the government still intends to proceed with a $50 billion tax cut for big business. The truth is that this government is intent on squeezing our most vulnerable in order to give a hand to the big end of town. It beggars belief that even this government would go so low.
In my electorate, these cuts will hit hardest those without a voice. Youth unemployment in my electorate is amongst the highest in Sydney at 12.4 per cent. This government expect young job seekers to wait four weeks to access financial support. They speak of them as if they choose to be unemployed. They do not. The reality for my constituents is they will probably be $48 a week worse off. It is not possible to attend an interview or a jobactive provider if you cannot afford the transport to get there, not to mention if you do not have the funds to make the phone calls or afford the access to the internet just to make job applications. You cannot organise interviews, you cannot feed yourself and you cannot turn up properly dressed for interviews. That is assuming, of course, that my electorate ever gets the NBN it was promised. Not all families in my electorate have the means to help young job seekers. They themselves have bills and they find that a continual problem.
At the same time, this government also sees fit to withhold funds that are vital to the success of the National Disability Insurance Scheme if they cannot pass these unfair cuts. To put it mildly, this is a slap in the face to many in my electorate. Werriwa is home to a higher than average number of families with disabilities who are relying on the success of the NDIS. I have spoken to many families who feel relieved that this scheme, designed by Labor and fully funded by Labor, will make a huge difference they need in their lives. Families and recipients now have choices about the type of care their loved ones get, how it is structured and who provides it. The empowerment of people living with disabilities, their families and carers is amazing. It is beyond unreasonable that this government would undermine such an important reform by treating it as mere collateral to allow them to secure a big business tax cut.
The NDIA estimates that the support of the NDIS will allow over 24,000 carers of people with a disability to return to the workforce and that, in turn, will add over $22 billion to the national GDP, not to mention how wonderful it will just make them feel. More and more people in my electorate need assistance in their homes caring for themselves or their loved ones. More and more people in my electorate need assistance to enter the workforce through financial support and access to better vocational education. What they do not need is a $50 billion tax cut for big business and $7.4 billion of that is for the big four banks, who have again posted records profits today. As far as communities in my area are concerned, this government has its priorities completely wrong.
It is great to rise to speak on this MPI today. What we have heard from those opposite is talk of threatening families. In this Australian parliament the only people who are threatening families are those opposite. The MPI, led in this chamber today by the Leader of the Opposition, first mentions families and working Australians, yet the opposition are denying families essential reform in the childcare industry. Our reforms, government reforms, will make child care more affordable, more flexible and more accessible for families in Brisbane and the Moreton Bay region and right around Australia. Our package will deliver the highest rate of assistance to those who need it the most. I have people in my electorate who are paying $1,300 a month in childcare costs. Our reforms will help them to significantly reduce their childcare costs, help them stay in work and get back to work. This is at a time when we know that for every person over 65, we have four to five people in the workforce and in the next decade that will go down to two to three people. Yet we have reforms here that will help working parents keep their kids in child care, get back to work and help Australia get back on its feet. Those opposite are blocking these childcare reforms.
They are increasing the cost of living with electricity prices. In Queensland, we know that electricity prices have gone up quite a bit. There are restaurants in my electorate in the Moreton Bay region paying $5,000 a month—and we want them to employ more people, yet their electricity costs keep going up. We know that state Labor governments in Queensland, for years under Beattie and Bligh and now under Palaszczuk, have massively underinvested. Not since the days when Joh was Premier was there investment in the electricity until 2004. Members will know that in 2004 we had massive blackouts and that is when they started to reinvest. So we have reinvestment. We saw Bligh pushing up massive rebates for those who got on board with solar. They were tapped in at the right time. Now we are seeing that everyone who did not have those rebates paying for it. We have now seen Palaszczuk put tens of billions of dollars of government debt onto our electricity providers and go, 'Hang on, that's government debt; that's the electricity providers, right.' Then they pocket the income that they take out of that and they prop up the budget. All of this gets passed on to residents in my electorate in the Moreton Bay region, and those opposite do not even blink.
Negative gearing—this thought-bubble of a policy that they have come up with. I have this report on negative gearing and its impact on the housing market. We know that the Hawke government got rid of negative gearing for two years, but they quickly reversed it. They knew they were wrong and they reversed their decision. Those opposite never know when they are wrong. They flip-flop all over the place. We have seen it with the Leader of the Opposition. One minute he supports company tax and the next minute he does not. This report says:
One of the arguments against negative gearing is that the tax deductions afforded to investors in the housing market reduces government revenue. However, if investors did not provide shelter to those that can't provide it to themselves, government revenue would already be reduced due to the fact that this responsibility would fall on the Government.
Now, that is not even talking about the people in the Moreton Bay region in the seats of Petrie, Longman and Dickson who will see their rents go up if negative gearing goes. Naturally, if you are an investor and you cannot negatively gear, you are going to positively gear and those who can least afford it do not do it. This government has a plan for jobs. Those opposite have no plan. Do you know what their plan is? We heard it from the member for Braddon today and those others in Tasmania: 'Let's whack up taxes. Put up more taxes.' And they wonder why they have an unemployment problem in Tasmania. They fought us on the FTAs, they fought us on the ABCC, and they are fighting us on company tax. Labor have lost their way and they cannot be trusted. They attack the very groups who historically offered them their unfettered faith and support. Whether drumming up diatribe on Centrelink debt overpayments, their outrageous 'Mediscare' rhetoric, or their reckless, devil-may-care attitude to the NDIS, the opposition consistently exhibit a callous disregard for those who rely on welfare. Putting politics over people is a dangerous game, but that is precisely what the opposition have done. Led by Bill Shorten, they have trotted off on a tangent, down a one-way street that finds a dead end. Shame on you.
This week we celebrated Valentine's Day, but this government has a very funny way of showing its love for the Australian people. It is planning cuts to family tax benefits, cuts to the age pension and cuts to the benefits of people with disability, carers and the most vulnerable jobseekers in our community. That is how this government shows its love for the Australian people. What a funny government it is indeed.
In Western Australia, data released today shows that we have the highest level of unemployment in the country. We have over 93,000 people unemployed, and over 35,000 of those are under the age of 25. If we narrow that down to my electorate of Burt, in the south-east of Perth, under the changes being proposed by this government, 12,775 recipients of family tax benefit part A are going to lose their end-of-year supplements and 10,946 recipients of family tax benefit part B are going to lose at least $354 a year.
This is an absolute travesty that the government are visiting upon hardworking Australian families. But the other thing is this: they proposed these cuts to pay for the National Disability Insurance Scheme, and Minister Porter came in here to defend this. He rabbited on about how the NDIS was never paid for by Labor, when we know it actually was, but what was even worse was that he talked about how he has now signed these agreements with all of the states. I thought that was really interesting, because he talked about that happening in July last year. I thought, 'That's not quite right.' He did a deal with the WA state government—a grubby, almost secretive little deal—that was signed on the last day before the WA government went into caretaker mode. Under that deal, the Western Australian government will now have to pick up all of the administrative costs and 75 per cent of the cost overruns on the NDIS in Western Australia.
So the minister is worried about not being able to pay for the NDIS because, he says, Labor did not budget for it. The way he is fixing it is by shifting all of the costs onto the states. But wait for it—it gets worse: he is trying to muddle this by setting up this system in Western Australia, with the Barnett Liberal government, where we have WA NDIS. What is WA NDIS? How can you do that? It is almost an oxymoron: you cannot have a WA version of a national disability scheme. But that seems to be what we are going to get.
But what really troubles me about that is that after having gone through a process of running evaluation trials of a WA scheme, and then a national scheme—we would like to think there was some evaluation of those trials—they decided on the WA scheme, which has some significant difficulties and problems with it, but they did not release the evaluation report. We have no idea which is the better scheme, and this is the fundamental point: not only does it undermine a national scheme but it means we really have no idea and no way of assessing whether Western Australians with disability are going to be worse off under this WA scheme than they would be under the national scheme that was proposed by Labor to make sure we have national transferability. We have no idea because they will not let us see the evaluation; they are hiding it. This is another example of how much this government is undermining the futures of Australian families and working Australians. It is all part of their 'love' for the Australian people that they demonstrated on Valentine's Day this week.
Today, of all days, we talk about this, because it is women who disproportionately have the responsibility of caring for children with disability. It is women who disproportionately take themselves out of the workforce to care for their children. They are, therefore, the beneficiaries of a properly functioning childcare system and are the recipients of payments under family tax benefit arrangements. On this day, when we have been speaking about the importance of narrowing that wage and income gap for women, and about the importance of getting more women into the workforce to make sure that we have a more equal nation—and ultimately a more prosperous nation by having better and equal representation of women—we have the government introducing policies that will see them go backwards. All the while, the government wants to grant a $50 billion tax cut to big business and the banks. That shows who this government loves—and it is not working Australians.
Before I get to the matter of public importance, I would also like to take this opportunity to congratulate Robyn McClelland on her retirement and wish her and Sam all the best. I know when you and I came into the parliament in 2007, Mr Deputy Speaker Coulton, the clerks were very helpful to us, and I also see the two clerks who are in the chamber now. We have enjoyed the highs and lows together as members of parliament and clerks, and I thank the clerks for the great job they do. All the best to the McClelland family on Robyn's retirement.
We heard the member for Shortland before talking about not being lectured by the Minister for Social Services, but I would like to go back over a little bit of history. I do not think that, as a government, we should be lectured by anyone from the other side of the House, particularly with the lack of economic credibility that they had in the six years that they were in government. We can mention a few things. We can talk about FuelWatch, we can talk about the Grocery Choice, or we can talk about the pink batts.
They talk about the biggest threat to families. Let's remember that the introduction of the pink batts scheme by those on that side of the House killed four people. Two hundred houses were burned down by a policy that was introduced by the Labor Party. They did it and they hid it. They talk about hiding reports. They hid those reports, and they were actually hiding the fact that they were culpable for introducing a scheme that burned 200 houses down and killed four people. So no-one on that side can sit there and lecture this government about threatening families.
The other side talk about the $4.1 billion. Again we get back to the former Treasurer and 'tonight I introduce four budget surpluses'. There is their economic credibility thrown straight out the door. They sit there and try to lecture this government over economic credibility. You guys are fossils when it comes to economic credibility. You have left a $4.1 billion—
You're the ones bringing fossils into the chamber.
I see the member for Fenner has arced up. Mate, you are on the wrong side of the House. Anyone who reads your books would think you should come over here.
You're bringing in the fossils literally and figuratively.
It is good you are participating in the MPI, member for Fenner.
True to form, Labor's implementation of the NDIS was at best a joke; if not, a nonevent. During the time I was on the NDIS committee we looked at some of the expenditure of the billion dollars that had been committed by the Labor Party for the first four years—they committed $1 billion only for the first four years and then they started committing bulk expenditure, knowing that they would not be in government. We went out to visit Midland, and the money being spent by the government on the NDIS was to build a Taj Mahal out at Midland to house the people who were going to service those clients who needed to use the NDIS. Where were the actual priorities for the Labor government in building Taj Mahals to service the clients? What about spending that money on the clients? Where were their priorities?
Those opposite talk about the NDIS and the fact that they introduced it. It was a bipartisan agreement that we were to introduce the NDIS, and the coalition will honour our commitments. We have an absolute commitment to keeping the NDIS going, and anyone who is part of the NDIS knows that they are already getting the services they require. We heard members from the other side of the House talk about how successful some of the NDIS management programs have been for the people who live in their constituencies. So they are having a go at the government about the NDIS scheme but at the same time congratulating the government on the process and the introduction of management plans for NDIS clients.
We then have Labor talking about savings. In their budget they said they were going to make savings, but they could not identify those savings. We heard the member earlier talking about the increase in the Medicare levy. How that was going to save the government $4.1 billion, which they cannot identify, is an absolute mystery. These are mysterious savings that they are not prepared to identify. Those opposite talk about threats to the Australian people. Let's look at their 50 per cent renewable energy target. That is now the biggest threat to Australian families. If they do not realise that now, they never will. They are just barking up the wrong tree.
The time allocated for the discussion has expired.
On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, I present the committee report entitled Human rights scrutiny report: report 1 of 2017.
Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).
by leave—I rise to speak to the tabling of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights' report 1 of 2017.
The committee's report examines the compatibility of recent bills and legislative instruments with Australia's human rights obligations. Twenty-eight new bills are assessed as not raising human rights concerns, and the committee is seeking further information in relation to six bills and legislative instruments, and the committee has also concluded its consideration of a number of matters.
Before discussing the report further, I would like to take the opportunity to speak a little about the progress of the committee's inquiry into freedom of speech in Australia.
The committee received approximately 11,500 items, including approximately 9,500 form letters; 375 items accepted by the committee as submissions and published to date; and approximately 1,400 items accepted by the committee as correspondence.
The committee has completed seven public hearings to date, in Canberra, Hobart, Melbourne, Sydney, Adelaide, Perth and Brisbane. It is scheduled to conduct a further hearing in Canberra tomorrow and its final hearing in Darwin next Monday, 20 February 2016. The committee is due to report on 28 February 2017.
I will now turn to a brief discussion of the three matters that the committee finalised in this report:
I encourage my fellow members and others to examine the committee's report to better inform their understanding of the committee's work.
With these comments, I commend the committee's report 1 of 2017 to the chamber.
I rise today to address something that is deeply personal to my professional career as a practising lawyer.
We seek to live in a just society. But there can be no just society without access to justice for the disadvantaged and vulnerable. I stand here today after having served 30 years as a legal practitioner in private practice, both as a commercial and a commercial litigation lawyer. I know the pressures of private practice, but have a deep and abiding respect for the legal professionals and volunteers who supply legal services in our legal aid and community legal sectors, always struggling to address demand in the face of constraints in funding.
I have represented both individual and corporate clients and, because the nature of Tasmania, many family businesses. I know that many people from ordinary or average backgrounds cannot hope to afford legal advice, and as a consequence either are unable or unwilling to enforce their rights when those rights are at risk.
I have a deep understanding of the great importance that the Launceston Community Legal Centre plays in my community—I dare say more than any other member who may have recently represented this northern Tasmanian community. The Launceston Community Legal Centre, with its dedicated staff and legal practitioner volunteers, has been helping our local community for 31 years. Just in this last year I attended a celebration of its service to the community. However, the centre is currently under significant financial stress. It has already turned away 530 Bass residents, without any assistance, due to constraints on its funding. On 1 July this year it will be facing a massive 30 per cent cut if this government does not act immediately. That is a funding short fall of $413,000 and equates to 1½ solicitors. What this means for the centre is that it will be gravely worse than at present, having to turn away 530 Bass constituents thanks to cuts in funding and neglect by Senator George Brandis and the Turnbull government.
The Launceston Community Legal Centre has helped thousands of people around northern Tasmania who are in need of free legal assistance and who do not qualify for legal aid. They are on the front line in the battle against domestic violence, and assist people with problems as diverse as Centrelink debt, tenancy disputes and employment issues. On a day when we celebrate the role of women for International Women's Day in events in this place, we must acknowledge that many victims of family violence are women and children who must receive legal advice, not as a matter of convenience but as a vital part of access to justice. Now due to this incompetent Attorney-General this centre is set to lose 30 per cent of its funding, which will seriously jeopardise its ability to operate. In the Labor Party we know that for every dollar of government funding the return on investment is more than $17; that is value for money.
It was the then Prime Minister Gough Whitlam in 1973 who understood the importance of access to justice, particularly for those who could least afford to pay for it. A formal system of legal aid, the Australian Legal Aid Office was established. Funding of legal aid is a constant issue, in that the legal aid system nationwide has been starved of funding. The Community Legal Centres were designed to supplement access to legal aid, given that many people would not be eligible for scarce legal aid funding; either due to their assets, or to their means or to the nature of the legal problem.
The centres are innovative and flexible, delivering local solutions, with volunteer legal practitioners extending the reach of the service in advice clinics. I am proud that my former legal firm supported the Launceston Community Legal Centre with volunteers, as have other legal firms who recognise the importance of the service to the community.
The centre has been running a pilot program, the Community Legal Literacy Program, which aims to improve document literacy and problem solving in communities by training individuals who are often called upon to help others—whether in the role of a worker, friend or community leader—to work through issues before they require legal advice or intervention.
When in government, Labor delivered Community Legal Centres a funding injection worth more than $70 million over four years. Now, Senator Brandis is taking that funding away and trying to blame Labor. This is an Attorney-General so incompetent and so out of touch that he has barely been able to bring himself to visit more than a handful of Community Legal Centres.
Labor calls on the government to reverse these cruel cuts as a matter of urgency. Vulnerable people in Launceston and in the wider community are at risk. I will continue to advocate on behalf of Launceston Community Legal Centre.
The Prime Minister is absolutely right when he says that if Australia is to have a reliable, affordable source of energy for households, for businesses, for hospitals and for schools—to sustain our way of life—then we have to be agnostic about how it is generated.
The simplistic, ridiculous notion from Labor and the Greens is that we close down all coal fired power stations; massively subsidise the construction of wind turbines and solar farms; pay through the nose for it; save the planet; and live happily ever after. But that is not reality. It is not rational; it is a fairy tale.
The reality is that wind and solar are intermittent sources of energy, chronically unsuited to providing baseload power. Wind turbines generate when there is wind, in a particular speed band, and solar only when the sun shines—which is, at best, not even half the time. Neither can be relied on to generate power when it is most needed. That simple, unavoidable fact of life means that there has to be back-up generators either already fired up or that can be brought online very quickly when the wind does not blow, or when it blows too hard or when the sun is down.
And that means you have to have fossil-fuel-fired generators on standby to fill the gap, because that is all there is. Coal can do it, as long as stations are already fired up. Gas can do it, and it can be activated very quickly. So, too, can hydro, but we do not have a lot of that in this, the driest continent on earth.
Some of this equation could change over time in favour of renewables. A lot is being done to improve battery storage and, over time, this may make wind and solar more reliable. But until then we have to appreciate that coal and gas have a crucial role to play in keeping the lights on, in keeping the whole place viable and in keeping energy affordable.
You have to have ultra-reliable base and intermediate generators so that you can meet predictable escalating demand, especially in the morning as the country cranks up and in the evening as people come home from work, do the cooking and turn on the TV. In the heatwaves they turn on the air conditioning and in the winter they warm their houses. All of these changes in activity cause fluctuating demand curves that wind and solar simply cannot reliably meet. So again it comes back to coal and gas to do the heavy lifting—fossil fuels that have to provide base and intermediate generation because, given we do not have nuclear power, it is all there is.
I am a Queenslander and I am proud that my state is one of the most energy-rich places on the planet, based on coal and gas. Coal and gas from Queensland are two of Australia's biggest export commodities and will remain so for at least decades to come, to feed an insatiable demand from the likes of India and China as they seek to bring hundreds of millions of people out of poverty.
Emissions do have to be reduced—we know that. But we can only do that, realistically, over the next few decades, in a significant way, by improving the emissions performance of fossil fuels, and especially coal, as the Prime Minister has made clear, by adopting an agnostic approach that needs to include close consideration of the very latest coal technologies, including ultra-supercritical generators. Queensland, my state, has some of the best thermal coal in the world and an ageing fleet of coal-fired stations that would make it a perfect place to start—to start the planning now for the first such plant in this country, to help make sure we can keep the lights on. The word 'agnostic' is so well chosen by the Prime Minister because, on the one hand, it explicitly speaks to the need for a diversified approach, using multiple energy sources, while, on the other hand, at least to my mind, the word 'agnostic' implies rejection of the near-religious zealotry of those opposite who crusade against fossil fuels, thereby threatening one of our nation's true competitive advantages.
I rise today to address the haphazard implementation of the government's mobile phone black spot program and the impact of that failure on the people living across my electorate of Longman. The issue has been extremely pressing for our community, most notably in the small area of Beachmere. Access to a reliable telephone service does not just give people the ability to communicate with friends and family; it gives people, particularly older people, the ability to literally call for help.
Just this week, local resident Pauline Holehouse called my office to let me know about a power outage that had taken out her electricity, as well as the NBN-facilitated home phone and internet. Not being able to call for help terrorises Pauline and her neighbours. When it comes to the safety of the residents of Longman, this is an unacceptable reality that has been allowed by this government to drag on and to jeopardise the residents' welfare along the way.
I have received feedback, from constituents like Pauline, that work on the mobile phone black spots in Beachmere has remained unstarted. I echo their disappointment that my predecessor only half-heartedly addressed their complaints dating back to January last year. It seems that, when a member of the Liberal Party loses their seat, their commitments to the electorate also go with them. These residents have been left without vital means of communication with family, friends, police, fire and ambulance services, as well as local community services that look after the disadvantaged and at-risk members of our community.
Pauline is not just a local resident, though; she is a champion of her local community at the Beachmere Sands retirement village. The previous member for Longman promised Pauline and the people of Beachmere that a mobile phone base station would be delivered as part of round 2 of the Mobile Black Spot Program. Disappointingly, though, Pauline and the residents of Beachmere Sands retirement village have been let down and left waiting by this government's empty promises. Pauline and the residents of Beachmere Sands retirement village and their supporters organised, banded together and delivered a petition of nearly 300 signatures calling on the minister and the Liberals to deliver what they had been rightfully promised. But it was not until the issue was picked up by ABC Drive that the minister reluctantly decided to announce that a new mobile phone tower would be delivered in phase 3.
Now, today, in the Caboolture News, Senator Nash has been questioning our efforts in Longman, implying that I should have advised the community about the government's plan before the petition was undertaken. How we could have informed the people of Beachmere of this 'plan' when there was no public listing of it is just beyond me. As far as the community has been concerned, the plan was to have a tower switched on in phase 2 of the Mobile Black Spot Program—something that the minister has subsequently marked as a 'mistake' and has said should have been announced as part of phase 3, not phase 2. I know that Pauline and the residents of the Beachmere Sands retirement village hope that this government's most recent announcement of a fully serviced tower in Beachmere is not another 'mistake'.
I would also like, in the time remaining, to reflect on the fact that this speaking spot today was actually the member for Herbert's speaking spot, and that the member for Herbert is unable to be with us today because she has had to do one of the saddest things a daughter or a son can do: yesterday she laid to rest her father, Les. Grief is the price we pay for love, and I know the thoughts of all of us are with the member for Herbert and her family at this time, as they work through their grief and remember, with love, the life of Les.
The National Party is the party of infrastructure and decentralisation. We are serious about creating new economic opportunities in regional communities by building infrastructure that enables them to grow and prosper. We are also serious about examining the economic and social benefits of decentralising government jobs and services, and relocating them from the capital cities to the regions. After all, we live in a big country and there is no reason, particularly with the improvement in telecommunications and the transport network, why government agencies should be located in Canberra and the major capital cities.
In my electorate, with the rollout of the NBN and upgrades to the Bruce Highway progressing, Wide Bay is better connected to Brisbane and beyond. Our region has historically had high unemployment rates. I would like to see decentralisation bring new jobs and new investment to Wide Bay to help people into work. The relocation of Commonwealth agencies to the regions brings well-paying, skilled jobs to local areas. New jobs means new investment, which creates more opportunities and prosperity in local communities, sustaining new jobs, as the multiplier effect flows through the economy. More jobs in regional areas means more opportunities for skilled young people, who may have left their home community to study, to return back home and give back to their community. Public servants working in the regions will give them a better understanding of the issues and challenges affecting regional communities, and lead to a better policy outcome for regional areas.
With affordable housing and a lower cost of living, I believe that Wide Bay is an ideal place in which government agencies and departments could be located. Why should tens of thousands of public servants be holed up in crammed apartments in Canberra and the capital cities while our regions offer better housing and a better quality of life? Decentralisation delivers benefits to both taxpayers and families. The low cost of regional office facilities saves taxpayers millions of dollars in rent, and regional living offers people a better environment to raise a family. Australia's wealth is created in the regions, so it is only fair that our regions get their fair share of that wealth returned to them. After all, regional Australia supplies the water, food, and electricity which sustains our cities.
The opportunity for decentralisation to work needs to be backed by government investment in infrastructure. The coalition government is taking real action to address this through programs and policies to build the infrastructure our regional communities need, to deliver the health and services that families rely on and to create an economic climate that encourages businesses to generate jobs. Our Mobile Black Spot Program has delivered 765 new mobile phone base stations across Australia, extending mobile network coverage to more than 32,000 homes and businesses that had no coverage before. In contrast, under Labor, not one new mobile phone base station was built. Labor was happy to leave country communities in the dark.
The coalition government's National Rural Health Commissioner will help us to deliver better health outcomes for people living in rural and remote Australia—a concept never contemplated by Labor or the Greens. The coalition has refocused the rollout of the National Broadband Network to ensure that underserviced areas are prioritised. Under Labor, the NBN was a complete debacle. Not one of Labor's rollout, connection, or financial targets were met, and not one property in Wide Bay was connected to NBN fibre while Labor was in government. Our National Stronger Regions Fund and Building Better Regions Fund are supporting projects to unlock the economic potential of regional communities. A better Bruce Highway also supports decentralisation. We are investing more than $1 billion in a range of projects, including sections A and C of the Cooroy to Curra upgrade, a new Tinana interchange, and more than a dozen projects to improve safety and increase capacity in Wide Bay.
All of these initiatives help to bridge the divide between city and country and make decentralisation a realistic and worthy policy pursuit for the government.
If you have ever referred to 'the one per cent', you are using the work of Tony Atkinson. Tony, who died on New Year's Day this year, aged 72, contributed as much as any modern economist to the study of poverty and inequality.
When I first met Tony in the early 2000s, I was struck by the contrast between his exalted status and his willingness to engage with a mere PhD student. He was the head of Oxford's prestigious Nuffield College, and had recently been knighted by both the British and French governments. It always made me smile when I thought about the fact that the only 'Sir' that I knew well was my inequality co-author.
Trained originally as a mathematician, Tony could crunch numbers with the best of them. But, like Adam Smith and John Maynard Keynes, he recognised the importance of economics being grounded in history and politics. He was generous to his intellectual predecessors, like his Cambridge teachers James Meade and Joan Robinson. When we worked together on Australia and New Zealand, he made sure that our articles acknowledged the groundbreaking work of Australian researchers like Timothy Coghlan and Colin Clark.
Tony was the youngest of three sons of Norman, a carpentry teacher, and his wife, Esther. He was born in Caerleon, Monmouthshire, while his mother was evacuated to Wales during the Second World War, and educated as a boarder at Cranbrook school in Kent. His mother had looked after around a dozen evacuee children during the war, and, before going to university, Tony worked in a hospital in a deprived area of Hamburg.
Over the next five decades, there was virtually no aspect of the field of inequality that he left untouched. He created his own inequality measure, which others referred to as the Atkinson index; devised a novel technique for estimating wealth inequality from inheritance data; and shook up public finance through his work on optimal taxation with Joseph Stiglitz, who would go on to win the Nobel Prize.
He founded the Journal of Public Economics and edited it for the early period of its history. As Nicholas Stern noted in his obituary for Tony in the Guardian:
He was amazingly prolific, averaging close to a book and seven published articles each year over a professional career of five decades.
As Frank Cowell has put it, Tony Atkinson:
… acquired a nickname, "The Twins." It seemed impossible that one person alone could so successfully be doing so many different things at the same time …
He moved through a range of British economics departments, including University College London and the London School of Economics. As one British economist remarked to me, he seemed to leave each department friendlier and more collegial than it had been when he arrived.
Amidst it all, Tony made major contributions to policy. He once told me the story of how he had built the first computer model to analyse a British budget, and surprised the Thatcher government by helping the Labour opposition to estimate the distributional impact of a proposed tax cut before the chancellor had finished speaking. In 2005, the seminal Atkinson review took a fresh look at how to analyse the output of a government. In 2008, he produced the definitive study of inequality in advanced countries for the OECD. In 2016, he chaired the World Bank's Commission on Global Poverty, taking a fresh look at the question of what constitutes extreme poverty in the poorest nations.
Perhaps the achievement for which Tony will most be remembered is his study of top income shares, such as the top one per cent. After Thomas Piketty showed how taxation statistics and other national data could be used to produce long-run inequality estimates for France, Tony did the same for the United Kingdom. Tony eventually produced top incomes estimates for nearly 20 other nations, of which our collaboration on Australia and New Zealand was a small part.
What distinguished this work from previous research is that the estimates went back a century or more. For the English-speaking nations, the pattern was strikingly similar. In Canada, the United States, Britain, New Zealand and Australia, inequality had been very high around World War I before falling through the Great Depression and the aftermath of World War II. Since the late 1970s, the share of the top 1 percent has approximately doubled.
He worked with Thomas Piketty on a herculean research effort, forming a key source for Piketty's bestselling book Capital in the Twenty-First Century.
Meanwhile, Tony had learned that he did not have long to live and set about writing what he knew would be his final book. Titled Inequality: What Can be Done?, it focused on policy solutions to the rising gap between rich and poor, including guaranteed public employment at the minimum wage, encouraging innovation that improves employability, stronger union power and more foreign aid. Atkinson also proposed that competition policy should explicitly take account of inequality—an idea that found its way into my party's election policies at the last election.
I last saw Tony and his wife, Judith Mandeville, when I stayed at their home in May 2015. By coincidence, I arrived on the evening of the national election. We talked for much of the next day about why the British Labour Party, of which he had once been a member, had been given another thumping by the electorate. Tony was thoughtful, funny and wise as we walked around Oxford, watching spring cricket and discussing questions like whether robots would take the jobs.
In his generosity and intellect, Tony was the best of scholars. I feel lucky to have known him as a mentor, a co-author and a friend.
I would like to talk for a moment on the diversity of my electorate of Flynn and some of the achievements for which I have been proud to be the representative for Flynn since 2010. I sit with my constituents and I am very proud to represent them in parliament.
Flynn covers an area of approximately 133,000 square kilometres—twice the size of Tasmania. I have 129 schools. Some people question why I give out so many flags! There are 26 hospitals, 51 Anzac Day ceremonies, 24 agriculture shows—I try to attend most of them. We have three coal fired power stations, namely Gladstone, Callide and Stanwell. They produce about 4,845 megawatts of electricity. We could actually be called the energy capital of Australia.
We have the largest LNG export terminal. We have three plants on Curtis Island, and they will be in full production this year, so that should give good royalties back to the Queensland government and also economic benefits to our nation. Northern Oil—or Southern Oil, as some people call them—is an exciting new industry for the area. They turn waste matter into fine base oil stock.
In commodities Flynn is known for coal, gas, oil, beef production, grain, orchards, citrus, cotton, timber, macadamia nuts, sugar cane—and the list goes on. Blueberries are another new and exciting product for the area. The Port of Gladstone is one of the major export facilities in Queensland.
Over my time in this place I have been proud to fight for my electorate. I know that money is short and we cannot always get everything we want, but we always keep trying. Some of my favourite wins for Flynn have been the $170 million investment on the Bruce Highway in Yeppoon South; the Gladstone Trade Skills Centre, improving trade training for young people; and Trinity College classroom upgrades, with over $1 million invested by the Commonwealth government in that great secondary school. There are the Blackwater and Emerald aquatic centres. Emerald loves their improved pool. $5.4 million of Commonwealth funds was invested there. In Blackwater we are about to open a new pool; I believe the date has been set in March. That has been a $6.5 million investment of a total investment of $16 million for Blackwater. This makes Blackwater a more liveable area. When you are talking about fly-in fly-out, that is where we can help to make Blackwater a more liveable centre and get families to stay and work in Blackwater.
GP superclinics were completed at Gladstone and Emerald at $5 million each. Extending the Emerald Airport apron for $3.8 million has been another of our success stories. We have replaced seven old bridges across the eight councils in my electorate, and the Callide Creek Bridge, at $2.3 million, is one of those. The Monduran Road Bridge near Bundaberg and Gin Gin is about to be re-opened, and that will service the citrus and cattle growers in that area. Deep Creek Bridge near Gayndah and Mundubbera was another $2.2 investment in an old bridge. These bridges were built back in the 1940s and 1950s.
Twenty-four mobile towers have been extremely needed, especially in the Boyne Valley area, and either have been built or are on the program to be built. Thirty thousand homes and businesses have been connected to the NBN.
We as a government abolished the ill-conceived and highly destructive Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal. That tribunal was a bastardly act to get rid of our owner-drivers. We had seen the rally down here on the lawns.
The Gayndah disaster recovery centre, a $1.1 million project, will provide a better facility for emergency services to monitor and manage emergent situations like floods and fires. We were devastated throughout 2011 and 2013 with floods through the upper Burnett and down, of course, into Bundaberg, a town which has been flattened twice in two years and needed a lot of fixing and a lot of repairs. (Time expired)
House adjourned at 16:59
Thousands of Centrelink customers have been under attack from this government as a result of failures of the incompetent human services ministry and the disastrous oversight of Centrelink's latest rendition of Centrelink and tax office income data-matching. While this review program is an appropriate function of government welfare support payments, over the past weeks my office has been deluged with complaints from Centrelink recipients who are already struggling in so many ways and who have been receiving threatening letters from the debt collection agency Dun & Bradstreet demanding immediate repayment of purported debts—often large ones going back years—that the clients were not aware of until recently and that they have been advised by Dun & Bradstreet they did not have any opportunity to appeal. 'Bail up! Pay, or we will garnishee whatever you have'—an approach right out of Alice's Adventures in Wonderland. As the Red Queen says to her Centrelink clients, 'Sentence first—verdict afterwards', even though it is admitted by all concerned that an astonishing 20 per cent at least of purported claims are errors of data processing, meaning that at least one fifth of the claims are invalid.
Centrelink staff resources are continually being reduced by the government's increasing reliance on digital processing, which ignores human judgement in the assessment of the financial and other complexities of people's lives, all of which go to the calculation of welfare benefits in the first place. Centrelink clients are already suffering in so many ways and are now being accused and convicted of dishonesty, targeted as cheats by this government. It is certainly true that Centrelink clients who are receiving welfare benefits, including pensions, need to accurately update their details on a regular basis. Many are unaware or unable to continuously update their information profile. Rather than assist, the government is now scattering this blast of confronting letters to welfare clients from notorious debt collectors. Australians are being peremptorily forced to jump through hoops to clear purported debts that they had no conception they owed in the first place.
In one case, my office is involved with a Centrelink recipient with severe depression following the recent death of his mother and close friend who received a Dun & Bradstreet demand for a $10,000. He has been unable to get clarification on this matter or an appropriate manner of payment. It makes little sense for the government to be so callous. Often these large debt notices are in regard to matters going back years, which the clients are only now hearing of. People should not be burdened by being given this kind of notice. They should get prior notice of debts that have occurred years ago, and now they have the added burden of being considered guilty until proven innocent. For those that have gone through this slow torture, it is necessary for the understaffed resources of the income compliance department at Centrelink to help them. Another of my constituents received a Centrelink request for $4,800. After providing additional information, he had nothing to pay. (Time expired)
It is a great pleasure to get up and recognise Goldstein's outstanding young sporting achievers. Gavin Bircher, the captain of the under-18 Victorian state ice hockey team, last week returned from two months of intensive training with an ice hockey team in Switzerland. Dominique Blatherwick, from St Leonard's College, represented Victoria as goalkeeper for the under-13 Victorian hockey team. Blatherwick considers this her first step to realising her goal of representing Australia, just like her idol, the great Rachael Lynch. Alice and Molly Bourke, from Star of the Sea College and Haileybury respectively, have just returned from the UK, representing Australia in the under-19 Australian women's soccer team. St Leonard's student Lachlan Paice and his teammates in the under 13 boys Victorian hockey team walked away with the big win at the national championships last September. Luca Jarvis competed in the School Sport Australia Diving Championships in August. He competed well and came third in his age group for both platform and springboard. Luca and Harry Davies came in second in their age group for synchronised diving. James Currie, Jack Melvin and Brandon Tran represented Victoria last year in the under 15 lacrosse team in South Australia, and I am told they performed exceptionally well despite being a very young team. Matty Goss from Brighton Grammar, who I spoke about yesterday in the House of Representatives, will be representing Australia in the under 13 sailing team in New Caledonia this coming October. Sacred Heart Sandringham alumnus Sam Parker was honoured to represent Victoria at the School Sport Australia Touch Football Championships in October last year. I do not know if you have ever played it, Madam Deputy Speaker Vamvakinou, but touch football is a great game. Aaron and Phillip George, brothers from the Sandringham Yacht Club, sailed as individuals in the International Cadet Australian Championship this past January. While they did not come in first, I am told they are already preparing for next year's big race. Congratulations to you both, Aaron and Phillip George. And finally another St Leonard's student, Greta Jowett Smith—a passionate advocate for women in sports—recently competed in the National Futsal Championships. The team stormed into the finals, but were ultimately knocked out by New South Wales.
When it comes down to it, we are immensely proud of our incredible sporting achievers in the Goldstein community. Each one of them makes an incredible contribution, not just to their community, not just to their own health and fitness and not just to the idea of a competitive spirit in our community, but they also deliver a sense of achievement which everybody can benchmark themselves against. So to all of the people who are our local sporting champions in Goldstein, we all just want to wish you all the best and congratulations on your achievements as well as, more importantly, your achievements yet to come.
I rise to draw attention to the impact the recent heatwave has had on my electorate of Lindsay. As many members would well know, New South Wales has been on the receiving end of an extraordinary heatwave over the past few weeks. In my electorate we have seen scorching temperatures upwards of 42 degrees, and this past Saturday my community felt that mercury rise to 46.9 degrees—the hottest temperature on record in Lindsay. In fact, over the last 15 days the temperature has climbed, on average, to 34 degrees every single day. I have lived in Penrith all my life, and I can tell you that these temperatures are just not usual. We in Western Sydney have been warned for many, many years that our nation's climate change will have a particularly negative impact on our community. The fact that we sit at the foot of the Blue Mountains, the fact that our area has seen a huge explosion in building developments over the past few decades, the fact that we have seen parklands and bushlands disappear to make way for roads and houses: this has all added up to the extreme heat conditions we now experience.
Research shows that average temperatures in Western Sydney in summer are 4.3 degrees higher than the city because of the urban heat island effect. We have higher average temperatures and we now have more extreme temperature days than our eastern suburbs neighbours. Now is the time to face up to the realities of climate change so that Western Sydney does not face hotter and hotter summers into the future, because temperatures like this are not just an inconvenience; they have serious impacts on the health of elderly people, young people, the sick and the injured, and they have devastating impacts when they lead to bushfires, which we received late last year.
It was shocking to read on Sunday the former Prime Minister's chief of staff, Peta Credlin—those opposite might remember her—admit the massive scare campaign against the previous Labor government's carbon pricing scheme was a complete fraud against the Australian people. She said:
It wasn’t a carbon tax, as you know … We made it a fight about the hip pocket and not about the environment. That was brutal retail politics …
And you wonder why the public is losing faith in our jobs, guys. I hope this admission makes the Liberal members in this place squirm, because what it really represents is a deceit that has forever change the tone of the debate in this country.
Government members interjecting—
A once in a lifetime opportunity. And who will be affected by this deceit? Communities like mine in Western Sydney. For the past few weeks we have seen this Liberal government try to blame every issue in the energy market on renewable energy. Time and time again their fearmongering has shown to be false, and yet they continue to push ahead trying to discriminate against renewables and push dirty coal. My community of Lindsay has just gone through an unprecedented heatwave, and today and tomorrow the temperature will again exceed 40 degrees. We desperately need a government in this country that is willing to make the tough decisions to ensure our environments do not continue to become more and more dangerous for the communities that live within them. Let us take Peta Credlin's admissions as a new starting point, guys—maybe that is an option—and get on with the job of securing safe and healthy environments for our future generations.
I rise to talk about a few special community members from my electorate who were honoured recently on Australia Day. On 26 January each year, we celebrate what it means to be an Aussie and are thankful for the wonderful lifestyle and freedoms that we enjoy. Australia Day also provides an opportunity to recognise extraordinary Australians who are going the extra mile to make others' lives better, whether that is directly or indirectly.
I was proud to see a number of Gold Coasters on the list, in particular some outstanding individuals from my electorate. Major Keith Anderson was awarded an Order of Australia medal for his dedicated service to Gold Coast Legacy. I have had a long association with Keith. He has been a tireless advocate for veterans and their families, and I was honoured to support Keith's nomination for this award and to thank him for his valuable work in the community for so many years. Another nomination I was very proud to support was that of Tony Hickey. He is a notable business figure on the Gold Coast, known for his extensive work with local charities and community organisations. The annual Red Shield Appeal fundraising breakfast consistently pulls a large crowd of local businesspeople, raising at least $200,000 a year and, in some years, up to $300,000 or $400,000 to support the Salvation Army's work with the homeless and disadvantaged. Having built a successful law firm on the Gold Coast, Tony has used his business acumen and relationships with civic leaders to draw attention to social issues that affect our community.
I congratulate Tony and two of my other constituents who were recognised by the Governor-General on Australia Day: Gayle Alessio from Broadbeach, who received an OAM for service to education, and Robbie McEwen from Mermaid Beach, who was awarded an AM for his significant service to cycling and the community. He is an incredibly inspirational Australian, someone who has made a profound difference by providing a role model to young Aussie kids about getting involved in sport. I thank all of those in our many community organisations and sporting clubs who are working hard every day to make the Gold Coast a better place.
I was also pleased to see Griffith University's Professor Ian O'Connor named as the Gold Coast Citizen of the Year ahead of local Australia Day celebrations. Ian's passion for growing the city's health and knowledge precinct has seen the development of a world-class university teaching hospital and research facilities at Griffith, putting the Gold Coast on the map as a leading medical research destination. The fact is Gold Coast city is blessed to have so many incredible people who make such a profound difference in our community. I applaud and salute all of them for their outstanding contribution to the Gold Coast community.
I congratulate everybody involved in the movie Lion. Lion is a remarkable, moving story about one of my constituents—Saroo Brierley—and his journey. It is based on his novel, A Long Way Home, and it is about his early childhood in India and how he got separated from his parents and family and ends up on the streets of Calcutta, unable to be understood because he speaks a different language, although he does not realise that at the time. He is then adopted by his Tasmanian parents and, as a young boy, makes the long journey from India to Australia. As an adult, he journeys back to India because he continues to have memories of his homeland and the separation from his brother, his mother and his family. It is a truly remarkable story.
The movie won two BAFTAs last week and is up for six Oscar nominations in coming weeks. I encourage everybody in this place who has not seen the movie Lion to go and see it. It is truly remarkable. It tells a remarkable story about a remarkable individual, but it also reminds all of us of our own humanity. It reminds all of us about the poverty in the world. It reminds all of us about trying to protect and look after the children in the world. It reminds all of us about the story of humanity, how the parents of Saroo helped him go back to India to meet his birth mother. It is a really remarkable story.
It moved me when I went to see the movie with my own children and when I talked to them about the movie. One of my son's is studying the novel this year for English. For those members of parliament who have not seen Lion or read the book A Long Way Home, I would encourage them to do so—it is truly remarkable. I want to wish the movie and everybody involved in the movie all the very best. Some of it was also filmed in my home state of Tasmania, and it has received a lot of support from Tasmanians. It has packed movie houses all around the state as Tasmanians go to support this movie. I wholeheartedly encourage everybody here to do the same. It is truly remarkable, and I wish them all the very best in the upcoming Oscars. If the best movie were truly to win, it would be that one.
Last month one of my local state members of parliament, Jillian Skinner, announced her intention to resign from the New South Wales parliament, following 23 years of incredible service to the people of New South Wales and residents of the lower North Shore. Jillian entered the New South Wales parliament in 1994, following a career that started in journalism in Melbourne. She was the first female journalist in the Victorian parliamentary press gallery at a time when the profession was so male dominated. Immediately prior to her election to parliament, Jillian worked as director of the then Office of Youth Affairs under the ministerial guidance of a mentor we both shared, the late Virginia Chadwick.
Her work for young people in New South Wales reflected her long interest in helping children and supporting the education system. However, it is in health policy that Jillian Skinner has made a profound impact. It is incredible to think that 20 of her 23 years in parliament have been spent working as either the minister or shadow minister for health. I doubt that few parliamentarians could claim such a sustained and dedicated interest in a portfolio that is so demanding but just so vital to the welfare of Australians. The result was that when the coalition was elected to government in 2011 it had a health minister who was respected by health professionals across the state and was able to immediately drive reform to a system that had been the cause of controversy for so many years.
There will be many legacies from her six years as health minister. Most obvious will be the results of what has been the biggest expansion of health infrastructure in the state's history. I know that the member for Robertson's community has benefited from a new hospital in Gosford and a $20 million medical research institute that minister Skinner personally drove. From upgrades to these hospitals, there is barely a region of New South Wales that has not benefited from the state government's commitment to provide better health care. I also want to acknowledged Jillian's work in two particular areas: her support for medical research and innovation, which is epitomised by the Medical Devices Fund that she established; and also her work, for so many years, to support those living with HIV.
Jillian's decision to enter politics was driven by her involvement in our local community, particularly through child care in our local schools. She joined parliament as a parent who had served the local school attended by her children, Neutral Bay Public School. Incredibly, she has remained a member of the school council throughout her career in parliament. I have witnessed her commitment to her electorate, both during my eight years as a North Sydney councillor and, of course, more recently since my election to this place. She has been a tireless advocate there, fighting for a solution to that traffic nightmare known as Military Road or arguing the case against excessive development on Berrys Bay.
Her efforts have resulted in new schools and better public transport for our area, including the upgrade of ferry wharves, and she has worked to support the Sydney Metro rail project, which will transform rail public transport on the lower North Shore. Jillian will leave parliament with an incredible record of achievement. She has been a trailblazer in so many areas. I wish her and her husband, Chris, the very best for the next stage of their lives.
In October last year in this place, I talked about the unacceptable state of telecommunications in rural parts of my electorate. I would like to say that mobile phone coverage is better, but I cannot. In 2015 this government announced round 1 of the Mobile Black Spot Program, and Moore and Somerset Dam in my electorate were two of the 499 new and upgraded mobile bases. The Australian National Audit Office and the Productivity Commission have heavily criticised this particular $220 million program. In fact, more than 80 per cent of the new locations for the mobile phone towers are located in National Party and Liberal Party seats. Twenty five per cent of the new mobile phone towers funded in round 1 provided no new or extended coverage. Sadly, this is the case in my electorate.
In Moore, in the upper northern part of my electorate, recently during a mobile office I was consulted by constituents over the lack of mobile phone coverage. In spite of the fact that a new tower was announced in 2015, the Telstra map indicates that work on the Moore tower will not begin until the second quarter of 2017, while the tower at the Somerset Dam will not begin until the fourth quarter. Mobile coverage is not a luxury in Moore or in Somerset Dam. Those parts of my electorate were cut off during the floods in 2011. The floods caused road damage and landlines were washed away, leaving no telecommunications at all. This was exacerbated by the severity of the floods, which impacted on housing in these communities.
At the most recent mobile office I conducted in Moore, the owner of Kai Lounge, the local cafe where I met constituents, Allison Stone, commonly known as Ally, shared her heartbreaking story from that time. She wrote the story down and shared it with me. She said as follows:
During the 2011 floods our little town was cut off from electricity and landline phones, as well as any possible road access in any direction.
I had a baby boy in the Royal Brisbane Woman's Hospital who I was expressing milk for on a regular basis and taking to him (about a 300km round trip).
As I was unable to leave the town for about 11 days and we had no landline phone, having the mobile phone capability would have been invaluable, to let the hospital know I was unable to get there, and check on the progress of my little boy.
As you can imagine this was a very distressing time as my baby was critically ill and sadly did not survive.
Being able to make contact via mobile phone would have eased my stress during that time.
Please know I am not meaning this as a whinge; I am so grateful to live in this country, and thankful for everything we have here.
I just wanted to share my experience with you in the hopes mobile phone coverage can be completed in remote areas sooner rather than later.
The government should do much better than this mismanagement of this particular program, which has affected Ally so much.
I rise to update the House on one of our key election commitments, to deliver continuous mobile coverage on trains from Wyong to Hornsby and wi-fi at the train stations. It is estimated that around 30,000 Central Coast residents, or one in four of the adult workforce, leave early in the morning and return home to their families late at night because of the requirement to commute up to four hours a day for work. This can add up to around 1,000 hours of commuting every year, as a recent NRMA and Australian Automobile Association report published in the Daily Telegraph found.
The report showed that in the time it took some commuters to travel to and from work each year, they could have built their own rally car from scratch or driven the entire Australian coastline, including a ferry trip to Tasmania. It is also about the same amount of time it takes to complete a university degree, fly to Spain or learn to play flamenco guitar professionally.
So, apart from fine-tuning our instruments, what can we do to make life easier for our hardworking commuters who head to Sydney or Newcastle for work every day? We have to create more local jobs, and that is a vital priority of this government, including the delivery of 600 new federal jobs to Gosford by the end of this year. But we also need to tackle the issue with better infrastructure. For drivers, this includes the completion of NorthConnex, the long awaited M1-M2 missing link, which is set to slash 15 minutes of travel time when complete in 2019.
For those who sit on train services like the jam-packed 705 from Gosford to the city, we presented a new innovative commitment at the recent federal election, promising continuous mobile coverage on the 60-kilometre stretch of track between Wyong and Hornsby, as well as wi-fi at the associated train stations. The coalition will invest $12 million in this project, making work time more productive, enhancing leisure time and helping our families and friends to connect during their commute.
Following the election, the government kicked this off with a workshop involving the Department of Communications and the Arts, Transport for New South Wales, Sydney Trains and many from the private sector, such as the mobile network operators who will ultimately take the lead in construction. They have started to face the challenges of this project, which commuters know all too well, because they see it out of the carriage every day. They include the picturesque but difficult topography, with mountainous terrain, river crossings and no fewer than seven tunnels, which will require a carefully designed mobile network solution.
There is also the coordination of access to land infrastructure and the scheduling of access to tracks to undertake scoping work. Councils, national park authorities, power providers and other relevant departments will also be involved. I am advised that we are on track to release an expression of interest in the near future. A formal tender process will follow this EOI period, which should wrap up by the end of the year. Detailed design work and construction will commence shortly after the conclusion of the tender, with funding to be available from the 2017-18 financial year. (Time expired)
Before we reconvened in this place, over summer I had the great privilege of meeting with consumer credit community legal centres all across the country. I was incredibly impressed and struck by the work they do to help consumers, particularly vulnerable consumers, to navigate their way through complaints processes in often-complex financial arrangements. The work that community legal centres in general do is vital, not just work in the consumer space but work to support local communities and my constituents in the areas of family law, including family violence prevention; employment law; welfare law; and housing and tenancy law.
Community legal centres principally exist to provide legal services to those on very low incomes. Around 80 per cent of clients have an income lower than $26,000. Without community legal centres providing free or cheap advice to people with a problem, we would see the courts being clogged with more self-represented litigants. This would present us with a significant problem. It would inevitably mean more cases go to trial, as self-represented litigants often do not have access to the legal advice they require to inform decisions about pretrial settlements. It would have an impact on court resources but also, very importantly, it would be an enormous cost to governments at every level. Without community legal centres, more of our most vulnerable citizens would be seeking to access legal aid, which is already bursting at the seams through overstretched capacity.
In 2014 the Productivity Commission released a report on access to justice which recommended an immediate $200 million increase in funding to the legal assistance sector. What has happened instead, though, is that the Attorney-General's National Partnership Agreement on Legal Assistance Services has reduced Commonwealth funding by 30 per cent, starting on 1 July. In my electorate, this is exacerbated by significant year-on-year cuts from the Barnett Liberal government.
What does this look like on the ground? The landscape is harsh and stark, with community legal centres having to terminate employment of a full-time solicitor, sometimes in cases where they only have one full-time and one part-time solicitor. Community legal centres are no longer able to provide wrap-around services such as referrals to financial counsellors. Worst of all, community legal centres are having to turn people away or reduce their opening hours. One in my electorate went from providing a phone line 4½ days a week to providing it three days a week, denying consumers the legal advice that they vitally need. This situation simply cannot continue. The system is in stress and crisis already, and these cuts will send it spiralling further downward. These centres run on the smell of an oily rag, and they do an amazing amount of good, with what little they have, to protect our most vulnerable citizens. The cuts must stop now.
I would like to take this opportunity to talk about a terrific initiative of the Commonwealth government to improve support to women and families affected by domestic violence. I recently represented the Attorney-General, Senator the Hon. George Brandis, to officially launch the Logan Health Justice Partnership, a joint initiative between Logan Hospital, Women's Legal Service Queensland and the coalition government. The government is proud to support this innovative approach to reaching women experiencing domestic violence and in need of legal help.
Since the beginning of this program, the lawyers and social workers at the Women's Legal Service have collaborated to provide women with emotional and practical support alongside legal help. Last year, the service provided over 3,000 instances of free legal advice to women in the areas of family law, child support, domestic violence and child protection. The service has always focused on reaching vulnerable women, whether it be by providing assistance to women at court or visiting women in prison. Through the newly established partnership with Logan Hospital, the service will assist even more women, especially those experiencing domestic violence.
The government is committed to ensuring that every woman and child can live their lives free from violence. This is why one of the early decisions of the government was to spend an additional $100 million on the Women's Safety Package. This package has established 12 domestic violence units across the country and supported five health justice partnerships, including the one at Logan Hospital. Women's Legal Service Queensland is receiving $600,000 per year for a total commitment of $2.4 million over four years to deliver the domestic violence unit in Brisbane and on the Gold Coast and to partner with Logan Hospital.
Already the health justice partnership lawyers have trained over 300 health and social workers at Logan Hospital to recognise the signs of domestic violence and refer patients in need of help. Now these workers understand how a lawyer can assist women and children experiencing domestic violence and help keep them safe by directing them to one of the many local services that we have that provide tremendous support to these women in the most difficult time of their lives.
I would like to congratulate everybody involved at Logan Hospital, Women's Legal Service Queensland and also the nurses, doctors and staff at the hospital for the tremendous work they do every single day in helping these women in difficult circumstances.
It would be difficult to find anyone in this place who does not consider that it is a basic tenet of our democracy that justice is a fundamental right. When I reflect on this, I am reminded of a very good quote by the Right Hon. Beverly McLachlin, a former Chief Justice of Canada. She said:
The most advanced justice system in the world is a failure if it does not provide justice to the people it is meant to serve. Access to justice therefore is critical.
Access to justice—that has got to be taken to translate both into outcomes that are substantive and a process that serves the principle, allowing ordinary people to navigate the justice system. Anyone who has sought the counsel or representation of a legal practitioner knows the significant costs of high-quality legal advice. I certainly do not argue that those talented members of the legal profession do not earn their fees through the work that they do and the scrupulous legal work that they do in discharging their duties for their clients in the court.
But, clearly, the proper application of justice comes at a cost to all parties, and it runs contrary to the vital principles of our democracy that any one person may be priced out of access to justice or that wealth inequality may lead to any miscarriage of justice. In most Australian jurisdictions, community legal centres are one resource that can be accessed by those who are experiencing economic, social or cultural disadvantage and those whose circumstances have been adversely affected by their legal problems.
Community legal centres are not-for-profit organisations that provide free legal advice, case work and information. Some community legal centres also advocate for law reform or conduct test cases where laws are perceived to operate unfairly or are unclear. In my home state of Victoria, over 100,000 people per year access the services of community legal centres and, across the nation, community legal centres service over 215,000 people each year.
Community legal centres are resourced through a variety of methods. They include philanthropic donations, pro bono work undertaken by members of the legal profession, and the energy and expertise of volunteers; however, they are particularly reliant on funding provided by state, federal and local governments.
The current federal government has cut $24 million from community legal centres, $15 million from legal aid commissions, and $13 million from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander legal services. While I note they have added some funding in December last year, it simply does not go far enough to restoring the funding that was ripped away from those essential services as part of the 2014 budget.
These cuts have been made in the context of an already scarcely funded community legal space—160,000 people are turned away from community legal centres each year due to lack of capacity to take on their cases. The burden of these cuts will make it incredibly difficult to maintain the high quality of legal services that so many vulnerable people rely upon.
I note that no consultation with the community legal sector has occurred before the cuts were made. I met with the Women's Legal Service Victoria recently and visited them and they too are suffering under those cuts with something like 400 to 600 women losing access to those services each year.
Before I call the member for La Trobe, if no member present objects, three-minute constituency statements may continue for a total of 60 minutes.
Can I say thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker Vamvakinou, for your role in and your bipartisan approach to the Joint Standing Committee on Migration as the deputy chair. Melbourne is a fantastic place to live. In actual fact, it is regarded as the most livable city in the world. But, sadly, there is an underlying fear in the community. Melburnians are worried that they will be the next victim of an aggravated burglary, where someone breaks into their house to steal their family car. They are worried that they could potentially be the next person to be subjected to a carjacking.
This fear is a real fear. Melbourne actually has a greater incidence of serious crimes such as break-ins, armed robberies et cetera than New South Wales. The current state Labor government's soft-on-crime approach has led to an increase in violent youth crime. In order to restore safety for ourselves, our friends and our families in Victoria, we must adopt a policy of one strike and you are out when it comes to bail for serious violent crimes. I strongly believe in this approach. We must change the presumption laws for remand for violent offences so that the onus is shifted onto the offender, and being granted bail becomes the exception rather than the rule. The police should not have to prove that the offender must remain in custody.
We must establish a joint task force, with the Australian Federal Police teaming up with Victoria Police to take on violent youth gangs. This occurs internationally and it is working very well with outlaw motorcycle gang members. They should be in the same building immigration officials, who can look at visas, and importantly youth workers, who can help younger gang members and ensure they have every avenue possible to leave the gang. We must place the task force in two buildings in Melbourne's outer south-east and west, ensuring the growth corridors and the hot spots for violent youth gang activity are targeted. We must ensure existing settlement services are targeted as well as possible to help prevent young people entering gangs in the first place and finding themselves in even more difficult situations when they realise the cost of leaving these gangs later down the track. We must welcome the strengthening of visa cancellation laws by the federal government in 2014 and the cancellation of the visas of foreign gang members involved in serious criminal acts. We must examine ways to strengthen visa cancellation provisions, where required, to deport gang members who are on visas if they commit serious criminal acts and we must demand explanations and issue warning notices for younger offenders.
Enough is enough. It is time we got tough on these gangs and it is time the Victoria state government did something about it.
I would like to thank the member for La Trobe. He did not quite volunteer to have a youth justice precinct in his electorate, but he came very close. A lot of people in my electorate want to know about those opposite—those federal members of parliament—who are obsessed with coming in here and speaking about Victoria and youth justice: where is their hand in the air volunteering their community to be the home for the youth justice prison that is being built in Victoria. That is what I would like to know.
Mr Wood interjecting—
I would like to thank the member for La Trobe for having—
Order! The member for La Trobe was heard respectfully—
Government members interjecting—
Order! The member for Lalor will be heard without any interjections.
I rise today to talk about a visit to the Manor Court Werribee aged-care facility that I undertook recently after a kind invitation from the CEO, board members and staff. This facility was developed from the ground up. Funds were raised with support from Rotary many years ago, and the facility has a long history in the community. It was evident on the visit what high-quality staff this facility has. My saying that is based on the conversations I had with the elderly people that I had an opportunity to interact with
From person to person, when I asked them about the facility—many of them are locals and have family connections, so conversations are not difficult to start up—every single one of them, female or male, said, 'The staff are lovely, Joanne, and the food is great.' I took the 'food is great' as a pretty good indicator of how happy they were. I then had the pleasure of meeting the chef, who has been working at the facility for a long time and who takes enormous pride in the service that they provide. I had an opportunity to meet with people and then to sit down with board members and staff and have a chat about aged-care provision. This is a not-for-profit facility, and in order to deliver the great service that they do they overcome many challenges.
They raised with me the current aged-care funding instrument, which they describe as far too complex, and suggested that it has certainly run its course. They moved from the previous resident classification scale, which had eight categories, to the aged-care funding instrument, which has 64. They wanted me to bring their concerns back to this parliament. They are desperate to see a review conducted, as Labor suggested—to see action taken here to give them certainty in their planning and their provisioning.
I would add too that this is a facility that takes its responsibilities very seriously, being one of our local facilities that is heavily engaged in the training of staff, ensuring that around our area we are getting quality staff into our aged-care facilities. I would like to commend their work and assure them that I will stay in touch— (Time expired)
Today, 75 years ago, 21 Australian Army nurses in the prime of their lives were shot to death by Japanese soldiers on Radji Beach, Bangka Island. Today, we remember and honour their sacrifice in the service of our country.
Only days earlier, on 12 February 1942, Allied forces had begun evacuating Singapore. The SS Vyner Brooke attempted escape, carrying hundreds of injured servicemen, civilians and 65 Australian Army nurses. The ship was attacked and sunk on 14 February. The nurses aboard did their duty and ensured all passengers had been evacuated before they themselves jumped into the sea. Approximately 100 of the survivors washed ashore at Radji Beach, Bangka Island, in South Sumatra, Indonesia.
Among that number were 22 Australian Army nurses, led by Matron Irene Drummond, and they set about tending to the survivors immediately. By 16 February their situation appeared helpless, and it was agreed that they would give themselves up to the Japanese on the island. When the Japanese arrived to take them into captivity, they separated the men from the women. The men were soon after marched around a headland. The nurses heard a series of shots, after which the Japanese soldiers returned, sat down in front of them and cleaned their bloodied bayonets.
The women were soon after ordered into the water, knowing full well the fate that awaited them. As they did, Matron Drummond quietly told them, 'Chin up, girls. I'm proud of you and I love you all.' The Japanese then opened fire on their backs and machine-gunned them to death.
There was only one survivor, Vivian Bullwinkel. Vivian was shot through the hip but lay in the water until the Japanese disappeared. She withdrew to the jungle and then treated herself and another surviving soldier. Vivian was eventually captured and spent the rest of the war enduring the brutal captivity of a Japanese prison camp. But her challenges did not end there. She struggled with PTSD throughout her life—her remaining 30 years.
Army psychologists in the postwar era minimised the traumatic events of wartime service, thinking that would help people move on. Today, we take a very different approach to PTSD. I am proud that this government has extended financial cover for the treatment of mental health to all ex-service men and women. But as a community we must do more. We are all charged with binding the wounds, seen and unseen, of those who have given much to protect us and our interests. It is our responsibility to preserve the memory of those brave nurses who died 75 years ago today on that beach on Bangka Island.
I want to acknowledge the member for Boothby for her work in making sure that today was commemorated in the media and in this House.
Today, I am excited to formally announce in the parliament a new initiative in my electorate: the inaugural Oxley electorate Spirit of Anzac Award. This will be a new competition open to students in year 11 across my electorate, who will be invited to submit a short essay, poem or piece of artwork on what the spirit of Anzac means to them. The recipient to be awarded first prize will receive flights and accommodation with a parent or carer to visit the Australian War Memorial and Parliament House later this year.
I know that Anzac Day has a special place in the hearts of many Australians, as we pay our respects to those who made the ultimate sacrifice for our country. I am looking forward to receiving entries from students across the Oxley electorate as to what this special commemoration means to them, and I am pleased to advise the House that a selection committee, comprising representatives from local RSL subbranches, will be convened to judge the most worthy recipient to be awarded first place as well as five other highly commended awards.
We have some of the most dedicated and hardworking RSL subbranches in Oxley, who all do a tremendous job of representing our veterans. This initiative came as result of a round table I recently held with the shadow minister for veterans' affairs, the Hon. Amanda Rishworth.
I am proud to work alongside my local RSLs, and I look forward to partnering with the branches as part of the Oxley electorate's Spirit of Anzac award. Today I would, in particular, like to acknowledge the outgoing president of one of the RSL subbranches, the Goodna RSL subbranch. I pay tribute to the work of Mrs Vivienne Stanbury, who recently stood down after 19 years continuous service in that role—and, I might add, the first woman in the Moreton district of the RSL to do so.
I was fortunate enough to attend the branch's AGM last weekend where members showed their appreciation for all the hard work that Vivienne has done for almost two decades. In her final report to the committee Viv said her years in the role:
Have been filled with humour, camaraderie and achievements in the company of like-minded members, particularly those who volunteered to serve on the management committee. A generally thankless position where good decisions go unnoticed and unheralded.
I also particularly acknowledge Maxine Norsgaard, the outgoing secretary of the subbranch.
In this place today I would like to formally recognise and acknowledge the dedicated service by Viv for the countless hours of hard work that she has given to our local community over the past 19 years. Not only has Viv shown incredible support for veterans in our community; she has worked tirelessly alongside programs right across the whole of the south-west of Brisbane. I wish her well in her new role within the RSL, and I know that she will continue to serve our area for many years to come.
Yesterday marked the 75th anniversary of the fall of Singapore in 1942. The fall of Singapore was one of the worst military defeats in the history of the British Empire. Singapore was meant to be an impregnable fortress: surrounded by forests and the jungle to the north, with British Royal Navy patrolled oceans to the south and defended by Australian, Indian and British troops. Despite the fortification, Singapore was captured by Japanese forces only a week after the initial assault began, with 80,000 troops taken as prisoners of war, including 15,000 Australians.
My grandfather, Sam Goldman, served in the 2/26th Battalion of that ill-fated 8th Division that was there at the fall of Singapore. After the fall he was taken prisoner in Changi and kept in brutal conditions, forced to survive on a cup of rice a day. He talked of being starved and trying to work while watching his mates die all around him. He survived the horrors of the Burma railway, where the Japanese guards would beat prisoners to death, leaving them to die. If their mates tried to help them, they too would be beaten. Disease was rife, malaria was bad and cholera was worse.
My grandfather told his children the story of holding a mate who had developed gangrene while the doctor sawed off his leg, and the image of that occasion never left him. My grandfather was badly burnt by a guard who threw a pot of boiling water over his legs. He spent days lying on a hard stone floor in the makeshift hospital, and when he could get up he virtually had to teach himself to walk again. The burns were so bad on his legs that he was scarred for life, and the hair on them never grew back.
The Japanese were absolutely brutal, and they were just as brutal to the local Singaporean Chinese population as they were to the Allies. The Chinese were a completely different story. They would often smuggle food and other supplies to the prisoners. But the Japanese always took revenge on them. Once my grandfather was marched into a village and saw that Chinese men had been executed, with their heads placed on spikes to demonstrate to the local population not to fight the Japanese.
In the years following World War II the Germans have done a very good job educating the next generations about the atrocities committed by Germany during the war. It is of grave concern to me that I do not think that Japanese children know enough about the atrocities that were committed by the Japanese during the war, and I believe this should be a matter that should be taken up as part of our general foreign relations.
The men that survived did so because they could dream of a life beyond captivity. For my grandfather it was the prospect of opening a hardware store—a store which he planned out so well over the years of captivity. He successfully did that, opening what was at one point the largest hardware store in the southern hemisphere at Merrylands. He employed many of his fellow former POWs too.
Yesterday, in mentioning the fall of Singapore, the Prime Minister noted that the late Sir Alexander Downer and the late Tom Uren were there at the fall of Singapore. I would like very briefly just to mention one other former parliamentarian, Sir John Carrick, who is still very much with us. He was not there at the fall of Singapore but was in Changi and on the Burma railway. Lest we forget the sacrifice of the men and women who were taken prisoner.
Next week, tens of thousands of students will be heading off to university for the very first time as O-week kicks off. They will be starting a journey that will change their lives and, we hope and trust, will help them reach their potential. In my electorate of Batman, that means the Agora at La Trobe University will once again be teeming with life. This is, of course, a joyous occasion. La Trobe University is a magnificent institution and a great ornament in my electorate—a generator of jobs as well as life.
But for many students, and certainly for Labor, it marks a continuing fight against the Turnbull government's attack on accessible higher education in Australia, an issue of growing concern to the students, academics and university staff who live in my electorate, as well as broader society. Despite the fact that everybody in this House has benefited from affordable, if not free, education, those opposite remain committed to fee deregulation and burdening our youth with $100,000 degrees. This means that, for many, university is out of reach, and Labor will never stand for it.
At the same time, young Australians are facing a multitude of other government attacks on their welfare, their wellbeing and their future. The Centrelink robo-debt crisis hit students and young people particularly hard. After spending weeks telling everyone there was nothing to see here, Minister Tudge has finally budged, saying they will not force paybacks while a debt is reviewed. This is not enough. The system needs to be suspended until it can be fixed so that innocent, vulnerable people are not treated like criminals. I also share the fear of the CPSU that we will see student benefit processing delays again this year—delays of up to four months that pushed many students into hardship and even put their education in jeopardy.
Finally, we have seen the Turnbull government launch their most recent attack on young Australians through its proposed omnibus bill. While they continue their plan to give big business a $55 billion handout, they are proposing to make young people wait five weeks for Newstart. What are they supposed to live off for this time? We opposed this zombie measure before, and Labor will oppose it now. The government will push young jobseekers onto the lower youth allowance, a cut of $48 a week, and they seek to freeze income-free areas for all working age and student payments even as the costs of living continue to rise.
As universities across the country begin O-week, I call on the government to finally fix their Centrelink debacle, to abandon their plans for $100,000 degrees, and to scrap their harsh cuts to student welfare. This attack on our nation's youth is not acceptable, and I will be earnestly making this point in the Agora at La Trobe University over the coming week.
I am certain you will, Member for Batman.
I wish to update the House on one of the holy grails of unfinished road projects in Central Western New South Wales. I speak, of course, of the crossing at Dixons Long Point, a project communities have been pushing for for almost 100 years. The crossing and the road to Dixons Long Point are the direct route between Orange and Mudgee, two great regional centres. At the moment, to get from Orange to Mudgee or Mudgee to Orange, it takes about two hours and 20 minutes, but if we could open up that road and implement a crossing at Dixons Long Point the travel time between these two great regional centres would be drastically reduced.
The problem is that there is currently no crossing there at all. Most of the road is dirt, and in order to get across the Macquarie River you literally have to drive through it. There have been many recent examples of four-wheel drivers coming to grief on that crossing, including one memorable one recently where the four-wheel drive literally started to float upriver when it came off the side of the crossing.
Last year the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, Darren Chester, drove the Dixons Long Point road, including the crossing. He was the first minister ever to visit Dixons Long Point.
During the last federal election campaign the Liberals and Nationals committed $100,000 for a feasibility study. The New South Wales government also matched that funding with $100,000, which was something I was pushing for when I was the state member for Orange. Now, with that funding, Cabonne Council is carrying out a feasibility study and the costings for options, not only to implement the crossing but also to improve the approaches as well, which are obviously very hazardous.
I recently wrote to Cabonne Council—just days ago. They are doing excellent work, and I am very appreciative of their assistance. I wrote to them and asked them to speed up those costings and the feasibility, because the communities of the Central West, of Mudgee and Orange, have been waiting 100 years for this project to get moving. We want to get it cracking, because there are a lot of doomsayers and naysayers who are saying it will never happen.
Sir Charles Cutler, the former Deputy Premier of New South Wales and former member for Orange, was one of the earliest advocates for this project. The communities have been waiting too long. It will link Orange and Mudgee, opening up the Central West for tourism and industry. Orange and Mudgee are both great mining centres and are both wine-producing areas of international renown. It will open up the region for business and also for medical services. We need to get this project cracking, because 100 years is too long. I am very grateful for the support of Minister Chester and also Cabonne Council. (Time expired)
Two weeks ago, I had the great pleasure of spending a week on Norfolk Island, which is in my electorate. I held a day of constituent meetings and got an update from a range of Commonwealth service providers on the progress of the reform program. I had a tour of the Commonwealth-funded Cascade Pier upgrade and also Kingston and Arthurs Vale Historic Area. I met with the Norfolk Island Regional Council; the AFP; child-care providers; the accommodation and tourism association; the chamber of commerce; the council of elders; EcoNorfolk; and the health and aged care service.
I presented the designer of my Norfolk Island Christmas card calendar, young Lani Hooper, with a book voucher for her and her school. I congratulated the Norfolk Island outrigger canoe club on its Stronger Communities Program grant for a tracking system. And I discovered that many of the transition glitches I identified and complained about after my last visit in September: pensions being cut off when people leave the island, websites not recognising Norfolk Island phone numbers and people being told to present for Centrelink assessments in meetings in regional New South Wales still have not been resolved, which made me very cross.
The Norfolk Island reform program enjoys bipartisan support, and I have been an advocate of it for years. While the implementation of the reform program is not without its teething problems, which I am addressing through a mountain of letters to the minister and relevant government agencies, the majority of people I spoke with are grateful for the benefits that the reform is delivering.
They are grateful for a Medicare card. They are grateful for the PBS. They are grateful for family tax benefits. They are grateful for their age pension. They are grateful that fairness and equality of access to opportunity now exists on the island. So we must ensure these teething problems are ironed out and do not stall the program. We must maintain community confidence in this process, and that relies on transparency and openness and seeing this reform program through.
There are a lot of people who have invested a lot of time, energy, emotion and skin in this. We have to keep faith with them, and we have to deliver for them, because this journey has not been without personal challenges for many working and living in a small, remote, island community. The Turnbull government must maintain the momentum and instruct relevant government agencies to maintain the momentum. It must remain committed to the island's economic recovery and to putting in place modern, best practice legislation. The Turnbull government must announce the next steps in the reform process, particularly when it comes to the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development, which is responsible for project delivery. It also has to outline its plans for telecommunications and corporations.
Many are grateful for the benefits, but they are anxious. They are just anxious about New South Wales legislation being applied to them. The Turnbull government must announce what is planned for 2017, 2018 and 2019. The community deserves to know what the time line is for future legislative reform. It is vitally important for the wellbeing of Norfolk Island.
On Sunday, earlier this week, there was a catastrophic fire event, probably not seen before in New South Wales. It was a perfect combination of 50 days of unrelenting heat, following a very mild winter and spring, which led to a high fuel load and a danger of fire. And the worst possible thing happened on Sunday, with several fires breaking out. The most northern one in my electorate was at Boggabri, which burnt quite a considerable amount of farmland and several houses. It threatened the town of Boggabri and left one of the firefighters, my good friend the legendary drover Robert Groth, now in the burns unit in a hospital in Sydney, awaiting treatment to his very badly burnt hands.
But probably the fire of most significance is what is known as the Sir Ivan fire, which started at the village of Leadville, near the Golden Highway in the Central West. It is still not extinguished. By the time it had had its initial flurry it had covered 50,000 hectares; it had a perimeter of 200 kilometres; it had destroyed 30-odd homes, including the vast majority of the homes in the tiny village of Uarbry; and it had decimated thousands of head of cattle, sheep, horses and other livestock. It has left some families in that area with nothing more than the clothes on their back. They have lost their homes. They have lost all their records. They have lost their sheds, their machinery, their livestock and their fences. It is going to be very difficult to see how these people can recover.
There have been disaster recovery announcements made. Minister Keenan has been speaking with Minister Grant in New South Wales; that is underway. There are several charitable organisations assisting, including the CWA and New South Wales Farmers. The Mayor of Warrumbungle has set up a relief fund, and I would encourage anyone who has a few dollars to spare to donate. Government relief will do so much, but these people have lost everything.
Finally, I would like to commend the firefighters, the volunteers and the community spirit of these towns, where they are rallying together. They are organising within the community the coordination of fodder, coordination of clothes and coordination of accommodation—all done within that very strong and resilient community. I am very proud to represent such strong and stoic people at their time of most desperate need.
In accordance with standing order 193 the time for members' constituency statements has concluded.
This morning in this parliament we had a momentous celebration of International Women's Day: a breakfast; an inspiring speech from the Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull; a wonderfully detailed speech from the Leader of the Opposition, Bill Shorten; and Senator Janet Rice focusing on the need for international development as well as paying attention at home. As I was there with my colleagues in this House, celebrating International Women's Day—we had been talking about equality at work—my mind turned to the idea of equality in democracy. This idea was inspired by an event that took place in my holidays. Colleagues, bear with me for a short story.
I went to Papua New Guinea for my holidays—and I would also like to say the trip was self-funded. I have had a very long-term relationship with Papua New Guinea and I was up there celebrating 10 years of friendship between the organisation that I used to be president of, Australian Women in Agriculture, and Papua New Guinea Women in Agriculture. That in itself was a wonderful thing to be able to acknowledge—10 years of solid friendship. During that time, the two organisations have worked together, we have run workshops, we have done strategic planning, we have done networking, we have spent hours and hours in each other's company, we have had exchanges between Australia and PNG and we have talked about how the world could be better and how our two countries can be better. It was fantastic to be up there in Papua New Guinea.
I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge and thank the Australian high commissioner in Papua New Guinea, Bruce Davis, and his team, for their wonderful hospitality. To Bronte, Ben, Rod and everybody else in the high commission: thank you for the work that you do. I would like to acknowledge and thank the staff of the Papua New Guinea National Agricultural Research Institute—NARI—because they host the PNG Women in Agriculture Development Foundation. To Sergie Bang and your staff: thank you. To Dr Norah Omot and Barbara Tolmi, in particular: thank you very much. Maria Linibi is the President of PNG Women in Agriculture. She is an outstanding woman of great integrity who has taken this organisation from a vision to reality. She had been to Queensland and she thought, 'We could do this.' So now it is operating in PNG and going from strength to strength. Thank you to those people for their hospitality.
But the key topic we talked about when we were in PNG was the election that is going to happen a bit later this year. I had the opportunity to meet with 20 women who had just completed a leadership course being sponsored by DFAT and run by the ANU. It is looking at how women can position themselves to run in the PNG election. I wish them well—what a task! We are told that, in PNG, there is a 61 per cent turnover in politicians between elections and all of 2.7 per cent of the politicians in that parliament are women. So there are huge issues.
One of the participants in that workshop was a woman called Rufina Peters. Rufina has been in Australia, sponsored by the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research and on the Australian Rural Leadership Program. She has done our leadership program and she is now running one in PNG. One of the issues facing PNG as they get underway with this election is the rolls. There are over 800 different languages in PNG. The Australian Electoral Commission is working with the PNG government to help get a roll going. But I am told an evaluation in 2013 showed that, in the 2007 election, there were half a million excess voters on those rolls. So it is a real challenge to make sure not only that women's names are there, even with no birth certificates, but that the rolls reflect the reality of the people who live in that country. There is a huge birth spurt happening in Papua New Guinea; there are children all over the place.
I want to place the idea of equality in democracy out there because yesterday I went to DFAT's innovationXchange and I got a sense of some of the really creative work that is happening there. I would like to put a question to the DFAT innovation people: what would it take to have innovation with equality in democracy and to set ourselves a 20-year plan so that in 20 years the representation in PNG, in the South Pacific and in other countries actually represent the mix of the people there. What I wanted to put on the table today is that we love PNG. We have got so much to be grateful for. But a real gift we could give to them is equality in democracy and making sure that women are well represented in that country.
Today I am fortunate enough to welcome the Mayor and the Deputy Mayor of Balonne Shire Council. Unfortunately, they are not here on pleasant business. They are here to talk to us about the disastrous effects of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan on their communities, particularly in St George and Dirranbandi. I have to acknowledge that, under the northern Basin review, the reduction from 142 gigalitres to 100 is a step forward in supporting those communities, particularly around the economic and social impacts it will have on those small communities. But it does not take into account the social and economic impacts that it has had on St George and Dirranbandi. I have lived and worked in St George, and I have seen the effects that water can have on those economies. My first job in St George was to do a home loan for a block of land in Dirranbandi for $500. I left St George two years later, and that block of land in Dirranbandi was worth $15,000. That is the value and the power of water. It is something we should be very cognisant of. The insanity of this is that, of the 35 gigalitres being moved back, South Australia will, at best, get three gigalitres. That is hardly a great environmental outcome for the people of South Australia, but it is all at the expense of the people of St George and Dirranbandi.
The very disappointing aspect of all of this is the inaction of the Queensland Labor Party. They are in government in Queensland, but they did not even bother to turn up at the ministerial councils. Minister Lynham did not have a seat at the table for Queensland; all he did was phone in. Queensland did not have a seat at the table to put their case; they had a phone line. It is absolutely abhorrent to think that a state minister who is charged with the responsibility of looking after water resource management in our state could not even be bothered to represent the people of his state or the economic future of communities like St George and Dirranbandi. Nor has he bothered to look at or to fight for looking at different measures to actually save water, to take away the need to remove allocation in some of these communities. The reality is there are plenty of options around compliance, but the state government has been negligent in every aspect. This is an opportunity for them to engage in the debate and become a part of the whole Murray-Darling Basin review.
This arrogance and ignorance does not stop with the Queensland Labor government; it also reaches right here to Canberra. In the last couple of days we have seen Tony Burke walk in and say he wants to tear up the intergovernmental agreement on water reform. But his ignorance and arrogance should not surprise us: he comes from a seat in Sydney 47-square kilometres wide and he has publicly stated in the past that he really has no interest in agriculture. I will prove that. In the great TV show TheKilling Season Uncut by Sarah Ferguson, the cameras for the Tony Burke interview were set up in the Marble Bar in the basement of the Sydney Hilton Hotel, which Burke remembered as an old haunt. He was more forthcoming than expected. His interview has an intimate quality—not confessional, but candid. Burke said he had been unhappy with Rudd for a while. He explained that after the 2007 election he was no longer able to call Rudd directly, which he had be able to do in opposition. He was also disappointed to be made the agriculture minister, a policy area he had no connection with. By 2010 his grievances had obviously deepened.
That is the epitome of what this decision is doing to our regional and rural communities. I have sat in these communities: I have seen fear in the eyes of hardened men; I have seen the tears coming out of their eyes because of the uncertainty about what the future holds for their families, all that they have created over generations. They can see that it will be taken away from them with the stroke of a pen, with the arrogance of a government and an opposition that do not want to listen. These are people who have fought hard, and we are asking for all to come together—but not for the cheap, tawdry political points that Tony Burke wants to undertake at their expense. That is abhorrent politics that no-one should be party to in this place. It is an indictment on the Labor Party that they want to use that at the expense of people in regional and rural Australia.
If you have a healthy regional and rural Australia, you have a healthy economy. We actually contribute more to the GDP per capita than most of the capital cities, and it is important that we remember that the investment in water infrastructure will continue to drive those economies and the entire nation forward. But if we have this ignorance and arrogance from people who do not understand and do not care, then we will be assigning the people of regional and rural Australia to the dustbin. That is not something I can stand by and see happen.
I remind members when referring to other members of this House to refer to them by their titles, not by their names.
A few reflections, because all around the world politics is rapidly being overturned. Brexit was a fringe idea until it happened. Donald Trump running for president was so absurd that it featured in an episode of The Simpsons in 2000, yet last month he took the oath of office. Across the world far Right and far Left parties are gaining traction and in some places extremists are actually winning government. I firmly believe that most Australians are sensible, so the idea that extremists or populists—whether Greens, racists or religious theoconservatives—could actually win power here must worry us deeply, yet it cannot be ruled out.
I can understand that many people may feel driven to vote against the establishment. More and more people in our community feel their economic security and livelihood is under threat. People are afraid that their children will not have the same opportunities that they have had, and they are angry. More than two-thirds of Australians believe the economy is rigged for the rich and powerful. Australia may hold a world record for the longest run of continuous economic growth, but people feel that they are slipping behind—and they are absolutely right. Last month Oxfam found that: the top one per cent in Australia now have more than 22 per cent of our total wealth, the one per cent own more wealth than the bottom 70 per cent, the two richest Australians own more wealth than the poorest 20 per cent, and for more than 23 years income growth for the top 10 per cent was more than for the bottom 50 per cent. And the outrageous data on public companies and multinationals paying no tax in Australia is well known.
Inequality is stark, growing and indefensible, and real unfairness is driving real anger. History teaches us that when people get this frustrated, when people feel this strongly that their government is not working for them and that their country is not working for them, dangerous ideas take root and grow. If you look around the globe, with the possible exception of Merkel in Germany, the world is not well served by the calibre of current leaders—quite the opposite. Small-minded, often nasty, introspective pygmies is what we have. If we do not heed the lessons of last century, if we are not to give away reason and succumb to populism and if we risk that slide that we have seen before to authoritarianism and Fascism, then this is a time that calls for genuine engagement and principled leadership to stand up to what is wrong.
A brief word on One Nation. My firm view is that supporters of One Nation are not mainly driven by racism. Indeed, Lindsay Tanner said almost 20 years ago when Hanson first appeared: 'Do not call her supporters rednecks and racists because most people are reasonable and many views do not seem so out there if you stop and think about the lived experience of people who are falling behind, especially if fed an information diet of drama from tabloids and shock jocks and fake news on the internet.'
Of course One Nation is in substance a fraud. Senator Hanson as an outsider is a joke. She has made her living from public election funding. Her business model feeds off resentment and fosters division. Their so-called policies are irrational nonsense. They are a self-serving distraction. Stopping trade, opting out of the global community and economy, building walls, rejecting science and new ideas, keeping out foreigners and kicking out anyone with a funny name or a different religion is not going to create jobs or a fairer society.
Of course all populists do feed off real grievances. The listening, conversation and dialogue can be unpleasant for those in power but real democracy is messy and it involves conflicts between people with different perspectives, ideas and values. I agree actually with some of those railing against excessive political correctness when ideas, words and constructs are branded as unacceptable and wrong, because all it does is drive those thoughts and values underground, and censorship causes resentment. I also think that an overemphasis on identity politics—we will focus on this group or that group and somehow carve up the electorate or society into little groups and assemble a coalition—is wrong. If it comes at the expense of manifest economic unfairness, it drives people nuts.
These conditions should suit the left of politics but only if we focus firmly on inequality and economic issues and are not afraid to fight for middle-class aspirations and for working people. The worst thing we can do is business as usual. In talking about inequality we get accused of inciting a class war by those opposite yet the real class war is being led by the government in its defence of the very rich and their perks, which has always been the primary purpose of the Liberal Party.
I rise to speak about an issue critical for our nation's future—getting our energy mix right. I have the great honour of representing Groom in this parliament and I reckon our region is a poster child for the government's sensible approach to national energy policy. In recent times the Prime Minister has set out our government's direction for a national energy policy. During his recent visit to Toowoomba he and I discussed the local examples of sustainable, reliable and cost-effective energy technologies working in tandem. In our electorate we are well on the way to becoming a prime example of the all-of-the-above approach or the technology agnostic approach that the Turnbull government is committed to as the right approach for our nation's energy supply mix.
North-west of our city of Toowoomba we have the Acland coalmine, an open-cut coalmine that has been a major employer, a good corporate citizen and a major economic player for quite some years. It provides more than 300 direct jobs and more than 2,000 indirect jobs in our community. Interestingly, it has been at the forefront of a number of environmental initiatives, including rehabilitation of grazing land and a recent trial of dual-fuel mining trucks.
Then just up the road from the coalmine we have what is widely recognised as a transition technology with the Oakey Power Station. The 332-megawatt dual liquid/gas-fired open-cycle Oakey Power Station is adjacent to the Roma to Brisbane gas pipeline and in Queensland's growing coal seam gas corridor. ERM Power led the development of this technology, with commissioning occurring safely and on time in December 1999. This plant typically runs during times of peak electricity demand when Queensland's power needs are greatest.
The region of Groom has always been a place that continues to innovate and better itself, and the 80-megawatt Oakey solar farm is being planned. Oakey solar farm is a solar photovoltaic project that will consist of two stages, and after being awarded funding by ARENA under this government the project's first stage, of 25 megawatts, is expected to start construction next month, with stage 2, of 55 megawatts, starting in July. The project has been planned and developed by Canadian Solar, one of the world's largest solar companies, which assessed solar resource, terrain, vegetation, land usage, flood impact, parcel size, zoning, proximity to medium- and high-voltage networks, proximity to load demand, accessibility to transport and impact on adjoining landowners as part of its screening process. Just over the border in the seat of Maranoa, AGL Energy has proposed a $500 million wind farm at Coopers Gap which has a proposed capacity of 350 megawatts—and anyone who lives on the Darling Downs can assured you that a prevailing breeze is something we are never often short of.
These projects working in tandem is a perfect example of the federal government's national energy proposal going forward—renewables, fossil fuels, existing technology, new technology, all working together to ensure a stable, secure and affordable energy supply. It is security and cost that matters most, not how you deliver it. Our national energy policy should be an 'all of the above technologies' approach, working together to meet our emission reduction commitments while providing stable supply for businesses and residents alike, particularly hardworking families right throughout Australia. If we do not have such an approach it will be a tremendous disadvantage for the electorate of Groom, for the very reasons I have just mentioned, certainly for the Queensland energy supply situation and most definitely for the entire country, as we have seen given the failures in other parts of our country, most particularly in South Australia. It is time for a bipartisan approach to ensure our energy grid becomes a truly national one, providing reliable and cost-effective energy supplies for businesses and families alike.
I want to talk about income inequality this morning. Income inequality and wealth inequality is growing and it has emerged as one of the greatest challenges of our generation. It is serving as a catalyst for political instability and it is producing stagnating living standards for working people across the developed world. Over the last 30 years Australia has done better than most in ensuring social equity while maintaining strong economic growth—but of course that record is now under threat from the trickle-down policies of the Turnbull government. As a country we have always prided ourselves on our ability to share our increasing wealth—a core tenet of the fair go which is so integral to our national identity. That is why perhaps this week the salary of Australia Post's CEO of $5.8 million was shocking for so many Australians. This of course is not an outlier—the package ranks a paltry 32nd on the list of the highest paid CEOs in our country today.
This extraordinary pay packet barely scratches the surface of the continuing trend of skyrocketing executive wages under the coalition's watch. Today the top 10 CEOs in Australia each earn more in a single day than the bottom 20 per cent of households take home in an entire year. This is simply obscene. Wage growth has stalled at historic lows for the rest of the country. The CEOs of two major companies recently saw their pay cheques increase by 200 per cent and 280 per cent respectively this year. Increasingly, boards are skirting disclosure agreements by concealing the salaries of key managerial positions in order to hide the ballooning pay of their bosses from shareholders and the Australian people. These dishonest tactics do little to restore the faith the public lost in big business, particularly during the global financial crisis and the great recession. Simply put, ordinary Australians are sickened by executive wages that are hundreds of times larger than those of the people they employ.
When I was Treasurer in the Gillard government, we introduced legislation that sought to shine a light on the boardrooms and to hold those boardrooms accountable for the decisions they made on executive pay. These reforms introduced a two-strike rule, a measure that would spill boards who repeatedly agreed to outrageous executive pay packets. Judging from the ongoing behaviour of some executives today, the two-strike rule was clearly one too many. If we are to deal with the outrageous pay rorts of executives in Australia, boards must know that their jobs are on the line unless they act responsibly. That is why I believe we need to replace the two-strike rule with a one-strike rule. I propose a 'one strike and you're out' rule—that is, when a company's pay report receives a no vote of 25 per cent or more, the shareholders will vote at the same AGM as to whether the board itself should be spilled.
I am not holding my breath waiting for action from the Turnbull government on this critical question. The reprimand last week by the Prime Minister to the Australia Post executive cannot obscure the fact that he is part of this trickle-down racket. He is part of an overpaid and overpowered corporate and financial elite that are imposing trickle-down economics on ordinary working Australians. The coalition is more than content to let the Business Council of Australia and its allies dictate policy to it on his watch. And what is that policy? Wage cuts and tax increases for working people, and tax cuts and unfettered market capitalism for executives like the Prime Minister. He is as blind to inequality as he is to irony: the irony of a former partner at Goldman Sachs publicly chiding a fellow member of the affluent and well-to-do for earning too much.
Rather than take real steps towards tackling income inequality, the Prime Minister has returned to parliament in this term with an even more aggressive and vicious trickle-down agenda, as we can see laid out in the parliament day after day. It is quite clear where the Prime Minister's loyalties lie, and it is not with ordinary Australians. It is now widely recognised that income inequality is not inevitable. It is not an inevitable result of economic growth but rather the side effect of deaf governance and nasty 'survival of the fittest' policies.
Ensuring fair and equitable wages for all Australians has to be central to promoting inclusive prosperity. It is time we held boards accountable for excessive and obscene CEO packages and brought in a 'one strike and you're out' rule.
350.org Australia claims to be an advocacy organisation. Its website says 350.org Australia is an independent not-for-profit climate change advocacy organisation. Yet it has now declined three invitations to appear before the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, having made a written submission to this committee on political donations. 350.org's submission calls for a $1,000 cap on corporate donations and real-time mandatory disclosure of all donations over $500. However, last year 350.org received over $1 million in contributions and donations, including $116,470 in foreign donations, the source of which it does not voluntarily disclose. This foreign money is used, in my view, to campaign against Australia's national interest, and we have no idea who it comes from.
During the election campaign, 350.org Australia, together with GetUp!, bought up web addresses based on the names of five coalition MPs and created websites which criticised their records and views. A 350.org Facebook post boasted:
GetUp and 350.org have taught the climate action blockers a lesson in how to use the internet, buying up web addresses linked to their names and using them to inform the public of their horrible records.
None of these bogus web pages identified that 350.org.au or GetUp! was behind them. It was deceptive. Instead they were promoted under the banner of Vote Smart. They were authorised by Christina McPhail, who, I have ascertained, in 2015 started work at 350.org as a 'planetary protection officer'. These websites gave Ms McPhail's address as 48 Easey Street Collingwood, which, upon checking, appeared to be a campaign office occupied by GetUp! Ms McPhail markets herself as 'driving disruptive change for the greater social and environmental good'. Around the same time as she was authorising the bogus Vote Smart web pages, she appeared to have been volunteering for the ACT Greens.
What does 350.org say about these Vote Smart web pages being authorised by someone who was apparently simultaneously working for the Greens? The critiques of the five coalition MPs on Vote Smart go much further than concerns about climate change. They criticise these MPs for their supposed record on health, tax, education, communications, human rights and personal expenditures and their characters. These websites are clearly and explicitly anti-coalition, one referring to a 'scorched earth alternative' championed by the coalition. Meanwhile, Christina McPhail was prominently advocating a vote for the Greens on her Facebook page.
I note that, despite 350.org's extensive activity during the 2016 election campaign, it did not submit a third-party return to the Australian Electoral Commission. While not pre-empting the JSCEM conclusions on this matter and not speaking on behalf of JSCEM, I suggest that the lack of disclosure not only of funding sources but also of the activities of such organisations, which are basically involved in continuous campaigning against government policies and priorities, represents a loophole in accountability. I also believe that 350.org's involvement in Vote Smart could contravene the exclusion on partisan political purpose contained in the Charities Act 2013 and consequently jeopardise 350.org's charity status. Notably, all of the five MPs, but four in particular, were also targeted by GetUp!, which is overtly political and, unlike 350.org, is not a registered charity.
Another area in which 350.org appears to fall foul of the provisions of division 3 of the Charities Act is its promotion of law-breaking. 350.org Australia was involved with the Break Free blockade of the Newcastle coal port on 8 May last year, at which, coincidentally, the Australian Greens co-launched their campaign for the federal election. As a result of this blockade, 66 protesters, dubbed 'the Newie 66' by 350.org, were arrested. This was what 350.org's ACT branch said:
The #Newie66 will face court over the coming months and the possibility of fines for their brave action. We've initiated this campaign to help raise funds to cover their legal costs and any fines.
This is the perfect time to both support the #Newie66 and to also send a message to our governments that we won't be intimidated by new anti-protest laws nor stay silent …
On its Facebook page, 350.org asked users to show their support for the 'courageous action' of the protestors arrested for shutting down the Newcastle coal port. On Twitter, it said it was supporting the 'brave actions' of those facing court. 350.org also described as 'inspiring' a grandmother and small-business owner who said that being arrested and facing court was 'worth it'. I intend to make a submission to the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission, asking it to rule whether this is compatible with 350.org's charity status. (Time expired)
The first part of each year, the summer, is a very special time in my electorate in Melbourne's west. It is festival season. I have spent almost every weekend for the past two months attending all the excellent festivals in Gellibrand. Events range from huge showground experiences to street festivals. These community festivals are a great opportunity for communities to engage with each other, to share the joy of the warmer months with each other and to experience and learn about everything that is going on in our community. Community groups have the opportunity to fundraise at these events and local businesses have the opportunity to promote themselves.
These festivals draw huge crowds from all over Melbourne. However, these events could not happen without the tireless work of many dedicated volunteers. I would like to take the time today to acknowledge some of the many groups and volunteers that have been involved in making these events a reality. It takes a huge amount of work, and often months, to pull together one of these occasions. The logistics involved, and the coordination with hundreds, if not thousands, of people, is a massive organisational feat. I will focus on just a few of the extraordinary efforts by members of my constituency to coordinate these incredible events.
This year's festival season kicked off with the East Meets West Lunar New Year Festival, organised by the Footscray Asian Business Association and its president, Wing La, along with Hai Pham, the festival organiser, and the Vietnamese Students Association. For 24 years this festival in Footscray has been an inclusive event that recognises and celebrates the importance of Lunar New Year to the Asian community living in the western suburbs of Melbourne. East Meets West has 50 stalls and attracts around 20,000 people to Footscray each year.
Continuing the Lunar New Year celebrations was the Tet Festival at the Melbourne Showgrounds, a weekend-long event with fireworks, great food and cultural exhibits. This festival has been running for 35 years and was organised by the Vietnamese Community in Australia association, Victorian Chapter, particularly by Dan-Than Nguyen, Albert Lee, Viv Nguyen, Giang Nguyen, Thi Nguyen, Damien Nguyen and Catriona Nguyen-Robertson.
Each year, to celebrate Australia Day the Altona Village Traders Association hold a beach market, an enormous festival on the beautiful beach down in Altona. This family-friendly event has been running for 10 years now. It really shows off and puts on display the fantastic beach we have down in Altona. Sharron Walsh and an organising committee of volunteers run this free event for many thousands of people in Melbourne's west.
Last weekend was the Yarraville Festival, which celebrated 100 years of Yarraville life this year and was organised by the local Yarraville community. It is run by Festival Manager and President Brenton Burley and his executive management team of Carla Smith, Steven Los, Laurens Goud and Daniel Anderson, as well as a dedicated team of volunteers. This year I was happy again to participate in the world-famous dog show.
Upcoming festivals include the Seddon Festival, which has been a longstanding community favourite. It is organised each year by the fantastic team of volunteers from the Seddon Community Group, who are led this year by Katrina Mittemiaer. Thanks also to Steven Los, the president of this group, and a list of other dedicated volunteers too long to read out.
Also coming up in Melbourne's west is the West Footscray Festival of Colours, which includes a traditional 'throwing of the colours' to mark Holi, the Hindu festival of colours. I would like to acknowledge the committee's efforts in getting this new festival off the ground. I hope that it too becomes a longstanding feature in our festival life in Melbourne's west. Committee members Sharee Grinter, Pratima Prabhu, Mark Tiwari and Sonia Dhillon deserve particular recognition.
We are also lucky to be able to celebrate the world-famous St Jerome's Laneway Festival, which has continuously attracted huge crowds to Footscray since its inception and has become a staple on any music lover's festival list. In 2005 Danny Rogers returned from a stint working in New York as a band booker and planned a secret show with his friend Jerome Borazio. With a tiny stage crammed down one end of a skinny alleyway, the line-up of bands, pulled largely from the Summer Series, drew a sold-out crowd, as it has since the festival has moved to Footscray in my electorate. It is a great advertisement for the kind of festival life that we enjoy in our community. It is a fantastic advertisement for life in Melbourne's west.
This is just a snapshot of some of the fantastic festivals we enjoy in Melbourne's west. There are so many more. I strongly encourage anyone to come and visit one. These festivals bring our community together, showcasing what is great about the lifestyle in Melbourne's west. Thank you again to each and every volunteer and organiser for these festivals. Your efforts in pulling together these valuable community events are not overlooked; they are valued by the community. Your hard work has not gone unnoticed.
I wish to make some comments about business tax.
Any student of Australian business and economic history since the mid-80s knows that part of Australia's success was derived through the reduction in the company tax rate.
That is a quote from the Leader of the Opposition, Bill Shorten, from March 2012, when he was in government.
Cutting the company income tax rate increases domestic productivity and domestic investment. More capital means higher productivity and economic growth and leads to more jobs and higher wages.
That is another quote from the Leader of the Opposition, from August 2011.
… for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.
That quote is not from the opposition leader; that one was from Winston Churchill. You probably have to go back as far as Churchill to find the last Labor leader who did not aspire to cut the corporate tax rate. It used to be a longstanding, bipartisan position in Australia's parliament that we all aspired to cut Australia's corporate tax rates. I think it is important for us to reflect on the motives of an opposition leader who would say one thing when they were a minister in government with responsibilities and another thing when they are in opposition and digging for votes. I think it is important for us to reflect on the significance—what it really means—when a major political party in Australia finally walks away from a longstanding bipartisan principle, what was a bipartisan key plank of Australia's economic plan and towards populism.
I have been paying very close attention to the language being used by Labor members opposite when they have mentioned tax recently. The catchcry is $50 billion of handouts to big business and multinationals—those are the words they use. The opposition leader rolled that phrase out in question time just yesterday in fact. But, I think it is time to consider those words, word by word, and to expose the irresponsible mistruth behind them. Because, firstly, handouts: tax cuts are not handouts. It is not a handout to let a hardworking small business owner keep a little bit more of their own hard-earned money. It is not a handout; it is their money; they worked really hard for it.
Secondly, it is not $50 billion. I suspect, I think, what is going on is that Labor is attempting to add up the first 10 years of the budgetary impact of this measure, in which case the accurate figure would actually be $48 billion. But what is $2 billion between friends in the Labor Party? The budget impacts of this measure are $1.6 billion this year, not $48 billion, not $50 billion—$1.6 billion. It is $2.3 billion the year after that, $2.5 billion in 2018-19 and $2.8 billion in 2019-20 and so on.
Thirdly, I am very proud to say, especially given my background in small business, our tax cuts are going first and foremost to small businesses, not to big businesses, not to multinationals; it is only going to small businesses this year, next year, the year after and for this whole term of parliament. And, yes, we do want to legislate a longer-term plan to let the entire economy benefit from tax cuts. Over time we would seek to bring all medium and big businesses into the fold too, because that used to be the bipartisan position of all major parties in this parliament.
If Labor does not like that any more, that is fine. There are two more elections between now and when any tax cuts would be passed onto any big businesses. If they are so confident about their new-found position, then, over the next seven years, they could take that position to either the next election or the election after that. And, if the Australian people judge it to be a winner, then they would win one of those elections and they would get to make the change before a single taxable dollar in any way benefited any big business. Just don't get in the road of delivering these tax cuts to the small businesses who need them the most right now.
I am very, very proud to try to keep Australia competitive in a new global world. I am proud to support tax cuts for the 9,000 small businesses in my electorate of Brisbane. Our tax enterprise plan is one of the key planks needed to unlock the power of our local small businesses. It is not handouts; it is their own money. It is not $50 billion; it is $1.6 billion this year; $2.3 billion next year and so on, and everything in our budget and in the term of this parliament is going to small businesses and small businesses only.
Labor is perpetrating a giant fraud here with their use of sensationalist language. It is just plain wrong. The opposition leader is damned by his own words, and Labor is damned by the consistent position of Labor leaders going back decades. I am calling them out on it today.
One beautiful day, a sunny day in January, I was walking my old dogs and Blue and Jack along the beautiful dog beach of Shoalwater Bay. I stopped by a bit to let my feet sink in the sand and to take in in the wonderful view of a tiny bit of the Indian Ocean. A woman stopped alongside me and she said, 'You know, you mustn't tell anyone about this place.' I nodded and thought: 'Perhaps she's right. Perhaps this place is too good to share.' But, on reflection, I think the fortunate people of Safety Bay and Shoalwater must be generous, and we must tell the world about this beautiful little town that we live in and this beautiful place that we have. We must share this beauty with the world.
The cities of Rockingham and Kwinana in my electorate of Brand are home to a treasure trove of tourism gems: nature based, action-packed attractions, well frequented by locals but not so much by tourists. While these attractions are not widely known outside our local communities, they do have the potential to attract both domestic and international tourists, if only the right support was in place. By support, of course, I mean funding.
Only recently, I dropped into the local visitor centre in Rockingham on Kent Street, right next to my electorate office, where I was told that, due to a shortage in funding, they could not deliver marketing programs to attract visitors to the area's many attractions. These attractions are many and diverse. They include the stunningly beautiful Shoalwater Islands, which include Penguin Island, home to a colony of fairy penguins—the smallest penguins with the world. There is a discovery centre where you can learn all about them. The attractions include Seal Island, where you can kayak and where, if you are lucky and patient, sea lions and their pups will come out and play with you from their rest on the beach. Some might have seen my short videos, which I posted on Instagram, of my summer days swimming with the sea lions of Seal Island off Shoalwater. I know the Prime Minister likes to kayak along the prestigious bays of Sydney Harbour, so perhaps—if he ever returns to Western Australia—he might like to take a cruise down to Rockingham and have a paddle around Shoalwater. I would be only too pleased to escort him on that trip. There are many adventure activities, including Rockingham dive trail, where a purpose dive wreck trail features scuttled boats. There are aircraft that do skydiving adventures over Rockingham and land on the beach. There is the Perth Motorplex at Kwinana Beach, with its wide catalogue of events from monster trucks to sprint car racing and nitro funny cars. It attracts crowds of car enthusiasts of all ages. The waterski park, only half an hour from Perth's CBD, has lakes, jumps, a world-class slalom course and great tuition to boot.
We know that tourism is a key economic driver for the country and in fact it has overtaken coal as one of Australia's biggest exports. According to the most recent figures from Tourism WA, the industry injects $10 billion into the Western Australian economy and generates more than 97,000 jobs. But the coalition government has not released its plan for tourism. What it has done, in its last term, is cut regional tourism infrastructure grants and slash investment-driven data and research funding. Tourism is an important driver for local jobs and economic development. It is a super growth industry growing at 5.3 per cent compared to the 1.6 per cent growth seen in the wider economy. Across Australia tourism is worth three per cent of our total GDP. There is phenomenal potential here, if only the industry were funded correctly.
This brings me back to my local community. We have found that, because of a lack of funding, the fantastic resources on our doorstep are not being realised. There are pockets of youth unemployment in my electorate, double the national average at 13.6 per cent. That is a shocking figure. The jobs potential that comes with investing in tourism is being ignored by both federal and state Liberal governments. However, there is a light at the end of the tunnel: Mark McGowan and WA Labor understand how important tourism is for the Western Australian industry. It is important to invest in marketing and attract communities, who will create more jobs in Western Australia and, in particular, in Brand. Paul Papalia, the shadow minister for tourism—and, I might say, the local member for Warnbro in my electorate—and WA Labor as a whole have committed to invest $425 million in tourism that will promote Western Australia as the desirable tourist destination that we know it is.
WA's peak tourism body, Tourism WA, knows how important marketing Perth and local areas is to encourage visitors into our community. Tourism WA has said that even a minor investment in marketing gets big returns. The Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Western Australia has said that funding marketing to raise Perth's profile will create around 4,000 jobs. That is a significant figure. Unfortunately for WA, the Barnett government's 2016 state budget saw a $6.2 million cut to Tourism WA for marketing from 2017-18 to 2019-20, as well as an estimated 30 per cent cut to future marketing funding by 2019-20. That is a dreadful state of affairs. Fortunately, a future state Labor government in WA knows how important it is to fund marketing events, with Labor and Mark McGowan committed to investing $425 million in promoting WA. (Time expired).
I stand here today as the co-chair of the Australian Tuberculosis Caucus, and I wish to acknowledge my other co-chair, the Hon. Matt Thistlethwaite. We are very capably, between the two of us, representing this issue here in this country. I also acknowledge my colleague and very good friend the Rt Hon. Nick Herbert, the British Conservative MP for Arundel and South Downs. Together with the South African health minister, Dr Aaron Motsoaledi, Nick is the co-chair of the Global TB Caucus, as well as the co-chair of the UK's All-Party Parliamentary Group on Global Tuberculosis. He is an example to those of us who would use our parliamentary positions to further the common good, whether it be around the corner, or around the world.
Yesterday Nick met with our parliamentary colleagues in the Australian Tuberculosis Caucus. We are currently a cross-party group of 20 parliamentarians focused on securing Australian support to end tuberculosis as a global epidemic. We are part of both the global caucus and the Asia-Pacific caucus, which I co-chair with my colleague Dr Helen Tan from the Philippines. At the most recent count there were 18 national tuberculosis caucuses, with a combined membership of 2,300 representatives from around 130 countries. It certainly is a powerful potential for global good that is being facilitated in large part by Nick Herbert. Most of my colleagues would not know that when I was young my mum spent a year in the Cairns Base Hospital recovering from tuberculosis, but in the modern era I, like Nick, believed this was a disease of the past. In 2005, Nick visited Kenya to see the country's TB and HIV s and the trip opened his eyes to the scale of the continuing TB epidemic.
Today, TB is the leading cause of death for people with HIV globally. In 2015, tuberculosis killed 1.8 million people, making it the world's greatest infectious disease killer. TB has, most assuredly, not gone away. Nick's own backyard, in London, has about 5,000 cases each year—one of the highest rates of tuberculosis among European capitals. His all-party parliamentary group often focuses on the burden of TB in Africa, so yesterday it was good for us to highlight for him the burden of disease in our region. While we in Australia may have it under control, the Asia-Pacific bears over 60 per cent of the global burden of tuberculosis. Our nearest neighbour, Papua New Guinea, has the highest rate of tuberculosis infection and the island of Daru in the Western Province, which borders my electorate, has one of the highest rates of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis in the world.
I was at a delegation in South Africa in 2015 with RESULTS when I met Dr Jennifer Furin from Doctors Without Borders. Her comments on the TB burden in the Western Province were bleak. Dr Furin said:
I have been working with TB for over 20 years. I have worked in prisons in Russia, in Siberia, and many other high‐burden countries and in the most difficult of circumstances therefore nothing generally shocks me.
However, I was absolutely shocked and felt despair from what I saw in Daru, which was far worse than what I have ever experienced and the TB burden is horrific. Having said that, what is most despairing is the fact that with the right application this situation can be quite easily addressed.
Australia and Papua New Guinea share goals for increasing tuberculosis detection and treatment completion rates. I am pleased to say that we have backed this commitment with welcome financial support.
In 2015, Minister Bishop announced additional funding for tuberculosis control in PNG, taking Australia's assistance covering both the Western Province and National Capital District to $60 million over seven years. This commitment for funding concludes in 2017. Better tuberculosis identification and treatment in PNG will address the huge avoidable human and economic costs of the disease in that country since many of those who suffer from TB are of working age, and it will reduce the number of Papua New Guineans driven to seek treatment in Australia. In the long-term, Australia's commitment to the development of TB services in the Western Province and in Port Moresby will be bolstered by the development of stronger health systems in the entire country and will support sustainable local tuberculosis control infrastructure.
I would like to leave it at this point in time. I reserve my right to speak at the conclusion of the next speaker.
Next week is the Avalon air show. It is one of Australia's largest displays of scientific engineering and technical prowess when it comes to Australia's air power and, indeed, air power more generally. This event injects something like $125 million into the Victorian economy and, indeed, $25 million into the local economy in Geelong. Over the six days of the event, it is expected that 180,000 people will attend Avalon, and that makes it the single biggest event which is held in the Geelong reason. It was first held in 1992 and from 1995 has been held on a biennial basis at Avalon airport, which is in my constituency of Corio. This year, the Australian International Airshow will be held from 28 February to 5 March. The final three days of the air show are open to the public, from 3 to 5 March, and the preceding days are very much the trade component of that show.
This year the stars of the show, making their Australian debut, will be the first two of Australia's ordered fleet of Joint Strike Fighters—A1 and A2. It is very exciting that they are going to make their Australian debut in Avalon. These planes have been flown by Australian personnel in the US, but they are coming out for the show. They are the most advanced military aircraft in the world, capable of supersonic flight while retaining stealth. They have extraordinary acceleration, agility and manoeuvrability, and we are all very excited about seeing that on display at Avalon. They are at the cutting edge and very forefront of military aviation and are going to be a critical capability, which the Royal Australian Air Force will have for decades to come. As I say, to see this on display for the first time at Avalon will really be a treat. Those two planes are expected to be in service next year, and we have our first squadron for the RAAF due in 2021.
The other star of the show is going to be the Growler electronic attack aircraft. Again, these are one of the most capable and technologically advanced aircraft in the world. The Avalon air show will be the first time this plane has made an appearance in Australia. The RAAF will eventually have 12 Growlers in service, and they will bring a key and unique capability to our Air Force. They are state-of-the-art technology, with the capability to jam enemy radar and communications systems, disrupt electronic systems of enemy aircraft and reduce the combat effectiveness of rival forces. We are very much looking forward to seeing the Growler on display as well.
The theme of this year's air show will be: air power in action. I have no doubt that it will be really spectacular. Along with the Growler and the JSF, the RAAF will be bringing 50 aircraft, including Super Hornets, classic Hornets, the Hawks and the giant C-17s, a heavy lift aircraft. The US air force will also be bringing 14 aircraft, including the F-22 Raptors—that, in turn, is a treat. It will not be the first time they have been at Avalon, but they are very much at the forefront of the US air force's capabilities—the C-16C Vipers and the B-1 Lancer high-altitude bomber, which is always a favourite for the stalwarts of the show. There will also be seven separate foreign aircraft taking part, including navel and army helicopter assets.
The show also puts on display the versatility and capability of Avalon Airport, which all of us in the Greater Geelong region know is a critical part of our future. The civic leadership of Geelong is very supportive of Avalon Airport and sees it as a key component of providing employment in our region, and we are all strong advocates for it.
This air show and the corresponding land forces conference, the maritime conference and the civil-military conference, which are fantastic conferences that have been developed by the same entity, ably led by Ian Honnery, tell a fantastic story and put Australia's defence industry on display. The point is that all of these began with the air show, and it has a very unique Geelong component to it. This is a Geelong story as well. The air shows are very much a part of the Geelong calendar nowadays, and we absolutely wish everyone involved the very best for the coming week.
Continuing from my earlier contribution, helping to drive stronger health systems on the ground in the Treaty Villages of the Western Province of Papua New Guinea is the Cairns-based Reef and Rainforest Research Centre. In December, I welcomed news that the Australian government has increased its support for the Building Resilience in Treaty Villages project. Managed by the RRRC, the project involves the recruitment and training of multiskilled community rangers to work in construction, sanitation, first aid and leadership.
Thanks to an initial $1.8 million from the Australian government in 2014, the pilot in four Treaty Villages saw 52 community rangers, including 12 women, trained up. It is a fabulous program, and the rangers have now used their skills to install more than 1.5 million litres of reliable, clean potable water storage, build eight new reinforced capped-and-sealed groundwater wells, provide emergency medical assistance on more than 100 occasions, including lifesaving first aid, transportation and childbirth support, and complete a top-down refurbishment of Mabaduan village's hospital outpost.
The pilot has now been extended through another $400,000 commitment in 2016-17. Subject to successful completion, the Australian government will support its phasing-up, thereby reaching all Treaty Villages by 2019-20. This new program means that there will be another group of locals trained up as rangers in this program. All of this is designed to establish a platform for each of these communities that will at last see delivery of appropriate health services, allowing us to meet the challenge of tuberculosis and other communicable diseases while also giving ownership of the solution to local communities. This guarantees buy-in by the community and a sense of ownership from the community, and this, in my view, will guarantee its success. I also believe that this model is transportable into other areas of high disadvantage, and I will be working with the minister to promote this.
Since 2012, Australia has also supported medical research and development into neglected diseases, including tuberculosis. Poverty-related illness affects over a billion people worldwide and it results in six million deaths each year. Most people who suffer from these neglected diseases cannot pay the market price for health products, and the lack of market demand to encourage investment in neglected diseases means that product development is largely the responsibility of not-for-profit product development partnerships that combine industry expertise and public and philanthropic funding.
Government backing of research and development can have an enormous impact, as new products developed from Australian-supported TB research show. For instance, Australian investment in the PDP Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics, or FIND, has helped to develop a GeneXpert machine, which has allowed TB infections to be confirmed within a matter of hours rather than weeks. FIND is now working with Cepheid on the manufacture and launch of a new machine named the Omni. This is a portable diagnostic system that will run for eight hours on a solar-rechargeable battery. It is about the size of a milkshake maker, so it is very transportable.
Since 2015 Australia has provided a total of $30 million in funding for three PDPs: FIND, the TB Alliance and the Medicines for Malaria Venture. Sustained support for this kind of medical research is essential, as the benefits of R&D can take years to emerge fully. With the current PDP program concluding in 2017, the government will need to include a renewed commitment to medical R&D, including further PDP investments, in the 2017-18 budget. An appropriate goal for medical research and funding would be to increase R&D support to one per cent, or $60 million, of the overall aid program by 2020-21. Within this total, Australia should make a commitment of $15 million a year to the PDP program for the next three years to increase prospects for new diagnostics and treatments and also to allow for additional PDP projects, such as work being done to develop a TB vaccine. An increased commitment to R&D could also incorporate funding from the new regional health security partnership fund, which Minister Bishop announced in June 2016.
World TB Day is fast approaching, and on 21 March the Australian TB Caucus will be hosting a breakfast here in the parliament, to which all of our colleagues will be invited. At this event we will be celebrating these Australian investments, made under the leadership of Minister Bishop, in TB prevention and treatment in PNG and in the development of innovative drugs and diagnostics for TB. With tuberculosis, more so than in almost any other disease, helping others is helping ourselves. (Time expired)
Last April, dead fish began to be washed up on the shores of central Vietnam, from the Ha Tinh province down the Hue province and spreading down almost to Da Nang city. The evidence suggested that this was the result of a toxic discharge from the Formosa Ha Tinh steel factory, a Taiwanese-owned company operating in the Vung Ang industrial zone. This has devastated the lives of local fishermen and all those communities that rely on fishing in central Vietnam. Given the size and impact of this environmental disaster, it is most concerning now to see the level of crackdown being shown to those who, through peaceful protest, are trying to advance their concerns about this environmental disaster.
I have been advised by members of the Vietnamese community that police used harsh physical force against protesters on 14 February this year when people at a rally led by Catholic priest Father Nguyen Dinh Thuc were determined to exercise itheir legal rights. More than 500 people who were directly affected by this environmental disaster gathered, and they were intent on proceeding to a court in order to seek compensation. I am advised that the peaceful protesters intended to travel more than 200 kilometres to exercise their legal rights, and effectively sue the Formosa steel company for compensation. However, the Vietnamese authorities intervened and prevented the marchers organisers from hiring buses to travel to Ha Tinh. Further, I am advised, that a number of protesters who made their way to Ha Tinh were prevented by the police from entering the court and, as also reported, they received extreme and harsh treatment at the hands of the authorities.
This protest march is the latest by affected communities in central Vietnam as they continue to seek justice for this environmental disaster. Over the past few months, I have been advised, people have held mass gatherings to raise awareness about ongoing environmental issues, and they are frequently harassed and threatened by local authorities. Even more concerning is that, I have been advised, a number of detentions of activists who have reported and spoken on issues regarding this environmental disaster. For instance, Nguyen Van Hoa, a 20-year-old citizen journalist, who was covering the protests last year was arbitrarily detained in January and is currently being held incommunicado. He has been charged under article 258 of the Vietnamese Criminal Code for 'abusing the democratic freedoms'.
I have been advised also that another two activists who have spoken about the environmental disaster were arrested in late January. Nguyen Van Oai, a former prisoner of conscience and founder of Catholic Former Prisoners of Conscience, was arrested on 19 January and charged with 'resisting persons on duty'. Ms Tran Thi Nga, a prominent blogger and social activist who has frequently discussed issues of police corruption and who reported also on the incident of the Formosa environmental disaster, was detained in her home. She recorded her arrest by police and distributed the recordings on social media. A former Taiwanese migrant worker, she was charged with 'conducting propaganda against the state'. She is the mother of two sons. Ms Nga was hospitalised following her treatment.
I mention these incidents because they are occurring in Vietnam as we speak. They have all occurred over the past month. It is alarming that these people, who are after all seeking truth and justice, are being physically beaten, harassed, threatened and even arbitrarily detained. The Vietnamese authorities seem intent on cracking down on activists, regardless of the object of their protest. The Vietnamese authorities continue to target those who advocate for justice rather than, as in this case, prosecuting those who have caused long-term harm to the environment and local communities. I fear that these incidents and arbitrary arrests are indicative of Vietnam's government clamping down on the rights and liberties of its people. (Time expired)
Tabulam holds its head high in our nation for many reasons. It is physically beautiful. It sits on the upper Clarence. It has productive country: beef, blueberries and much more. Very importantly, it has great community spirit. But there is much more to Tabulam. It holds a special place in our nation's history as the home of the light horse brigade.
The story of Tabulam's involvement with the light horse goes back to 1885, with Captain Charles Chauvel, who owned Tabulam Station. In October 1885 he formed two troops of the Upper Clarence Light Horse, the first ever light horse brigades. The Boer War was the first overseas service for the light horse brigades. They, then, also served with distinction in a number of conflicts, including serving in Gallipoli as infantry and then fighting in Palestine during the great desert campaign of 1916-17.
They were involved in many battles, but perhaps the most famous event was the charge of Beersheba. The Light Horse Brigade was then under the command of General Harry Chauvel, who was Charles's son. The Battle of Beersheba took place on 31 October 1917 as part of the wider British offensive known as the Third Battle of Gaza. The final part of this all-day battle was the famous mounted charge of the Light Horse Brigade. Commencing at dusk, members of the brigade stormed through the Turkish defences and seized the strategic town of Beersheba. In this action, 31 light horsemen were killed in the charge and 36 were wounded, and at least 70 horses died. The battle was later immortalised in the film Forty Thousand Horsemenproduced by Harry Chauvel's nephew Charles. Many of the local men serving in the regiment at that time participated in that particular scene for the film, giving the film its very accurate footage.
The Tabulam troop was reformed in January 1931 and became part of the 15th Light Horse, Northern Rivers Lancers. The early members of the troop included: Lionel Hewetson, George Grey, Clarrie Mealing, Jack Hollis, Owen Winterton, Eric Wilkinson, Bevan Wilkinson, Eric Wilkinson—there were two!—Charles Coledus, Ernie Wright, Bill Ward, Jack Ward, Bill Poulson, Bert Wann, Jimm Wann and, slightly later, Cecil Keogh and Alex—or Bill—Fraser. The brigade also distinguished itself at the opening of the Grafton Bridge in July 1932. In October 1985, Tabulam celebrated the centenary of the foundation of the Upper Clarence Light Horse, when the 41st Battalion and the 1st/15th lancer regiment from Parramatta, complete with military band, led a march through town in what was not just a significant chapter in Tabulam's history but, indeed, the history of this nation.
We have often said that age is no boundary, and this is certainly the case for Angourie swimmer, Helmut Klein and his wife Jan. Last year in April Helmut competed in the Queensland state masters swimming championships and collected no less than eight medals. In May, he and Jan competed at the masters swimming championships in Victoria, where Helmut won an impressive haul of one silver and five bronze metals, with Jan just missing out on the finals. In November, the couple competed in the Pan Pacific Masters Games on the Gold Coast. Helmut collected another nine metals, including three gold. Jan also made it into the finals, finishing in the top eight in three events. Helmut's overall fourth place at the Pan Pacific Masters Games qualifies him for the first World Masters Games to be held in New Zealand in April. He will compete in the breaststroke, backstroke and the 2½ kilometre ocean swim events. Helmut stays in competitive shape by swimming with locals every morning at Yamba. He is also a member of Yamba Surf Life Saving Club, earning his bronze medallion three years ago. I wish him and Jan all the best of luck.
I wish to raise an important issue that has been coming up in my office for several weeks now, and that is about the Centrelink automated debt letters. My office is receiving call after call, email after email, from people receiving Centrelink notices alleging that they owe money. In some of these cases, we are talking about over five years worth of debt accrual, and the burden of proof is on the individual.
I have to tell you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that I do not have pay slips from 2012 and I am not sure many of us do. My constituents are incredibly upset and incredibly concerned about where they can possibly get these pay slips, so that they can show that they owe no debt. What you do if the company that you worked for is no longer there? These are the experiences of many people in my electorate. I want tell you some of the many stories of hardship and suffering that the Centrelink robo-debts are causing.
One man who called my office—let's call him Jack—broke his collarbone several years ago. While it was healing Jack was unable to work. Now back in the workforce, Jack is working overtime for his family to save money for the imminent arrival of his first child. Centrelink sent him a debt notice for $3,000. Jack has never been overpaid by Centrelink. The debt is wrong. It is false. Jack has tried to call Centrelink to resolve the debt, but to no avail. He has spent hour after hour on hold on the Centrelink line. Jack has tried over and over again to address this debt with Centrelink. If you are calling from a mobile, this call is not free and people are using up their credit just trying to get through.
Anyone who has dealt with Centrelink knows that nothing ever gets resolved quickly. I remember that on Radio National the Minister for Human Services claimed that the average call waiting time for Centrelink was 12 minutes. I am sorry; I have to dispute that. To me that sounds like alternative facts. In the meantime, Jack started making part payments to avoid the debt collectors. He was, and he still is, putting in the hard yards—he is working a huge amount of overtime; he wants to provide for his family—and all of this for a debt he does not even owe.
Outraged people are calling the robo-debts government fraud. I disagree. If there was an individual card company unconscionably scraping money from Australians, then, yes, it would be fraud. But where a government raises debts against its citizens knowing the debts are false means it is no longer fraud; I believe it oppression. Jack called our office, desperate for help. It took us many hours of work, but finally we managed to get through to Centrelink and get a review of his debt. He does not owe a cent—all of that anxiety that Jack has gone through was for nothing.
Centrelink is getting the situation wrong by a factor of 150, and this is an absolute farce. I am having constituent after constituent told that actually they do not owe any money at all. I really urge this government: please, let us put these debt letters to one side; let us get a system that is fair and proper with true oversight. Some people are getting letters—they are providing information to Centrelink and they are being told that no further action is required, but then they get a further letter saying that they owe debt. The robo-debts system, I believe, is in 'robo-chaos'. If somebody owes a debt to Centrelink, then by all means this government should try to recover that money; however, this robo-debts system is scooping up hundreds of thousands of innocent, law-abiding citizens and it is just not right. Again, I call on the government to flick off the switch of the robo-debts automated system until it is fixed. Turn off the machine and end the oppressive hardship that is targeting our vulnerable people. There really is no need for us as a nation to dismantle the integrity of a Commonwealth department, which is exactly what this robo-debt system is doing.
On 31 January I had the pleasure of visiting Cafe 41 at Penshurst for its annual fundraising morning with 3Bridges Community. Of course, 3Bridges is a very important organisation in my electorate, providing a whole range of services to kids, to the elderly, to people in the Chinese-Australian community and to many other groups. It was great to see 3Bridges and Cafe 41 coming together for this fundraising morning and to share a cup of tea with Rosemary Bishop, the CEO of 3Bridges, and Barry Gallagher, the director of operations. I would also like to congratulate Meega Jeon, the owner of Cafe 41, for her hospitality on the day. Funds from the day were donated to 3Bridges' early years support service, which is a program designed to help disadvantaged or vulnerable mums when they first become a mother and are seeking support. Volunteers provide support to those new mums, and 3Bridges, in coordinating this program, provides a very valuable service to our community. Thank you to 3Bridges and thank you also to Cafe 41.
On 4 February, I attended the Vietnamese New Year Tet Festival at Fairfield Showground. It is an event I like to get to every year. It is one of the largest events in Sydney over the whole year—literally tens of thousands of people go to the Tet Festival. This year was a lunar new year. It is the year of the rooster. As always, it was a great event. It was good to see the fireworks display, all of the different cultural activities and the rides that kids were enjoying. One thing the community does every year is highlight the students of Vietnamese background, Australian-Vietnamese students, who have obtained a university entrance rank of 99 or above. The students each year are presented and congratulated in front of a crowd, and I think that is a very nice tradition because it is saying how much the community values education and, frankly, not being shy about shining a light on those who are truly exceptional, which these kids are.
So congratulations to the Vietnamese Community Association in Australia, led by its president, Dr Thang Ha. I would also like to Davy Nguyen, of VCA, for all the work that he does in the Vietnamese community and the broader Australian community.
Last weekend, on 11 February, I attended the Australian Chinese Charity Foundation's Chinese New Year celebration. It was good to be able to represent the Prime Minister on the night. The Australian Chinese Charity Foundation has existed for close to three decades and has raised literally millions of dollars for different charities. This year, the beneficiary was the Immigrant Women's Speakout Association. Close to $40,000 was raised—an extraordinary effort—by the ACCF. Thank you to the chairman of ACCF, Dr Michael Tse; to the many past chairmen who were there on the evening, Hudson Chen,Peter Wong and various others; and to ACCF for your sustained and ongoing contribution to our community.
It is estimated that there are about 120,000 Australians of Shanghainese background—people who trace their family ancestry back to Shanghai and surrounds—living in New South Wales. Recently, it was good to visit the President of the Australian Shanghainese Association, Dr John Zhang, and other members of the association at their clubhouse, which is right in the heart of my electorate, in Padstow. The association was formed back in 1994 and provides great opportunities for people from a Shanghainese background to get together and to talk about issues of importance and also for important economic and cultural exchange between our two nations, with people from the association visiting China and also welcoming delegations from Shanghai as well. The association assists many people in learning English and provides a range of other services, so thank you to all the members of the Australian Shanghainese Association. (Time expired)
Jobs and the cost of living rank as the most pressing issue in my electorate of Petrie. In fact, I know from speaking with my colleagues that these rank among the most significant issues weighing on the minds and lives of all Australians. When dealing with issues of this level of significance, it is important we do not muddy the waters of truth and fact. Maybe that is why I feel a little stroppy today. I am happy to take the odd hit. In fact, as someone for whom judo has been a large part of life, I have worn plenty. And as a representative of the people, the occasional touch-up comes with the territory, doesn't it?
I know the opposition does not care to let the facts get in the way of a good story. I am not of that ilk. And when it comes to jobs and the cost of living I resent being dragged into political poppycock. In the chamber last week I said you can purchase a house in my electorate for under $300,000. Queensland Senator Chris Ketter found that hard to believe. He said that I was out of touch. I will say it again here today: you can buy a house in my electorate for under $300,000. Senator Ketter would not know that, because he does not live in the electorate, but if he finds it so hard to believe then he might like to jump onto realestate.com.au and scroll through the pages of homes for sale in my electorate for under $300,000. Also, I was looking at homes last night for under $300,000 in the neighbouring electorate of Longman, in Narangba. He is right, if you listen to Labor it is hard to believe. A home under $300,000 in the best electorate in the nation?
There is a serious side to proliferation of pollywaffle, coming out of the mouths of some of those with the wrong end of the stick. Today, one of the papers in my local area is running a story based on Senator Ketter's twaddle. It highlights the importance of doing your research and the value of rigour in reporting. Unfortunately, in this case, the journalist did not call me. I would like to put on the record and say to the media: 'My door is always open, and I am only a phone call away.'
With that off my chest I would like to shine the light on something a little more positive: a constructive approach to helping young people find work. I congratulate the government for the PaTH initiative. It will help vulnerable young people take advantage of job opportunities as the economy diversifies and transitions to broader based growth. Drawing together feedback from business, research, international best practice and domestic experience, the PaTH program is a win-win opportunity for job seekers and business. It is an innovative program that will make a tangible difference in the lives of young people who would benefit from assistance and encouragement to learn new skills, become job ready, get a job and stay in a job.
Australia's future growth and prosperity relies on having a sufficient workforce to fill the jobs of tomorrow. To do so, we need to increase workforce participation, especially by supporting young Australians to get and keep jobs. Youth unemployment in my electorate has dropped significantly in the past three years, but if there is even one young person in Petrie that wants a job and cannot find one, then youth unemployment will remain on my radar. I look forward to getting back into my electorate next week and speaking with businesses about opportunities to get involved with the PaTH program.
Opening the door to ongoing employment is vital for independence and long-term opportunity. It is the key to the great Australian dream, which for many remains represented as a good job and a goal for home ownership. Oh, and anyone looking for an affordable home knows where to find one. Just ask Senator Ketter: homes in Petrie for under $300,000. It is only a shame Senator Ketter does not quite fit the 18- to 25-year age profile for the PaTH program, because I think I might be able to assist him into a new job in real estate. I think he would go alright with a little training, but he would need to get a lot better at doing his sums.
This year marks the 70th anniversary of the establishment of the Central Australian Football League. Like many organisations in Alice Springs, the league began in the years immediately after World War II, as the community settled down after the excitement and sacrifice of those war years.
The league has flourished over those many years. It is now a vibrant competition with several grades, catering to thousands of keen footy followers in remote communities, some who travel up to 500 kilometres to get a game, from Kintore or Docker River.
Late last year the league lost one of its stalwarts, Cal Dean, who passed away in Mildura. He was not a player, but over 30 years, until his retirement about five years ago, he was the backbone of the league. Not as a CEO, not as a president, but as an outstanding jack-of-all-trades. He started his journey with football in Alice Springs in 1963 and was tireless in his efforts. His name is now synonymous with football in the Red Centre.
Cal started with Pioneer Football Club, serving many years on the committee, and at various times held roles of secretary, delegate, team manager and—as he should be—a life member of the Pioneer Football Club. His remarkable professionalism, passion and commitment to the game did not go unnoticed; he was five times awarded the AFL Central Australia Harrison Trophy for services to football, in 1975, 1987, 1994, 1996 and 2004.
In 1997 Cal received the National Australian Football Council Merit Award and in 2000 was awarded the Australian Sports Medal for services to football.
In 2005 Cal was named a member of 8HA's Central Australia Outback Team of Champions, which acknowledged the contributions of players, umpires and administrators in Alice Springs since 1948. In 2005 Cal was inducted into the CAFL Hall of Fame and was also a CAFL Life Member. The development and progression of local juniors was one of Cal's greatest pleasures, and the players from Alice Springs who have made it to national or state levels all hold great respect for Cal and his efforts. It is fitting that the 'best on ground medal' in the CAFL Under 17 Grand Final is named in his honour.
Many locals say that footy in Alice Springs would not be where it is today without the efforts of Cal. Even when Cal retired, he remained a major supporter of football in Alice Springs. As could be expected, he was a fixture at Traeger Park Football Ground, working all weekend during footy season. If he wasn't chasing footballs that had gone over the fence down Gap Road, which often happens in some places, he was calling the game for the community radio station, CAAMA—the Aboriginal radio station. His knowledge of the game, the players and their communities meant he gathered an audience from Tennant Creek to the Pit lands of South Australia.
Many AFL players have been mentored by Cal, such as Darryl White, a triple premiership player for the Brisbane Lions; the Bowden brothers of Richmond; and the McAdam brothers, Gilbert and Adrian. All paid tribute to Cal on his passing. When Cal retired to Mildura several years ago, many ex-players made the journey to visit him while he was ill. He shared with them many stories of games and characters.
Mr Deputy Speaker Irons, you know what it is like living in a community where people stand out because of their activities and contributions to your community, often in ways that are unseen or not properly recognised. You see this person—the shirt, the hair, the shorts or whatever the clothing might be—in the community, doing things for the community. When you see this person working 24/7 for so many years for the love of a game—in this case Aussie rules—then the community is the better for it. We need to recognise the contributions of Cal and other champions like him a little more often in this place.
Question agreed to.
Federation Chamber adjourned at 12 : 33