Today, I present the 12th report of the Petitions Committee for the 45th Parliament, together with 19 petitions and 12 ministerial responses to petitions previously presented.
I present 12 ministerial responses to petitions previously presented.
It is great to see so many petitions being received electronically. The committee have also recently launched an inquiry into the e-petitions system to seek comment on the current e-petitions system and to learn how it can be further improved. The committee expects this inquiry will encourage even more democratic engagement with parliament. I will continue to provide updates to the House on the work of the Petitions Committee and the inquiry into e-petitions.
Mr Speaker, I seek to make a personal explanation.
Does the member claim to have been misrepresented?
I do.
The member for Scullin may proceed.
In question time on Thursday, the immigration minister made reference to a statement he said I had tweeted in respect of the citizenship changes: 'This is a shameful abdication of responsibility.' I did no such thing. The tweet I imagine he was referring to related, in fact, to parole, and also quoted comments of our Prime Minister as reported by a journalist. I am not sure which is more troubling: that the minister is so concerned that he spends so much time in my Twitter feed that he cannot accurately report it or that he does not know the difference between parole and citizenship.
On behalf of the Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training, I present the committee's report entitled Inquiry into innovation and creativity: workforce for the new economy, together with the minutes of proceedings.
Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).
On behalf of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training, I presented the report of the committee entitled Inquiry into innovation and creativity: workforce for the new economy, together with the minutes of proceedings. This was an inquiry referred to us by Minister Birmingham to ensure Australia's tertiary education system, including universities and public and private providers of vocational education and training, can meet the needs of our future labour force, with a real focus on innovation and creativity, something which we picked up on in the previous parliament.
This inquiry and the report comes at a time when there is a promising innovation ecosystem in Australia. Innovative companies are now recognised on a global stage. It has been the role of government to support these companies and to maximise their propensity to drive the research behind their products. In so doing, government needs to ensure that the policies and programs that it implements are as effective as possible. To that end, the report makes 38 recommendations.
The Prime Minister's National Innovation and Science Agenda—or NISA, to those that adore it—outlines a framework for Australian innovation policy and provides significant national focus and direction. For this reason, it was timely to examine the precursors of innovation and creativity in the workforce. That starts, as we all understand, at school level and goes right through to the innovation frontline in both industry and start-ups. In building young minds for the world in which they will work, it is critical that their knowledge foundation, from where they begin their education, is absolutely solid, and most of this starts at the primary school level or even before. That foundation is essential so that they can meet the challenges of a changing workforce.
The committee's report confirms that the quantity and the quality of our university STEM graduates is utterly dependent on the quality of STEM education in schools. Too often we found that STEM subjects, particularly maths, are not being taught by qualified teachers who have a specific proficiency in these subjects. This report proposes that we do something about that. We proposed that CSIRO and ANSTO develop a pilot STEM role model program and assess the impact. We proposed that the government, through COAG, develop a systematic approach to career advice which can be externally and independently assessed. And we have proposed, as I mentioned before, that we examine the mismatch where STEM teaching is occurring under non-STEM trained teachers, that we fix it and that we commit to phasing that out within five years, increasing the likelihood that teachers that are in the STEM area have STEM qualifications.
The committee also recommended that the Australian government develop online credentialing so that teachers can independently go out and improve their STEM qualifications, and that they can do that online in their own time and be supported in doing it. We recommended that university education facilities work with their states to produce workforce estimates about the kinds of STEM skills we are going to need and report them publicly, provide STEM enhancement strategies for preservice course work, particularly for teachers, and start to collect more data on how many maths and science teachers are actually being qualified by respective education faculties. We have recommended that COAG work with the jurisdictions to ensure every school has a STEM specialist; that STEM professional development programs are available for teaching staff wherever they are in Australia; that we guide principals in being leaders in STEM; that—as I expect my deputy chair to refer to—we recognise the importance of STEM; and, lastly, that we talk to universities about where maths must remain a prerequisite so that it sends a very clear signal to schools about the importance of these areas.
The committee's view is that vocational education is just as important in both the university sector and the TAFE sector. So we have included important evidence about private sector start-ups and others that are most exposed to these changes in our workforce. We took this imposing task head on and acknowledged the challenges that workforce planners have. We noted that, apart from a handful of collocated institutions, there are still insufficient connections between universities and TAFEs. In higher education, students will benefit from more opportunities in work integrated learning as well.
This work was done thanks to the very detailed contributions made by witnesses and those who presented to our committee. I want to thank my deputy chair and all of the members on our committee. I also want to thank our secretariat: Julie Agostino, Richard Grant, Robert Little, Samantha Leahy, Rebeka Mills, Katrina Gillogly and Kelly Bert. Thank you very much.
I also rise to speak to the tabling of the report from the Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training, Inquiry into innovation and creativity: workforce for the new economy. Like the chair, I take the opportunity to thank all of the members of the committee—there were many during the inquiry; it was a long inquiry—and I also want to take the opportunity to thank our secretariat. I note that Mr Little is with us here today in the chamber, and I thank him for his work. I also thank all of the other members of the secretariat that the member for Bowman mentioned. I also thank the member for Bowman for his leadership in this inquiry. It was a pleasure to be a part of this inquiry and to be a part of preparing this report.
Education helps equip future workers with the skills that they will need for the jobs and the businesses of the future. It also helps create citizens. People need to be equipped with knowledge and skills to help their future participation in society. For both of these ends decisive action is needed so that formal education can serve individuals' interests and also the national interest.
This was a wide-ranging inquiry that went to a range of the skills matters that are needed for the jobs and businesses of the future. As the chair mentioned, there was a significant focus on the arts and creative industries from amongst the submitters, and the report expressly and explicitly acknowledges the significance and importance of the arts and creative industries in the context of developing science, technology, engineering and maths skills; obviously, we refer to the acronym STEAM, which includes arts amongst those other skills. Other submitters would add other letters to the acronym—most relevantly, entrepreneurialism, the ESTEAM that we hear speak of, and there are others.
That is important to remember, because sometimes when you hear the acronym STEM you can think that it is quite a narrow focus. In fact, we are talking about skills that will be needed across occupations, across jobs, across industries and across sectors. As important as science, technology, engineering and maths will be arts and creative skills. In fact, some of the submitters identified the need for more champions for the arts within government and picked up on their concern about the absence of arts and creative industries from their perception of the absence of those things from the National Innovation and Science Agenda. It is something that will require further thought and I hope that our report will kick off some discussion about those issues.
The committee was also very keen to ensure that training via vocational education and training is at the heart of the National Innovation and Science Agenda. As the chair said, we are interested in the ways that people can move between vocational education and university education, and higher education more broadly. Our focus was on permeability not hierarchy. We do not seek to establish a hierarchy between higher education and vocational education and training, and the language, carefully, is aimed at describing movement between not moving up to or moving in a hierarchical way between those two sectors. We believe there will be an increasing focus on making sure there is that permeability between those two forms of training and education.
Providing relevant skills that respond to employer needs is a large focus of this report, of course, but that should not be read as suggesting that the purpose and mission of education is limited to making people job ready. Economic participation facilitates democratic and social participation as well. So while job readiness is very important—crucial, in the focus of this report—it also serves a much broader aim.
This report makes a range of recommendations for change and, as I said, decisive action is needed. As I also said, a focus is better integration between university and vocational education and, specifically, TAFE. But we also focus on a range of things that will help with better integration with industry: work integrated learning, gender equity, making sure that maths is taught in schools, and entrepreneurialism. These are all things that are canvassed in this report. We have also seen, in the course of this report, opportunities for industry collaboration and creative industries that could be better developed. That would also invite a stronger focus on creative industries—more broadly, by government—and I am very pleased that the report recommends that the Australian government introduce a funding scheme based on the former Australian Interactive Games Fund, which was, unfortunately, cut in the 2014 budget. At the time, I spoke out against those cuts and I am pleased that this report recommends the reinstatement of that scheme.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I ask: what is a reputation worth? It meant everything to Australian actress and comedian Rebel Wilson who successfully sued Bauer Media for defamation on a series of gossip magazine articles she claimed painted her as a serial liar.
Brand reputation was worth a staggering $8.5 billion for the instant messaging app Skype which was purchased by Microsoft in 2011.
Like 'Google', 'Skype' has become a verb in the modern vernacular and when you are battling for the hearts and minds and money of consumers in the information saturated world, name recognition is priceless.
Today I rise to speak to protect the reputation of an industry that is central to Australia's economy and the Australian way of life. Today I am speaking about the Australian beef industry.
The Competition and Consumer Amendment (Safeguarding the Reputation of Australian Beef) Bill seeks to safeguard one of the country's oldest and most profitable export industries from losing its good name through no fault of its own.
This bill, if passed, would make it illegal for an Australian company or an individual in Australia to market beef as an 'Australian' product if the meat they are selling has not been processed under Australian standards and regulations and, importantly, in Australia.
We have high food standards in Australia, and they cost money, big money, and they are the reason that we have a quality range of standards.
That quality—that well-earned reputation—is worth a premium in export markets.
That premium helps pay for animal welfare regulations, for the ethical transporting, handling and processing of Australian beef.
It helps to pay for strict food hygiene processes and modern equipment at our abattoirs.
And it helps to pay the award wages and ensure Australian working conditions, good conditions, for the 35,000 full-time equivalent jobs provided by the meat processing industry in Australia.
So we at NXT believe it is manifestly unfair that a company could bypass all that regulation and scrutiny by processing Australian cattle overseas—but still profit from the reputation of Australian beef by marketing their product as Australian beef.
We would go so far as to say it is 'un-Australian' to take a free ride on the hard work of others.
So we at NXT want to keep those 35,000 jobs in Australia, and the 100,000 indirect jobs associated with meat processing through sectors such as transport and storage.
We believe that this bill will close a loophole and ensure a level playing field for the beef industry, and the red meat industry as a whole.
We understand from our discussion with industry bodies that beef products derived from live cattle export are not permitted to market themselves as 'Australian beef' products.
We also understand that it can be hard to police, particularly in the markets of less developed countries, and it can be difficult to seek enforcement of market breaches from other sovereign nations.
That is why we need to have these safeguards in place within Australia.
Penalties in this bill include a maximum fine of $1.1 million for Australian companies and corporate bodies and $220,000 for individuals.
These are substantive enough to deter those determined to get around the rules. If the threat of a court conviction and the public attention would not be enough, I think the dollars certainly are.
Last year the red meat and livestock industry (including domestic and live export markets) was worth $22.9 billion to this nation.
The red meat industry, which includes sheep, lamb and goats as well as beef, directly employs around 200,000 people, including on-farm production, processing and retail.
Last year Australia processed 7.9 million head of cattle and exported $7.15 billion worth of beef.
Fewer than 23 million lambs, seven million sheep and about two million goats were processed.
Australia is the largest exporter of sheep meat in the world with the total value of lamb exports in the 2015-16 year estimated at $1.7 billion, with mutton being worth $700 million.
There are about 200 licensed abattoirs in Australia, including 78 export-accredited plants processing red meat.
They are jobs in regional Australia, and we need to safeguard those jobs.
The red meat processing industry is a huge contributor to Australia's bottom line and a major employer.
As I said, we cannot afford to put this Australian-based industry in jeopardy by taking away their competitive advantage and their reputation for quality.
In 2015-16 alone, Meat & Livestock Australia spent $24.3 million on its activities including developing market access, marketing meat products, meat safety and traceability programs, training, research and development. That is a significant investment.
That money was raised mainly through producer and processor levies with some matched funding from government for research.
This is an industry walking the walk in ensuring its longevity.
We need to safeguard that investment by ensuring other enterprises do not ruin Australia's reputation by selling meat that is substandard or processed in an environment where we, as Australians, cannot determine its standards and yet labelling it as an Australian product.
You only have to look at the food contamination scandals we have seen in the United Kingdom with mad cow disease or the E.coli outbreaks in the Jack in the Box burgers in the US—we have seen it even with berries and hepatitis scares—to realise how easily an industry can take a blow to its reputation.
When overseas buyers pay a premium for an Australian steak, they know they are purchasing a meat cut that will not only taste delicious but has been ethically and hygienically prepared.
Australian processors manage that reputation through strict regulations.
The Australian based industry should not be made to take on responsibility for the risks associated with plants outside of its borders, control and management.
We have no jurisdiction over regulating overseas enterprises.
But we can close the gate before the cattle have bolted.
The Competition and Consumer Amendment (Safeguarding the Reputation of Australian Beef) Bill seeks to shield the Australian beef industry from losing its good name through no fault its own.
We need to ensure a level playing field and prevent the unnecessary export of Australian jobs.
Is the motion seconded?
I second the motion. In my home town of Charters Towers, we had the biggest meatworks in Australia. Through the financial collapse of the company and a couple of other issues, we now do not have a meatworks in Charters Towers. But, being the centre of a huge cattle-growing area, we have had meetings with almost all Chinese interests. I was very surprised that, in each case when I said, 'Maybe we should have a quartering works and you do the final processing out'—which is the major labour content—'in China,' in an effort to encourage them to come in, because the amount of capital required is nowhere near as great if we go to quartering, every one of the groups from China said they wanted everything done in Australia. The people who were introducing them to us got us aside afterwards and said, 'If it wears an Australian stamp, they believe it has been hygienically processed. If it doesn't bear an Australian stamp, they assume it has been processed in China, and it may not have been hygienically approved.' The terrible case that happened in China with their baby milk, which was processed in China, led them to buy out the dairy farms in Tasmania and endeavour to get around the problem that way.
I make these points to indicate to the parliament that we have a very good reputation for hygiene in Australia. If you buy something that is processed in Australia, you can count on it meeting the highest of hygiene standards in the world. If the member's legislation does not go through, our reputation will be placed grave jeopardy because I cannot see anything that would stop the initiatives coming out of what is now the Chinese-controlled S. Kidman & Co Ltd. That company has said that they will control all of the chain into China, so I would assume that they would be doing their processing in China, in the way that it was put. (Time expired)
The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
It goes without saying that technology is a wonderful thing. Technology gives businesses the opportunity to operate with much greater efficiency; hopefully be more profitable and hopefully employ more people. Of course, technology gives consumers the opportunity to have much greater access to goods and services, and hopefully at a better price. So it is a good thing, but technology is no good for consumers in some situations. For example, it is no good if it limits choices. I am sure I can speak for many members when I say that it is not unusual for constituents to approach us and say they are dismayed by the lack of counter services, say, with government agencies—Centrelink, Medicare and so on. I know a particular problem in Tasmania in Hobart was getting rid of the counter service for seniors at the Centrelink office. The government and, indeed, many businesses are increasingly going online and getting rid of the face-to-face contact, which we have had in the past and which many people have grown accustomed to and rely on.
Of course, it is no good for consumers when technology allows them to hide misconduct. I am very pleased that this parliament has now taken some action to clamp down on the airlines in particular gouging on credit card fees. You see a cheap airfare and you go to book it and, all of a sudden, you are up for another $7 or $14 or $21 to use your credit card, even though you know full well that the cost to the airline is a tiny fraction of that. We still have the problem with hire car companies. You see an ad for $49 a day to hire a car and by the time you have finished your online booking, you seem to be spending near on $100 a day to hire a car.
Another problem with technology is the increasing practice of some companies, seemingly many companies these days, where they are only offering electronic statements or they are offering paper statements, but they are charging customers to get those paper statements. I have received many complaints about this increasingly commonplace practice and that is why I stand here today, and I think I speak for many of my colleagues in this place, saying that there are many of our constituents who are increasingly concerned with this practice—this practice of companies only offering electronic statements and not asking the consumer if they are happy with that and, if they do offer paper statements, charging those customers to get a copy of that paper statement.
This is a problem for all sorts of reasons not just that people do not like change, although that is relevant. For a start, some people do simply do not have the internet or email, or if they do have the internet it may not be reliable enough to ensure that they will always get a copy of that invoice, whether it be an electricity bill, a phone bill or a water bill or whatever. Regrettably, some people just cannot afford to have the internet or access to email. That might seem a remarkable proposition to us in here on the very big wages that we are on, but of course many of our constituents, many of my constituents, do not have a spare several dollars and have to go without things. One of the obvious things for them to go without is internet access. The point here is that this move towards electronic statements, this move towards charging for paper statements, is one of those things that has a disproportionate impact on low-income members of our community and on disadvantaged members of our community. Of course, there are other people who simply do not trust the transmission of personal information and financial information over the internet. They do not do it. They do not want to bank online and they do not want to get their invoices or their statements online, and that is fair enough. I can understand why some people would be very cautious about the internet and not wanting this information being transmitted over the internet.
An issue is that the cost of issuing a statement to a customer is a part of doing business. It should not be seen as an extra or a bit of a bonus that someone should have to pay for; it is the cost of doing business. Like other baseline costs of doing business, it should be socialised among all of the customers of the business. If some customers, quite rightly, still want to receive a paper statement, then they should get a paper statement and they should not have to pay a premium for that; it should be socialised across all of the customers of the business. As I say, it is part of the baseline cost of doing business. When a company gets in electricity bill, it does not divvy up the cost of the electricity bill to some of its customers, or it should not; it socialises that electricity bill across its entire customer base. It is the same with its water bill, its rates and the inputs into its production. A motor car company does not charge only some people for spark plugs; it is a cost of doing business.
That brings me to the purpose of this bill. It is a pretty straightforward bill and it is one of those bills that I hope would have the support of everyone in this House. In essence, the bill that I am tabling today would ensure that, when a supplier gives a bill, statement or proof of transaction to a customer, it is provided in paper form unless the customer consents to receive it electronically. Furthermore, the bill would prevent customers being charged a fee for receiving a paper bill, statement or proof of transaction in paper. It is pretty straightforward and it builds on the existing requirement in Consumer Law for customers to be given bill statements and proofs of transactions. This does not change that; it simply says that, if a company wants to move to electronic statements, it can only do so with the consent of the customer and, if the customer does not consent, that customer will continue to receive paper bills and that customer will not be charged any premium for receiving those paper bills.
The bill before the House allows for penalties to be imposed when suppliers do not comply with the law. As with other Consumer Law, the ACCC would be the body that would enforce compliance. It would only apply to goods and services sold after this bill comes into effect. I should say that I have developed this very much in response to the concerns of my constituents and the concerns of the member for Indi, who is very kindly seconding this bill. She is as concerned as me. I see my crossbench colleagues nodding, including the member for Kennedy and the member for Mayo. We have all received these sorts of complaints from our constituents, including the member for Dawson. It is all very straightforward. I would like to acknowledge the Keep Me Posted campaign, which has been very exercised about this matter. They have been lobbying many, if not all, members of this House.
This is one of the issues about which the government really needs to be responsive to the community. Just because this bill did not come from the government does not mean it should not be supported. We have a duty in here to be responsive to our community by hearing what their concerns are and trying to address those concerns to solve the problems. We have a duty to come in here and be collegiate. Is it is very unusual for the government to embrace and support a bill from the opposition and from the crossbench. It happens all too rarely. I think we are letting the community down with that because the community does expect us to be collegiate. When we see a problem we should fix it. When the solution comes from anyone in this House, if it is a good solution we should get behind it.
I call on the government in this case to be less beholden to the interests of business. Sure this move towards electronic statements and charging for paper bills does improve a business's bottom line, but it is not just about business. It is about getting the balance between the rights and needs of business and the rights and needs of consumers and members of the community. This is a good opportunity for the government to show that it is prepared to identify a problem, to work collegially, to not be beholden to business interests and to understand just as well that it needs to be responsive to members of the community. Again I would like to single out the member for Indi for seconding this bill and for her interest in this matter.
Is the motion seconded?
I second this motion, as this bill supports the people who live in regional and rural areas who have access to very poor internet and mobile phone coverage. This is a huge concern in my electorate. I totally support the words of the member for Denison. I thank him for bringing this to the attention of the parliament and I look forward to working with the government to progress this issue. It is causing huge concern, particularly for older people who not only do not have internet access but find it extraordinarily hard to manage online services. I thank the member for Denison. I am very happy to second the motion.
The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting.
Pursuant with standing order 113, I fix the next sitting Monday as the day for presenting the Religious Certification (Non-Discrimination) Bill 2017.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
With the Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Take Home Pay of All Workers) Bill 2017 I am breaking ranks with the government, and I do so for a number of reasons. First of all, legislation concerning people's livelihoods and their ability to put food on the table should be considered very carefully. It must be fair and it must be fair for all. This bill is fair in that it is fair for all. It is fair for the people who are most at risk of losing pay under changes to penalty rates. It is fair for people who have already had their penalty rates bargained away. It is fair for small businesses that are disadvantaged by dodgy deals between big businesses and big unions.
Penalty rates exist in awards for specific reasons. They recognise the fact that Saturdays and particularly Sundays are not like other days of the week. These are the days when children are not at school. These are the days when children participate in sporting, family and other activities. These are the days when the majority of working Australians take time off. Weekends are important.
The Fair Work Commission is the industrial relations tribunal. It is an independent tribunal, created by the Labor Party in 2009 and currently headed by a president appointed by Labor in 2012. The person who brought down this decision was also appointed by the Labor Party. In fact, when the Leader of the Opposition was the Minister for Workplace Relations he instigated the process that saw the Fair Work Commission hand down its decision on penalty rates in February this year. According to the commission:
… the Penalty Rates decision determined that the existing Sunday penalty rates in the Hospitality,Fast Food,Retail and Pharmacy Awards did not achieve the modern awards objective, as they do not provide a fair and relevant minimum safety net.
… the effect of the Penalty Rates decision was to reduce Sunday penalty rates to 150 per cent for full-time and part-time employees and to 175 per cent for casual employees, in the Hospitality,Fast Food,Retail and Pharmacy Awards …
The commission also said:
The decision reduced the Sunday penalty rates in the Fast Food Award (for Level 1 employees only) to 125 per cent for full-time and part-time employees and 150 per cent for casual employees.
I believe the Fair Work Commission has got it wrong on two accounts. Firstly, some workers have already had much of their penalty rates actually stripped away altogether and, secondly, their decision—the fair work decision—would see some workers take home less pay. I do not believe any workers should take home less pay as a result of legislation or even as a result of some dodgy deal between a big business and a big union. I do not want to see people who work only or predominantly on Sundays or weekends to have chunks of their pay taken away. A mother, or anyone for that fact, who works only one day a week on a Sunday—the only day that he or she might be able to work—will take less home less pay each week if their penalty rates are cut by the Fair Work Commission and its decision, or are cut via penalty rates being bargained away by unions and big business.
In some cases where these union deals have traded away penalty rates, take-home pay on a Sunday is cut in half. For example, the deal done with Vinpac in the Hunter Valley reduced Sunday wage for a level 1 permanent worker from $207.12 to $107.46. How does an enterprise agreement that reduces Sunday pay by a hundred dollars pass the no-disadvantage test, particularly to someone who is only working or mainly on Sundays. There are many examples where dodgy deals struck with unions between 2000 and 2007 reduced Sunday penalty rates to zero. It beggars believe that unions, which are supposed to look after the interests of workers, actually agreed to these deals. For 480 workers at the notorious Cleanevent Australia, the Sunday penalty rate was reduced from double time to nothing. We saw the same thing happen to inspection employees at WFI around the country, at Kanga Foods in South Australia, at Rydges Tradewinds Cairns in Queensland and DJ&M Burns in Victoria. We saw 780 workers at Big W stores in North Queensland have their penalty rates on Sundays cut in half, costing $51.88 for the Sunday shift—$2½-plus thousand a year lost for workers who work only on Sundays.
Right now KFC in Queensland and Tweed Heads has an agreement with 4,229 workers which eliminates their Sunday penalty rates at a cost of $60.65 per Sunday shift. KFC's deal is an example of the disadvantage these dodgy deals have imposed on small businesses because the mum-and-dad corner shop is forced to pay penalty rates for the staff cooking a chicken burger, while KFC pays absolutely nothing. Small business provides a larger share of employment in this country, and it already does it tough without watching unions handball another competitive advantage to big business.
I believe that rank-and-file members of the Labor Party and the Greens would fully support this bill and I challenge the members opposite, and those in the Senate, to demonstrate that they do, in fact, support Australian workers—all Australian workers. I challenge the unions to instruct their members to support this bill and to instruct their puppets in the Labor Party to support this bill. Unions have spent a lot of their members' money on television advertising in North Queensland and country Victoria telling constituents to tell me and to tell other MPs to protect penalty rates. If they truly believe that penalty rates should be protected, they will now spend a few moments of their time and their money telling Labor MPs to do exactly the same thing with this bill.
With your indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to defer my remaining time to the member for Mayo, who is seconding the motion, to make some remarks.
I thank the member for Dawson. Is the motion seconded?
I second the motion, and I am very grateful to the member for Dawson for allowing me some of his time to talk about this important bill. I do second the Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Take Home Pay of All Workers) Bill—'all workers' bill—because I believe it gives a fair go for all workers and so I supported Labor's bill on penalty rates. The Nick Xenophon Team supported Labor's bill on penalty rates in the Senate. This bill, the Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Take Home Pay of All Workers) Bill 2017, negates the effect of the Sunday penalty rates reductions for employees in the retail, fast food, hospitality and tourism industries, as set out in the decision of the full bench of the Fair Work Commission on 23 February this year. This bill goes one major step further than Labor's bill protecting penalty rates: this bill ensures that individuals who would lose their penalty rates and be worse off under a new enterprise agreement can instead revert to the award and receive the penalty rates contained within that award—what is contentious about that? Why should somebody who is only getting shifts on Sunday be out-of-pocket to the tune of $50 or more? Why should workers be penalised simply because they predominantly work on those days? I think they deserve penalty rates, and I think Labor should believe that those workers deserve penalty rates, just as the member for Dawson believes. If Labor truly believes in protecting vulnerable workers, such as young people who can only get work on Sundays or who are perhaps at university or at school from Monday to Friday; or mums who are stay-at-home mums but take those shifts on Saturdays and Sundays while their husbands are at home looking after the children—they deserve to receive penalty rates if those are the only shifts they are getting. This bill goes one step further in that it makes sure that those vulnerable workers are not penalised by enterprise agreements which seek to trade away their penalty rates and which act against their best interests.
This bill is measured. It is balanced. This bill is not talking about existing agreements, or indeed expired agreements. It only applies to new enterprise agreements, so that when unions are negotiating, yet again, on behalf of workers, there will be a better outcome—not just for the Monday to Friday workers who can afford to join the union but also for the most vulnerable workers who cannot afford to lose even the smallest amount of money for union fees from their pay cheques. Mr Deputy Speaker, why should they miss out on penalty rates simply because the union has negotiated away their rights? This is particularly so for those who are only working those weekend shifts. This now sits with Labor. This bill sits with Labor—you are on the Selection Committee; us mere mortals on the crossbench have no power to decide what private members' business is debated in this chamber. If Labor truly believes in protecting every worker, and if they truly believe in protecting the most vulnerable workers in Australia, then they will at least give those workers the opportunity to have their plight debated in this parliament.
I thank the member for Mayo. The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and resumption of the debate will be made an order of debate for the next day of sitting.
I move:
That this House:
(1) expresses its support of Adani's decision to purchase $74 million worth of steel rail from Arrium's Whyalla steel works;
(2) recognises that the:
(a) order will help sustain jobs in South Australia and particularly in Whyalla;
(b) extra work comes at a vital time in the process of selling the Arrium business; and
(c) Arrium business in Whyalla is vital to the city's future and loss of this order would have a material impact on its future;
(3) rejects any further:
(a) attempts to delay the Adani project which was taken by both the Queensland and Commonwealth governments to their respective constituencies prior to their last elections; and
(b) delays which threaten the jobs of workers in Whyalla; and
(4) condemns actions that threaten Australian manufacturing jobs.
I rise to speak on this motion and to celebrate the fact that Adani has placed an order for $74 million worth of steel rail to come out of Whyalla for its Carmichael project. Whyalla has been sitting on the edge of a precipice for the last 15 months—since the day that Arrium announced that they were going into administration. Whyalla is a town of 23,000 people and there is only one predominant industry there. It employs and provides the knock-on employment for virtually the whole population of Whyalla. I estimate that if the mines and the steelworks were to close, we would see more than 5,000 people in the city of Whyalla on Newstart within 12 months. The rich history of steel making and iron-ore mining in Australia cannot run the risk of evaporating.
Since that time, the federal government has worked very hard to supply some kind of sustenance to Whyalla. In particular, we lent $49 million to the Arrium administrators to install to new beneficiation plants on the Middleback Ranges, which opens up the possibility of exporting ores that were previously not seen to be of high-enough quality; in fact, these ores are already mined and sitting in stockpiles. We also sent the order, through the Australian Rail Track Corporation, to re-rail the Adelaide to Tarcoola line, which is 600 kilometres long—that is, 1,200 kilometres of linear rail. That was an order worth around $80 million. And it makes such a difference to have the steelworks at capacity. It is a bit like running a motel: if your motel is running at 50 per cent, you are in trouble. If your nursing home is running at 90 per cent instead of 98 per cent, your finances are in trouble. And so it is with a steel plant. If the steel plant is running at close to 100 per cent, that is the best opportunity to derive a profit.
So this extra work has made a significant difference to Arrium in this time when we are looking for a new buyer. I hope to get onto that in a moment, because it looks exceedingly close at the moment. In this mix, there had been the pre-existing announcement by Adani that they were going to open up the Carmichael mine in Queensland and that they would need a significant amount of rail to deliver that project. I would particularly like to thank Mr Raj Guruswamy and Jeyakumar Janakaraj, commonly called Jay Jay, who is the CEO of Adani in Australia. When I spoke to them around about 12 months ago, I said, 'You need to show us that you want to invest in Australia, that you are interested in the people of Australia and the industries of Australia, and a very good signal of that would be for you to buy Whyalla rail.' And, of course, they have said that is exactly what they will do.
It looks now as though the Carmichael mine has cleared the last of the obstacles, and that order will go ahead. This is rolled gold, good news for Whyalla. It is jobs in Whyalla. And the knock-on of that is just last week we had the announcement by the creditors that their preferred bidder for the Arrium group of businesses, including the Whyalla steelworks and the Middleback iron ore deposits, is Newlake, a South Korean company which has ties back to Posco. They will build a new steel plant in Whyalla worth more than $1 billion. This will be an enormous investment for Whyalla. They will bring new technology. The Finex steel technology will produce more gases, and that will in turn give the opportunity for cogeneration to provide baseload electricity. It is a win-win-win on every level.
Of course, a very important signal in all this has been that the order books for Arrium have been full, and that has come about by dint of a renewed interest in Australian business, because they understand that it is in the national interest to keep these steelworks open. It has come about by the interest from the federal government in delivering the Adelaide to Tarcoola line and in the moves that it has made in antidumping legislation, an inquiry that I led in this place in the last parliament. It has also come about from the order that has now come from Adani. It is jobs for Whyalla, and it good news for South Australia and good news for Australia. (Time expired)
On the issue of Adani, it is quite extraordinary in this place that the Labor Party has been anti-coal. The whole Labor movement in Queensland has been founded around the coal industry. I have been involved in discussions with the state government, and I know my union, the CFMEU, has been involved in discussions with the state government. As a result of those discussions, some fortnight later, the state government announced they were in favour of it. Whilst everyone is saying that it is going to go ahead, we do not notice any dozers out there, and it seems to me that there are not going to be any dozers out there.
It is extraordinary. It is like coming into a lunatic asylum here. There do not seem to be many people here aware that one-half of Australia's entire export earnings come from coal and iron ore—a quarter from iron ore and a quarter from coal. To put that in perspective, there is $130 billion in revenue coming in from those two streams, and the next one down is gold at $11 billion. But do not worry about gas, because it is all foreign owned and there is no labour content, so $23 billion just comes in and just boomerangs back out again. So do not worry about gas; that does not figure. So what are you going to do: bankrupt your country; undermine the economy of Queensland, which depends upon coal?
I do not know where the ALP is going. They have five marginal seats in the northern half of Queensland—north of Bundaberg. If you think you are not going to get punished for being anti coal, you believe in the tooth fairy. People may be dumb at times, but they ain't that dumb. And they are not dumb all the time, so do not count on people being stupid, particularly the workers, who are much more sophisticated people now than they were in days past. If you live in Townsville, which I think is the second most marginal Labor Party seat in Australia, you are in an area that has 14 per cent unemployment and the highest crime rate in Australia. And Mackay may well be worse, except more people have got up and left Mackay. The member for Dawson has said that there are 2½ thousand houses empty in Mackay. There are a thousand houses empty between Moranbah and Charters Towers. I will personally ensure that all of the newspapers through the coal belt and in all the mining cities hear what was said by the ALP members in this place against the coal industry.
There would not be a single member of parliament here who would not have heard the expression that poor people have to decide whether to turn the lights on or have food for the night because the cost of electricity has risen by such dramatic proportions—to $2,300 per household in Queensland, and that would probably be a fair figure for the rest of Australia. It has risen by 250 per cent in the last 11 years, and it ain't stopping. Now, I am not going to stand here and be a hypocrite. The major component of that is monopoly rent. Now that the electricity industry has been corporatised, those four or five corporations have a monopoly however you want to argue it. When I went to university they taught me that this was an oligopoly and that they could charge what they liked—they do not tend to compete against each other; they compete with each other. So no-one can explain the price going up by 300 per cent. It ain't what the Liberals say, which is that the greenies have put it up by 300 per cent. They have made their contribution; they have put it up by 30 per cent that it did not need to go up by. But I am one of the very few people here— (Time expired)
I rise in support of the motion proposed by the member for Grey. In doing so, I congratulate the member for Grey for the incredible work that he is doing to support the Arrium steelworks in Whyalla in his electorate. The workers at Whyalla could not find a better champion than the member for Grey, and I think this deal is proof positive of that. A lot of people have sought to take credit for it, but I can assure you that it was the work that the member for Grey did behind the scenes that secured this agreement from Adani and, in turn, secured a $74 million contract for the Arrium steelworks.
But not everyone is so supportive of this proposal. Not everyone is as supportive of the Adani coalmine as the member for Grey is or, indeed, as I am. The former member for Wakefield, someone who sat as Speaker of this place, gave me a little bit of advice before I came here. He said to me, 'Whatever you do in this place, make sure that you act consistently.' So I am going to highlight an inconsistency about this from one of those who do not sit on the government benches.
On the one hand, we have the Nick Xenophon Team and Senator Xenophon indicating to South Australians that he is pro South Australia, that he is the greatest champion the men and women working at the Whyalla steelworks have ever seen. But embedded within the Xenophon team is the member for Mayo. Recently, in response to a rather innocuous question on her Facebook page, where a constituent of hers indicated, 'This is fantastic but what is your position on the Adani coalmine?' the member for Mayo indicated, 'I am not certain it is in the national interest.
We have a political party that says its heart beats in South Australia and says that it is for South Australian jobs, and their only representative in the House of Representatives says to the people of South Australia, 'I am not certain that the Adani coalmine is in the national interest,' effectively, what the member for Mayo is saying is she is not certain that we should be underwriting these jobs for South Australian men and women in the steelworks of Whyalla. I am very pleased that the member for Whyalla has placed herself on the speakers list, because she will be able to indicate in this place—clearly, for the people of Whyalla—whether she supports the Adani coalmine. Of course, if you do not support the Adani coalmine you do not support jobs at Whyalla.
You cannot walk both sides of this street. You either support the Adani coalmine—which, by the way, will ensure that tens of millions of Indians get access to affordable electricity and, in some cases, electricity full stop—or you do not. If you do not, you are saying to the workers at Whyalla: 'You are a step closer to these steelworks being closed and you joining the unemployment line.' I am very pleased the member for Mayo has this opportunity because I am confident she will come out and say, 'I support the steelworkers at Whyalla.' In so doing, she is indicating that she is supporting the Adani coalmine. If there is any other position put in this place, then, effectively, what the member for Mayo is saying is that she does not support those jobs.
I should indicate to her that by way of background her leader, Senator Xenophon, in the other place, is telling every journalist who will take his phone call that he was the architect of this deal. If he was the architect of this deal she must indicate that she supports the mine and that she supports the deal. Any other choice says that not only the member for Mayo does not support jobs at Whyalla but also that the Xenophon team has given up on jobs at the Whyalla steelworks. That would be a great tragedy, because the coalition is backing the Adani coalmine and jobs at Whyalla.
Before I call the next member to speak I would remind the member for Barker that you are supposed to be in your chair when you speak, in your own seat.
I hope I am standing in the right place! In one sense, I welcome the member for Grey's motion. This is a delicate time, obviously, in Arrium's history. We are coming out of a long period of receivership—nearly a year—and the people of Whyalla have been particularly stoic, particularly hard working and particularly decent in the challenges that this town has had for a year now. That uncertainty is a terrible thing to live with, and we are now coming close to light being at the end of the tunnel. We have a preferred bidder; the administrator is working through the process of the sale. We broadly have bipartisan support in this place and between federal and state governments. We have a lack of contentiousness, I think, in this area, where people have been particularly constructive and particularly careful about what they say. I think that is an important thing. I think it is important that the state Treasurer of South Australia has made a contribution—outlined; it is public. He has worked hard with the federal minister, Mr Sinodinos. There is an attempt to take some of the politics out of it and to work in the national interest.
In one sense, it is good that we are here talking about this today—and it is important that the member for Grey represent his constituents, particularly those in the iron triangle and the town of Whyalla. In another sense, what we see here are some pretty silly politics. I am all for robust debate; people who have listened to my contributions in this place would know that. I am not above having a go at the other side, or indeed the crossbenchers or anyone else where I think it is due or appropriate. But linking, in this case, the politics of Adani and North Queensland—whatever you think about that mine, I think it has to stack up under its own weight. I do find it interesting that we have the member for Barker's and the member for Grey's new-found commitment to industry policy, and the member for Barker talks about underwriting jobs, yet they sat idly while Mr Abbott and Mr Hockey completely gutted South Australia's industrial base by turning their backs on the car industry. What a difference a few years makes, I guess you could say. Cold comfort for car industry workers in my seat and my state.
I would rather that this motion's words were expressed in a different way. By all means mention this contract—it is no bad thing if Adani goes ahead that they might buy steel off of Arrium; it is a good thing—but I think it would be tremendously positive if the member for Grey might talk about the Melbourne to Brisbane Inland Rail project. I read this document on that project with some interest. The Turnbull-Joyce commitment to this project is very positive, but there is not one word in this document about Australian steel. It is a huge purchase and it is a huge bit of procurement. We could have all been in here talking about this project, in a positive and bipartisan way, giving some commitment and some future hope for the workers at Whyalla, the unions and the future buyer of the Arrium steelworks. It would have been a good thing to talk about the procurement of that project and many others. We know that we have a job to do. Procurement is not just about having a policy; it is about talking to the procurement officers about having the structures in place to make sure that the government does procure Australian steel. I think the member for Shortland might have something to say about those structures and processes.
This is an important issue. It is an important time for us to make bipartisan commitments. It is an important time for us to use bipartisan language. The people of Whyalla need that. For us to have a positive outcome, I think that is what is required. We should eschew the silly politics of trying to link this to one particular project and one particular time, and focus on the long-term future of what is a very important national asset, the Arrium steelworks at Whyalla. To that extent, I look forward to the member for Grey introducing more motions so that we can discuss this further. (Time expired)
The Nick Xenophon Team is committed to Australian jobs and Australian steel. We are especially committed to continue the operation of Arrium in Whyalla. There have been no greater supporters and no more vocal supporters than Nick Xenophon and the Nick Xenophon Team. If the Liberal and National parties were as serious about using Australian steel in Australian infrastructure as the Nick Xenophon Team is, then they would not be talking about their little pet Adani project; they would be talking about $190 billion being spent on infrastructure by state and federal governments in the next four years. The undertaking that Adani will purchase just $74 million—which, you know, is commendable, but is nothing like $190 billion in infrastructure—is only 0.04 per cent of the combined government infrastructure spending over the next four years, a mere drop in the ocean compared to the total of $190 billion over the forward estimates. As of April 2016, when it went into voluntary administration, Arrium owed $4 billion worth of debt. Seventy-four million dollars, if this much-vaunted deal ever comes to pass, will not be even two per cent of the debt that Arrium owes. So I say again: if the Liberal government, and particularly the member for Grey, is serious about supporting Arrium, Whyalla and its steelworkers, it will stop spreading false hope and get serious about its commitment to Australian jobs and Australian steel.
As to the member for Barker, while I am somewhat delighted and perplexed that he has enough time to spend looking at my Facebook page—though I, sadly, do not have much time to spend looking at his Facebook page—I am sure his constituents would much prefer he spent his time focusing on his electorate. However, I digress. The member for Barker is ignoring the massive infrastructure commitment that this federal government has made in this budget. He is choosing to talk about Adani and $74 million and he is not talking about, for example, the $8 billion proposed Inland Rail project between Melbourne and Brisbane. It is a massive 1,700 kilometres, as the member for Wakefield said. It is 1,700 kilometres of dual lane steel. It is not narrow-gauge steel across flatland, like the proposed Adani project, but standard-gauge steel that goes up and down mountains—steel for tunnels that go through hard rock and earth; steel for bridges. Any way you look at it, it will be a lot of steel and, on conservative estimates, 1,700 kilometres of rail would use 230 tonnes of steel.
What about Adani?
Member for Grey, I was incredibly respectful while you were speaking and I would appreciate it if you would do the same for me. But this is one infrastructure project within the $190 billion of government infrastructure spending. The member for Grey said on ABC Adelaide: 'That can't happen. We can't let that happen.' And yet, despite the fact that we make excellent quality steel right here in Australia, the Liberal and National parties will not commit to using Australian steel on the Inland Rail project.
Procurement rules have changed, so that we hopefully have more of a level playing field for our Australian companies who are missing out because they are not producing goods at a cheap rate overseas. Arrium and the steelworkers of Whyalla in the member for Grey's electorate are crying out to keep their jobs and the Australian engineering expertise here in Australia, but the federal government refuses to commit to Australian steel—not for the Inland Rail project nor for any other major infrastructure projects that would use Arrium steel. That is not what the taxpayers want. If the Liberal and National parties are serious about a commitment to Australian steel and Australian jobs, they would have supported the Australian car industry; they would have supported the Automotive Transformation Scheme. They did not. It was underspent and the money would not be transferred elsewhere to support manufacturing.
The federal government's response has been to do nothing while that money remains unspent, while South Australia has the highest rate of unemployment of all the mainland states and while we continue to be concerned about a tsunami of job losses with the closure of Holden, and we have the member for Grey talking about $74 million to be spent by Adani when what we are missing out on is the opportunity for the Australia government to invest in Australian steel and Australian manufacturing. The best quality steel in the world—we make it. We make strong, quality steel, not rubbish. And this should be on our national infrastructure projects.
The future of the Whyalla steelworks is an incredibly important issue. The future of Arrium is incredibly important because they employ more people than just those at Whyalla. There are steelworks and steel production in Newcastle that Arrium own which are really vital to the ongoing future of the Hunter Valley.
But to link it to the Adani debate is profoundly silly. It is profoundly silly because the future of Arrium will not be decided by what happens with Adani. If Adani goes ahead—and I will return to that if time permits—it would provide 15 days of production for the Whyalla steelworks. That would be welcome. That would be great for the steelworks. But it would be 15 days' production out of 365 days' production per annum that they have got to find orders for. So I want to put that in context.
My real point in this debate is: if the government were serious about supporting local steel and if they were serious about driving local content, they would actually match their rhetoric with action—match their words with action. But what have they done since coming to power? They have gutted the Australian Industry Participation Authority, an authority set up by Labor and an authority that was part of a $100 million package. What have they done? They gutted that package, cut funding by $70 million and, despite the bill passing in 2013, they still have not appointed an Australian Industry Participation Authority. All they have at the moment is a public servant who has been acting in that role for three years. That is how seriously the government takes industry participation. They are all talk on dumping; they make big announcements but they do not implement anything that gives our vital industries like steel real relief. There are real question marks about the enforcement of both Australian and international standards for building products coming into this country.
The member for Wakefield eloquently highlighted the pinnacle of this hypocrisy from the government, and that is that their boast about killing the automotive industry, an industry that employed 50,000 people directly and 200,000 people indirectly and ordered a lot more steel than the 15 days of steel that comes from Adani. They bragged about killing that industry; they have 250,000 jobs around their necks because of that decision. There is a bit of shadow-boxing in this debate, but we all support Whyalla going forward and we all hope that the new owners embrace it, modernise it and reinvest in it. That would be great, but to link it to Adani is profoundly silly and, by some inference, to say that you have to support a billion-dollar loan through Northern Australia Infrastructure Fund to support the Whyalla steelworks is a step further in economic lunacy. The government giving $1 billion loan to that project endangers 18,000 Hunter coalmining jobs. That is ridiculous because global coal demand has peaked and so to add another seven per cent of coal into the market through a subsidy—if it is unsubsidised, that is fine—of $1 billion from the federal government is economic lunacy and it imperils the 18,000 Hunter coalmining jobs that I proudly represent in this place.
I support the ongoing viability of Whyalla. This is a good debate, and I support and applaud the member for Grey for bringing it into the chamber. Like the member for Wakefield, I hope he brings more debate into the future of Australian steel. But I urge him in his party room to say, 'Bring back the AIP Authority and fund it properly.' Tell them too to take actions on the dumping authority and look at building standards and stop bragging about killing the Australian automotive industry.
The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
Income inequality in Australia is increasing. The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. When we look at income levels, this is the case. When we look at profit share of GDP, this is the case. In fact, recent Bureau of Statistics data show that labour's share of gross domestic product has fallen to 51.5 per cent, down from 54.2 per cent in the third quarter of last year. At the same time the profit share of GDP has gone from 24.5 per cent to a five-year high of 27.5 per cent. In respect of the recent mining boom, Australian households have not seen one cent of that additional income that came to Australia as a result of that; it has gone into the pockets of businesses. Decisions such as the decision of the Fair Work Commission in February of this year to cut weekend penalty rates for people working in hospitality, in retail, fast food, restaurant, clubs and pharmacy awards will further increase income inequality in Australia and will make life more difficult for a very vulnerable group of workers at a very difficult time.
In this respect, I applaud and support the leadership that has been shown by the Leader of the Opposition, Bill Shorten, in bringing this issue to the parliament. It is great to see that, finally, some on that side have awoken to what an issue this is—and the member for Dawson has moved a similar bill. Of course, the Leader of the Opposition said, when this case was handed down, that we would not stand by and allow vulnerable workers' penalty rates to be cut, that we would take action, despite the opposition of others and despite the opposition of the Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull. The Leader of the Opposition moved the Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Take Home Pay) Bill 2017. This bill will ensure that no employees' or prospective employees' take-home pay is reduced as a result of a variation to a modern award. That is leadership. That is standing up for the rights of low-paid workers in this country and protecting penalty rates.
If you look at who is affected by the Fair Work Commission decision, analysis of recent ABS data and certain studies show that the characteristics of those workers who are affected by this decision and who work in the hospitality, retail and pharmacy industries are as follows: they are predominantly women; they are predominantly younger people; they tend to be students; and they tend to work on a casual and part-time basis. There is by no means any permanency to the work that they are doing. These are vulnerable workers. They tend to be on low incomes with no bargaining power whatsoever within their workplaces. It does not take much to push someone in a precarious position like that over the edge in terms of their income.
The effect of the Fair Work Commission decision will be to make life harder for those people in these industries, many of whom are already struggling to make ends meet. It is not an insignificant number of people. We are talking about 700,000 Australian workers who are potentially affected by the Fair Work Commission decision, and up to $70 per week is going to be taken away from them as a result of the decision to cut penalty rates. I have analysed one of those particular awards. A person who works just one regular Sunday shift per week in the hospitality industry is going to be $1,840 a year worse off. These are people who are already on low incomes—they are not multimillionaires—and the effect of this decision, which the Prime Minister stands by and supports and is allowing to happen, is that they are going to have their take-home pay cut by up to $2,000 a year.
It makes life harder for people in a difficult position already, who are struggling to make ends meet, and that is unfair. It certainly, in our view, does not represent object (b) in the Fair Work Act:
… ensuring a guaranteed safety net of fair, relevant and enforceable minimum terms and conditions through the National Employment Standards, modern awards and national minimum wage orders …
Labor will not stand by and allow this to occur. Labor is acting. Labor is standing up for low-paid workers. Labor is showing leadership on this issue of protecting penalty rates. Labor will always protect the take-home pay and penalty rates of Australian workers, and this bill represents that.
I am glad that the previous speaker has made these points and I hope he will stick around and learn that the last group that will enshrine penalty rates in this chamber are the Australian Labor Party. It is appropriate that we consider just how weak they have been in negotiating enterprise agreements in the past. This entire bill that detains the House today is essentially: negotiations over wage agreements were handed to an independent umpire, like an umpire in a cricket game, but, when the Labor Party are lbw, they want to change the rules and say there cannot be lbw anymore—preposterous.
In Queensland we have a perfect example: MP Don Brown, member for United Voice, in my electorate. As a current Labor MP, he has damaged clubs and their reputation and threatened staff. He has form, because, back in 2009, he was the lead union organiser who presided over the ripping away of penalty rates in an agreement with the Treasury Casino. But do not take it from me. The record is now with solidarity.net.au, who said:
Although delegates made up the negotiating team, in practice, it was the lead Casinos' union organiser, Don Brown, who had the authority.
Let us give voice to the workers who Mr Brown purported to represent. 'It was a disaster,' they said. The two main reasons the casino dispute went the boss's way were the laws and the union officials. The Treasury Casino deal under Mr Don Brown ripped away public holiday rates and left workers on Sundays worse off. Public holiday rates disappeared and remain completely gone. When the company rejected the union wage demands, it was people like Mr Don Brown who insisted that wage claims be lowered further in negotiations with management.
So what really got in the way of a successful strike in the end was Mr Don Brown, who when it came to the crunch actually stood next to management at these meetings. At every point when there was a choice to go forward or back—like a tank with five gears: four reverse and one forward just in case it was attacked from behind—Mr Brown basically stood shoulder to shoulder with management. In those final few days before the strike he dropped the wage demand from 5.5 per cent to 3.5 per cent. Of course this union backdown under Mr Don Brown encouraged the casino to offer even less.
Astonishingly, the union cancelled a second planned strike and agreed to go ahead with—wait for it—a company controlled ballot on the offer. You can imagine how disgusted workers were when their own union managed to crumble their efforts to at least have a strike that they voted 98 per cent in favour of. Mr Brown even had a PowerPoint presentation showing why casino workers should not strike, despite their vote. When the paperwork was submitted by the union's legal team, a technicality was found by Treasury's legal team, making it impossible for these workers to express their views in a strike.
Many union members simply did not vote after they saw Mr Brown standing next to the managing director trying to sell a 'rotten deal'. Workers felt betrayed by their union. The greatest present danger to penalty rates in this country are the literally dozens—over 100—enterprise agreements invented by unions in their negotiations with bosses. We are not talking about the umpire in this bill. Unions are the threat to penalty rates in this country. There were many union members who had given up. Two strikes had been cancelled after they had actually voted for them.
Then we have the libel and Don Brown circulating as a MP. He is no longer the member for Capalaba but now the 'member for United Voice'. I seek leave to table this libellous graph, which shows the completely fallacious wage agreement at Capalaba Sports Club, where Mr Don Brown could not even add up a penalty rate. One hundred people resigned from the LHMU as a result of this setback, but ultimately people like Don Brown and Mick de Brenni are examples of union bureaucracy. They see unionism as about being lawyers, this insidious and odious layer between management and workers trying to get what they want.
The deal at the Treasury Casino in 2009 is enshrined as an example of: if you put your trust in unions, you can say goodbye to penalty rates if it suits union organisers. They were paid to represent these people and did not. They were too worried about legal action to stand up and fight. Like you would dream would never happen in these negotiations, penalty rates disappeared because it suited the unions. (Time expired)
It is a pleasure to rise in support of the Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Take Home Pay) Bill 2017, which protects the take-home pay of some of our lowest paid workers. There are over 11,000 people in my community of Batman who work in the retail and hospitality industries. While the economic arguments for cutting penalty rates remain nonexistent, the case for their retention is clear. Penalty rates are essential for low-paid workers in Australia to keep the lights on and to keep food on the table. Penalty rates also recognise the sacrifice weekend workers make by giving up time with their families.
Today, however, I would like to speak on an aspect of this debate that I think deserves greater attention—the disproportionate impact that penalty rate cuts will have on women and what that means for gender equality in Australia. Acknowledging the gender aspect of this issue is important because it not only demonstrates the cruelty of these cuts but is also symptomatic of this government wilfully ignoring gender equality in its policy-making process.
Experts have warned that the Turnbull government's decision to allow penalty rate cuts to proceed will have a disproportionate and negative impact on women in our society. Marian Baird from the University of Sydney states that 54 per cent of employees in the hospitality and retail sectors—the sectors most affected by these cuts to penalty rates—are women. She notes that, for many women, working on weekends is their only option because conventional career work on weekdays is too inflexible for them and there is no child care. When we talk about the gender pay gap, we must recognise this refers not only to the difference in pay between men and women in the same positions but also to the fact that industries with disproportionately large female workforces are often the lowest paid. When you attack the lowest-paid workers in this country, you are disproportionately attacking women, and, in particular, young women. For example, Marie Coleman from the National Foundation for Australian Women notes that penalty rate cuts are a 'fair smash at younger women and female-headed families'. A policy that disproportionately and negatively impacts young women and female-headed households is, by its nature, contributing to gender inequality in Australia. For the Turnbull government to gleefully ignore this fact is shameful.
Marie Coleman has also raised an important point about the broader policy setting in which these cuts to penalty rates are taking place. These cuts are coming at a time when the Turnbull government's broader budget policy package is introducing measures that, when combined, hit women very hard indeed. A recent analysis by the National Foundation for Australian Women found that changes to the Medicare levy, the student loans repayments and the family tax benefit contained in the budget could lead to an effective marginal tax rate of 100 per cent, or even more for some women. Effective marginal tax rates measure the proportion of additional dollar earnings that are lost to both income tax and the reduction of means-tested government payments. Lower-paid graduates with a family will be the ones caught between these Turnbull government policies, to their severe detriment. Under these combined policies, a graduate earning $51,000—the majority of whom are likely to be women—will have less disposable income than someone on $32,000. So much for encouraging women to join our workforce!
When my colleague the member for Jagajaga asked the Prime Minister about this unfair policy setting, the Prime Minister not only sought to undermine the study, despite obviously having never read it, but proceeded to say that his policies were fair and equitable and that he was getting the balance right. This statement by the Prime Minister goes to the very heart of this issue. Just as the Prime Minister chose to brush aside the member for Jagajaga's question, this government has chosen to brush aside deeper issues of gender inequality in Australian society. When policy development occurs in a vacuum with little reference to the lives of real Australians, the cumulative impact can be disastrous. If we are serious about addressing gender inequality in Australia, policy development—in particular, those policies relating to the welfare of the workforce—needs to also be considered through a gender lens. Labor has for many years undertaken to prepare a women's budget statement to look specifically at the impact of the budget on women. The coalition has refused to follow Labor's lead. The bill before the House right now offers those opposite and crossbenchers an opportunity to protect our lowest-paid workers and to demonstrate our shared commitment to gender equality. I urge every member of this House to take this opportunity.
I want to focus particularly today on some propaganda that has been circulated in my electorate by the Australian Labor Party—by Senator Gallacher, in fact. Recently, people in the cities of the Spencer Gulf—Whyalla, Port Augusta and Port Pirie—received a DL in their mailboxes. There are a number of very ambitious claims in this DL around this issue of penalty rates. Firstly, there is an outright mistruth, in that it says that Rowan Ramsey has voted in favour of cuts to penalty rates. In fact, we have not had a motion in this House that has come to a vote. While I may support the decision by Fair Work Australia in principle, I have not voted on this issue. It is a lie. It is simply not true. But, probably more instructively—and it is always very interesting to look at how these claims on propaganda are phrased, how they are couched—there is a claim that up to, and I emphasise the words 'up to,' 10,818 people in the electorate of Grey are going to lose wages as a result of the penalty rate decision. Clearly that is not completely wrong. 'Up to' could mean anything from zero to 10,818. I had a look at the figure of 10,818. Remember that the independent organisation Fair Work Australia, staffed largely by people appointed by the previous regime, the Labor government—the five commissioners who sat on this decision were appointed by either Julia Gillard or the now Leader of the Opposition, Mr Shorten—came to this independent decision, but it only relates to the hospitality and retail sector. I think to myself, 'How on earth will I find 10,818 workers in hospitality and retail working on a Sunday or holiday Monday?' considering that those who work for McDonald's, KFC and other large national chains are not affected by this decision because the union has already cut a deal on their penalty rates and they work at a lower rate than those who are working for small business.
Grey is a regional country electorate. There is not much open on a Sunday and there is even less open on a holiday Monday. In the larger centres—those being the four small cities of Whyalla, Port Augusta, Port Pirie and Port Lincoln—stores like Woolworths and Coles are open, but, blow me down, they are unaffected by this decision as well. So, on Sundays and holiday Mondays, the largest employers are not actually affected by the decision. The small cafes—the family type cafes—are affected by the decision, but unfortunately they are largely already shut. I could drive from town to town and would find one outlet open—maybe a roadhouse or maybe a hotel. In the case of the small towns, the hotels and roadhouses have their families working on the weekends. I wonder why that is. Perhaps it has something to do with penalty rates. In fact, I was talking to a pizza shop owner in Port Augusta a couple of years ago. He told me that on a holiday Monday he had to pay his pizza delivery boy $48 an hour. What a preposterous arrangement that is. I wonder how many pizzas he would have to buy the ingredients for, make, sell and deliver just to pay his driver's wages. He too was using his family to staff his pizza shop on those Sundays and Mondays.
The decision by Fair Work Australia is fairly justified. It is a moderate reform and it must help to generate more jobs. Perhaps that pizza shop owner will take a Sunday or holiday Monday off, spend it with his kids and put some staff in the shop as a result of it. It is an opportunity for young Australians. The decision by the Labor Party to oppose the reforms of their Fair Work Australia is disgraceful.
The Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Take Home Pay) Bill 2017 shows why you need the Greens in parliament. The Greens and only the Greens went to the last election saying, 'Look, there's a chance that people's penalty rates could be cut by the Fair Work Commission,' and we went to the election saying, 'We will pass a law to make sure that the Fair Work Commission cannot cut people's penalty rates,' because the Greens understand that there are people working nights, weekends and public holidays—at a time when the rest of us get to rest, do our shopping or spend time with our families and friends—who rely on penalty rates to make ends meet. We said that, if the law allows the Fair Work Commission to cut people's rates of pay at a time when wages are actually going backwards in many parts of the country, the law needs to be fixed. Most people in this country would be horrified to think that the laws allow your wages to be cut when you are doing work at a time when many other people do not want to work and it comes at great inconvenience to you. When we took that position to the election, we expected the Liberals to say, 'No, we don't support you on that.' What we did not expect was the Labor Party was to oppose us, saying that they were quite happy if they won the election to allow people's rates of pay to be cut. But that is what they did, and the Leader of the Opposition said, 'There's no need for these kinds of laws because it's not going to happen. Aliens may come down from space! Don't worry about it. It's not going to happen.'
The Greens could see that there was a hole in the law that needed to be fixed. I am very pleased that, since the election, the opposition have changed their mind and Labor have now come in the behind the Greens' position and are willing to change the law so that the Fair Work Commission is not allowed to cut people's penalty rates. That is a good thing because we know that there are people who are working to get through university or TAFE and are working shifts in order to pay the rent—rent that is going through the roof in many capital cities; if you want to live near where you are studying, it is becoming increasingly difficult to do that—and people are reliant on working on weekends, working late at night at the bar, working in a cafe or working in some other form of hospitality or in the retail industry. Perhaps they are working around the clock so that we can go and do our shopping late at night. We know people are reliant on those penalty rates to make ends meet. So you should not be allowed in this country to change the law so that people's rates of pay can be cut, especially when we talking about some of the lowest paid workers in this country and we are talking predominantly about women.
By taking the stand that we did at the election—and, yes, we were the only ones doing it at the time and, yes, we were pilloried by Labor and the Liberals for doing it—we have changed the debate. I am very pleased that the opposition have now brought forward a bill to close the hole that we pointed out a number of times. It is now up to the government to support it and to support the passage of the bill before 1 July because that is when a lot of the cuts are going to take place. If the government as a whole will not support it, perhaps there are a couple of backbenchers who might cross the floor to support it. I have to say that, after last week, I have my doubts. All of these people talk very big about crossing the floor to protect penalty rates and to have a royal commission into the banks and then, when push comes to shove, they never do it. No surprise there. They take positions that they know people want to hear and then they fail to back them up when they come to the floor, but this might be a chance if we can bring it on for a vote and bring it on for a vote soon.
There is another area that we have to fix up—and some members have referred to this—and that is that many people who work in retail or fast food or hospitality are, in fact, not going to see their penalty rates cut because they have never been able to get their penalty rates in the first place. There are many workers in Coles, Woolworths, Hungry Jacks and KFC who have not been getting weekend penalty rates in the first place because of very bad agreements that have been done—agreements that should never have been approved by the Fair Work Commission. We need to fix them up as well, and the Greens have a bill in parliament to do that because we do not believe that an 18-year-old working in McDonald's over the weekend should be paid less than the award wage, but that is what is happening at the moment. That is what is happening right around this country. I have heard members of the government point that out and say, 'We've these bad agreements in place, so you're hypocrites,' and all the rest. Well, government: if you are actually concerned about it, then support the Greens' bill to fix it. Support the bill to fix it so that small businesses do not have to pay more than big business counterparts and people are not getting done over for working on weekends.
The question is that the amendment be agreed to.
Through the eighties and nineties one of the big economic reforms, one of the big things that was done to improve the way in which our economy created and protected jobs, and also at a time when the economy was being opened up to competition with the rest of the world, was the move to enterprise bargaining. We moved from a centralised wage-fixing system to one that said we would look at the conditions that apply to companies within particular sectors within the economy and we would tailor wage agreements to satisfy those conditions. Bear in mind that, through the early eighties, we went through wages explosions. We used to have wage agreements that were double-digit in nature that reflected an economy that was in severe need of reform and change, and we saw through those two decades the opening up of the economy and the changes within that were setting us on the trajectory for 25-years-plus of economic growth. It was about enterprise bargaining and it was one of those things that, again, made sure we had that flexibility in place. So imagine my surprise today, listening to this debate, when we hear those opposite within the coalition pick individual agreements that then go to individual enterprises and try to make this claim that unions somehow had ripped off the workers as part of those agreements—all for this fallacious argument that is being played out here on the floor that is suggesting that penalty rates had been traded off was because of something that unions had done, not that the businesses that advocated for them, mind you, but that that unions had done and agreed to.
How convenient is it to suspend reality, fact and the real-life circumstances that apply in the setting of those agreements—for example, that there has to be a better-off overall test that conditions that are put to be given away or traded away in one instance will see the creation of some other benefit; that something else will be done to improve the way in which workers are remunerated within a particular enterprise and that that is in place there; that these things have to, secondly, be voted upon by employees; and that employees themselves, be they union members or not, have to support those agreements that are being put in this. These are not considered, but what is being considered by this government is, instead of the way in which you would have enterprises make these arrangements in a climate where wages growth is at its lowest and where underemployment is at its highest, they would, regardless of the enterprise, to take out one plank straightaway—that is, they would remove people's protection on penalty rates. They would not give people the decision within an enterprise bargaining context to work out what is right, what is wrong or what is acceptable to them. No, the conservative government will come in and remove that protection straightaway—$77 out of the hands of 700,000 people; no enterprise bargaining.
The only time when this mob opposite supports anything that comes to the centralisation of wage fixing is to take stuff away from workers, is to take away the ability of lowest-paid. You never hear those opposite championing a wage increase for the lowest-paid in this country; it is always, 'Oh no, it's too expensive' or, in this case, they will be arguing not for a lift in conditions, but again to take away penalty rates.
You have got here today people arguing against, on the one hand, enterprise bargaining and what that might throw up and, in effect, arguing against one of the big things that has helped make sure that Australian firms are way more competitive. On the other hand, they have this semi-move back to centralised wage fixing where they can determine whether or not they rip out people's wages and conditions at a time where wages are so flat that people feel like the next wage increase will not be a wage increase whatsoever. This is the galling hypocrisy that you see in this debate from those opposite who somehow shroud themselves as the friend of the worker while, in the very debate, they are going to detract from the ability of those workers to actually hold onto the wages they rightly deserve. There needs to be fair dinkum consideration of what people are earning, how they are earning it, the conditions and the protections that are there, but you will never get that from a conservative government—never, ever will you get that from a conservative government.
I move the debate be adjourned.
Question agreed to.
Debate adjourned.
On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Trade and Investment Growth, I present the committee's report entitled, Leveraging our advantages: The trade relationship between Australia and Indonesia.
Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper.
by leave—Indonesia is our largest neighbour, but it is only our 13th largest trading partner. By 2030, Indonesia is expected to be in the top 10 economies of the world and the fourth largest economy by the year 2050. Australia can do more to leverage our location and to enhance our trade relationships. The report discusses the current trade relationships with Indonesia and the opportunities there are to improve this.
Tourism and education services are currently the biggest areas of trade. Indonesia is now the second most popular destination for Australian holiday-makers after New Zealand. Australia is the most popular destination for Indonesians looking to study abroad.
The report examines trade barriers in the existing relationship, including the mid-season quota restrictions, mandarins and feedlots five to one quotas. The report calls for a reduction in non-tariff barriers to trade. The inquiry heard about potential areas where trade relationships can be improved through increased cooperation, including in banking, infrastructure, medical, mining services and agriculture.
The governments of Australia and Indonesia are currently negotiating a partnership agreement. Given these negotiations, the committee decided to issue a short report noting high-level issues so that the report can assist and not hinder these negotiations. The report recommends measures to be addressed in this agreement. The report also recognises the key role northern Australia can play in building partnerships with Indonesia for tourism, education and maritime services. The report is unanimous. The committee sees the opportunities to leverage our joint advantages and build strong partnerships with our closest neighbour. I commend the report to the House, and I move:
That the House take note of the report.
Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate.
Question agreed to.
The Nick Xenophon Team is a strong supporter of the Major Bank Levy Bill 2017, and we support this additional contribution from Australia's most profitable sector, the banking sector, towards budget repair. However, beyond the general argument of repairing the budget, there are several good arguments that make the major bank levy good policy. Although many Australians have cause to dislike the banks, there are fundamentally good policy reasons for the bank levy as well.
The first policy argument relates to the guarantee scheme for large deposits and wholesale funding. In 2008, the then Labor federal government introduced a guarantee scheme for large deposits and wholesale funding and provided a $180 billion debt facility for Australian banks. In short, this was a too-big-to-fail arrangement. Together, these measures have put our banks at a significant competitive advantage and boosted their earnings, substantially, to the cost of the taxpayer. Although this scheme only lasted two years, global ratings agencies now consider Australian banks to be government backed. As a result, Australian banks now enjoy stronger credit ratings than they would have otherwise obtained, which delivers them a further competitive advantage because they can borrow offshore at a discount. One of the purposes of a similar bank levy introduced in 2011 in the United Kingdom was for the banks to make a full and fair contribution in respect of the potential risk they pose to the wider economy. This only reinforces the argument that major Australian banks should make a fair contribution—an insurance premium, if you will—towards the potential cost of this implicit too-big-to-fail guarantee from the federal government.
The second argument relates to the undertaxing of financial services by GST, because they are, for very practical reasons, input taxed rather than output taxed. According to the 2016 Tax Expenditures Statement from the Treasury, the forgone revenue was estimated to be $3.45 billion a year. The major bank levy helps to address this issue of undertaxation—although, admittedly, only for the major banks.
Thirdly, the banking sector enjoys super profits due to the high concentration of market power in the hands of just a few majors. They are super profits. Last financial year, the Commonwealth Bank reported a cash profit after tax of $9.45 billion, the National Australia Bank recorded a profit of $6.48 billion, ANZ a profit of $5.89 billion and Westpac a profit of $7.8 billion, in one financial year. Between them, these four banks made a massive profit of $30 billion. According to Choice magazine, the big four banks control an overwhelming 94 per cent of the commercial banking market in Australia. And the big four banks' profits are only increasing, at a time when real wages for Australian workers have been stagnant since the global financial crisis. There is a very compelling argument for the bank levy: that it will act somewhat as a super profits tax to even out the balance between the banks and the Australia consumer public.
Lastly, by applying the $100 million liability threshold, the bank levy helps to level the playing field between the major banks and the smaller, regional banks that are at a significant competitive disadvantage. However, the Nick Xenophon Team does not believe that the levy should be discriminately applied on the basis of national origin. Why should major foreign banks be exempt from the levy? I have heard the argument that foreign banks provide more competition to the Australian market. However, the super profits currently enjoyed in the Australian financial and banking sector are so enticing for foreign competitors that they will not be deterred by this bank levy. If the purpose of the levy is indeed budget repair, extending the levy to foreign banks would raise significant funds to help pay back Australian debt. Calculations sourced by the NXT estimate that a levy on the Australian liabilities of just three foreign banks active in Australia—ING, BNP Paribas and HSBC—would raise $179 million a year, or almost $800 million over the forward estimates.
Applying the levy to major foreign banks that operate in Australia will also provide the additional funding required to set up a last-resort compensation scheme for victims of financial mismanagement and fraud. Admittedly, if you have been the victim of bad financial advice from a bank, at least you know that the bank has the funds available to provide compensation, even though the method of compensation and the processes need to be improved dramatically. However, too many financial services businesses have gone into liquidation and too many financial advisers have gone bankrupt, and this has meant that there are no means of redress for many thousands of victims. Any compensation scheme should also be complemented with stricter requirements for insurance and financial planners.
The government's review into the financial system's external dispute resolution and complaints framework, better known as the Ramsay review, has been considering exactly such a scheme. According to a supplementary issues paper to the Ramsay review, as of 2 May this year, an enormous $14.3 million of determinations in favour of complainants made by the Financial Ombudsman Service and the Credit and Investments Ombudsman still remain unpaid, and this huge figure only accounts for people who have chosen to go through a formal ombudsman complaint process. My Senate colleagues and I have spoken to many victims of financial malpractice, particularly retired Australians who placed their trust in managed investment schemes. An ongoing compensation scheme should be a priority for any federal government. The cost of such a scheme would be a small fraction of the total revenue that the foreign bank levy would raise, but a small fraction of the revenue that the bank levy is currently projected to raise.
In conclusion, I urge the government to extend the bank levy to the liabilities of foreign banks that are booked in Australia. These are not small banks. I also urge them to use some of the funds raised by the bank levy to set up a last-resort compensation scheme for victims of financial mismanagement and fraud.
I speak in favour of this bill, the Major Bank Levy Bill 2017, and the related bill, but more importantly I speak in favour of the amendment that has been moved by my friend and colleague the member for McMahon. The concept of the bill is a good one. We have deep concerns about the government's modelling on the revenue forecast—that is, the contradictions between what some of the target companies say they are going to pay in the declarations they have made to the Australian Stock Exchange and what the Treasurer has told the House and the people of Australia that this levy bill is going to raise, on implementation.
First, some context, because for the last four years the government has attempted to tell the parliament and the people of Australia that Australia does not have a revenue problem. For the last four years, they have attempted to convince everybody in this place and Australians at large that Australia does not have a revenue problem. The price of that policy has been sharp cuts to spending on the things which Australians rely on and value the Commonwealth government for—cuts to funding for hospitals, cuts to Medicare, cuts to pharmacy funding, and cuts schools and universities, to apprenticeships, to pensions, to services for people looking for jobs, cuts to public transport, cuts to infrastructure and cuts to public sector employment. This has been the price of the government's dogged approach to budget, and its ideological obsession with cutting spending and denying what everybody else in the country knows to be true—and that is: we have a revenue problem.
The political price has been much higher—for the member for Warringah, in particular. He went to the 2013 election on a promise that he was going to be able to improve the budget standing of the Commonwealth at the same time as not cutting pensions, not cutting Medicare, and not cutting funding to the ABC or the SBS or any of the other services that the government has relied upon. He campaigned to be one sort of Prime Minister and one sort of government, and not three months later he proved to be the very opposite, in his disastrous 2014 budget, doing all of the things that he promised not to do. The Australian people have developed a habit of punishing governments that promise to do one thing and then do the very opposite. We have a different Prime Minister now, who has pursued the very same policies as his predecessor and has been equally punished in a near-death experience in the 2016 election.
This bill before the House today represents a capitulation by the coalition parties on that 2014 maxim that Australia does not have a revenue problem, At least, it appears to be a capitulation on its face. In our view, it is not sincere. This bill, with its uncertain revenue projections and estimates, is either insincere or monumentally incompetent—because it appears in the very same session as the government is attempting to convince us that what Australia needs more than anything is an unfunded, $65 billion tax to corporates—an unfunded $65 billion corporate tax cut which this country and our budget simply cannot afford.
I want to put that $65 billion into some context. $65 billion sounds like a lot of money, and it is. It is about three times what we currently spend on our Medicare budget. It is about twice the amount that Labor promised to deliver with its full implementation of the education funding reforms as recommended by the Gonski review of school funding. That is right—it is about twice as much as it would cost to fund the Gonski school education reforms and to put school education funding on the right track into the future. That is why I say the bill before the House today, which purports to admit that we have a revenue problem in this country, is either incompetent or insincere. It is insincere because it is trying to say to the Australian people: 'We know that we've got it wrong. For the last four years, we've been doing something very, very wrong.' It is incompetent because on the one hand it takes $6 billion out of some of the wealthiest corporates in the country but on the other hand it is providing a $65 billion budget tax cut that we simply cannot afford.
I want to argue that this bill, which is about ensuring that we can balance our budget, simply will not work unless the other levers that are available to a government are exercised. The one that I want to focus on most is the issue that is confronting every Australian worker in this country and every Australian small business in this country, which I say is the government and its challenge in balancing the budget. We know that nominal GDP has been growing, and we are surpassing just about every other developed country in the world, but the problem is that most Australians are not experiencing it. If you run a small business, particularly a small business in regional Australia, you will understand that demand is pretty flat. You will understand that business income is pretty flat. It is not feeling to you like the Australian economy is experiencing year-on-year growth and, indeed, when compared to many other economies, record growth. If you are a worker who is attempting to balance your household budget, you are seeing that your wages have not gone up in real terms at any point over the last 10 years; you are seeing that your electricity and energy prices are going up and up and up while governments bicker amongst themselves about how we put in place long-term energy policies to provide stability and certainty around electricity generation and the price of electricity; and you are seeing your cost of living going up, but you are not seeing that being balanced on the other side of the ledger by an increase in your wages.
I want to argue today that Australian workers need a pay rise and that Australian workers deserve a pay rise. I want to argue that it is not only in the interest of Australian workers but in the interest of every member in this place; it is in the interest of the Australian economy. If we are going to have any hope in hell of meeting the government's purported targets for balancing the budget, which this bill is supposed to be about—unless Australian workers get a substantial pay rise, those objectives will not be met.
I have a graph here which shows annual wage growth over the last decade. What you can see from this graph is that there has been a downward trajectory in wage growth, steadily declining over the last decade. Averaged at four per cent up until the global financial crisis, it has been steadily falling ever since. It is now below two per cent, and for many workers their real wages are going backwards. If you have a look at the wages share of national income, you can see that that is also at record lows. If you have a look at this graph that I have prepared, you can see that there has been a steep decline in the share that ordinary Australian workers are getting as a proportion of national income, and it is now at one of the lowest levels in our postwar history—steep decline over the last two quarters and at one of the lowest points in our postwar history. How can this happen, when we have seen record growth and consecutive quarters of growth going back for as long as most people in this place can remember? I argue that a part of the problem is the deliberate strategy of government to suppress pay rises, particularly by the coalition parties in government. And there is evidence, and I will present evidence to parliament today to prove that it is the deliberate strategy of this government to suppress pay rises.
There are many who argue that we cannot have wage rises unless we see productivity growth, and they are right. Productivity growth has been very sluggish under this government—very sluggish indeed. But I have here a graph that has been produced by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, and this graph maps multifactor productivity and also details what has happened to labour productivity. The top line on one side shows multifactor productivity and the top line on the other side shows labour productivity. We can see from this graph—and I know that the member for Griffith and the member for Solomon who are with me in the chamber today understand this very well—that labour productivity has actually been performing quite well. You see that it even peaks during the global financial crisis. We see workers' contribution to productivity has actually been outperforming every other area of productivity improvement in the areas that are not available or not within the control of the average Australian worker. So, if the argument is that we cannot afford a pay rise because labour productivity is not growing, this graph clearly puts that argument to rest.
It is not only Australian workers who need a pay rise; it is the Australian budget that needs a pay rise. On budget night the Treasurer confidently predicted, as he stood at that despatch box, that he had a target and a plan to ensure that the budget returned to surplus by 2020. He confidently predicted that the budget was going to return to surplus. On what basis was he able to predict that? In part, through an increase in the Medicare levy, particularly a Medicare levy imposing an additional tax rise on those very same workers who, as I have said, have not seen a real pay rise over the life of this government and, in fact, have seen their wages going down in real terms.
The government are predicting a return to surplus by increasing the tax burden on those workers while at the same time they are also predicting an increase in wages, but there is no policy within the budget and no policy that has been presented to this place which demonstrates how those wages are going to increase above trend. If you look at their forecasting for wage increases over the life of the budget and over the forward estimates we see wage increases going from two per cent to 3.75 per cent—a projection which many economists describe as heroic. They describe it as heroic because there are nearly 95,000 fewer jobs projected over the very same footprint that they are projecting wages to go up. So what we see is a set of economic circumstances that are almost unknown to economists, where you see fewer jobs in the economy but average wages going up over the life of the forward estimates.
At the very same time you see almost every government member in this place championing a wage cut for some of the lowest paid workers in Australia. I am of course talking about the policy to reduce penalty rates for low-paid workers whose take-home pay relies on them working on Sundays and bringing in the additional penalty rates which have historically been afforded to workers who work on a Sunday. Mr Deputy Speaker Goodenough, you may ask yourself: How on earth are we going to reach those projected pay rises of 3.75 per cent over the forward estimates—which are going to bring the budget back into balance—while, at the same time, members of my very own party are championing a pay cut for low-paid workers? You would be right to scratch your head when you ask yourself this question, Mr Deputy Speaker, because it simply cannot be achieved. That is why I argued—and why Labor members argued, since they are in tune with the needs of their electorates and the needs of average Australian workers—that this bill is either insincere or incompetent. If it is designed to bring the budget back into surplus, it simply cannot do that on its own unless Australian workers get the pay rise that they need. It is time for members opposite to stand up and say that they will champion the cause of Australian workers getting a pay rise. If they do not do it for the workers, then they should do it for the budget, which needs to come back into surplus. (Time expired)
I follow the member for Whitlam, who made a cogent and thoroughly well-considered case for why the Major Bank Levy Bill 2017 is either incompetent or insincere. And it is probably a good demonstration of the insincerity of this bill that I follow a Labor member. In fact, there are no coalition members left debating this bill—this bill that they feel so lukewarm about. Where are they? Where are the coalition members who would stand up to talk about this bill and why it is such a good idea? Why, as a Labor member myself, am I following a Labor member in this debate? The answer is pretty clearly that the member for Whitlam was quite correct: the members of this government—each of the members of the Liberal-National Party that are here today or somewhere in the building at least—are very lukewarm about this bill. It is something that they feel they have been dragged here to do.
It is no wonder they are so lukewarm about this bill. The current Treasurer insisted that there was not a revenue problem. I admit he did seem to be a bit confused about what an expenditure problem was or what a spending problem was—he could not work out that expenditure and spending were the same thing. But he was insistent at the outset of his time as Treasurer that we did not have a revenue problem, yet here he is imposing this new tax.
As you know, Labor said and made very clear that we would not oppose this bill. But we have also expressed some significant scepticism about the intention and the seriousness with which this government is pursuing this new levy, this new tax, particularly given that the government remains obstinate in refusing to support public calls for a royal commission into the banks. The government continues to obstinately refuse to support public calls for a royal commission into the banks. They have made all sorts of excuses and reasons and back flips and contortions to explain their opposition to a royal commission into the banks. They have tried to say that a parliamentary committee would be sufficient when it comes to scrutiny and oversight. That is obviously not the case, when a royal commission would have much more substantial powers and rights in relation to the collection of evidence and the hearing of evidence and would have much greater investigatory powers than a parliamentary committee.
So this bill is a bit of a smokescreen for the government's unwillingness to take on the big banks, and the Treasurer can claim as much as he likes that he is taking on the banks and claim that Labor are friends of the banks, but the parties' records speak for themselves. We have committed to a royal commission into the banks. Last sitting week, in fact, we sought to bring on a bill for a royal commission into the banks. As you would remember, Mr Deputy Speaker Goodenough, the motion was tied. There was an equality of votes in this chamber to bring on that bill. Unfortunately, on the day it was proposed in the programming motion moved by the Labor side of the House, the casting vote did not allow the bill to be brought on and debated.
If the government were serious about taking on the banks, they would have supported that programming motion to bring on debate and vote in relation to a bill for a royal commission into the banks. If the government were serious about taking on the banks and clearing out some of the problems that we have seen, they would support a royal commission into the banks. But they have not done so and they will not do so. They seek to continue to protect the banks from the level of scrutiny that we might expect to see in a royal commission with a royal commissioner and counsel assisting the inquiry.
Instead we have this levy which is really a fig leaf for the government's refusal to take on the banks. Given the projections that have been made, it is a levy that would raise less than would be given back to the big banks through the government's corporate tax cuts, in the event they can be successful in getting their corporate tax cuts into law. I am speaking there about the $65 billion in corporate tax cuts over a decade. That is a $65 billion tax giveaway at a time when the government claims to be serious about doing something about the budget deficit that is foreshadowed, not just in this year's budget, but across the forward estimates. It also comes at a time when the government is claiming that we do not have enough money to fully fund the Gonski proposals—where they have relented on their $30 billion cut and introduced a $22 billion cut instead. All Australians are supposed to be grateful for the fact that they are only cutting it by $22 billion, not by the full $30 billion.
Why on earth would we have a situation where the government is pursuing a $65 billion tax giveaway at the same time as they are cutting $22 billion from schools funding? Why on earth would we have a $65 billion tax giveaway to big corporations and big banks at the same time as this government is cutting public funding to universities? They are planning for an almost $4 billion cut to university funding over five years on a fiscal basis. That is a lot of money to be ripped out of the university sector right now. It is an absolute travesty because Australia relies on the university sector for one of our key exports—that is, international education exports. To cut public funding and to have the commensurate hit to quality and to jobs in the sector is incredibly reckless and when you think about the fact that they are doing this at the same time as they are continuing to pursue their corporate tax cuts—their $65 billion in tax revenue giveaway—it makes absolutely no sense unless you think about it from an ideological perspective—unless you are a liberal who believes in trickle-down economics. That is despite all of the evidence to the contrary; despite all of the evidence you have before you over decades of practice around the world that trickle-down economics does not work and despite the fact that you have the Reagan experiment in the US as a historical precedent that can be quite usefully observed to note that corporate tax cuts do not magically transform into the slogan of jobs and growth that was parroted so boringly in last year's federal election.
You cannot just talk about jobs and growth and think that is enough. It is not enough to just say the words 'jobs and growth' over and over and over and over and over again until you want to vomit. That is not what delivers jobs and growth. Trickle-down economics does not deliver jobs and growth. Do you know what delivers jobs and growth? Investing in education delivers jobs and growth. Do you know what else it delivers, Mr Deputy Speaker? Alongside delivering growth, it delivers less inequality. We have had more than a quarter of a century of continuous economic growth, which is a remarkable achievement, but if you go out and ask people whether they feel they benefited from that quarter of a century of economic growth, not everyone will say yes. A lot of people will say no, because over that period of 25 years, we have also seen an increase in inequality; we have also seen an increase in the distance between those on the bottom 10 per cent and the top 10 per cent of income distribution. We have also seen the continued increase in profit share of national income obviously at the expense of the wage share of national income. So not everyone feels as though they have benefited fairly from our more than a quarter of a century of economic growth.
That is particularly the case now. In the last quarter we have had a situation where the wages price index grew less slowly than the CPI. We have had a situation in the last quarter where people suffered a real cut to wages—not just slow growth but a real cut to wages. So you wonder why people feel like they are not getting the benefit of more than a quarter of a century of economic growth. They are not feeling it because they are under pressure—as house prices continue to go up, as this government continues to load up debt on graduates, to under resource schools and to do things like freezing Medicare benefit schedule payments, which effectively ushered in the Medicare co-payment that people so strongly opposed a couple of years ago.
When this government continues to do those things people do not just feel under pressure; people are under pressure. House prices are up; wages growth is down; freezes on Medicare; cuts to education; and new, bigger debts for students—vocational students, higher education students—and lower thresholds for repaying those debts. This government is bringing down the threshold for repayment to $42,000, barely above the minimum wage. So it is no wonder people feel under pressure; they are under pressure.
When you talk about what actually delivers jobs and growth, you also have to talk about what delivers the benefits of those jobs and that growth for the great majority of the population, not the people that the Liberal Party members meet at the country club, not the people they meet when they visit one of the well-heeled sorts of clubs in the centre of Brisbane, the centre of Melbourne or the centre of Sydney, or your home city of Perth, Deputy Speaker Goodenough—or even Adelaide, member for Sturt. It is not the sort of people that you meet in those well-heeled clubs that you may frequent in Adelaide, member for Sturt; it is people who are outside working hard every day to put food on the table and to pay their rent, because a mortgage is so completely out of the realms of possibility for them. They are worried about what will happen if three of their kids get sick at once. How do they go to the doctor for that? They are worried about their elderly grandparents or elderly parents and about the effect of pension cuts. This is a government that, right at this very moment, is trying to get rid of a payment to pensioners—the energy supplement—which is an utterly ridiculous thing to be doing, given that wholesale power prices have doubled under this government's watch. People are worried about that. That is what people are talking about outside the country clubs, outside the polo club, and that is why they are concerned.
If we want to see jobs and growth and if we want to see the great mass of our population—not the top 10 per cent of the income distribution but everyone else—actually enjoy the benefits of jobs and growth, and share in the benefits of this jobs and growth slogan, first we have to have growth-creating policies. Your trickle-down nonsense is not going to cut it when it comes to jobs and growth. We need genuine growth-engendering policies and we also need policies that simultaneously deliver on doing something about the massive inequality that we are facing. It is not just a problem here in Australia; of course it is a problem around the world. The head of the IMF, Christine Lagarde, has been making speeches now for a number of years about the fact that extreme inequality is a drag on growth. So these issues are symbiotic.
We need policies that engender growth and we need policies that engender less inequality in our societies. If we can do that then we have some chance of doing something about the challenges of the future, not just the low wages growth now and the pressures on families now but getting the skills that we need so that people can do the jobs of the future and found the businesses of the future. We need people to get the skills so that they can have proper democratic participation and be able to look upon the democratic and political debate with a critical eye and also to engage in it. These are the things that we need and they are urgent. A $65 billion tax giveaway to big corporations and the big banks will do nothing to address these issues. It is interesting: this government claims that simply by cutting corporate taxes, we will start to see more jobs and growth. Let us actually be real about that.
This has been a record year for corporate earnings in Australia. What has been happening with jobs and growth? Let us have a think about what has been happening with private capital expenditure. It has been falling through the floor at the same time as hours worked have been trending downwards. Unemployment is high. There are 1.1 million people underemployed—they have some work but they would really like to have more. That is a record level of underemployment for my lifetime, as I mention the low wages growth. Where are these record-breaking earnings going that corporate Australia is making? They are not going into reinvestment into capital expenditure and capital deepening. They are not going into wages. They are not going into creating more jobs. Where is the money going?
There was another record this year—that is, dividends to shareholders. The money that is being generated is going into shareholders' pockets. Of course there is nothing wrong with shareholders making money—although I think it would be preferable if we had a focus on capital gains, rather than dividends, as the main benefit of shares—but if that is happening at the expense of jobs, at the expense of growth, at the expense of capital deepening, at the expense of growing businesses and at the expense of wages then that is a significant problem.
It is just not enough to reduce corporate taxes and hope that that will trickle into the pockets of the working people of Australia, because it will trickle into the pockets of shareholders, and a lot of those shareholders will be foreign shareholders. A lot of the benefits of the $65 billion in corporate tax giveaways will go to foreign shareholders, and I think that is a very grave shame.
I move:
That the question be now put.
The question is that the question be now put.
The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for McMahon has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question now is that the amendment be agreed to.
I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
It is appropriate that we have a third reading debate on this matter because more evidence has come to light in the Senate inquiry—which occurred last week on Friday—since the House last met. There are two matters, in particular, that go to the revenue—the costing involved in this and passing it through to consumers. The House is familiar with the issue around the costings and the fact that, a short time after the budget was brought down, the government has a rather large black hole on its hands. The Treasurer has tried all sorts of excuses to deal with this, including moving the goal post between fiscal and underlying cash, but, of course, one of them has been that Macquarie is yet to report. It is true that Macquarie Bank is yet to report to the Australian Stock Exchange. They can report at any time of their choosing, but they did give evidence before the Senate inquiry on Friday and indicated a post-tax liability.
That post-tax liability leaves a very significant shortfall for the government. In fact, if you take the big four banks plus Macquarie Bank on a post-tax contribution, you get to just over one billion dollars—$1.015 billion—which falls significantly short of what the Treasurer told us in his budget speech. If you take that over the forward estimates, you get to a $2 billion black hole in the Treasurer's budget. This comes to the matter of competence. This is the point we make. We sometimes get pleas for more bipartisanship, but, when the Labor Party offers the government bipartisanship, time and time again we see the implementation being bungled. Although I will confine my remarks to this particular bill, the same applies to a matter that was just dealt with in the other House in relation to the GST and low-value threshold, which we will deal with later.
The fact of the matter is it is now incontrovertibly the case that the Treasurer has a black hole on his hands. It would just be better if the Treasurer admitted it and if he was just honest about it and if he just said, 'Yes, that was the best estimate at the time. We were working in the dark, we were working in a hurry and we got it a little bit wrong.' We would accept that. In fact, he might get some points for his honesty. But, alas, the Treasurer continues to deny the fact that the black hole exists. And the black hole is, if I could put it this way, in black and white. The black hole is in black and white—there for all to see. It is in evidence before the Senate inquiry. It is in the disclosures to the Australian Securities Exchange on behalf of four of the five banks, and then the fifth has given evidence to the Senate. If there was any grey area, it is gone. The Treasurer should just come to the dispatch box and admit the black hole.
There is another matter that the Treasurer should be honest about as well. This is the matter of the levy, or the tax, being borne by consumers. The Prime Minister and the Treasurer have been out there beating their chests, being 'Mr Tough Guy' and saying that it would not be passed onto consumers, that they would be very angry with the banks if they attempted to pass it on to the consumers and that the ACCC was empowered to deal with it. It just would have been simpler, as the Leader of the Opposition and I, and the entire opposition team, have pointed out, if the Treasurer was honest about this.
Upfront!
Just be upfront about it and say, 'Yes, it might be passed on.' That is what we did when we introduced a bank levy. The Treasury criticises me for that. Well, I was honest about it and said, 'Yes, the banks might pass it on.' I actually believe the Australian people deserve the truth. I think they are mature enough to have that conversation. When we had a bank levy, which was, admittedly, 10 times smaller than the Treasurer's bank levy, we were upfront about the fact that it might be passed. The Treasurer continues to deny it, but his Treasury officials are more honest. Treasury officials, giving evidence before the Senate inquiry, in terms of a question on notice, said: 'The banks' responses to the imposition of the levy were included in the modelling,' and these responses include, 'some pass through of the levy to customers, as evidenced by previous behaviour by the banks.'
We already knew that this was the Treasury view to some degree because it is in the regulatory impact statement—assuming a pass through to consumers. But now have yet another piece of evidence that this will be passed through to consumers. Again, the Australian people are mature enough to hear this. This is a measure which has the support of both sides of the parliament, but we want the government to implement it competently and we want the government to the honest about the impacts. So here we have two instances where the Treasurer is bungling the implementation of what should be a relatively straightforward and simple matter because it has the support of both sides of the House. It just goes to the point that the Labor Party always takes with a grain of salt what the government tells us when it comes to fiscal matters because their lack of competence when it comes to these things is there for all to see.
Of course, we also have the matter of the leak of the bank tax. This is a very significant matter. As I have said before, budgets leak—we accept that—sometimes intentionally, sometimes unintentionally. These things happen. But this is a leak which is very significant because it moved the markets. Some people made money; some people lost money. The fact of the matter is: when market sensitive information is leaked while the markets are open, that is a very regrettable thing. It should not happen. Where it does happen, people should be honest about it. We had the Treasury secretary being honest about it before the Senate on a different occasion, saying that he did not believe that it came from the Treasury. If it did not come from the Treasury, the House is entitled to ask where it came from. It did not come from the Treasury, and the number of Treasury officials who knew about the tax was very limited indeed.
So let's cut the nonsense from the government and the Treasurer. Why doesn't the Treasurer take the opportunity in this third reading debate, which we facilitated and gave leave for, to come and fess up and say that he got it wrong on the matter of the costings and that he has a black hole. While he is at it, perhaps he could reveal to the House where the money is coming from. What is going to be used to fill the hole? Well, more banks will be taxed. There are only five banks paying this tax at the moment. Maybe he is going to double it to 10. Well, we can have that conversation. Let's hear it. Let's hear what the government's plans are. Is he going to increase the rate of the tax? Perhaps. Or is he going to accept that it is not going to make the money necessary and cut it elsewhere? Is he going to make cuts to family payments or increase taxes on families to make up his shortfall? Or will he see the budget deficit blow out further on his watch?
These are the options available to the Treasurer. These are the only options: seeing the debt and deficit worsen or making it up through increasing the bank tax and applying to all banks and seeing families paying.
While the Treasurer is at it, why doesn't he fess up about the fact that consumers will pay? Again, the Labor Party thinks that this is a matter worthy of being honest about. When you increase a tax on the banks, the banks will consider it and in some instances will pass it on. In fact, it gets worse than that, because the Treasurer says it is all about competition and it is all about putting the small banks on a more level playing field with the big banks. The ACCC has views about this. Let's just think this through. If you gave the Treasurer the benefit of the doubt for a moment and said it is about competition, at a certain level that only works if it is passed on. It only puts the big banks on a more level playing field with the small banks if they pass on the tax, because the smaller banks and institutions have higher borrowing costs and higher funding costs which they pass through to consumers—that is why they are at a competitive disadvantage—so, if this tax is going to fix it, the only way it is fixed is by the big banks passing it on as well. I think the Treasurer could have that conversation. I think he could explain that. He could have that debate and people would say, 'If there are competition aspects, let's hear them.'
It really comes down to the fact that the Treasurer gets himself caught up in sixes and sevens when he keeps coming up with excuses on these things. He just keeps making up new alibis. He just keeps denying the reality. The Treasury will not deny the reality. The Treasury are not going to cut corners when it comes to the facts; the Treasury are going to tell the truth, as they have done repeatedly before the Senate. They have said, 'Yes, this will be passed on.' And the banks have a legal obligation to report to the Australian Stock Exchange accurately on their liabilities and the impact on their budget bottom line, and they have done it. They are not going to mislead the Stock Exchange. It would be illegal for them to do so, with very considerable legal ramifications for the banks and their senior personnel. They are certainly not going to do that.
The only person who is willing to obfuscate on this matter is the Treasurer himself. He is not prepared to acknowledge that there is a black hole and he is not prepared to acknowledge that it will be passed on to consumers and, in fact, that it is at least part of the policy rationale for it when it comes to competition. The regulatory impact statement told us that and now testimony before the Senate by the Treasury officials confirms that. We welcome the fact that that testimony is there and we welcome the fact that this is now out in the open. We thank and congratulate the Labor senators who got this information, particularly our colleague Senator Chris Ketter from Queensland who led the questioning and did so very effectively so that now the Australian people have more of the facts at their disposal. It is with thanks to Senator Ketter and his colleagues; no thanks to the Treasurer and his government colleagues sitting on the other side. They would prefer that the Australian people did not know. They would prefer that the Australian people did not know about the shortfall, the black hole, and the fact that it will be passed on. It says a lot about the government: even when they have bipartisan support, they are not prepared to be honest about the implications.
I would like to contribute to the reading speech because it is time the government were honest about what this—
Order! The member for Oxley will resume his seat. The Treasurer may have a point of order.
I move:
That the question be now put.
: The question is that the question be put.
The question now is that this bill be read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Let us be very clear. There is one side of this House that supports Medicare, and that is this side of the House. This is an excuse. This bill, the Medicare Guarantee Bill 2017, is an alibi, an attempt to make up for the fact that the government do not support Medicare. This bill is a lame attempt to try to get the government some vague credibility when it comes to Medicare. If this government really supported Medicare, they would not need this bill. If this government really supported Medicare they would not have tried to attack Medicare ceaselessly for the last four years. And now we see this government, having realised the political implications of Medicare and how important it is to the Australian people, vainly trying to find a way to show that they actually do not mind Medicare after all and coming up with this accounting trick. All this bill is is an accounting trick on behalf of the government.
The reason that Labor supports Medicare is that we of course created Medicare, and we created Medicare because we believe that your Medicare card, not your credit card, should determine the health care you get in Australia. That is what we believe. We believe that access to universal Medicare is one of the most important community standards created in Australia over the last four decades—and we created it. That side of the House opposed it in 1984, just as they opposed its predecessor in the early 1970s, and since then they have tried to destroy Medicare by stealth. At least John Howard had the honesty to say that he would destroy Medicare. Liberals since then have attempted to destroy Medicare but have not been honest about it. And we have seen that continue under this government, the Abbott-Turnbull government.
The Prime Minister, in his more lucid and honest moments, has admitted—even when he is ranting about text messages and scare campaigns—that the government had a poor track record on Medicare. This of course became a very big and important problem during the election campaign. So the government have attempted to step away from their previous position, with the dumping of old measures. They are slowly unfreezing the MBS. It should be unfrozen immediately and it should be unfrozen with immediate effect, but the government are just crab-walking towards an unfreezing of the MBS. That is an attack on Medicare and no number of stunts or accounting tricks will change that fact. And now they are introducing this Medicare guarantee. We are not going to give the government the pleasure of us voting against this, because it is a bill with, in effect, no impact at all. So we are not going to oppose it; we are going to point out the hypocrisy of the government.
It is a gimmick.
And we are going to point out that it is a gimmick—I am indebted to the member for Oxley—and that it is an accounting trick which is a vainly designed attempt to divert public attention from what this government really thinks about Medicare. The Medicare guarantee is nothing more than a sham. It does not guarantee anything. It provides no policy stability, no guarantee of additional funding and no guarantee that a coalition government in the future will not make further cuts to Medicare or, for that matter, or the PBS. We have made this a key point of difference between the government and the opposition and we will continue to do so, and no number of accounting tricks or budgetary mechanisms will change that.
So let us look in some detail at what this bill actually does, because it is very interesting. You would think that, if this was really the Medicare Guarantee Bill, it would provide some form of guarantee—that it would provide some form of locked box; some form of parliamentary mechanism to say that Medicare cannot be touched or cut. It does none of those things. It does not provide any guarantee. It is a misnomer. It is a poorly named bill. It should not be called the Medicare Guarantee Bill, because it does not guarantee Medicare—which you would think would be a pretty fundamental part of the Medicare Guarantee Bill.
Currently—and this is a very important point—the consolidated revenue fund is the only fund that really exists; it is the only one that is constitutionally provided for. The consolidated revenue fund is it; it is all that exists. At the moment, authority to appropriate funding from the consolidated revenue fund for the purpose of MBS benefits is granted through the Health Insurance Act 1973. Similarly, authority to appropriate funding from the consolidated revenue fund for the purpose of the PBS is granted through the National Health Act 1953. So, basically, the way the system works now is that funds from the budget are appropriated through authority granted by two pieces of legislation directly for the purposes of MBS benefits and PBS payments. This bill changes that, so that the consolidated revenue fund will be appropriated directly: firstly, into a Treasury special account and then into a health special account and then to MBS benefits and PBS payments. So it is just a very minor difference in the accounting treatment.
It has no practical or substantive impact. It will work on an annual basis, so after determining how much is required to pay out MBS benefits and PBS payments for a year, that amount is credited to the special accounts. I emphasise there is no locked box here. There is not even a vague attempt to say, 'Future governments shall not be able to reduce the amount of funding to Medicare.' Of course they would not be able to do that—one parliament cannot bind another parliament—but they are not even attempting to do that. There are other ways off-budget that that can be done. The Future Fund, for example, is a locked box. It cannot be impacted upon without legislation, but this is not a locked box. In fact, as I said, the Constitution makes it very clear that the only fund that exists in any meaningful sense is the Consolidated Revenue Fund. Section 81 of the Constitution states:
All revenues or moneys raised or received by the Executive Government of the Commonwealth shall form one Consolidated Revenue Fund, to be appropriated for the purposes of the Commonwealth in the manner and subject to the charges and liabilities imposed by this Constitution.
So all this guarantee is is a new way of appropriating funding as is required under the Constitution.
We will have members opposite talk about how this is guaranteeing Medicare, how they have seen the error of their ways, perhaps, how the $7 GP tax was a mistake in hindsight. It was so important that the poor, old member for Warringah told the gathered world leaders at the G20 that this one this government's key priorities—the GP tax. They were scratching their heads at that one let me tell you, Mr Deputy Speaker. There will be lots of alibi-making by members opposite, but I am drawn to the evidence before the Senate estimates by Minister Cormann. Minister Cormann told the truth before the Senate estimates. Senator Gallagher was questioning him closely and she said, 'Is there a practical difference in how the MBS and PBS were funded last year and how they are going to be funded once this guarantee fund is established?'
Senator Cormann, who was trying to spin it, said: 'There is a practical difference. That is there is clear visibility of the full cost and there is clear visibility of the full funding allocation.' That is it—visibility! This should be called the 'Medicare visibility bill', if anything, because apparently there is more visibility if you have a separate account. That is no guarantee. What worries me, I have to confess, is if there is more visibility it just makes it more tempting for the government to cut Medicare into the future, that they will say: 'Look at that visibility. We will have some of that visibility. Thank you very much, and we will cut Medicare.' That is what they are prone to do at every single opportunity.
There is no difference other than so-called visibility and transparency and, as I said, the Labor Party does not oppose transparency so we will support this bill. Let us not pretend for one second that this is any sort of guarantee; it is simply a government which has undermined confidence in Medicare and has attempted to attack Medicare from the day they were first elected—against their election promises. We all remember the former Prime Minister at the stadium in Penrith: 'No cuts to health. No cuts to education. No changes to the pension.' But, cuts to Medicare are cuts to health, and that is the form of the Liberal and National parties. They go to elections promising to protect Medicare. They win elections then they attack Medicare. It is what they do. It is a bit like superannuation. They oppose superannuation at every turn, and yet they undermine it at every turn while pretending they really support it. 'We really support Medicare,' they say. 'We really support superannuation. We just attack them at every opportunity.'
Medicare has defenders on this side of the House and in the other place, and we will defend Medicare at every single opportunity. We will defend Medicare whenever it is attacked by those members opposite. It is fundamental to what we do. It is fundamentally important to our agenda in government and, when we are in opposition, it is fundamentally important to what we seek to protect and defend whilst we are in opposition. We will defend it and protect it. It is a key role for us in opposition—protecting Medicare from those opposite who attempt it at every opportunity.
I understand that people at home might think: 'A Medicare guarantee fund? That's a good thing. It's good to have a fund which actually guarantees funding Medicare. Sounds good. Why not? Let's have a fund which guarantees Medicare.' If only it were true. If only there was some mechanism in this bill which would actually say governments cannot cut Medicare, we would strongly support that because there is only one type of government which strives to cut Medicare and it is the type of government that sits opposite. Labor governments do not try to cut Medicare. This Liberal and National Party government tries to cut Medicare, as their predecessors and successors no doubt will do. And no type of accounting treatment will change that other than a genuine locked box, which says, 'Medicare shall not be cut.' But, of course, this government is not proposing that. I would love to hear the members opposite, and the member for Forde who is going to follow me in this debate, tell the House that it is going to guarantee that Medicare will not be cut into the future. We will be listening. We will be listening because if he does he will be misleading the House, which is a very serious thing. I am sure he would not do that. I think the member for Forde is quite an honourable gentleman, and I am sure he will not mislead the House by pretending that this is some sort of guarantee of Medicare. He should call it as it is. He should say that this does not guarantee Medicare. He should say, 'This is an accounting trick!' He would be welcome to say it because that is what it is. All honourable members opposite should be saying that, just as members on this side of the House will be pointing it out that when you freeze the MBS, when you impose a $7 charge to go to the doctor, when you do these things, that was the government.
Who froze the MBS?
The member for Hume might forget that he was a member of the government that applied a $7 charge—attempted to charge to go to the doctor. And now the honourable member opposite says the freeze is all Labor's fault! A freeze for a couple of months has turned into a freeze to 2020, and it is all Labor's fault. We have been in opposition for four years. If the government really do not want to govern they should vacate their commissions and let Labor govern in the national interest. We are more than willing to take over. The government said they would not provide excuses or surprises, and all they have done with Medicare is give excuses and surprises. What we see is the member for Hume continuing to engage in this political game of saying that they are the friends of Medicare, when they are the enemies of Medicare. Medicare has never had a worse enemy than this government.
No one believes you can afford it.
And here we go. That's it, isn't it? I am indebted to the member for Hume. He said we cannot afford Medicare. There we go; the truth comes out. He let his guard down and he just told the truth: 'We can't afford it anymore.' That is the real truth. That is what he said. If the member for Hume thinks we cannot afford it he should say so at the despatch box as well, instead of interjecting it.
Put it on record!
I think it might be on record now; I think we might have the member for Hume on record.
You are making it up.
Now he is in damage control.
Order! The member for McMahon will resume his seat. There are far too many interjections taking place, on both sides. I would appreciate it if everyone piped down a bit. There are plenty of opportunities to have your say in this place, so let's keep it quiet.
Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, for your interjection. I am keen to have the member for Hume on the record, and when he interjects and he responds it goes on the record; that is the way the parliament works. So it is there now in the Hansard.
You will never be able to afford it—
Here we go, again! The member for Hume is digging himself further. I say, again, that it cannot be afforded.
because you blow all the money. You call yourself a Treasurer but you spend it all!
I am delighted by these contributions by the member for Hume, and I am delighted for them to go onto the parliamentary record. I am more than happy for the member for Hume to keep going. He is making a very useful contribution to the House because every time he interjects he underlines the point that the government, the Liberal and National parties, think that Medicare is unaffordable. That is what they think; that is what they believe. We on this side of the House think that we as a nation cannot afford not to have Medicare. That is what we think on this side of the House.
Order! The member for McMahon will resume his seat. I have already asked the member for Hume, including others, not to interject. This is the last time I will ask of that. There are ample opportunities in this place to contribute your say.
The last thing I want you to do is eject the member for Hume. He is making the case very strongly. I submit to you, please, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker: do not chuck him out. He is making a very useful contribution and outlining what the Liberals and Nationals really think about Medicare, that it is unaffordable. We think there are social standards in Australia, social standards that are created by Labor governments, by and large, where improvements are made to the social structure of this nation. And there have been important ones. There is the age pension, workplace safety and superannuation, and right up there amongst the most important is Medicare.
We see other nations debating health care—most notably, the United States. The United States spends roughly double what we do on health care, for poorer results. We in Australia get it right when it comes to health care, by and large. We have got it right for the last 30 years. We have got it right because of a thing called Medicare, which is efficient but caring, which ensures that Australians get the health care they deserve, regardless of their income. That is what it does, and it does so efficiently. Medicare is one of the great Australian achievements.
Other nations around the world look to Medicare and to its successes, and see that it should be implemented. A couple of weeks ago, we saw the Prime Minister in New York congratulating the President of the United States for overturning the healthcare reforms of the democratic administration—again, perhaps a little Freudian slip, unlike the member for Hume here who told us what he really thought of Medicare in those remarks on New York as well as what he thinks in his interjections. The Hansard will be very clear when it comes to the member for Hume's interjections. I would encourage him to get on the speaking list because I don't think he is on it. I think he should get himself on the speaking list, because his contribution is a very good one. I am sure the member for Forde would be happy to yield for him and give the member for Hume a go even earlier in the speaking list, because he has strong views about Medicare and its affordability.
We will take no lectures from the government when it comes to Medicare—far from it—because they do not believe in it. They do not believe in it one little bit and they attack it at every single opportunity. They have attacked it from 2013 onwards in particular. When they could not get the GP tax through, they changed the MBS freeze. Now that the MBS freeze has cost them votes and seats at the election, they crab walk away from it and they come up with this ridiculous little Medicare Guarantee Bill. They can pass their Medicare Guarantee Bill; we will not give them the satisfaction of voting against it. If it provides some transparency and visibility, as the Minister for Finance calls it, well, that is fine with us. But we know that the Liberal Party and the National Party really hate Medicare and will attack it at every opportunity.
Let me say this very clearly: we will defend it at every opportunity. We will defend it when they cut it. We will defend it when they attack it. We will defend it when they attack it in actions and in words. We will stand up for Medicare—one of the great community standards which Labor gave Australia. It took us a couple of goes. It got us in in the 1970s when we tried it. We legislated it when we came in and then they repealed it. The Labor Party managed to entrench it in the 1980s and nineties, and every time the Liberal and National Party have come after it since, we have defended it and we will defend it at every opportunity.
It is always a pleasure being in this House and listening to the contribution from the member for McMahon! The only people who have created angst and anxiety about Medicare have been those opposite during last year's federal election when they scared the Australian people into thinking that the coalition was going to get rid of Medicare. It was complete and utter nonsense. We have listened to 15 or so minutes of whingeing, whining and complaints, but I am pleased to say that those opposite are going to support this Medicare Guarantee Bill. In consideration of the short time before 90-second statements, I will just say that this bill is about improving transparency and improving the understanding of how Medicare is funded—where that funding is coming from and where that funding is going to. It is incredibly important that the Australian people fully understand that the government on the side of the House is about ensuring confidence in our Medicare system. The Medicare system underpins a sense of wellbeing and confidence in our community that those services will be available to Australians, as they require them on a day-to-day basis not only in going to see the doctor but also in having access to a range of vital medicines.
In this year's budget, the government committed to a substantial increase in the number of medicines that are available on the PPS, some $1.2 billion worth. It is another example that this government is committed to ensuring we provide access to the health and medical services that Australians require on a day-to-day basis. What we do not want to see is another scare campaign from those opposite. We know that that is all they are capable of. All they are capable of is a scare campaign, because they have nothing substantial or useful to contribute and deliver to the Australian people.
The member for McMahon said, in his contribution, that they would love to be back on the government benches to take care of the interests of Australians. Well, I can assure you, Mr Deputy Speaker: there is nothing the Australian people want less than to have those opposite back on the government benches, because last time they were here their contribution to the benefit of the Australian people was nothing. They cannot implement a program to save themselves, and we have seen again—
Order! The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour, and the member for Forde will be given an opportunity at that time to complete his contribution.
Before I ask for any members' statements, I might remind the House that 90-second statements generally require one person speaking at a time. Keep that in mind.
Two weeks ago, I had the pleasure of attending the launch of a fantastic music video entitled 'Our Hood', which was made by 12 young people who are engaged with the Inala Youth Service Sittella Street Project. The music video speaks to the lived experience of the young people in their own communities and how this has shaped who they are—who they have become. The song and video also aim to demonstrate the positive future of our young people and what they are striving for. Since the launch of the video clip on Facebook, the post has reached over 100,000 people and more than 42,000 people have viewed the video.
The Sittella Street Project works with high-risk young people and supports them to persevere, evolve and create opportunity for the betterment of themselves and the community. CEO Lisa Evans told me that, by offering a youth-focused program in which participation is voluntary, the young people were empowered to choose the extent of their contribution on their experiences and what they have achieved through their lives. The video was a truly great example of young people working together to achieve these outcomes.
I want to particularly pay tribute to the Inala Youth Service and CEO Lisa Evans, social worker Luke Thompson and Joel Tuita, better known as MC Reboz, for all of their fantastic work to make the music video a reality for our young people. They deserve our congratulations. It is a fantastic video that I encourage everyone to enjoy and observe.
My electorate is home to the greatest of Rugby family, junior and senior suburban clubs and premiership Rugby Union clubs, the Warringah Rats. Over the Queen's Birthday long weekend on 10 June, our Rugby community tragically lost a true son, 24-year-old Lachlan Ward. During a fifth-grade match, Lachlan passed away on the field at Pittwater Rugby Park. I cannot imagine the pain of Lachlan's family and friends. My condolences go to Lachlan's family: parents Murray and Jill, and siblings Sam, Beth and Anna.
Lachlan will be remembered as a larrikin; the first to laugh; the first to be upset when others were not. Lachlan will also be remembered as a hero. Two months back, Lachlan went to the aid of a woman who had been in a head-on car crash.
Lachlan's passing has not only impacted our local Rugby community but the Rugby family across the country. The support provided by the Warringah Rats to the Ward family and their players over the past week has been nothing short of phenomenal. The ARU is coordinating a welfare effort which is being made available to 300 players, and no stone is being left unturned to make sure our Rugby family is taken care of. I have never been prouder to belong to our Rugby family, and I know many feel the same. Rugby Union is the sport they play in heaven, and I am sure Lachlan himself will not be able to resist.
To Murray, Jill, Sam, Beth and Anna: Lachlan shone very brightly but for too short a time. My thoughts and prayers are with you.
I wish to congratulate all of the players and supporters of the Clovelly Crocodiles Junior Rugby League Football Club which celebrated its 100th anniversary on the weekend with a special gala dinner. Four hundred ex-players and supporters came together on Saturday night to celebrate this wonderful milestone and to look back on a century of Rugby League in the Clovelly area. The event was MC-ed by Anthony Minichiello, and included guests who were former players of the club, like Adrian Lam.
Since the club's formation, the Clovelly Crocs—which currently fields 280 players—have developed a strong reputation as fierce and fair-minded competitors. In the club's 100 years, its members and supporters have achieved some great things, producing outstanding talent in players such as Paul Cross and Des O'Reilly, whilst instilling strong values of sportsmanship and a commitment to all who don the red and white. On Saturday evening, they named a team of the century, which included some Australian representatives of both Rugby Union and Rugby League. The club has taught generations of young people the wonderful benefits of leading active and healthy lifestyles. Rugby League and volunteerism are woven into the fabric of the eastern suburbs of Sydney. I would like to acknowledge and pay tribute to the many, many community members that have been volunteers for the Clovelly Crocs over the last century. I wish the club all the best. Congratulations on 100 years, and all the best for the next 100 years of Rugby League at Clovelly.
Older constituents in Leichhardt need to be extra cautious if they receive phone calls from people claiming to be from Centrelink. Thanks to Bob Madden and Kevin Molleneux, who both recently contacted my office to report a phishing scam. Bob says he received a message to contact Centrelink on (02)83787970. When he called the number, somebody claiming to represent Centrelink asked why he had not answered correspondence about his pension. Bob replied that he had not received any such correspondence, and was then asked for details of his pension card, which he gave. The person then told Bob that they would make an appointment for him to visit his local Centrelink office to discuss the matter. Bob smelt a bit of a rat in the noisy background in the call and the individual's difficulty in understanding English. He realised that this may not be a legitimate call and contacted my office. We got in touch with our local Centrelink officer, who rang the number, but when she identified herself as being from Centrelink they immediately hung up. Bob has lodged a complaint with Scamwatch and hopes that by reporting the incident other people will be forewarned. It is a despicable act when people target vulnerable, older Australians, seeking to steal their identity or access their finances. I would encourage anybody else in my electorate if they receive such calls and would like my office to make sure that these calls are genuine, please contact us; we would be happy to do so.
I am pleased to announce the launch of the Parliamentary Friends of Museums, Libraries and Galleries, which I will co-chair with Senator James Paterson. The group will provide a forum for members and senators to meet with leaders in the cultural sector. Our intention is to provide insight into the important role these institutions play in celebrating, critiquing and influencing our culture and our history. Darwin remains the only capital city in Australia that does not have a museum dedicated specifically to the visual arts, despite the Northern Territory's and first nations people's rich cultural heritage. After years of neglect under the CLP, the current NT Labor government is investing in the cultural sector in the Territory, and we will be getting a new museum. The existing Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory will also be extended. Alice Springs will receive a national Indigenous arts centre. These initiatives will see rich returns for the Territory in the form of revitalised CBDs, support for the regions, tourism benefits and greater cultural engagement. The economic and cultural benefits of a world-class institution have been demonstrated well, I think, by the MONA effect that members will be aware of down in Hobart, Tasmania. $760 million was spent by visitors to the MONA in Hobart in the 2016 calendar year. We hope that cultural institutions in Darwin and Alice Springs will have a similar effect. (Time expired)
I want to inform the House today of something very exciting and world-changing happening in Brisbane. I was recently back at the Queensland Institute of Medical Research, in Herston, and met with Dr Bicheng Yang and her BGI Australia team. BGI has just opened a gene-sequencing lab at the institute, which is now home to the very first gene sequencer of its kind in the Southern Hemisphere. The opportunities this technology presents are so diverse and extensive that I really do feel like invoking those words—that there has never been a more exciting time to be an Australian. Over the course of, say, a day or so, the gene sequencer there could map out your entire genetic make-up; your medical doctor could check if you are predisposed to any illnesses, infections or degenerative disorders, so you could better target what you do in terms of preventive health; you could get information on what medicines are more likely to be effective for you; and athletes could check what training is least likely to cause them injury or strain. But it is not just about humans; this could improve crop yields and it can record the genomes of endangered species.
Already, BGI has forged partnerships with five Australian universities, with projects ranging from animal and human health through to marine life on the Great Barrier Reef. I am proud to see this technology make Brisbane its home, and I encourage as many people as possible to get involved with these facilities and the research breakthroughs that we will undoubtedly see.
I rise to share a narrative with the House about a tragic event in Tarneit across the last two weeks, where we had a car crash into a childcare centre and the childcare centre was destroyed in a fire. On Friday I met with Samantha Johnson with her husband Ian, who were operating this early education and childhood centre, to hear about how the families that had been impacted were coping and how she and her husband were coping. Despite the enormous stress on Samantha and her husband, they had every child from their centre placed in another childcare centre within days and every member of their staff employed directly by another childcare centre in days.
This is the kind of commitment to education that can only put a smile on the faces of those in this chamber. In talking to Sam, I got the distinct impression that I was talking to a committed educator, but then the accolades rang in on my Facebook page. From Renee:
They have created a new standard in exceptional service and that is why so many local families are eagerly awaiting their return.
From Jan, an employee:
I've never seen in all my placement time and work before Sam employed me the passion and professionalism the centre had for kids and their families.
I want to commend Sam and Ian Johnson for the work they are doing and, with the families involved, hope that they get up and running quickly so that these families can get back to their centre.
One of the most important duties we have as a nation and as representatives in this place is to care for and represent those who cannot care for or represent themselves. We were reminded of this during elder abuse week. Sadly, many vulnerable people are not receiving the care, respect and support they deserve, and their health and lives are being put at risk. This is precisely what happened at the Oakden aged-care facility in South Australia under the Weatherill Labor government. Families who entrusted the care of their loved ones to Oakden were betrayed by the healthcare system, staff and the Labor government.
In comparison, when we received news of this terrible situation federally, the Minister for Aged Care met with families of residents and heard firsthand of the shocking and unacceptable treatment endured by patients. Following his visit, the minister commissioned an independent review into the Commonwealth's aged-care quality regulatory processes. The review will determine why the extent of failures at Oakden were not identified and will examine the accreditation, monitoring, review, investigation, complaints and compliance processes to ensure that the regulatory system in residential aged care works effectively.
The impact of the terrible situation at Oakden has been extensive and has reached into my electorate of Boothby. I commend the brave actions of Mrs Barbara Spriggs and her son in seeking a review and explanation of the horrific treatment so many loved ones suffered at Oakden.
Today is the national day of action on fair funding for schools. As part of that campaign, I want to share extracts from a letter I was copied into last Friday from the ACT's Barnardos Mother of the Year, Selina Walker. The letter was sent to the Minister for Education and Training, Minister Birmingham. She writes:
Dear Minister Birmingham,
I write to bring to your attention the impact of the Gonski 2.0 funding cuts on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children attending ACT Catholic schools.
I am a foster mother and kinship carer through Barnardos ACT and my godsons attend a Catholic school in the ACT.
More than 300 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children attend Catholic schools here in the ACT … Parents, aunties, grannies, and carers have very carefully chosen this option above others for many reasons important to them.
Our people choose these schools for the individual care taken to develop our children academically, emotionally and spiritually. Catholic schools are inclusive caring communities that understand and accommodate the complex challenges faced by our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander families and children.
…
Their growth in learning and confidence, at their Catholic school, has been profound.
Minister you have written to our ACT Catholic school principals advising them of significant funding cuts to their schools …
…
I am worried Minister that you are not listening to grassroots people, the parents and carers of children most affected by your policy … Our children are precious and deserve a quality education—it is the key to a better future for our children and our country.
(Time expired)
There is a chronic shortage of doctors in country Australia. The proposed Murray Darling Medical School aims to fix this problem. There is currently a review on the issue being undertaken by the firm of Ernst & Young, which has been engaged by federal departments. I have some concerns about the way this review is occurring. Firstly, the terms of reference appear to be very narrow. I have suggested terms of reference which seek an examination of the effectiveness of the current system of medical training—which, unfortunately, have not been accepted. Another concern I have is that the Ernst & Young officers carrying out the review do not appear to be consulting or meeting with any community groups or community members from the Murray-Darling region. This is a deeply troubling development that will be viewed with alarm across the country communities of the west. I am therefore calling on all of our communities to contact Ernst & Young to make their voices heard. The contact details for the review will be posted on my Facebook page, and I would encourage everyone who has an interest in this vitally important issue, from the CWA—and you do not want to be messing with the CWA!—to service clubs to men's sheds, to make a submission to Ernst & Young. If those submissions are not accepted by Ernst & Young, send copies to my office, and I will bring them to the attention of this parliament. Country communities are tired of the inequality between the city and the bush. The time for the Murray Darling Medical School has come, and we will not give up on this. We will not be backing down.
This year Refugee Week is being celebrated in Australia on 18 to 24 June, and it encompasses United Nations World Refugee Day on 20 June. The first Refugee Week events were organised in Sydney in 1986, before it became a national event in 1988. Refugee Week celebrates those who have built a better life here in Australia, contributed to our collective Australian society and helped make Australia a better place in which to live. This week is about celebrating those who have made Australia their home, their contributions and their stories.
As shadow minister for immigration, I have had the honour to travel around Australia to meet refugees, to visit support services and to sit in on English language classes. I have spoken with mothers who do not talk about the challenges of resettling in another country but about the opportunities in Australia for their children to get an education, to live safely and to have a future. These families speak of their gratitude. We on this side of the House believe in a compassionate approach to asylum seekers, so that genuine refugees can progress their claim safely, securely, and in a timely way. I thank those people who have made a contribution to the Australian community. In Australia, we have resettled 865,000 refugees and people in humanitarian need since the end of World War II. I encourage all members to visit Refugee Week events in their electorates and to support refugees in this country.
It is Local Government Week in Canberra, with more than 800 delegates attending the Australian Local Government Association's National General Assembly of Local Government. Mayors, councillors and senior staff from cities, towns and shires across Australia are in town to meet, network and lobby the federal government for additional funding for roads, community buildings, infrastructure and facilities for their local regions. It is a highly competitive process with many worthy projects. I am pleased to support the West Australian Local Government Association delegation from my home state, led by President Lynne Craigie, Deputy President Tracey Roberts, Chief Executive Officer Ricky Burges and accompanying delegates. In particular, I recognise Joondalup Mayor, Troy Pickard; Wanneroo Mayor, Tracey Roberts; and City of Stirling Mayor, Giovanni Italiano; and Councillor for the City of Perth Keith Yong, who is here in the gallery.
Prior to being elected to parliament, I served 14 years as a councillor, so I understand the importance of federal funding for local government. I am pleased to support my local cities in their applications for federal funding under programs including Roads to Recovery, Black Spot Programme, Stronger Communities Programme and National Stronger Regions Fund, as well as to endorse funding for various capital works for infrastructure projects. When all levels of government work together cooperatively, we can achieve beneficial outcomes for our local communities.
As Australians, it is our duty to care for the elderly, the infirm and those who cannot look after themselves later in life. I am pleased to advise that Bedingfeld Park, an assisted living centre in Pinjarra, received funding for an additional 25 beds under the 2016-17 Aged Care Approvals Round. This is a long-awaited announcement.
Bedingfeld Park is the only assisted living facility in Pinjarra, one of the towns in my electorate only 86 kilometres from the Perth CBD with a population of over 4000 people. Since 2014 the Bedingfeld executive has been fighting for ACAR funding without success. I know the former member for Canning, the late Don Randall, worked tirelessly for Bedingfeld to be classified as rural for the purposes of ACAR so that it could compete for funding on a level playing field. While this did not eventuate, it is great to see Bedingfeld has finally been recognised for its proposed riverside project, which will provide specialised dementia and respite care for residents in Pinjarra and its surrounds.
Elderly residents in regional and rural areas like Pinjarra face greater challenges than their metropolitan counterparts when seeking aged care. They often have to move out of town to find adequate services, meaning that they leave behind their community, their networks and their families. This funding represents an increase in Bedingfeld's capacity of more than 50 per cent, allowing more families to access the care they need without having to move to the city. By making the transition into aged care easier for residents, this government is fulfilling its commitment to—(Time expired)
On the weekend I attended the Labor Women's National Conference, where I had the pleasure of attending an excellent workshop conducted by Queensland's newly-formed Labor Enabled. The workshop was called 'Breaking barriers' and was delivered by members Ali France and Janine Atkin. One of the key issues in this workshop related to employment opportunities for women with a disability, and the statistics are incredibly disappointing.
I have worked in the role of CEO in a disability employment service and I know firsthand how hard it is for women with a disability to get a job. Fifty-one per cent of women with a disability earn less than $200 a week, compared to 36 per cent men with a disability. Only 16 per cent of women with a disability are over $400 a week, compared to 33 per cent of men with a disability. Men with disabilities are twice as likely as women to be in paid employment. Only 16 per cent of women with a disability are likely to have a secondary education, compared to 28 per cent of men.
Women with disabilities are 40 per cent more likely to be victims of domestic violence than women without a disability. Women with disabilities have difficulty finding accessible housing and are more likely to be institutionalised than their male counterparts and are often forced to live in situations where they experience or are at risk of experiencing violence, abuse and neglect. Australia is ranked 21 out of 29 in the OECD countries for employing women with a disability—(Time expired)
Yesterday was a terrific day for people power in my electorate of Corangamite. I was delighted to announce on behalf of the federal environment minister, the member for Kooyong, that the Turnbull government has included Point Lonsdale Lighthouse Reserve and its environs on the 2017 priority assessment list for National Heritage listing. The Point Lonsdale Lighthouse Reserve, overlooking the rip, is of enormous historical value. I would like to congratulate Andrew Sutherland, Lester Hunt and the Friends of Point Lonsdale Lighthouse Reserve for nominating this wonderful part of the world. I have been a very big advocate for this region and for national heritage listing. I also want to acknowledge the former environment minister, the member for Flinders, who also threw his support behind this push. Such recognition is so important. It will provide greater protection of the site and also open up new opportunities for funding to maintain and improve the precinct.
It was also a great day for people power when it came to supporting our wonderful libraries. I was absolutely delighted to join a rally in Barwon Heads after the City of Greater Geelong administrators overturned a terrible decision to close the community libraries at Barwon Heads, Highton and Chilwell. Congratulations to these wonderful communities. I will keep on fighting with them.
Colleagues, it gives me great pleasure today to talk to you about one of the most lovely things about north-east Victoria—the contribution that our migrant communities has made. Today, I would particularly like to acknowledge the Italian community and the work that they have done in the area around Myrtleford.
I had the enormous pleasure welcoming Italian Ambassador His Excellency Zazo and his wife to Myrtleford a few weeks ago. I would particularly like to thank all the community for gathering as we celebrated La Fiera—'The Fire'. Thank you to the Mayor of Alpine Shire, Councillor Ron Janas, your councillors and staff. To the convener of the festival, John Reynolds-Smith, thank you for your work. Thank you to Kerry Murphy for the terrific job that you do. To Malcolm and Sherry Milne, thank you for hosting the ambassador and his wife. To Michelini Wines, thank you for the work that you did.
Colleagues and friends, what I would particularly like to do today is acknowledge one of the leading lights in my community who has such a close relationship to Italy—that is, the Hon. Tim Fischer. Tim is going to be joining me for dinner tonight with the Italian ambassador. I would like to take this opportunity before the House to thank him for the fantastic job that he has done post being member of the parliament to build relationships between Australia and Italy, and the Vatican, and to keep mentoring young politicians like me to help me do my job. I acknowledge his wife Judy and thank her for her terrific partnership.
Sam Carroll, three years ago at nine years of age, through that he had an ear infection. After a week of diagnosis, Sam, along with his mum Angela, dad Adam, brother Hugh and sister May got the news that no family wants: Sam had cancer. He had angiosarcoma, a cancer of the lining of the blood vessels. It was very rare and virtually unknown in children. Sam commenced treatment—radio, chemo and drugs to combat side-effects. He felt sick all of the time. His body ached so much it hurt if he was touched, even though at times all he wanted was a hug from his mother. His toenails fell off, he lost his hair, he had mouth ulcers and spent much of his time away from family and friends.
During this time, Grafton and the wider Clarence Valley community stood by Sam and his family. Fundraisers were held everywhere. The community wanted to help. After 18 months of gruelling treatment, Sam got·to finally ring the bell in the ward, signalling the end of his treatment. Doctors declared Sam's recovery a miracle. He became captain last year of his primary school, St Joseph's in South Grafton. He is playing hockey and rides his bike everywhere. Last month, at 12 years of age, he was the guest speaker at the Tour de Cure Snow Ball in Sydney in front of 900 people. His motto is: 'Anything is possible.' Sam, you are an inspiration, like all children who are cancer survivors. I wish you all the best on behalf of our community.
I rise today to condemn the comments of One Nation Senator Malcolm Roberts. Last week in the other place, Senator Roberts said:
Black lung is not an inherent problem when it is managed properly.
I would normally refrain from arguing with someone as mendacious as Senator Roberts, but these dangerous comments need to be refuted. For at senator obsessed with empirical evidence, he cannot get basic facts right. I represent the Hunter region, the oldest and greatest coal-producing region in our country. It is a region which employs around 18,000 coalminers. To see a resurgence of this horribly deadly disease in Australia in the last few years is significant and disturbing. Twenty-one cases of black lung in Queensland have been confirmed. Earlier this year, a retired Hunter Valley coalminer was diagnosed with black lung—the first since the 1970s.
Senator Roberts' comments represent an incredible ignorance of the issue. Instead of using the horror of black lung to grandstand about the Adani coalmine and attack unions, he should support tougher safety regulations and improved oversight to prevent and contain this disease. I dare him to have the guts to repeat these comments at the annual Miners Memorial Day that commemorates the 1,800 men, women and children as young as 11 that have died in Hunter coalmines. Shame on you, Senator Roberts. You truly are a grub.
It being 2 pm, the time for members' statements has concluded under standing order 43.
My question is to the Prime Minister. On 1 July Energy Australia electricity prices for the average household in New South Wales will rise by nearly 20 per cent or about $320 per year. Energy Australia has explained:
Doing nothing means higher prices and less reliable energy for all customers.
Will the Prime Minister now commit to work with Labor in the national interest to end the policy paralysis which continues to mean higher electricity prices for all Australians?
I am surprised that the Leader of the Opposition imagines that he and his party have a great deal to contribute to bringing electricity prices down, because, after all—
We do.
They do, says the member for Isaacs. Well, when they were in government, they doubled. That was their contribution.
Mr Dreyfus interjecting—
So they have a great track record. Perhaps they think that, because they know how to double electricity prices, they have an insight into how to bring them down.
The reality is that the challenges we face in terms of electricity prices are overwhelmingly the consequence of policy failures by the Labor Party, allowing energy and climate policy to be determined by ideology and politics, not by engineering and economics. There was the setting of massive renewable targets without any regard to the storage and the backup power that was so obviously necessary. There was no regard given to that at all. Therein lies the foundation of South Australia's problems.
But, right now, the single biggest element pressuring wholesale prices for electricity is the price of gas. Why have gas prices gone up so much? Well, it could have a bit to do with the Victorian Labor government banning exploration and development. It could have a bit to do with that. What about the decision of the previous federal Labor government and the Queensland Labor government to allow a massive level of investment in exporting gas as LNG from Curtis Island without having any regard to the consequences for domestic supply? And yet they were warned. They were warned in their own energy white paper and warned by AEMO. They knew it was a risk and they took it. And my government has had to take the strong and unprecedented step of putting restrictions on exports in order to protect tens of thousands of Australian jobs.
Opposition members interjecting—
Labor's track record on energy is consistent. The one thing you know about the Labor Party is that energy and electricity will always be more expensive.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister update the House on the steps the government is taking to put downward pressure on electricity prices and improve the reliability of the energy network for households and businesses?
Ms Butler interjecting—
The member for Griffith is now warned.
I thank the member for her question. The honourable member's electorate has a large number of manufacturing industries, including those at the most innovative edge, and they need reliable and affordable energy to thrive and prosper.
Ms Catherine King interjecting—
Member for Ballarat!
It is critical for jobs in the honourable member's electorate and in the electorates of all honourable members. It is critical for investment, which is critical for the wellbeing of communities. All honourable members should be well aware that we have seen increasing pressure on energy prices. It is putting real pressure on household budgets. It is putting real pressure on businesses as they see the price of electricity and, even more so, the price of gas increasing at a rapid rate. These are very troubling developments, and we are taking action to deal with them. We are taking action to avoid repeating the mistakes of the past. This is not an experiment or an issue to be solved by ideology or politics. The keys to answering and addressing this problem are economics and engineering.
In my previous answer I talked about what we are doing to ensure that there is adequate gas supply for the domestic market. That is a vitally important source of energy for electricity and thermal heat and of feedstock for the petrochemical and other industries. This is a vital part of our economy, and prices have gone up dramatically because of a scarcity of supply, which is driven by the consequence of foolish and ill-thought-out decisions by previous governments—both of them Labor, as it happens—to allow exports from Curtis Island without any regard to ring fencing or protecting gas supplies for the domestic market.
Moreover, we are examining the way in which we can increase the efficiency of gas pipelines, another big part of the cost of gas. We are working on reforms there. The ACCC is ensuring that there will be real transparency in the gas market. More transparency about prices will enable us to monitor and manage that sector better. But, above all, we are committed to the single largest increase in renewable generation in our history: Snowy Hydro 2.0—2,000 megawatts.
Opposition members interjecting—
Members opposite scoff. Well, they might talk about a few batteries here and there. Let me tell you, Snowy Hydro 2.0 will be able to generate 2,000 megawatts not for an hour but for 7½ weeks. (Time expired)
My question is to the Prime Minister. In just 12 days time, on 1 July, EnergyAustralia's electricity prices for the average household in New South Wales will go up by nearly 20 per cent, or almost $320 a year. Why is the Prime Minister cutting the $365 energy supplement for pensioners, a cut that will make it even harder for pensioners to keep the heater on this winter? Why is the Prime Minister hurting pensioners while giving millionaires a tax cut? (Time expired)
I thank the member for her question. We have been through this before in this place. The particular supplement that the member for Jagajaga refers to—
Ms Macklin interjecting—
Member for Jagajaga!
which is a savings measure of the government, is also a savings measure that they have banked. It is money that they have already spent. But they come up here in yet another fantastic example of double-think and criticise a savings measure that they have banked, saved and spent.
Let's just have a look at how this happened. In fact, the member the Jagajaga described the measure relevant to her question today in a press release as an 'unfair cut that Labor would oppose'. But how do you oppose a savings measure as unfair when, at the 2016 election—
Ms Macklin interjecting—
Member for Jagajaga!
you accepted and agreed to the savings measure, banked the savings measure and spent the money? If we go back to Labor's fiscal plan, at page 30, there is an incredibly long and precise list of every single measure that we presented as a savings measure which the members opposite said that they would reverse. They go measure after measure after measure, but one of the measures notably absent is the measure she is now asking a question on, which they agreed to, which they banked and which they spent. But then, as we have noted, opposing and supporting the same measure is now pretty much standard practice for the member for Jagajaga.
Ms Macklin interjecting—
The member for Jagajaga will resume her seat. The minister has the call.
As we have noted, opposing and supporting the very same measure is now pretty much standard practice for members opposite, particularly for the member for Jagajaga. As we have noted before, the member for Jagajaga opposed changes to the pensions and assets test for months in the lead-up to the March 2016 election while she was also taking signatures on a petition opposing the measures that they were also supporting. Weeks after they had agreed to the pension asset changes, she was still collecting signatures. Labor supported the closing of the carbon tax compensation at the 2016 election but now opposes the same policy today. They support and oppose the same policy at the one time. How is that even possible as a matter of rational, common sense? What they do now is get up here and accuse us of making a savings measure, which they also supported and which they have also banked on.
It might also be noted that this government has just allocated $260 million as a one-off payment to pensioners. They will get $260 million to cope with electricity prices. Do they support or oppose that? Do they support and oppose it at the same time? Or do they oppose it, then support it and then oppose it again? Make no mistake, the thing they now complain about is the very thing they have already banked, saved and spent.
I am pleased to inform the House that we have on the floor of the House today the South African High Commissioner, Her Excellency Ms Beryl Sisulu. On behalf of the House I extend a very warm welcome to you.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer update the House on the government's efforts to drive down energy costs for hardworking Australians and their businesses?
Honourable members interjecting—
Well you may laugh. How is the budget working to ensure Australia has a competitive and transparent energy market and delivers reliable and affordable energy to consumers?
I thank the member for Grey for his question. The Turnbull government are doing and will do everything that is needed to put downward pressure on electricity prices in this country, because we know that, to grow our economy and to support more and better paid jobs, this country needs reliable and affordable energy. What we are doing is not limiting ourselves to any one area, to any one energy source or to any one solution. What we are doing is embracing an all-of-the-above approach. This side of the House will take whatever action is necessary to put downward pressure on electricity prices, and we will not baulk at doing it. We will not be held back by ideology. We will not be held back by the arguments of those who want to restrict Australia's energy sources to any one source of energy. In doing so, we set that out in the budget. We said that we would do what it took to secure reliable base load, reliable affordable energy, reliable dispatchable energy and bankable energy that the Australian economy needs to grow more and better-paid jobs.
We are securing access to our gas resources for domestic use through the initiatives led by the Prime Minister. We are ensuring electricity customers get a fair go through the work that we are doing through the ACCC and the inquiry into energy prices. We are improving our regulations through the minister for energy through the COAG process to make it more transparent and to make our energy markets more efficient. We are investing in new generation transmission and storage capabilities, in particular through the initiative of Snowy 2.0, and we are investing in new low-emissions technologies through the CEFC.
That is how you put downward pressure on electricity prices. That is how you put the pressure down. But what it requires is moving away from the politics-as-usual approach which is being driven by the Leader of the Opposition and the ideology-driven approach by the Labor Party, who refuse to meet in the middle in this parliament and give the investment certainty that is required to put downward pressure on electricity prices in this country. If you are going to go on as the Leader of the Opposition does, as he smirks at the dispatch box while talking about bipartisanship, that sort of politics-as-usual process gives you business as usual, which means energy prices and electricity prices will go up—through the approach that is being championed by the Leader of the Opposition. Australians want all of us to be on their side when it comes to putting downward pressure on electricity prices. That is what the Turnbull government is doing. Those opposite want to play politics and drive ideology. That is what is holding them back and the Australian community back from getting the certainty they need. (Time expired)
My question is to the Prime Minister. This document from the Prime Minister's own office confirms that his government is cutting $22 billion from schools.
Government members interjecting—
Members on my right. The member for Gilmore. The member for Corangamite. The Leader of the Opposition will begin his question again. The Leader of the House will cease interjecting.
This document from the Prime Minister's own office confirms that the government is cutting $22 billion from schools. How is it fair that this government is cutting $22 billion from schools but is giving millionaires a tax cut in just 12 days time?
There was a time—perhaps a happy time—when the Leader of the Opposition used to support needs based funding. And he went around the countryside, again and again. It was a glorious era, a golden age perhaps. He was supporting needs based funding. In fact, it was going on until very recently, actually. He used to speak about David Gonski as though he were a secular saint. He said with heartfelt passion, 'I give a Gonski!' with all the empathy of such a compassionate man only caring for the schoolchildren of Australia. But then he was exposed.
Ms Ryan interjecting—
The member for Lalor.
Ms Plibersek interjecting—
Then I ruined it, says the member for Sydney. Oh dear! Yes, it did rather ruin it for you when David Gonski called you out, when David Gonski exposed the hypocrisy and the inconsistency of the Labor Party's nonsense and all of the rubbish and inconsistencies that they perpetrated for years. The member for Sydney and the Leader of the Opposition, under their secret deals—
Ms Ryan interjecting—
The member for Lalor is warned!
believe that a school with exactly the same needs in one state should get less money than a school in another state, and from one system to another. No consistency, no transparency and certainly not needs based. The only needs it was based on were the political needs of the Labor Party. Let us hear from Ken Boston, one of the architects of the Gonski plan, one of the most distinguished educationalists in Australia.
Rubbish!
Ha-ha! This is like the court of a renaissance pope. There are excommunications going left, right and centre. David Gonski is thrown to the wall. Ken Boston—out he goes. Who will be purged next? Actually, I correct: it is more like the politburo. All of the heroes of yesterday are being excommunicated by the Labor Party today. At the risk of quoting a heretic, let me quote what Ken Boston said:
Five years after the release and subsequent emasculation of the Gonski Report—
That was by Labor—
Australia has a rare second chance … The progressive elements in Australian education need to recognise that their argument has been won.
… … …
It will be a tragedy if the school funding bill is voted down in the Senate.
That was Ken Boston, author of Gonski.
I seek leave to table the government's private media briefing which confirms a $22 billion cut.
Leave not granted.
I welcome today in the gallery Mr Mike Symon, the former member for Deakin. On behalf of the House, I extend a very warm welcome to you. I also welcome the two members from the Queensland parliament who have just joined us: Mr Tim Nicholls, member for Clayfield and Leader of the Opposition, and Ms Deb Frecklington, member for Nanango and Deputy Leader of the Opposition. On behalf of the House, I extend a very warm welcome to you.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, on your visit in November last year it was reported on the front page of The Mercury that you were 'very open, in fact enthusiastic' about a city deal for Hobart. Indeed, you extolled the virtues of the $400 million STEM centre and the light rail and said a city deal would coordinate investment for the city. But here we are, eight months later, and the Lord Mayor tells me that she has heard nothing since. Prime Minister, what have you done to make progress on a Hobart city deal? Have you held discussions with the Tasmanian state government? When can we expect something to happen?
I thank the honourable member for his question. As the honourable member knows, my government is delivering for Tasmania. In terms of city deals, two months ago we signed a historic city deal agreement for Launceston. That was signed with the Premier and the Mayor of Launceston, demonstrating what can be done when all three levels of government come together. The centrepiece is a $260 million investment to move the University of Tasmania's main Launceston campus into the city centre. It is about much more than simply building a campus. It coincides with the city's heart-of-the-city redevelopment. It is about putting a new vibrancy into the centre of Launceston and will position it as one of Australia's most livable and innovative regional cities. It will boost the local economy by $360 million a year, creating over 2,700 new jobs.
So I can understand why the honourable member, who hails from Hobart, is keen to have a city deal in Hobart. I can understand that, and I have discussed it with the Premier. I can assure the honourable member that we would look forward to a city deal for Hobart, but we obviously need to work with the state and local governments. But we have demonstrated right around the country an enthusiasm for city deals. Of course, we have the Western Sydney City Deal and the Townsville City Deal, and there will be many others as we roll them out. Any plan would seek to maximise the opportunities for investment, jobs and growth from our significant infrastructure commitments—
The Prime Minister will resume his seat. The member for Denison on a point of order?
Speaker, on relevance. The question also goes to a time line. When can we expect something to happen?
When the question has a number of components, the questioner cannot demand how the answer is given. The Prime Minister is being relevant to the question and has the call.
I would remind the honourable member that the budget has already locked in $1.1 billion in projects for Tasmania, and, in the honourable member's own electorate, we are providing $38 million towards the Hobart Airport runway extension. In fact, I was there only a little while ago, and that project has reached a very important milestone, allowing for the work to start on the final stage. Works will also shortly start to upgrade the Hobart Airport roundabout, for which we have provided $24 million.
I look forward to further discussions with the Premier about a city deal for Hobart. We are certainly very open to it, but plainly we need to get the enthusiasm and commitment and engagement from the state government and the city government and other interested parties. I am sure the honourable member will lend his considerable powers of advocacy to supporting a city deal for Hobart.
My question is to the Minister for Environment and Energy. Will the minister update the House on how the government is taking a technology-neutral all-of-the-above approach to energy policy? Is the minister aware of alternative approaches that would increase cost and threaten supply?
I thank the member for Flynn for his question and acknowledge his deep commitment to the measures the Turnbull government is taking to increase gas supply through the export gas restrictions; through the increased investment in storage like Snowy Hydro 2.0; through the work we are doing to rein in network costs as well as retail costs; and through the amendments that we are moving to the Clean Energy Finance Corporation to get carbon capture and storage into the mix.
We know that the Labor Party has an alternative approach where they saw electricity bills increase by 100 per cent when they were in power. And we also know that they pursue a 45 per cent emissions target, so I asked myself: why is Labor pursuing these reckless emissions reduction targets? We know it is personal, and so the overworked, underpaid member for Fenner told us today in a way that really would appeal to those Australian families struggling with their electricity bills, those Australian businesses that may be closing their doors and those Australian pensioners who cannot keep the lights on and their heating. So what did the member for Fenner say today to ABC News? Shush—the member for Fenner said that, if we cannot tackle climate change, we may 'lose the ski season', Mr Speaker. What else has the member for Fenner worked out? Is he worried about Christmas in July being a permanent fixture? Is the member for Fenner worried about the Boxing Day test being on 1 August?
No, but there is some good news about climate change. The member for Lilley's permanent tanning centre can be turned off now in August. My department has done a bit of modelling and, if the member for Lilley turns off his tanning apparatus, we will save something like 500 megawatts—half the capacity of the closure of Hazelwood.
So, at the end of the day, the Labor Party used to worry about people losing their jobs. You used to worry about families not being able to pay their electricity bills. You used to be worried about trade exposed industries. Now, the member for Fenner and the Labor Party are only worried about one thing: losing the ski season.
My question is to the Prime Minister. How is it fair that under this Prime Minister funding for students with disabilities in Tasmania will be cut by one-third or $12 million in 2018?
I thank the honourable member for her question and I reject the assertion that she makes in it. The reality is, as she knows, that there is $18.6 billion of additional funding going into schools. It is rigorously needs based, and one of the elements of special needs is in fact disabilities, as she knows, and so students with disabilities will get more funding over the course of that period. So it is a very clear transparent needs based process.
The honourable member for Sydney has set out consistently to mislead and frighten parents with her remarks about this, and I want to draw the honourable member's attention to this. She says in one of her statements called the facts on school funding: 'As an outrage, Malcolm Turnbull wants to give private schools 80 per cent of their fair level of funding and public schools just 20 per cent.' The federal government has been the major funder of non-government schools for a very long time and a smaller but rapidly increasing funder of public schools. This is—
The member for Sydney will resume her seat. There is no point of order.
And then she goes on to say—
The Prime Minister will resume his seat for a second. The member for Sydney will not debate with me by way of interjection or she will not be in the chamber. She is warned.
She says, 'Under Malcolm Turnbull's policy, more than half of funding goes to private schools. That is despite the fact private schools only account for around 30 per cent of the nation's schools.'
An opposition member: Yes.
'Yes,' they say. Is that an outrage? What about state governments? The fact that the Commonwealth is the major government funder of non-state and -territory schools has been the case for many decades, under Labor and Liberal governments. This is just an example of the pathetic, misleading diatribes that we get from the member for Sydney.
We have an opportunity now to bring the school funding wars to an end. This is not about politicians. This is not about education unions. This is not about education bureaucrats. This is about our children. It is about their future. It is ensuring that they get the needs based funding they deserve, whatever school they are in, whatever state they are in, whatever system they are in. When they have special needs, they get the funding they need. We then do the work to ensure that, with Gonski 2.0, they get the quality education they need so that they can be top of the class right around the world.
Right on cue, the member for Lalor, who has been warned, can leave under 94(a). The member for Sydney is seeking to table a document.
The member for Lalor then left the chamber .
I seek leave to table the document that clearly shows the cuts to students with a disability.
Leave is not granted.
My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources. Will the Deputy Prime Minister outline to the House what action the government has taken over the last few months to grow the agricultural sector; and what are the biggest threats to the agricultural productivity going forward?
I thank the honourable member for his question, and he knows more than most about what is happening in the agricultural sector and how it is growing. We are currently negotiating greater access for peaches, plums and apricots into China. That will go on the back of nectarines, which we have access to—and the access that we have previously done with grapes—and how we are actually turning around the agricultural industry and have been since we have been in government.
It should be noted that the national gross value of agriculture production when we came to government was $48.6 billion. It is now in excess of $63 billion. A 31 per cent increase is a remarkable turnaround—the biggest turnaround that we have had in this nation—and it comes from good luck and also good governance. Good governance is so important. We stand behind things such as the free trade agreements, which drive products in, but it is not just those; it is also getting things up such as the sugar code.
I note how important that sugar code was for the member for Dawson, the member for Capricornia and the member for Flynn. We went into bat for the sugar producers up there and made sure that we delivered for them—or for the Australian people in general, when we got the country-of-origin labelling through. The country-of-origin labelling clearly shows whether something is made in Australia with Australian workers, with Australian farmers and backed by the Australian workplace health and safety requirements or is made overseas. There is nothing wrong with things coming from overseas, we just need to know. Also, the proportion of what is in the package—how much comes from our nation.
These are all incredibly important, and we know that there are also a number of threats. Probably one of the greatest threats is the price of power. The price of power is so vitally important for irrigators, for abattoirs, and for so many. We are working so hard to make sure that we get a better outcome, but we do not get much support from the Labor Party. I would like to acknowledge the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition from Queensland and what they are doing. They are brave enough to build a coal-fired power station. They have the capacity to do it. Over here, they do not believe. They want to shut them all down—in fact, the member for Port Adelaide wants to shut all the coal-fired power stations down. They were actually celebrating when they shut down Hazelwood. They said it would not cause a problem. What did we see after they shut down Hazelwood? Where did the price of power go? It went up, and that is what you get. If you had the nation run by them, you would have had South Australia across the nation—just complete chaos.
We are not scared of having coal-fired power. We are not scared of making sure that we have affordable power so that working men and women have manufacturing jobs. We believe in them having manufacturing jobs. We believe in the coalminers. We believe in the steelworkers at Whyalla. We still stand up for them, but the Labor Party has given up on them. The Labor Party no longer believes in labourers, and the head of the Labor Party, in opposition, is the former head of the AWU. (Time expired)
Mr Perrett interjecting—
The member for Moreton is warned.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Today the National Catholic Education Commission tweeted:
School choice is under significant threat because of Minister's funding model. Would raise questions about affordability of Catholic schools
Long-term Liberals, like the member for Menzies, used to support school choice, so when will this Liberal government, under this Prime Minister, admit that his cuts to Catholic schools threaten choice for parents?
The members opposite might like to know that, under the Turnbull government's record spending on education, Catholic schools will be $1.2 billion better off over the next four years and $3.4 billion better off over the next 10 years. The Brisbane Catholic Education Office has welcomed the package. Students in the Catholic sector receive the highest amount of Commonwealth funding on a per student basis now and under our package.
The Leader of the Opposition went to a number of Catholic schools, including the Holy Family School in Mount Waverley. Did he know that they would get an extra $4.3 million over 10 years? When the Leader of the Opposition went to Our Lady Help of Christians in East Brunswick did he know that the school would be $3.5 million better off over 10 years? The system under the Turnbull government will receive $18.6 billion extra over the next 10 years. That is a 75 per cent increase. More than 9,000 schools will be better off. All sectors will be better off—the independent schools sector, the government schools sector and the Catholic schools sector—all of which are being denied by those opposite.
My question is to the Minister for Defence Industry. Would the minister explain the benefits to the nation of the national naval shipbuilding project and any threats that put that project at risk? How will the federal government ensure power supply is guaranteed to the Osborne facility?
I thank the member for Boothby for her question. She, like me and the rest of the government, knows that it is critical that ideology never trump the practical when it comes to energy supply in Australia. And that is why this government is ensuring that we have affordable and stable energy and a responsible approach to lowering our emissions, rather than the ideological approach that has been adopted by the Labor Party, particularly in South Australia.
South Australia is facing the energy crisis it is now because of the ideological approach of the South Australian Labor government, which has led us to the highest prices for energy in Australia and the least reliable supply of energy to our businesses. There was no reason for Northern Power Station at Port Augusta to close. Northern Power Station was operating perfectly profitably, supplying base load power to the South Australian energy grid and supporting our economy. It was South Australian Labor's policies that forced it to close, and they were glad when it did. Do not just take my word for it. The CEO of Alinta Energy, the owner of Northern Power himself, said, 'Despite talks with the SA government to stay open, its policies to promote high levels of renewable energy generation have forced the power station's closure.'
Labor's ideological approach to energy supply has snatched the livelihoods of 253 Australians who worked at Leigh Creek at the brown coal power supply there and 225 at Northern Power. So almost 500 people lost their jobs because of the ideological approach to power by the Labor Party in South Australia—replicated here in Canberra. What that means for Leigh Creek is the town has no economy. That means people have left the town in droves. In contrast, this government is taking a pragmatic, all-of-the-above approach to energy supply in Australia. We know that we need to look at all technologies that are working and that might work in the future. We need to be technology neutral.
This comes home very much to the naval shipbuilding project, which the member for Boothby raised. We are faced with the prospect of using $20 million of Australian taxpayers' money to secure the energy supply at Osborne for our shipbuilding and our submarine yard development. We are putting $1.3 billion into infrastructure in South Australia alone—on submarine yards, the shipyard, securing the precinct and buying the common user facility from the state government—but we have to put $20 million of taxpayers' money to generate power because of the failure of the South Australian Labor government, which this party here in Canberra wants to replicate.
My question is to the Prime Minister. The Catholic Education Commission of Victoria said of the government's cuts to schools: 'For Victoria's Catholic schools, that funding cut will add up to over $25 million per year.' So why did every member of this government—
Honourable members interjecting—
The member for Scullin will resume his seat. The members for Barker and others will cease interjecting. I cannot hear the question. The member for Scullin will begin again.
My question is to the Prime Minister. The Catholic Education Commission of Victoria said of the government's cuts to schools: 'For Victoria's Catholic schools, that funding cut will add up to over $25 million per year.' So why did every member of this government, including the member for Menzies, vote in this very House for $22 billion of cuts to schools? Will the Prime Minister now admit to the Australian people and every member of this House that he is cutting funds to Catholic schools?
Mr Pyne interjecting—
Mr Albanese interjecting—
The Leader of the House and the member for Grayndler will cease interjecting. The Minister for the Environment and Energy, representing the Minister for Education, has the call.
The member for Scullin may be interested to know that, under the Turnbull government's plan, there are 46 seats—
Opposition members interjecting—
Order! Members on my left have made their point. The minister has the call.
The House may be interested to know that, in the electorate of Scullin, there are 46 schools that will miss out on an average of $7.6 million if the Turnbull government's schools package is blocked. So I say to the member for Scullin that he should be aware not only that the Catholic school system will be getting $3.4 billion of additional money over the next decade but also that the Catholic school system will still be able to allocate the money in the way they see fit and that in his state and my state of Victoria the Catholic school system per student will see an increase of 3.3 per cent under the Turnbull government's plan. In the state of New South Wales the Catholic system, on a per student basis, will see an increase of 3.6 per cent. In Queensland that increase will be 3.5 per cent. In South Australia it will be 3.7 per cent. In Western Australia it will be 3.8 per cent. In Tasmania it will be 4.3 per cent.
The Catholic school system, like the independent school system and the government school system, will be much better off under the Turnbull government's school program and much worse off under Labor's 27 special deals.
My question is to the Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment. Will the minister outline to the House the importance of affordable and reliable energy for Australian exporters, particularly small businesses? Is the minister aware of any alternative approaches to energy that would threaten Australian jobs?
I thank the member for O'Connor for his question. The coalition, of course, has a very strong track record when it comes to delivering a trifecta of North Asia powerhouse agreements, which are giving Aussie exporters, many of them small- and medium-sized businesses, globally preferential market access, which is helping to drive economic growth and helping to ensure that we are also driving jobs. Indeed, in the member for O'Connor's own electorate, we have seen businesses like the Avocado Export Company, Esperance Abalone Enterprise and Chatsfield Wines taking advantage of this unmatched preferential access to some of the world's largest consumer markets to be able to grow their businesses and drive investment into their businesses, and, as a consequence, are able to improve job opportunities for Australians in the member for O'Connor's electorate—and not just his, but many exporting electorates across this great country. That is a consequence of the agreements that the coalition has been able to put in place.
A crucial ingredient to being able to ensure that we maximise the opportunity in terms of these export markets is affordable and reliable energy. We have to know that our exporters have access to affordable and stable energy supply in order to make the most of these opportunities. Many of these businesses, as I mentioned, are taking advantage of these free trade agreements, and they are small- and medium-sized businesses. Indeed, in their submission to the Finkel report, the Chamber of Commerce and Industry in South Australia noted how electricity cost increases erode Australia's business market competitiveness. That is a principle that we understand. This side of the House fundamentally understands that they must have stability and certainty of supply and that without it—as the Chamber of Commerce and Industry, which represents many small and medium businesses, noted—their business competitiveness goes backwards. That is why this side of the House is focused on the Australian Domestic Gas Security Mechanism, to ensure that there is security of gas supply to meet the needs of Australian consumers first. This side of the House will make sure that we remain committed to stable and affordable energy.
It is very different to that side of the House. I heard about alternative policies—well, there are. We see the ideology that is driven by the Leader of the Opposition—an approach that sees him more concerned about addressing the concerns of the Labor Left than he is about what is best for Australian consumers; more concerned with the politics of energy policy than he is about what a good energy price is; and more concerned about holding in abeyance the member for Grayndler than he is about what is good for Australian small- and medium-sized businesses. The simple fact is that, when it comes to 'Red Bill', this guy does not have wings. This guy is more about fizz and a lack of substance than he is about a better, more affordable and more secure energy supply for Australian small and medium businesses.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Media reports state that the Parliamentary Budget Office has confirmed that the government is cutting $3.1 billion from Catholic schools. The Department of Education and Training data shows the government is cutting $4.6 billion from Catholic schools. Prime Minister, which figure is correct? And does the Prime Minister seriously expect parents with children at Catholic schools to believe that fees will not go up?
I thank the honourable member for his question. I refer him to the answers given by myself and the minister representing the Minister for Education and Training. I recap: the funding program in our education package that is before the Senate at the moment involves an extra $18.6 billion investment in schools over the next decade. Funding for students in our schools will increase by an average of 4.1 per cent every single year from 2018 to 2027. It will be a 3.5 per cent increase for students in Catholic schools overall and 4.1 per cent for students in independent schools. The scheme is fair, it is transparent and it is needs based. Honourable members opposite know that Dr Ken Boston—and I hope it does not produce too emetic a reaction on the part of those disappointed in Dr Boston's apostasy—told the truth. He said the Labor Party was a corruption of the Gonski model. He knows that Labor failed to deliver on that promise. They did not focus on the needs of the students, as we have; they focused on the needs of their own political objectives—27 secret deals. We are delivering more funding fairly, transparently and needs based across the nation. Every system—state, territory, Catholic and independent—is getting more funding per student across the board based on need. That is what Labor used to be committed to, but they are not any longer. Their hypocrisy and their political gamesmanship is leaving the children of Australia behind.
As I said in my earlier answer, the funding war should end. It is about time the Labor Party focused on the kids, focused on their needs, getting the funding right for them and then ensuring they get the first-class education they deserve. That is our commitment. Labor's approach on this has failed Australian children and let them down—an exercise in hypocrisy and abandonment of future generations' right to get a first-class education.
My question is to the Minister for Small Business. Will the minister update the House on action the government is taking to protect small businesses from the impact of unreliable energy supply? What hurdles stand in the way of achieving energy security for hardworking Australian small businesses?
I thank the member for Capricornia for her question. It is a good one. The member for Capricornia is a passionate advocate for the almost 13½ thousand small and medium businesses in her electorate and, like all of us on this side of the House, the member knows how vital reliable and affordable power is for small businesses to grow and to create jobs. I was in Yeppoon in the member's electorate just the other day and we met many small businesses doing what small businesses do best—that is, growing their enterprise and creating jobs. Across the member's electorate, each and every small business is doing the same: taking a risk and having a go each and every day. But they simply cannot keep up with high energy prices and unreliable sources.
In Rockhampton, Dobinsons Spring and Suspension's power costs have tripled in a decade. Solar installation has helped, but it is no use for early-morning furnace operations. They cannot afford the cost of solar storage, which would be about $2 million, and they are considering diesel. In the Pioneer Valley, in the member's electorate, a sugarcane grower says the electricity required to pump water was costing $9 a tonne and they too are considering diesel. These are stories echoed in small businesses throughout Central Queensland and across the country. They are the small businesses who know an ideological approach to energy simply does not work. I hear from small businesses everywhere, such as a financial planner at GEM Capital in Adelaide, in the member for Boothby's electorate, who told me about his backup diesel generator due to inconsistent supply. You cannot grow your business if the power does not switch on, you cannot create a job if you cannot afford the energy and you cannot invest in your future if you do not know what the next quarter's power bill is going to look like.
So this government is taking action. Our priorities are the small businesses and the people who pay the bills at home. We are focused on energy reliability and energy affordability. We know the blackouts in Australia were not a hiccup, as the member for Port Adelaide called them; they were a wake-up call. We have directed the ACCC to review retail electricity prices to ensure consumers benefit from competition in the National Electricity Market. We are securing domestic supply of gas and ensuring the domestic market has the gas it needs to help keep prices down. And we are Turnbull-charging—sorry, that should be turbocharging—the Snowy Hydro, just near my Riverina electorate, to increase its capacity to create jobs and to bring confidence and affordability to a sector which is desperately in need—economics and engineering, as the turbocharger himself, the Prime Minister, said just a few moments ago. While we work responsibly to secure Australian supply and keep prices as low as possible, those opposite stay stuck to a reckless and ideological approach. A renewable energy target of 50 per cent by 2030 will increase prices and instability in the market, yet those opposite just cheer it home. The forced closure of coal fired power plants creates even more instability and leaves Australians without a job, and those opposite just cheer it home. (Time expired)
My question is to the Prime Minister—that is you, Mr Frydenberg. Mr Prime Minister, it is reported that 151 public schools in the Northern Territory will have their funding cut because of claims by your government that they are overfunded. Prime Minister, is that correct? And will the Prime Minister release the full list of schools, including public schools, that the government claims are overfunded instead of selectively briefing out the names of just a few?
I can confirm to the House that, under the Turnbull government's package of additional school funding for the Northern Territory, the independent school sector will be 5.1 per cent better off over 10 years; the Catholic school sector 5.6 per cent better off; and the government school sector 1.3 per cent better off. In the seat of Lingiari, there are 137 schools that will miss out on an average of $3.2 million each if the Labor Party have their way, so the member for Lingiari should be ashamed of himself. He should be ashamed of himself for coming into this place and pretending that he is arguing for more funding when, as a result of his actions and his party's actions, he is denying 137 schools, on average, $3.2 million in additional funding.
The Labor Party had 27 secret deals—27 secret and special deals. They have never funded their promises. They have only delivered budget deficits. We on this side of the House have created a transparent and fair education-funding system. It has been endorsed by everyone from the Grattan Institute to the Mitchell Institute to many in the sector, from the schools' association, the parents' association, the primary schools' association and the like.
I do want to point out to the Leader of the Opposition that his behaviour on this matter, leading the charge against the Turnbull government's extra $18.6 billion of funding, means that in his own electorate 54 schools—
Ms Chesters interjecting—
The member for Bendigo will leave under 94(a).
The member for Bendigo then left the chamber.
Fifty-four schools in the seat of Maribyrnong will miss out on an average of $7.2 million each.
My question is to the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection. Will the minister please update the House on steps the government is taking to strengthen the requirements for obtaining Australian citizenship? What are the benefits of having a strong and consistent approach to national security?
I want to thank the member for Petrie very much for his question. He, like all of us on this side of the parliament, wants to make sure that we have secure borders in this country because, as all Australians know, if you cannot secure your borders you cannot provide national security, particularly in the current age. We have made some changes. We made an announcement only a month ago in relation to strengthening the arrangements with regard to Australian citizenship. There are some five million people who have become Australian citizens since 1949 and we are a great country today because of that. But we want to make sure that people who are becoming Australian citizens are people who deserve to become Australian citizens. As we are seeing around the world at the moment, it is important for sovereign nations to get it right when it comes to Australian citizenship. Is it any wonder that under the Leader of the Opposition—
Mr Shorten interjecting—
It is you again. Yes, it is. It is you again. This Leader of the Opposition has no ability to pull those behind him into line when it comes to border protection, national security and citizenship changes because his party is divided right down the middle. The fact is, as all Australians know, as we move around the country, this Leader of the Opposition has a problem with the public, and the public has a problem with him. As you go and speak to people around the country, they know that there is something that is not quite right about this Leader of the Opposition. They know that in their heads there is a great hesitation around this Leader of the Opposition. He says one thing to one audience and something completely different to the next audience, and the Australian public get it when it comes to this Leader of the Opposition. They have a doubt in their minds about whether or not he is the real deal. We saw it at the national conference when he was out telling the Left one thing on borders and telling the Right something completely different.
It is the case that he is taking exactly the same approach when it comes to citizenship. Members on this side of the parliament supported tough measures when it came to protecting our borders. It has meant that we have stopped the mess that Labor created. It has meant that we have turned around 30 boats since Operation Sovereign Borders commenced, and the Australian public trust this side. They trust the Turnbull government when it comes to border protection and when it comes to making sure that we can get national security right, but the Australian public has this Leader of the Opposition pegged. They know that he is saying one thing in Sydney and something very different in Melbourne, and the Australian public have caught this Leader of the Opposition out and, frankly, many of those behind him know exactly what I am talking about. This duplicitous Leader of the Opposition cannot lie straight in bed.
The minister's time has concluded.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Under this Prime Minister, public schools in my electorate faced a $15 million cut, including Reynella East College, Hallett Cove School and Christies Beach High School. How is it fair that this Prime Minister is cutting $22 billion from schools at the same time he is giving millionaires a tax cut?
I thank the member for Kingston for her question and acknowledge that in her electorate under the Turnbull government's plans 47 schools will be better off—
Ms Rishworth interjecting—
The Minister for Kingston.
by an average of $6.3 million each.
Ms Rishworth interjecting—
The minister will pause for a second. The minister can resume a seat for a second. The member for Kingston will not ignore me when I ask her to cease interjecting.
The government of South Australia—
Opposition members interjecting—
Members on my left.
Under the Turnbull government's plan, government schools in the state of South Australia will be better off by 5.6 per cent, the Catholic school sector will be better off by 3.7 per cent and the independent schools sector will be better off by 4.6 per cent.
My question is to the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Cyber Security. Will the minister inform the House how the government is assisting Australia's small businesses to protect themselves online?
I thank the member for her question. I know she is a passionate advocate for small businesses in her electorate and does an outstanding job representing them. Three weeks ago, the Prime Minister and I met with telecommunications and internet service providers to look at what we need to do to help protect small business from the threat of cyber. And last week, the government announced that it would establish a cybersecurity task force to drive fast action to improve Australia's capability in response to cybersecurity and cybercrime incidents.
The task force will engage with state and territory governments, and also the private sector, to build national capacity to protect small business—particularly, from cybercrime. The task force will work to actively protect them from the current threats that we are seeing, such as the WannaCry incident, and see what we can do to help them keep their businesses safe, because, as we all know—and you would think those on the other side would know—small business is the engine room of the Australian economy. The government is also going to be providing $10 million in grants to go to small business to help them to make sure that they are doing everything they can to keep themselves secure, including being able to undertake pen testing.
The Turnbull government is bringing a resolve to cybersecurity and backing it with the financial resources that this country needs to keep us safe from this threat. The $230 million we put behind the Cyber Security Strategy is the first time any government has put money behind a cybersecurity strategy. We also put $400 million into the defence white paper, the first time a substantial investment has gone to our defence forces to ensure that they are prepared for this threat. We have opened the first Joint Cyber Security Centre, in Brisbane, to make sure that state government and industry can work together with the Commonwealth government to keep us safe. We also have announced $1.9 million to establish cybersecurity centres of excellence to train the next generation of cybersecurity professionals. The Turnbull government has put its money where its mouth is when it comes to meeting our nation's cybersecurity challenge, especially when it comes to small business.
My question is to the Prime Minister. How is it fair or needs based that the Prime Minister is cutting $846 million from public schools in New South Wales over the next two years alone but is giving the elite King's School an extra $19 million over the next 10 years?
The honourable member will no doubt have noted today in the press the strong support the former New South Wales education minister Adrian Piccoli gave to the government's school funding reform. Mr Piccoli, who had signed up to the Labor government's education deal because they offered a particularly good special deal to New South Wales, nonetheless recognised that we have a big opportunity here, a historical opportunity here—as Ken Boston has said, as Kathryn Greiner has said, as one educational leader after another has said—to grab this opportunity to deliver nationally consistent needs-based funding.
The nonsense about there being less money is just that. There is $18.6 billion of additional funding over 10 years. The Labor Party can talk about more money. They never funded it. It was fantasy money. It was a political hoax that the Labor Party played. They played it on the state governments and the school systems they entered into agreements with. They talked about David Gonski's needs-based funding, and now they have walked away from it. They talked about their care and concern for students, and now they have abandoned them. Every principle they said they were committed to about school funding—needs based, consistent, transparent—they have thrown aside.
The funding model we have presented is consistent, needs based and transparent across the nation. It is what David Gonski recommended and it is what we are delivering. Labor should drop the politics and focus on the children; forget about the education bureaucrats and the education union officials and focus on the children. We are committed to ensuring our children and our grandchildren get the funding they deserve that meets their needs and the quality teaching they need to get ahead and achieve their dreams.
My question is to the Minister for Justice and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Counter-Terrorism. Will the minister update the House on the proposed National Firearms Amnesty? What action is the government taking to confront the threat of illegal firearms in our community?
I thank the member for La Trobe for that question and the keen interest that he continues to take in law enforcement matters as a representative here in the parliament. The National Firearms Amnesty will commence on 1 July and last for three months, until the end of September. This is the first national firearms amnesty that we have had in Australia since the gun laws were changed in 1996 in response to the massacre at Port Arthur.
During the amnesty period, people who have unregistered firearms or firearm-related items in their possession, for whatever reason, will have the chance to legally dispose of them without penalty. People who participate in the amnesty will be helping to keep the community safe by ensuring that unregistered firearms, illegal firearms, do not fall into the wrong hands.
Sadly, as we have seen here and in other parts of the world, just one gun in the wrong hands can be deadly. Unregistered firearms that end up in the hands of criminals are very difficult to recover, meaning they can pose a greater risk than registered firearms when they are lost or stolen. We have had examples here in Australia. An illicit firearm was used to murder Curtis Cheng in New South Wales and an illegal firearm was also used in the Lindt Cafe siege.
This government has a very strong record of doing what we can to reduce the threat of illegal firearms in our community. We have introduced legislation that doubles the maximum penalty and provides for mandatory minimum sentences of five years imprisonment for those who are engaged in gun smuggling—legislation that, inexplicably, continues to be held up by the opposition in the Senate. We have also invested $88 million to increase screening and examination for international mail, sea and air cargo. This funding boost gives our agencies the tools that they need to intercept firearms trying to be smuggled across our borders. We have invested $116 million for the National Anti-Gang Squad, with strike teams now in Victoria, New South Wales, Queensland, Western Australia and South Australia, and liaison officers in the other states and territories. Since the inception of the National Anti-Gang Squad, they have seized over 5½ thousand illegal firearms and gun parts. We have provided $25 million for the expansion of the AFP's national forensic rapid lab, which enhances the ability of the AFP to detect illegal firearms that may be smuggled in the mail.
This amnesty has been a long time in the making. It is critical that we reduce the number of illegal firearms in our community, and now is the time to act for Australians who may be in possession of an illegal or unregistered firearm, to avoid the very severe penalties that are associated with it outside of the amnesty period. Information is available online and by calling a national hotline, and I urge any Australian with one of these guns in their possession to take action. (Time expired)
Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
Documents are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable members earlier today. Full details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.
I present an addendum to the explanatory memorandum to the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Powers, Offences and Other Measures) Bill 2017, ahead of the resumption of debate in the House, for the information of members and in order for the addendum to be available to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee as part of its inquiry into the bill.
I have got just two short statements. The first: all building occupants have been advised by email this morning that a lockdown exercise lasting approximately 30 minutes will be conducted in the private areas of Parliament House at some time during this week. The exercise will not be conducted in the public areas of the building. It will not be possible to move between the public and private areas of the building while the exercise is in progress. Members seeking further information about the lockdown procedures and the exercise should refer to the email that was sent out earlier this morning and to the lockdown procedures which are located in their offices. Given the environment in which we are living, all building occupants are encouraged to take the exercise seriously so that they know what to do in the event of a real emergency. I thank the House.
My second statement relates to the appointment of a new Parliamentary Budget Officer. Members will recall that on 13 February this year the President of the Senate and I announced that Mr Phil Bowen, the inaugural Parliamentary Budget Officer, will be retiring from the position when his term ends on the 22 July.
After advising the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, we commenced the search for a new Parliamentary Budget Officer. We looked for a person with strong public policy experience and close familiarity with the Commonwealth budget framework and fiscal policy issues. We also felt it important the successful candidate had the capacity to operate in an independent and non-partisan manner with a high level of confidentiality, integrity and accountability to our parliament.
On 29 May, we advised the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit of the outcome of the competitive selection process. In accordance with the requirements of the Parliamentary Service Act 1999, we sought the approval of the committee for our proposed appointment. The committee gave its approval on 15 June.
It is my pleasure now to inform the House that the next Parliamentary Budget Officer will be Jenny Wilkinson. Ms Wilkinson is currently the division head of the retirement income policy division in the Department of Treasury. Ms Wilkinson's term will begin on Monday, 24 July. The President and I look forward to working with Ms Wilkinson, and I am sure all members will join me in wishing her every success in her new role.
I would also like to take this opportunity to acknowledge and thank Phil Bowen for his service as Parliamentary Budget Officer. Mr Bowen has had a strong and distinguished public service career, including time spent working at the then Civil Aviation Authority and the Department of Finance. He was awarded the Australian Public Service Medal in 2006. In establishing and leading the Parliamentary Budget Office for five years, Mr Bowen has done an outstanding job undertaking his duties at all times with professionalism and impartiality.
The PBO's rigorous independent modelling and analysis has been of great assistance to members of both houses of parliament. I gratefully acknowledge his having remained in the role for longer than he originally intended, continuing to provide a great service to members and senators with the costing of policy proposals in the lead-up to the last election. We wish Phil and his family well for his retirement. I thank the House.
As the committee is required to report to the parliament on any proposed appointment to the position of Parliamentary Budget Officer, I now call the member Bruce to make a statement.
by leave—On behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, the JCPAA, I am pleased to echo the speaker's announcement and inform the House of the committee's deliberations and subsequent approval of Ms Jenny Wilkinson as the Parliamentary Budget Officer. The House will be aware that section 64XAof the Parliamentary Service Act 1999 requires the Presiding Officers to seek the approval of the JCPAA when appointing the Parliamentary Budget Officer.
The committee welcomes the speaker's announcement today confirming the appointment of Ms Wilkinson and associates itself with his remarks. This of course is a very important appointment. The purpose of the Parliamentary Budget Officer is to increase transparency and support informed public debate by providing independent and non-partisan analysis of the budget cycle, fiscal policy and the financial implications of proposals. As the committee responsible for the parliamentary oversight of the PBO, the JCPAA is of the view that Ms Wilkinson's appointment will continue the strong and astute leadership of the PBO.
Following its meeting with Ms Wilkinson, the committee unanimously agreed to the appointment. The committee considers that Ms Wilkinson's economic and fiscal related background complemented by a diversity of public policy roles will allow her to steward the PBO to its next phase. The committee is confident in Ms Wilkinson's knowledge, skills and expertise and believes that, in the position of Parliamentary Budget Officer, she will ensure that the PBO continues to produce relevant work that affirms the independent and non-partisan nature of the PBO.
She has held a range of positions in the Commonwealth Public Service, including senior executive roles in Treasury in the macroeconomic and fiscal groups, where she has been responsible for delivering a number of high profile reforms and, importantly, prior to joining the Public Service, Ms Wilkinson worked for the Reserve Bank of Australia, where she held various positions, including that of deputy head of economics analysis. The committee also looks forward to working with Ms Wilkinson upon her commencement in the PBO.
Finally, in welcoming Ms Wilkinson to the role, the committee would also like to acknowledge the very fine contribution made by Mr Phil Bowen, the inaugural Parliamentary Budget Officer, to the establishment and formative years of the Parliamentary Budget Office. Mr Bowen has led the PBO for five years, since mid-2012. The recent report of the independent panel of the PBO, undertaken by Dr Ian Watt AC, remarked: 'The PBO is regarded as an independent and non-partisan organisation that produces rigorous analysis relevant to public policy debate,' and 'the PBO has been a successful institutional development in Australian governance' and 'has filled a significant gap in Australia's public policy landscape'.
The committee considers that the work of the parliament and our democratic discourse have been enhanced since the establishment of the PBO under Mr Bowen. On behalf of the committee, I would also like to thank Mr Bowen for his strong leadership and for his effective and faultless commitment to the office's operations since its inception. The committee—as I am sure the House does—wishes Mr Bowen all the very best in his future endeavours.
On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties I present the committee's report incorporating dissenting reports entitled Report 171: International Trade in Endangered Species—Amendments; Women in Combat Duties—Reservation Withdrawal; Generation IV Nuclear Energy—Accession.
Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).
by leave—The convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora is a multilateral convention that regulates international trade in endangered species. Endangered species are listed in three appendices to the convention according to the need for protection. In 2016 the 17th conference of the parties agreed to 51 listing proposals of which only 11 species were relevant to Australia. These include six terrestrial species and five marine species.
The amendments appear to have received broad support within industry and the community. The majority of the amendments automatically entered into force 90 days following the convention of the parties, on 2 January this year. The amendments, therefore, became binding on Australia prior to their presentation to the parliament and before the committee was able to conduct its review of the proposed amendments. The committee reiterates previous concerns about the time frames for the committee's consideration of CITES amendments. We cannot perform a proper oversight role if treaties come into force before being tabled in this House. On previous occasions the committee has been notified of amendment proposals prior to the conference of the parties. This lessens the risk associated with the automatic entry-into-force clause of the agreement.
In this report the committee asks the department to notify it of future proposed amendments prior to the conference of the party. I am cognisant that the election may well have interfered with such processes. If the department is not able to do so the committee recommends that the government lodge reservations to the amendments adopted at future conferences of the parties so that the parliamentary review of such treaty actions can be conducted before Australia is legally bound. The report notes that this approach is conducted by a number of other parliamentary democracies, including Canada.
The committee's report also considers a withdrawal of Australia's reservation to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. In 1983 Australia became a cosignatory to the convention, with two reservations. The first reservation relates to maternity leave. The second reservation relates to women in combat roles and is the subject of the proposed treaty action. In 2011 the government of the day removed restrictions on women serving in combat roles within the ADF. The reservation to the convention is therefore inconsistent with the current policy and is unnecessary. The committee strongly supports the commitment of successful governments to gender equality.
The committee heard evidence of the current steps the ADF is taking to recruit and retain women, including the introduction of more flexibility during each period of working life. However, there is still a significant road ahead before complete gender balance is achieved. The ADF must make the most of the many talented women currently serving in the ADF and those who may join in the future. While not every woman will be capable of serving in combat roles nor is every man. Access to such roles should be solely based on merit and capability not gender. Therefore, the committee strongly supports the proposed treaty action to withdraw the reservation with respect to women serving in combat roles and recommends that binding treaty action be taken.
Finally, the committee's report considers Australia's accession to the Framework Agreement for International Collaboration on Research and Development of Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems. The framework agreement establishes the basis for international cooperation to develop gen IV reactors. These reactors will use fuel more efficiently, reduce waste production, be economically competitive and meet stringent safety requirements. Australia possesses a technological lead in the development of materials that are expected to be used in gen IV reactors. The framework agreement appears to offer significant opportunities for Australian research and development for many years in the future. On that basis, the committee supports Australia's accession to the framework agreement and recommends that binding treaty action be taken.
On behalf of the committee, I commend the report to the House. I move:
That the House take note of the report.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate.
Question agreed to.
In accordance with standing order 39, the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
I rise to speak on the Medicare Guarantee Bill 2017 and the Medicare Guarantee (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2017. I made some comments prior to question time and I will follow-on from those. It is a pleasure to stand in this House and speak about this government's commitment to ensuring we have a robust and well-funded health system. While those opposite can postulate and bemoan about any strategy they had not thought of first, it is this government that is actually working hard to deliver on a result that is fair, reasonable and constructive for Australia's future health needs. The opposition will say and do anything to distract us from what we are really trying to achieve here. But while they are concerned about serving themselves and their own selfish ideals on this issue, it is this government that is working to guarantee Medicare and to guarantee families in this nation that they and their children's healthcare needs will be supported now and into the future. What is important here is the word 'guarantee' in the title of this bill. It is not a wish, it is not a maybe or some fanciful strategy that we have seen from those opposite many times over the years. It is a concrete arrangement between this government and the Australian people that will work to ensure that our nation is moving into a future of affordable health care for all. We know that this issue is of vital importance to many Australians.
In my electorate of Forde, the issue of quality health care and its importance to our nation and communities is raised with me on a regular basis. My constituents are passionate about making sure that our government defends their ability to receive affordable health care. This bill establishes the Medicare Guarantee Fund to secure the ongoing funding of the Medicare Benefits Schedule and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme from 1 July this year. The proceeds from the Medicare levy—that is the portion set aside that will contribute to our fully funding the NDIS, another important decision by this government—along with additional contributions from income tax revenue will be paid into this fund to meet the costs of the MBS and PBS. These amounts are held in the fund for the sole purpose of funding these two. In the next financial year, an estimated $33.8 billion will be credited to the fund, with the Medicare levy contributing about $12.1 billion.
Importantly, this fund provides transparency around the actual costs of running the MBS and the PBS, showing once again this government's commitment to affordable health care for all Australians and that they can rely on this government to provide it. The ring fencing of the revenue in the Medicare Guarantee Fund will increase the public visibility of the costs of the MBS and the PBS, along with the revenue generated by the Medicare levy and the additional revenue necessary to meet these costs. It proves that this government is holding itself accountable for this fund and its success. We and those opposite know that this plan is responsible. It is affordable and practical for this nation and its healthcare future. When this government commits to a plan, it will deliver on it. We are not wasting time and we are not hiding behind grubby scare campaigns like those perpetuated on the Australian people last year. We do not want to trample over our most needy to gain political ground. We know that there is no time to be wasted on this issue.
Australians need affordable and practical assistance with their healthcare needs, and they will get it now through this government. This is a peace of mind strategy for our country, and it is this government that is providing it. We are making sure that all Australians can be assured that Medicare is not only here to stay but will be strengthened into the future. We want to give people the confidence to go to the doctor without the financial burden and the confidence to have children and grow our nation's population. We want to give them the confidence to speak openly and honestly with their GPs and specialists about vital healthcare needs. This is what we want to see for the Australian people.
Importantly, if the Australian people know that those basic services are provided in our community then it gives a level of confidence, for them personally and for their families. We want to see an Australia that is a vibrant, healthy nation, prepared to meet the challenges that we face globally. This bill is about protecting an essential service, so that the many Australians who rely on it and this government's funding of it have the security and peace of mind that it is there for future generations. I commend this bill to the House.
I rise to join my colleague the shadow Treasurer in speaking on the Medicare Guarantee Bill 2017 and the Medicare Guarantee (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2017. This is, quite frankly, an insult to the Australian people. It is an insult because the government, at the same time as we debate these bills, continues to inflict savage cuts which make it harder for Australians to access the health care they need. Only this government would have the audacity to introduce a so-called Medicare guarantee while continuing to rip billions of dollars out of Medicare services.
Let us be clear about what is in front of us. This is a transparent attempt to pretend to care about Medicare, without actually addressing the damage that the government's policies have done and will continue to do to our healthcare system. In fact, only a government that cannot trust itself with Medicare, that knows it has a political problem with Medicare, would seek to introduce this sort of bill. Guaranteeing Medicare would have meant dropping the freeze on the Medicare Benefits Schedule immediately and entirely in the last budget. Guaranteeing Medicare would have meant properly investing in our public hospitals. This government has done neither.
Instead, they have introduced this bill in a farcical attempt to distract from the damage they have done to Medicare. The Medicare Guarantee Fund is not a guarantee. There is nothing in this bill to stop the government from making further cuts to Medicare or to the PBS. In fact, it looks like the government, in its attempt, has been constantly saying Medicare is not sustainable. They have created this bill, this fund, to show and shine transparency on Medicare, and this is their next step in continuing the campaign against Medicare by saying Medicare is not sustainable.
While this bill creates two special accounts used to channel funding through to Medicare benefits and the PBS, this is essentially what actually happens now under the special appropriations in the Health Insurance Act 1973 and the National Health Act 1953. For the purposes of budget mechanics there is absolutely no difference with this current scheme. Stakeholders have quickly called this out for exactly what it is—a meaningless stunt. The former secretary of the health department, Stephen Duckett, says the fund is 'an accounting trick' that
…provides no guarantee of policy stability, no guarantee of additional funding, and no guarantee that a future budget will not tear into the Medicare fabric … .
In fact, the finance minister has admitted that it is not a guarantee; that it is actually about visibility and confidence in Medicare, not a guarantee of Medicare at all.
Bizarrely, this fund does not include public hospital funding, which is a fundamental part of Medicare—our universal public health scheme. Medicare includes: the Medicare Benefit Schedule, our commitment to pharmaceuticals and to universal access of public hospitals. It shows how little this government understands Medicare that it has not included public hospital funding in this guarantee. By leaving out public hospital funding, even the government is conceding that our public hospitals face a future of uncertainty and cuts under their watch and that this government no longer considers them as part of Medicare.
It is no wonder that this government is trying to use the bill to distract from its health cuts. They have an appalling record when it comes to Medicare. The track record includes: repeatedly attempting to introduce a GP tax, only to ram it through by stealth through a six-year freeze to the Medicare Benefit Schedule; attempting to slash Medicare Safety Nets, the extra assistance relied on by Australians with high medical bills; fighting to hike the cost of life-saving medicines for every Australian; attempting to abolish a program which provides dental care for low-income children; slashing basic dental support to Australia's most vulnerable adults, putting further pressure on public dental waiting lists; ripping almost $1 billion out of preventative health, ending successful programs including those which teach children in kindergartens and schools about healthy eating; and, of course, more recently cutting the capital fund that allows public hospitals and others to upgrade their cancer diagnostic and treatment equipment. The list goes on.
The impact of those appalling decisions is that patients have been paying more and our health system has been dragged backwards. This bill does absolutely nothing to guarantee that a future Turnbull government will not continue to wreak damage on Medicare. The bill does nothing to address the fact that our public hospitals are in crisis under this government. Elective surgery waiting times are now the worst they have ever been since records began to be kept in 2001. Patients presenting to emergency departments who require urgent medical attention are being left in emergency departments for longer. In the last financial year only 67 per cent of emergency department patients classified as urgent were seen within the recommended 30 minutes. What has this government done? It has cut the extra funding going to public hospitals from the Commonwealth to improve elective surgery and emergency department wait times. I know the members opposite do not care about people waiting in public hospitals but, critically, we do know that public hospital capacity is not keeping pace with population growth and it is not increasing to meet the growing demand for services. And yet the government's budget has done absolutely nothing to address the crisis in our hospitals—nothing for elective surgery, nothing for straining emergency departments. Not only that, but the government in the budget has changed the funding formula for 2021, meaning that public hospital funding from 2021 will revert to the levels set in the disastrous 2014 budget without a new agreement. The government has a problem here—either it has a big black hole when it comes to public hospital funding or it has an unfunded liability if it intends to increase public hospital funding in 2021.
The fact is that Medicare is under as much threat under this government as it has ever been. The damage done by the Prime Minister's freeze will continue to rip $2.2 billion out of Medicare, out of those patient rebates over the next four years alone. That is $2.2 billion in patient rebates that should have been going to ensuring that people in our communities have the care they need through general practice and specialist appointments.
Frankly, it beggars belief that almost a year after the election, Australians are still bearing the brunt of health cuts that millions of them voted against. And it beggars belief that the government's budget will keep many of these in place well beyond the next election. The GP freeze will not be fully lifted until 2020, including items such as pregnancy support, counselling, GP mental health plans, family counselling help and items when a patient is at imminent risk of death. That is not what a Medicare guarantee looks like; that is what a government desperately seeking to distract from its cuts looks like.
I have a particular question that I would like the Treasurer to respond to when he returns to speak in summing up this bill. I want to ask a particular question about section 15 of the Medicare Guarantee Bill. Section 15 states that 'surplus amounts in the Medicare Guarantee Fund (Health) Special Account' will be transferred to the general consolidated revenue fund. That seems to mean that, if the appropriation for these bill is surplus to what is required to fund Medicare, that money will go back into the contingency reserve fund. What if the reason that it is surplus is that this government has made cuts to the Medicare Benefits Schedule or it has taken drugs off the Pharmaceutical Benefits Schedule?
What this bill in fact does is guarantee that none of that money will stay in health; it will go back into consolidated revenue. So it in fact does the opposite of what a good health minister would be seeking to do, and that is guarantee that that funding that is appropriated for health purposes stays within our healthcare system. That is the problem with section 15. I ask the Treasurer when he comes to sum up on this bill to actually respond to that problem. If surplus funds are moved back into consolidated revenue rather than being reinvested back into Medicare, it will show that, it does not matter how much money is put into the Medicare Guarantee Fund Special Account, the government can get away at any point with cutting it. If they reduce the Medicare Benefits Schedule at all and less money is required for the appropriation of Medicare, that money will not stay in health. This bill actually locks that position in.
Only Labor can be trusted to fight for Medicare. Only Labor can be trusted to protect Medicare. That is exactly what we are doing. We will be introducing amendments to this bill that will properly protect the future of Medicare. These amendments will mean that the bill cannot be considered until funding to support universal access for public hospital treatment is included in the Medicare Guarantee Fund. As I have noted, it beggars belief that funding for public hospitals—a core pillar of Medicare—has been left out of this fund. The amendments will guarantee immediate and annual indexation of Medicare rebates that have been frozen by this government, including GP rebates, rebates for specialist consultations and procedures, allied health services and those diagnostic imaging services unfrozen in the budget in the 2019-2020 financial year. Every day the government's Medicare freeze remains in place is another day that Australians are paying more for their health care.
Finally, given that we know that this government cannot be trusted with anything on health, the amendments I will move will mean that the bill cannot be considered until there is a guarantee that savings from the Medicare Benefits Schedule Review and agreements with stakeholders, including those savings from the deal with Medicines Australia that we want to see used to fund new drugs, can be reinvested in Medicare and not used as an excuse to further cut and undermine Medicare. This government is hell-bent on gutting Medicare through any means possible.
At the last election, Labor committed to reinvesting every single dollar of savings found through the ongoing Medicare Benefits Schedule Review back into Medicare and new innovations in our Medicare benefits system. The government has not made the same undertaking, and we know that it will cut into Medicare if it can get away with it. If the government votes against any of these amendments, it will be more confirmation that, when it comes to health, its budget is a complete and utter sham. With a disastrous record on cuts to health and Medicare, we know the government can never be trusted to do the right thing.
Medicare will never be guaranteed while this government continues to rip millions of dollars out of it. Medicare will never be guaranteed while the government fails to properly fund our public hospitals and to seriously address elective surgery queues and emergency department waiting times. Medicare will never be guaranteed while the Medicare freeze remains on GP items, specialist items and allied health items, in some cases until 2020. The plain truth is that Medicare will never be guaranteed under this government, and this bill does not change a thing. Therefore I move the following amendment:
That all the words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
"consideration of the bill and related bills be deferred until the Minister amends them to include actual guarantees for the future of Medicare, specifically amendments that:
(1) set out the purpose of Medicare, namely to provide a universal public health insurance scheme that provides access to medical, pharmaceutical and public hospital services based on clinical need, not capacity to pay;
(2) include funding to support universal access to public hospital treatment, along with medical and pharmaceutical benefits, in the purpose;
(3) guarantee immediate and annual indexation of Medicare rebates that have been frozen by this Government;
(4) guarantee proper Commonwealth investment in public hospitals, so that all Australians can access acute care without financial or other barriers; and
(5) guarantee that savings from the Medicare Benefits Schedule Review and agreements with stakeholders will be reinvested in Medicare, and not used as an excuse for further cuts".
This amendment is what a real guarantee for Medicare actually looks like, not a pretend guarantee to try and get yourself out of a political problem. We know that is what the government is attempting to do with these bills. We know that the government is basically creating an accounting trick—creating two new funds to replace the purpose of two existing pieces of legislation. We see that in the consequential amendments bill. This bill does absolutely nothing to stop the sort of havoc that we have seen a Liberal-National Party government wreak on our Medicare system: cuts to GP services and the undervaluing of general practice in our communities; the undervaluing of specialists and the important services that are provided by them; cuts to patient rebates; and cuts to child dental services. Only Labor guarantees Medicare. Only Labor will protect Medicare. I hope the Liberal Party finally sees some sense and supports the amendment circulated in our name.
Is the amendment seconded?
I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.
The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Ballarat has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question now is that the amendment be agreed to.
It is interesting to sit here and hear the member for Ballarat continue on her scare campaign from the 2016 election—because that is exactly what just happened here. That is exactly what we heard from the shadow minister, because the statistics prove very different to what she is saying. And statistics do not lie. That is one thing that you are always taught. If you look at the stats, they are true.
The older you get, the more clear it becomes that good health is every Australian's most valuable asset. It is one of those 'money cannot buy it' things. That is what they say, but it is true. When you do not have your health, you have nothing else. While we cannot guarantee that every Australian will be blessed with perfect health, investment in preventive health, health management and treatment ensures you are in the best health you can be. That is why this government is committed to safeguarding Australians' ongoing access to Medicare. While I cannot guarantee every one of us will be forever in tiptop perfect health, I can guarantee that, as a result of the coalition government's resolve, our health system will be.
Australians can have great faith in the fact that Medicare is not only here to stay but will be further bolstered by a $10 billion package that supports our health system so that it may in turn best support Australians and their families. The 2017-18 budget delivers on the coalition government's plan to make the world's best health system even better, so that every Australian has access to the best doctors, nurses, hospitals and medicines.
Funding for our outstanding public hospital system will increase by $2.8 billion this financial year, despite what the member for Ballarat says, and Medicare funding will increase by $2.4 billion over the next four years. This funding injection includes a $1 billion commitment to our doctors and their patients to restore indexation of the Medicare rebate—cut by Labor, by the way—commencing with GP bulk-billing arrangements starting on 1 July. We have joined with Medicines Australia to ensure access to important treatment, by reducing the costs of medicines by $1.8 billion over the next five years. In addition, with heart disease being Australia's No. 1 killer, we are giving new hope to 60,000 patients at risk of chronic heart failure, who will benefit from the listing of new drugs at a cost of more than $510 million.
I am proud to be part of the government that is securing the future of Australians and their families through our commitment to Medicare and the establishment of the Medicare Guarantee Fund. The fund sees proceeds drawn from the Medicare levy, minus the portion set aside for the National Disability Insurance Scheme, and an additional contribution from income tax revenue, with the sole purpose being funding the MBS and the PBS. The fund will ensure transparency, visibility and sustainability of the Medicare Benefits Schedule and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, guaranteeing Australians access to these services and affordable medicines long term.
The coalition government understand the value of an effective, efficient health system and what that means to Australians and people in my electorate of Petrie. We are unwavering in our commitment to tangible measures that use taxpayers' money wisely to improve the health and lives of Australians. It is sad that the same cannot be said about those opposite. They see Medicare as a political tool to manipulate for their own gain. I am just saying that we all remember 'Mediscare' in the 2016 federal election. The opposition are not interested in guaranteeing Medicare; their primary focus is guaranteeing their own jobs, and if that comes at the expense of the health of Australians, well their actions suggest an attitude of: 'Oh, well, so be it.'
For those actually interested in the facts about the federal government and our position on Medicare, it is good to know that we are investing record levels of funding into Medicare, and this continues to grow each and every year—each and every year it goes up. We are investing more than $22 billion into Medicare, and this will increase to nearly $26 billion in 2019-20. We have an economic plan that underpins our ability to fund better health care for Australians and their families. Our plan is sensible and sound and it drives jobs and growth, which means that we can fund Medicare into the future and guarantee Australians access to health care.
Medicare is a core coalition government priority, despite what those opposite say. In fact, during the election campaign the Prime Minister made a commitment that every element of Medicare currently delivered by government would continue to be delivered by government. Already we are seeing Australians getting more benefit from Medicare than ever before. Bulk-billing rates are the highest they have ever been. Let me repeat that again: bulk-billing rates are the highest they have ever been—not this year or next year; right now they are the highest they have ever been. It is over 85 per cent, compared to an average of 79 per cent under the member for Ballarat and those opposite. Last financial year there were roughly 17 million more bulk-billed GP attendances than in Labor's last full year in office in 2012-13. More people than ever before are seeing a GP without having to pay anything.
It was great to have the minister in my electorate just this month, when we spoke with local doctors and pharmacists who are particularly welcoming of our Health Care Homes policy. The policy gives GPs and their team flexibility to coordinate, manage and support patients with chronic illness with the aim of keeping them healthier at home and out of hospital. Five sites in Petrie will take place in the Health Care Homes trail: Lakelands Medical Centre, Moreton Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Community Health Service, Redcliffe Peninsula 7 Day Medical Centre, The Bay Family Medical Centre and, lastly, Redcliffe GP Super Clinic—which, when I was elected, was still shut; the doors were closed, and there was not a doctor in the place. After all that they said about Redcliffe GP Super Clinics, we finally got it open, and there are doctors practising there. The Redcliffe GP Super Clinic will now take part in the Health Care homes trial. It is a great win for the people of Petrie and a great win for all Australians.
It is no accident at all that Australia rates among the 10 healthiest nations in the world. We boast a robust agricultural sector, an environment which supports the plentiful production of fresh food and we get out and about—we exercise. We have a great nation, a wonderful nation, to get out and about in, and we are active. Importantly, our government is committed to the people it represents. We are definitely committed 100 per cent to the people we represent. Unlike Labor, the coalition governs for all Australians, even if they did not vote for us. We are not lining the pockets of unions.
Mr Tim Wilson interjecting—
We are not being held to ransom by a third party, Member for Goldstein, and we are not playing politics with issues like the NDIS and school funding that we have clearly see this week from those opposite. We are focused on outcomes, as opposed to the opposition. We take seriously the health of Australians and their families. Australians place great faith in the range of essential services available to them, and they can be confident that the coalition government will deliver.
I rise to speak to the Medicare Guarantee Bill 2017, and to say that it is pretty clearly nothing more than a fig leaf. We have already had the government in here today with their bank levy legislation, which is a fig leaf to protect them from exposure in terms of their work to support the banks and protect the banks from a royal commission. Now, we see this fig-leaf legislation, which is all about protecting them from criticism in relation to their woeful record on Australian public health and Medicare. This bill is an attempt to set up a special account for a so-called Medicare guarantee. But the only way to guarantee and protect Medicare is to end the government's freeze on the Medicare Benefits Schedule, to stop this government from continuing to attack Medicare and public health in this country and, ultimately, to throw this mob out because, frankly, all they have ever done in government is to attack public health care in this country. And their record on private health is not that much better.
The idea of having a special account for Medicare is, of course, an illusion because the Constitution says that there is one account, and it is called the consolidated revenue. This idea of having a special account is really just a bit of creative accounting. It is a bit of trickery from the government to make it appear as though they are taking action on Medicare, while, at the same time, we are still seeing the consequences of freeze on the MBS. What has that meant? It has meant the equivalent of the GP co-payment. They could not get a GP co-payment through the front door, so it is a GP co-payment through the backdoor. And people are paying for it. Households are paying for it. These are the very same households that are suffering from low wages growth, that are suffering from high housing costs and that are suffering from high energy costs because, under this government, wholesale energy prices have doubled. Under this government, wholesale energy prices have doubled and there are flow-on effects for households. Those very same households are suffering the consequences of this government's freeze on the MBS, and why? Because those costs are being passed on to healthcare consumers or, as I like to call them, people. People are paying the costs of this government's MBS freeze and their attempts to pretend as though they are defending public health are falling flat.
No-one believes a word this Prime Minister and this government have to say when it comes to health care in this country. He can complain all he likes about how it is unfair that he is being called out for his attacks on public health. He can stand up at the dispatch box and complain about his perceived victimisation—'Oh, it's not fair; Labor called us out on our public health policies.' We did call the government out at the last election and we will continue to call the government out throughout this term of opposition because, in fact, the only party that has ever defended Medicare in this country is the party that created Medicare—the Australian Labor Party. Bill Hayden, Bob Hawke—the Hawke-Keating years were the years under which Medicare was solidified. Before that, of course, Gough Whitlam had introduced public health insurance. But, unfortunately, what happened? The Liberals, when they replaced Mr Whitlam's government, came in and got rid of the equivalent of Medicare at the time. So it took a Labor government to bring Medicare back. It was greatly sad that there could have been a longer period of time that we had Medicare in this country, but for the Liberal Party.
I think they learnt the lesson of what happened with then Prime Minister Fraser's decision to axe universal health care and Prime Minister Hawke's decision to bring it back. I think they learnt a lesson from that. But, unfortunately, the Liberals learnt the wrong lesson. They did not learn the lesson that they should defend public health care. They learnt the lesson that they should appear to defend public health care. And that is what this is. It is the appearance of defending public health care while, at the same time, taking an axe to it. But people are not stupid. My constituents are not stupid. They know what is going on here. They know that when you start cutting funds—the cuts to pathology, for example—or when you start freezing the Medicare Benefit Schedule, and you freeze it for years and years, the consequences are consequences for them. They know that when there are attempts to put up the price of medicine over and above CPI the consequences are felt by them. And they know that a bill like this is nothing but an attempt to pretend otherwise.
The GP bulk-billing rate in my electorate of Griffith is 68.1 per cent. That is a woeful rate. In fact, we are 141 out of 150 electorates in our ranking in terms of our GP bulk-billing rate. The overall rate is even lower—66.8 per cent. What this means is that up to eight per cent of people will delay and put off going to see the doctor. In an electorate the size of mine, that is up to 13,000 people. That is absolutely reckless. The last thing this country needs or wants is having people not going off to the GP when they should be. Early diagnosis matters. Early treatment matters. This government, instead of this ridiculous idea of running up this pretend protection of Medicare, should actually stand up for people and fix bulk-billing rates, not be sitting around saying, 'Let's brainstorm ways that we can make it appear as though we are defending Medicare. Let's come up with ideas to pretend that we are doing something about Medicare.' Instead of doing that, just fix bulk-billing rates. Get rid of your Medicare Benefit Schedule freeze—not the pretend getting rid of it that you announced in the budget but actually move to get rid of the freeze. Stop trying to introduce a co-payment by stealth. People understand what you are doing, and they are not going to stand for it.
As I said, this is a government that is really not much better on private health than it is on public health. In fact, in my electorate the estimates from the private health association are that more than 60 per cent of people are covered by private health insurance. Yet, private health insurance has been 18 per cent higher under the Liberals. What is the Liberal government doing in relation to these issues? I wrote to the health minister on the day that he became the health minister—the day that he was sworn in as the health minister for this country. I said to him: 'Health Minister, we have these bulk billing problems in my electorate and we have concerns about private health insurance costs.' But this Liberal government has done nothing about those costs—absolutely nothing. All they have done is sit around brainstorming trickery to try to pull the wool over the eyes of the Australian people, because they know how deeply unpopular it is when Liberal governments like Mr Fraser's, like Mr Abbott's and now like Mr Turnbull's take the axe to public health in this country.
Universal health care is something that Australians are rightly proud of. We are rightly proud of the fact that we live in a country where we believe in universal health care, where we do not support the American path of private insurance and insurance being contingent on whether you have got the sort of job that offers the right sort of health plan. We have not accepted that American path of health care costing tens of thousands of dollars. We believe in public health care in this country. We believe in universal health care. It is something that Labor introduced. It is something that Labor has defended for decades, and it is something that the Liberals have opposed for decades. The only difference between now and the 1970s is that they are a bit less honest about it—they are just a little bit less forthright than they have been in the past in relation to their hatred of universal health care.
They cannot stand it. They think it is socialism. They think it is too much state interference in the market. That is what the people sitting over there think about our universal healthcare system. They would love to hollow it out. They would love to reduce the amount of public funding that is going into public health care in this country, and the reason they want to do that is that they have a fundamental ideological objection to public health care and to universal health care.
This bill really bells the cat on that. This idea of creating a special account is an attempt to pretend that some action is being taken is just deeply embarrassing for the government. I think the health minister is an intelligent man. This should be beneath him, and yet this is the sort of thing that is being trotted out for the attention of this parliament to try to help the government deal with its perceived political problem in relation to how on the nose it is when it comes to universal health care and Medicare in this country.
But, as I said, there is a pretty simple way that the government can actually deal with that political problem–that is just to stop taking the axe to public health care. It is a pretty simple thing: if you do not want people to be unhappy with you for cutting public funding to health care, then stop cutting public funding health care. It is as simple as that.
The finance minister has defended this bill by saying, 'Oh look, the thing about having this special account is, if a future government touches it, people will know about it.' That is a pretty frank admission from the finance minister that the Liberals will continue to seek to touch public health care, that they will continue to seek to do that.
In contrast, the shadow minister for health has made very clear our view on this bill. In fact, she spoke in this debate incredibly well—I think most people in this chamber would agree; certainly, people on this side of the House would agree—about our concerns about what this government is doing to public health care. She does not agree with the finance minister. What she has said is that this is some trickery. This is an accounting mechanism. This is not something that in any way provides any real protection to public health care. And how can it?
As I said at the outset, the Constitution makes really clear: there is one fund. It is the Consolidated Revenue Fund. This is not some special source of revenue for Medicare. This is not some special source of guarantee funding as someone might ordinarily understand the word 'guarantee'. This is not a guarantee at all in fact. It is not anything other than a fund being described as a Medicare guarantee fund with a view to trying to persuade the people of Australia that they do not need to be worried about the Liberals when it comes to public health care.
But they do. The people of Australia do need to be worried about the Liberal Party of Australia when it comes to the protection of our universal healthcare system. As I said, whether it is cuts to pathology funding, freezes to the MBS, increases in the price of medicines or cuts to public funding going to the states for the hospital system, this Liberal government has a woeful track record when it comes to public health care in this country.
Trickery is not going to help with that. People are alert to what is happening and what the Liberal Party is trying to do. People know that simply describing something as a special account does not provide it with any measure of protection whatsoever, with any additional protection from attacks by the Liberal government on public health care. The best way to protect public health care is to vote for a party that actually believes in public health care, that has a fundamental values-based commitment to saying that every person in this country—no matter their circumstances, no matter their background—should have the right to health care. That is what we believe and that is why we have been the party of universal health care.
We do not believe that your access to health care should be dependent on your credit card. We believe it that should be dependent on your Medicare card. If you want to have a party that will actually stand up for Medicare—not with trickery, not with accounting moves, not with attempts to pretend to be doing something when you are not really, but genuinely stand up for public health care, genuinely stand up for the appropriate levels of funding for public health care rather than seeking to cut public health care—then there is really only one choice and that is to vote Labor. The Liberal Party of Australia, whether they are led by Malcolm Turnbull, whether they are led by Tony Abbott, whether they are led by Peter Dutton, will never stand up for public health care in this country, and they certainly will never do it to the same extent that the Australian Labor Party will.
Medicare is an important legacy of past Labor governments, and it now falls to the Labor members of this place to stand up at this time to defend Medicare from the Liberal Party and from the conservative attacks on universal health care. My colleagues and I have been standing up on this issue to call on the Liberals to stop attacking Medicare, to reverse their freezes to the MBS, to genuinely stand for better bulk-billing rates across the Australian population and to genuinely stand up for people like the people in my electorate, who, as I say, have an incredibly low rate of bulk-billing, and GP bulk-billing specifically. Labor and each member on this side of this House every day fights to support Medicare, our universal public health care system and access to health care for everybody, dependent on your Medicare card, not on your credit card. The question for every single member opposite, whether it is the member for Bonner, the member for Forde, the member for Capricornia, the member for Dawson or the member for Leichhardt, is: what are you going to do? Whether it is the member for Petrie, whether it is the member for— (Time expired)
When you are trying to convince the general public that you have suddenly found a heart and a brain, it is not surprising that there is some attempt to duplicate your opponent's policies and, of course, that is what we saw in the budget and that is what we are seeing in this legislation—a pale imitation of a genuine commitment to Medicare. You know it is merely an attempted imitation when, rather than taking steps to show a commitment to something, the best you can do is bring on a bill that says you have a commitment to it—and that is what we have here. Instead of doing all the things they could have done to show that the right to universal health care is a top priority, they have opted for words. Clearly, they do not realise that actions speak louder than words and, in this case, the actions tell us plenty about the commitment to Medicare.
Let us look at the actions, or the lack of action. If they really wanted to protect Medicare, they would have dropped their freeze on Medicare services entirely. If they really wanted to protect Medicare, they would have properly invested in public hospitals. They did neither and, in fact, have outsourced where they can and have explored ways to reduce the federal commitment to hospital funding.
This bill is a case of 'perhaps, if I say it often enough, people will believe me.' But let us look at the facts about the basic tenets of Medicare. The first is that universal access should be available both in and out of hospital but, also, that the health services we access to prevent an expensive hospital visit, like seeing a GP or getting a blood test or scan, should be available. The last budget locked in a $2.2 billion reduction in funding to GPs, specialists and allied health services like physiotherapy. Far from lifting the freeze on indexation of payments for visits to these health professionals, in order to keep pace with the rising costs, the government is only spending $9 million next financial year to ease the freeze. That represents 1.2 per cent of the funding that has been missing. We also know that the freeze will not be lifted for many items until 2020—not this year, not next year, not the year after, but the year after that. The government will gradually lift the Medicare rebate freeze, starting this year with bulk-billing incentives for GP consultations, then other GP and specialist consultations in 2018, specialist procedures in 2019, and finally targeted diagnostic imaging services in 2020. But there are some hidden extras that will stay frozen for another three years, among them consultations for mental health plans. Federal health minister Greg Hunt says he wants to focus on mental health—Deputy Speaker, my message to the minister is that if you delay the lifting of the freeze on mental health plans, that is a very poor way to show your commitment. The visit to a GP is often the first port of call for people with a mental illness, and a GP has to identify not only what is going on but what the best way forward might be, so to keep this rebate on hold is a real betrayal of individuals with a mental health issue, and a betrayal of their families. Also on the list of items which will stay frozen are chronic disease assessments—assessing people who are at risk of heart disease or diabetes—and pregnancy support services. The official Medicare data shows the list of items where the freeze is not lifted until 1 July 2020, and that those items were used 23 million times last year—that is, in the last financial year those same services were used 23 million times. This is not a small number of items. Many are things that we want people to use a GP for—to reduce the incidence of hospital admissions—because this means that people are managing their health issues. We also know that for diagnostic imaging—scans, X-rays—only seven per cent of these items will have their rebates indexed. As the Diagnostic Imaging Association has said, the government has broken its promise. Too bad if you are pregnant and need an ultrasound; if you have a brain tumour and need an MRI; or if you require a PET scan to assess the extent of your cancer; or if you need any one of hundreds of other vital radiology services—there is no relief. That hardly sounds like something that guarantees Medicare.
To those on the other side, Deputy Speaker, it may not be a big deal to put your hand in your pocket to pay an ever-increasing gap. It is incredible that so many GPs in my electorate have held off passing through the increase to patients, but it just goes to show the incredible commitment that they have to their communities. It has been cost-shifting on a massive scale. I know it is wearing down the energies of some very long-serving and very hardworking GPs in my community. The gaps on many other services really hurt. New South Wales AMA president, Brad Frankum, says the 'small and incremental' increases to the Medicare bulk-billing incentive and Medicare rebate are not enough. He says:
At this rate it will be many years before patients see an appreciable difference in out-of-pocket costs. This is a crushing blow for general practice in NSW and continues to be an ongoing problem for specialists and the patients who need their care in this state.
So much for a commitment to Medicare.
Let us look now at hospitals. Anyone who has had the misfortune to be in hospital in recent times will tell you stories of a staff and a system under pressure, and I have certainly seen that firsthand. I think we forget the massive reduction in health spending that has occurred. In spite of the amazing efforts of the people who work in our public hospitals, things are tough. The Gillard government tried to move to a long-term funding arrangement where the Commonwealth took on a specific share of the growth in hospital costs, initially set at 45 per cent and due to rise to 50 per cent from 1 July this year. In opposition, then leader Mr Tony Abbott endorsed this approach. The election policy of the coalition made this commitment:
Our public hospital system needs certainty.
… …
A Coalition government will support the transition to the Commonwealth providing 50 per cent growth funding of the efficient price of hospital services as proposed—
But only the coalition will deliver, they claimed. They certainly have not delivered on this one. The 2014 budget led to a backflip on this commitment, one of many broken promises. This was actually the second time a Liberal government had reneged on a Commonwealth-state hospital deal. The first one of these occurred in 1976, just one year after Medibank, the precursor to Medicare, was introduced. Then, a Liberal government had promised—prior to an election—to maintain the hospital funding scheme. But then they ignored the promise. The Australian Financial Review editorial on the topic was headed 'Mr Fraser's Shabby Renege'.
Forty years later, we have renege No. 2. The 2014 budget created a fiscal cliff for the states from 1 July this year by replacing a 45 per cent cost-sharing scheme with indexation unrelated to either actual hospital cost movements or increases in hospital demand. The deal done last year followed a concerted campaign by the states and territories to oppose those 2014-15 budget changes, supported by the Australian Medical Association, the Australian Healthcare and Hospitals Association, consumer health groups and other stakeholders. The amount of funding still falls short of what is needed. The AMA described it as 'an inadequate short-term public hospital funding down payment to appease desperate states and territories ahead of the federal election', which they said, 'will not be sufficient to meet current and future demand'. The AHHA described the agreement as a 'partial turnaround from the $57 billion cuts to health funding imposed in the 2014 budget.' So it is not a great history.
Recent Treasury figures show the Commonwealth savings from cutting funding to the states for hospitals and schools will escalate rapidly, rising from $1 billion in 2017-18 to $3 billion in 2018-19 and $7 billion the following year. By 2020-21, it will be $10 billion. This needs to be seen in the context of a system that is meant to keep people well and help them recover when they are ill. The New South Wales government's own report says that its health system faces a massive drain on resources from an ageing population, general population growth, the burden of chronic diseases and the cost of new healthcare technologies. The latest Intergenerational report states that health services are headed for a fiscal cliff when Commonwealth government funding drops off steeply after 2020.
Emergency department presentations hit record levels in New South Wales in 2016 and elective surgery wait lists have climbed to an unprecedented nearly 75,000 patients. Our smaller hospitals at Windsor and Katoomba face ongoing challenges to meet demand, while our major hospital, Nepean Hospital, is dramatically understaffed and underfunded. You might not believe what my constituents tell me—many of whom work in the hospital system—but the former president of the AMA put it this way:
Public hospital funding is about to become the single biggest challenge facing State and Territory finances—and the dire consequences are already starting to show.
Bed number ratios have deteriorated.
Waiting times are largely static, with only very minor improvement. Emergency Department (ED) waiting times have worsened.
Elective surgery waiting times and treatment targets are largely unchanged.
These are the sorts of assessments that show us that there are problems.
I think it is worth commenting on the staff who are having to cope in these circumstances. The hardworking doctors and nurses and the other healthcare practitioners who work in public hospitals are still managing to provide a world-class hospital system. They tell me that that is because they are so committed to their patients. It is not because the system is making it easy. We need to start to support these doctors, nurses and other healthcare providers before it simply gets too much for them.
All of this is happening in an environment where we could be making improvements. But before us we have a bill that does absolutely nothing to make things better. I believe that Australians aspire to live in a country where your postcode does not determine your health outcomes. I think that is what we all want. We know that it is not the case yet, but we also know that we currently do a better job here than the United States—but for how much longer? The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare reveal that patients living in higher socio-economic areas have significantly lower waiting times than those living in lower socio-economic areas. One example from their recent report was that an Australian classified as living in the lower socio-economic area will have to wait more than twice as long for a cataract extraction compared to someone from the highest socio-economic tier. So one person waits 63 day and the other 137 days—two months versus more than four months.
Inequality of incomes is at a near-75-year high. The three richest Australians own more than the million poorest put together. The consequences of economic inequality show most painfully in health—when people have to choose between having a meal and visiting a doctor. We have to ensure that access to quality health care is protected, but this so-called guarantee does nothing to enshrine that. This bill is simply a decoy, a mask for what we know the coalition would really like to do if they could get away with it. They must cry for the era of Malcolm Fraser, when you could just get rid of universal access to the health system. 'What a bother,' they must say, that not only does the pesky Labor Party seem to keep bringing it back but people actually want it. If anything showed the true intentions harboured by those opposite, it was the revelation only a couple of months ago of the secret hospital task force to cut public funding and abolish the private health insurance rebate and their actions in selling off the $220 million contract to Telstra Health for the national bowel cancer and cervical screening programs. That shows what they would do if they had the chance. We know there is potential that other cancer screening registries, such as breast screening, might also be contracted out sometime in the future.
Let's look at what protections this bill does provide. Sadly, there are none. The finance minister himself admitted at Senate estimates:
If any government were to decide to touch it, obviously there would be immediate visibility of that and all of the related consequences that come with it.
Great. If they touched it, we would see it, not that we could do anything about it. The community could just watch it happening. The bill merely allocates the revenue from their planned increase to the Medicare levy, after using some of it for the NDIS, into a separate fund. For a start, if the NDIS were in such dire need of funds, how can there be any left over from the Medicare levy increase that they are pushing? But that is another issue. Apparently, there will be some left over, and then it will be topped up with an additional contribution from income tax revenue to cover the projected Medicare Benefits Schedule and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. But the fund does not include the Commonwealth's contribution to public hospital funding. That is not part of it. Using the word 'guarantee' linked with the word 'Medicare' might be a good PR exercise, but this bill gives absolutely no assurance of secure funding for hospitals, absolutely no assurance that Medicare rebates to doctors and allied health professionals will be secured and absolutely no assurance that the needs of Australians accessing health services will be secure. In other words, it is a total waste of this parliament's time.
I rise to speak today on an issue that has been at the heart of my career since I left school in 1971. I admit my bias quite freely. I became a medical student in 1972 and saw the devastation that medical costs could cause families, sometimes resulting in bankruptcy. It was not until the start of Medibank, our first universal healthcare scheme, introduced by the Whitlam Labor government, that we saw people being able to afford proper health care in Australia. There was enormous opposition from the Liberal Party and also, I must admit, from some in my own profession. Unfortunately, Medibank was emasculated by the Fraser government and it was not until it was reintroduced in the name of Medicare by the Hawke-Keating government that things started to improve. Slowly, however, the conservative parties have undermined our universal healthcare system to the point where Medicare is more a healthcare cost subsidy scheme than a universal healthcare insurance scheme. I am getting a little ahead of myself. At least you know the context from where I come.
I came to parliament after last year's election and one of the first issues to come into the House was the legislation that enabled the selloff of the Australian bowel cancer registry to Telstra Health. This was apparently already agreed to by the government. There was very little debate or public scrutiny. I do not think there are many people in this parliament who appreciate just how important and seminal to our healthcare system this was. In the rapidly approaching the future, our health data will be the most important determinant of our health outcomes. This will include genetic information, which will determine treatments, disease risks and preventative strategies, as well as indicating which drug treatments are better for the individual.
This was a very underhanded way of undermining a system that could have easily been kept within the Medicare system. The beginnings of this health data collection has now, without proper community scrutiny, been sold off to private enterprise. This is a very bad result and it is a very bad result for our healthcare future. I do not think it is something that this government understands. In fact, I do not think health care is anything that this government understands. Once sold off, this registry will be very difficult to get back into the public system. It will also mean that future health data will be easily sold off into the private system, and this has the potential to be absolutely disastrous to our public healthcare system looking forward.
One might easily be forgiven for treating any guarantee given by this government with a huge amount of scepticism. As the American baseballer and coach Yogi Berra—
Order. Will the member be seated. I call the Leader of the House.
I apologise to the member for Macarthur. I would not normally wish to cut off an esteemed member of the House, but, in the interest of us not sitting here on Friday, we need to get the Medicare Guarantee Bill 2017 into the Senate. As a consequence, I therefore move the motion be put.
The question is that the motion be put.
The question is that the amendment be agreed to.
The question now is that this bill be read a second time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Is leave granted for the third reading to be moved 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.
The question is that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent the motion for the third reading being moved without delay.
I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
The question is that this bill be now read a third time. The Manager of Opposition Business?
I move:
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Members for Macarthur, Ballarat, Newcastle, Blair, Lalor, Brand, Kingston, Bendigo, Lingiari, Parramatta, Corangamite, Forrest and Calare from speaking for a period of no more than 15 minutes on the bill's third reading.
This debate was unacceptably cut short—
No, the Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. Members, I have a difficulty with this—
Ms Chesters interjecting—
The member for Bendigo has already been ejected today. Members can cease giving me advice by way of interjection.
I have a difficulty with this suspension motion because it is not being moved between items of business. I am prepared to—
Mr Speaker, on a point of order—
I will hear from the Manager of Opposition Business.
Mr Speaker, we regularly have procedural suspensions of standing orders, but the ruling within practice is: they must relate to the business before the House. We ordinarily deal with suspensions between items because they are suspensions of standing orders that do not relate to what is before the House at that moment. Right at this moment, what is before the House is that the bill be read a third time. The suspension that I have moved goes only to the order of debate for the third reading and who will be allowed to speak for 15 minutes each; it goes to nothing else.
I will hear from the Leader of the House.
Mr Speaker, I believe your immediate hunch was the correct one—that is, that suspensions of standing orders are perfectly entitled to be moved but not in the middle of an item of government business or, in fact, in any other matter of business. Therefore, the suspension of standing orders can be moved after this if he wishes to do so. But the immediate question before the House is that this bill be read a third time, and that needs to be voted on before any further action can be taken.
Whilst it is the case that suspensions, generally, can only be moved between items of business, that does not apply in a hard and fast rule if the suspension relates to the business before the House. So I think on this occasion—you can understand my immediate reaction to the motion—given it relates to the third reading and the business before the House, the Manager of Opposition Business has very narrowly satisfied that question.
I suppose my other difficulty is the substance of the motion, providing opportunities for members to speak. Members choose these opportunities themselves in the second reading debate. In that sense, I am finding this motion difficult but I am being reasonable about it. The Manager of Opposition Speaker—
Thanks, Mr Speaker.
I am still considering the points of order. I have not ruled.
If I can deal, to a point of order, then, on the final issue which you raised: it is not unusual for there to be motions within the House that allow an opportunity for someone to speak. The seats that I have named are the seats that were on the whips' list, where those members from both sides of the House have already indicated that they wanted to speak on this bill. If the motion were to be carried and those members who the motion said had to be given a chance to speak chose to not jump, then they would be quite within their rights as members of parliament. But we have regularly had motions over the years—for example, we used to have a procedure when a ministerial statement was made, specifically giving an opportunity for the member opposite to make a speech.
Having considered the matter and heard the Manager of Opposition Business and the Leader of the House—as I said, both will understand my immediate reaction—I am persuaded that it does relate to a matter directly before the House, and the Manager of Opposition Business can proceed to move his motion.
Thank you. I have the call.
I know you have.
Just sit down—even if it is just for a second! The Manager of Opposition Business has the call.
They just want to shut down debate on—
The Leader of the House.
I move:
That the Member be no longer heard.
The substantive question is that the bill be now read a third time. To this the Manager of Opposition Business has moved a suspension of standing orders to which the Leader of the House has moved that he be no further heard.
Is the motion seconded?
I second the motion. The fact that a 30 year—
The member for Ballarat will resume her seat. The Leader of the House.
I move that the member for Ballarat be no further heard.
A division having been called and the bells being/having been rung—
Ms Catherine King interjecting—
It would be regrettable if the member for Ballarat was asked to leave in the 30 seconds before I lock the doors. The Leader of the House has moved that the member for Ballarat be no longer heard.
The question now is that the motion be agreed to.
Mr Speaker, trusting this government to make our universal health—
The member for Macarthur will resume his seat. The Leader of the House.
I move:
That the motion be put.
The question is that the motion be put.
The question now is that the motion of suspension moved by the Manager of Opposition Business be agreed to.
The House divided. [17:18]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
Question negatived.
The question now before the House is that this bill be read a third time. The member for Ballarat?
There were questions I asked the minister in summing up to actually—
The member for Ballarat will resume her seat.
I move:
That the motion be put.
The question is that the motion be put.
The motion that the minister has just moved is once again another example of this government preventing—
A government member interjecting—
No, it is a suspension of standing orders; I am allowed to speak.
No, it is not a suspension of standing orders. Just to be clear—the Manager of Opposition Business can just resume his seat for a second—this is a contingent motion that the minister has moved, and debate may ensue, so the Manager of Opposition Business has the call.
The mover had already sat down.
The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat.
He had already sat down.
The Leader of the House has now moved that the Manager of Opposition Business—
No, I moved the motion be put.
The question is that motion be put.
I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
The question is that this bill be now read a third time.
I move:
That the motion be put.
The question is that the motion be put.
The question now is that this bill be read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
I rise to support the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Amendment (Annual Registration Charge) Bill 2017, and cognate bill, before the House. There has been huge anticipation from those opposite. It is unfortunate that we had to gag the previous debate on an important issue so that we could move on to this debate, but these are necessary amendments to make sure that the Australian Skills Quality Authority, or ASQA, has certainty and that industry funded regulation of vocational education can continue. Currently providers pay an annual registration charge to ASQA. They also pay fees if complaints are substantiated or audits discover breaches. Over time, though, ASQA's regulatory techniques have developed to include intelligence collection and data analysis. These activities are now a core part of ASQA's business. While they inform targeted compliance and enforcement, they are not in themselves services for which a fee or a charge can be directly attributed to particular providers. As a result, there is a risk that the charges levied by ASQA could be considered taxes under section 55 of the Constitution rather than a fee for service. The bills before the House this evening will amend ASQA's establishing legislation to clarify that annual registration fees are collected under an act dealing with the subject of taxation for the purpose of section 55 of the Australian Constitution. This will mitigate the constitutional risk and put the continuation of the current funding arrangements for ASQA beyond doubt.
Intelligence collection and data analysis are effective and efficient parts of modern regulatory systems and it is vital ASQA is able to continue to fund these activities. The regulation of quality in the VET sector matters to students, it matters to providers, it matters to industry and, of course, ultimately it matters to our national economy. That is why Labor supports these straightforward amendments. However, we know that dodgy practices in the vocational education sector in recent years have done significant reputational damage to the sector. They have left many student victims. To repair that damage, it is essential that the integrity of the regulation system is beyond doubt, and confidence in the capabilities of ASQA is central to that trust. The government's recent announcement of a review of VET regulation is long overdue. Labor is calling on the Prime Minister to ensure that this review leads to real improvements in the sector.
We welcome the appointment of Professor Valerie Braithwaite, a respected expert, to lead the review. It is essential that this is a genuine and credible attempt to retrieve the reputation of the VET system, which in recent years has been trashed by unethical practices and by systematic rorting. To do this, the review must go beyond a shallow assessment of ASQA's performance within the current rules. It must address the structure and regulation of the system more broadly so that only the highest quality providers can deliver services and get access to public funding.
We need a system that drives excellence, not a system that merely drives compliance. We need a regulator that is strong enough to make sure that every single qualification is recognised and valued by industry and to get rid of dodgy, low-quality providers once and for all. This review comes after ASQA itself identified that in key sectors like early childhood and aged care the competitive training market has become a race to the bottom on quality. This is not good enough in such important fields. Students and the community deserve so much better. Labor will be standing up for quality and, of course, we will continue to stand up for students.
We know that the Liberals have an absolutely appalling record on vocational education and, for some reason, they also have a logic-defying ideological problem when it comes to TAFE. We know that since the government was elected it has cut more than $2.8 billion from TAFE, from skills and apprenticeships, and just weeks ago in this year's budget the Prime Minister announced a further cut of $637 million over the next four years. Australia now has 130,000 fewer apprentices and trainees than it did when this government was elected. Added to that, TAFE and vocational education funding and the number of supported students is now lower than it was a decade ago. When we know that we have more and more jobs which rely on vocational education and skills, it is outrageous that TAFE and voc ed funding are lower and the number of students in these systems is lower than it was a decade ago.
What this means is that in too many towns in too many regional centres across Australia TAFE campuses have closed, courses have been scaled back and fees have continued to increase. Between 2013 and 2015, employer dissatisfaction with the availability of vocational education in regional and rural areas more than doubled. Between 2013 and 2015 investment in TAFE and vocational education capital infrastructure fell by almost 75 per cent. In the same years, the hours of training delivered by TAFE fell by over 25 per cent. None of these statistics are good enough. All of these statistics are a call to action for this parliament. It is a call that, on this side of the House, we are responding to.
All of this happened while those opposite simply ignored the massive sums of public money and student debt that was being accumulated by dodgy providers. The Government Actuary estimates that $1.2 billion in debt has been inappropriately issued, and the ANAO found that thousands of tax file numbers were handed to providers in bulk in batches of hundreds. We have seen evidence from ASQA, the education department and the ACCC that concerns about VET loans and providers were raised in late 2014. In fact, it took the estimates process to reveal there were cross-government meetings at that time as departments tried to work out what to do about the failing administration of the scheme. But we did not see any real action at all from this government for another two years, when regulatory changes were brought into the parliament late in 2016. The implementation of these changes has been terribly rushed, and the consequences of this catch up job are now starting to show.
It is unthinkable that the system was administered by this government so poorly for so long when students and the taxpayer should have come first, not dodgy providers. But, instead of doing their job, the government changed the minister responsible for vocational education five times as this scandal was allowed to continue to play out. It is very revealing that the one constant in the education portfolio from the 2013 election through till now has been Minister Birmingham. While the minister did have different roles in the portfolio during this time, there are serious questions that remain to be answered. What did he know? When did he know it? What actions did he take?
In recent days, we have seen leaked reports revealing just what damage this government's botched implementation of the loan changes is doing to TAFE. This year, diploma enrolments at TAFE New South Wales have dropped by over 50 per cent. There has been a 50 per cent reduction this year as a direct result of the Prime Minister's cuts. This is the result of a massive gap payment of as much as $8,000 that students in New South Wales now face just to go to TAFE. It is clear that those opposite are happy to see TAFE funding spiral downward and enrolments continue to get worse. If anything, for them, it justifies more cuts. But, for us, we know that the latest attack on TAFE means that students will be forced into the hands of cheap and dodgy providers who cut corners or that we as a nation will face skills shortages as people give up on vocational education and study altogether. TAFE was never the cause of the problems in the sector, and TAFE students do not deserve to be punished as a result of them.
The leaked report from TAFE New South Wales also reveals the damage the government's proposed higher education changes could do to TAFE by setting up a two-tiered funding system for diplomas and advanced diplomas where universities get more public funding and TAFE students are left with unfair up-front fees. All that this will serve to do is undermine TAFE yet again. Our tertiary education system needs more coordination and better collaboration, not some kind of false and rigged competition between TAFE and universities. We need to recognise the strength of our TAFE system and to build on these strengths. But, when it comes to ongoing funding for VET, the Liberals clearly do not have any kind of cohesive plan. It is, again, the forgotten child of the education portfolio, as it has been for far too long.
Here is an example of how low a priority TAFE and VET are for this government. We have the minister badgering the Senate into passing his school cuts because he wants them to come into effect in six months. But the current TAFE funding agreement runs out in just a matter of days, and it is still not clear what is happening next. Yet those opposite do not even have it on the radar; they wish that TAFE and VET would just disappear.
We do not know the details of what the government really has in mind for the replacement of the national partnership, but we do know three things when it comes to this sector. Firstly, we know that the Turnbull government will only train Australians and only possibly fund TAFE on the condition that more foreign workers are imported. That is crazy policy. It does not make any sense, yet it is the policy that this government has announced. Secondly, we also know that they will not do what Labor are doing: guarantee that two-thirds of public funding, state and federal, will go to TAFE. We recognise that TAFE has to be the strong backbone of our vocational education sector. We recognise that there are a lot of quality providers from different backgrounds, but that all of them rely upon us having a strong TAFE at the centre of the system. Thirdly, we know that the government will do one other thing: they will cut at least $637 million from our vocational education sector.
As if more evidence of the government's deep-seated problem with TAFE was necessary, recently we have seen the Adult Migrant English Program and the Skills for Education and Employment program ripped away from TAFE in regional New South Wales, Tasmania, Melbourne and Adelaide. Other areas where we have seen the AMEP and SEE programs taken from TAFE and given to private providers include the capital region, Canberra; the Illawarra, South Coast; north-east Melbourne; south-east Melbourne and the peninsula; Somerset, Queensland; and Perth north. In some areas, there are double and triple subcontracts, not approved by the department, that will see foreign-owned for-profit companies take the place of trusted and quality TAFE. It is just another way that this government is trying to privatise TAFE when we should be going in the other direction. We in Labor will continue to stand up and fight for our TAFE system.
There is an alternative to the low expectations and the sorry apologies from those opposite. Labor have outlined that we will not just talk about the importance of TAFE and we will not just talk about the importance of a strong vocational education sector but we will actually outline the policy to back it up. That is why we have announced that we will invest an additional $637.6 million into TAFE and vocational education, reversing the government's 2017 budget cuts in full. We have also announced that we will guarantee at least two-thirds of public vocational education funding will go towards our TAFE system. We have announced that we will invest in a new $100 million Building TAFE for the Future Fund to re-establish TAFE facilities in regional communities to meet local industry needs and to support the teaching for the digital economy.
We have announced that we will set a target of one in 10 apprentices on all Commonwealth priority projects and major government business enterprise projects. While those opposite have sat back and watched the number of apprentices in Australia being wiped out by over 100,000, we have announced plans to address it. We announced that we will invest in pre-apprentice programs, preparing up to 10,000 young jobseekers to start an apprenticeship and that these will be delivered by TAFE. And we have announced that we will establish an advanced entry adult apprenticeship program to fast-track apprenticeships for up to 20,000 people facing redundancy or whose jobs have been lost—all to be delivered by TAFE.
TAFE and vocational education is in Labor's DNA. Generations of Australians have got new and got better jobs because they trained at TAFE or because they did an apprenticeship. We know that in our fast-changing world, a modern, adaptable TAFE and voc ed system would not just be a good thing to have; it is an essential thing to have—essential for jobs and for economic growth. While Labor supports the bills before the House today, there is so much more to be done, more to be done for TAFE and more to be done for our vocational education system. But so little will be done if it is left for those opposite to do it. We will support these bills but we will continue to fight for more action and for real investment for TAFE and vocational education.
I find it absolutely amazing that the member for Adelaide, just one of those from the opposite side, stands here in this chamber and criticises the federal government for their own failings in the vet sector. We are where we are because of the appalling situation that Labor established when they were in government under the Rudd Gillard Rudd years. It is absolutely galling that they can stand here and complain that we did not fix up their stuff-ups quickly enough. This National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Amendment (Annual Registration Charge) Bill 2017 is administrative in nature. It ensures the security of an important aspect of our national education system. Unlike the member for Adelaide, those on this side of the House do fervently believe that the vet sector is a very, very important part of our educational sector. I am a product of the vet sector. (Quorum formed)
Clearly, I was landing some blows on the opposition and they wanted to silence me, but I will not be silenced: I will not be silenced when talking about the shortcomings of the VET sector when the opposition were in government.
I said earlier that I am a product of TAFE. TAFE has great meaning for me. I did my carpentry and joinery apprenticeship at TAFE Holmesglen Institute—a fantastic institution. There is a lot of work to do in this sector—absolutely undeniable—but this is a very important sector not just for our trades. Interestingly, when we look at the importance of the VET sector, we can see that, unfortunately, our community has become a culture where there is an expectation that young people will all go to university. I think there is a culture pervading our society where, if you are anybody important or if you have any educational ability, you go to university. I think that is a grave injustice for our young people. We have seen that, I believe, since Julia Gillard was Prime Minister in this country, when she changed the funding models for our higher education sector.
When I am out and about in my electorate talking to people and they hear about someone who is not going to university but doing a trade, they say to me—in a nice way—'Didn't they have the intelligence to go to university?' My response to that is: if you go to TAFE and if you do an apprenticeship, chances are, over your work life, you will earn more money as a tradesperson than if you had gone to university and done a business degree or an arts degree. We are doing our young people a great disservice by perpetuating the myth that all young people should go to university. Doing a trade gives young people the ability to travel around the world—and to take the skills they have learnt all over the world—start up their own businesses and provide for their future family.
Some of the most successful people in business who I know have never gone to university. Many of them are school dropouts, but they went on to do a trade in one thing or another and became very successful in their own businesses. We ought never lose sight of that.
Seventy-four per cent of new university graduates who wanted to find a full-time job do so, but 77 per cent of VET graduates—so three per cent more—find a full-time position once they graduate. The median income of new university graduates is $54,000, whilst for VET graduates it is $56,000. So even when you start out—and I say to kids all over the place, young people: 'You don't have to go to university.' I am not just trying to dissuade them from going to university. If that is what they want to do, great, but you can make an important contribution to our society by going and doing a trade. Chances are you will earn a very, very good living.
We are seeing a great shortage of tradespeople in this country, and that is a matter of great concern to me as a builder. We are going to experience a great shortage of skilled trades in this country over the next 10 to 15 years, if we do not do something very soon. For those young people who are thinking of doing a trade, make hay while the sun shines, I say. Go and learn a trade and, because of the skills shortage, there is every prospect, every possibility, that you will be able to earn very, very good money into the future.
I am going to return to some of the failures in the VET sector, and these failures are a direct result of the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd failures in the VET sector. On the Sunshine Coast, in my electorate—the seat of Fisher—and around Australia in the past year, we have seen the impact of major failures by providers of VET and the necessity of proactive intelligence gathering by the Australian Skills Quality Authority.
Last December SmartCity Vocational College, which had campuses in Caloundra and Maroochydore, went into administration, leaving more than 300 staff without jobs. It failed in part, apparently, due to the withdrawal of VET FEE-HELP student loan funding for noncompliance with the Higher Education Support Act of 2003. In particular, the college did not have enough appropriately qualified trainers and assessors for the number of students enrolled, sufficient learning resources or enough facilities to provide the face-to-face training it had promised to enrolled students.
The fallout continues. Days ago, ASQA suspended the registration of Cooloola Training and Counselling Service in Gympie, known as Quest College, which was a subsidiary of SmartCity. An audit of the college had shown a critical level of noncompliance that, in addition to intelligence received regarding recent actions of the provider, led ASQA to the view that immediate action was necessary. Once again, this provider did not have enough qualified trainers and assessors, and it did not have sufficient learning resources with regard to strategies, locations and modes of service delivery.
In May of this year, Careers Australia, one of the largest VET providers in the country with 15,000 students, the trainer of a number of Sunshine Coast residents through their Brisbane campus, also went into administration. This followed a series of scandals including being forced to pay back $44 million in loans claimed for students who did not start or complete their courses.
The ACCC also found that Careers Australia had made false or misleading claims to prospective students. They offered inducements like laptops and iPads, and failed to tell others of the debts they would incur. This included signing up 80 Indigenous students in the remote community of Yarrabah and not telling them that they would even incur any debt.
The ACCC took action at the same time last year against four further private colleges in New South Wales. The Australian Skills Quality Authority needs this additional funding to be proactive in intelligence collection and data analysis to intervene sooner to protect students from poor quality providers.
I want to debunk some of the myths that the member for Adelaide spoke about earlier. Apprenticeship numbers went into freefall in 2012 after that then Labor government cut $1.2 billion from employer incentives. In total under Labor's National Partnership Agreement apprentice numbers halved. The biggest ever annual decline in apprentices in training occurred in Labor's last year in office, between June 2012 and June 2013. Apprentice numbers collapsed by 110,000 or 22 per cent.
The Turnbull government values the vocational education and training sector. It has created a $1.5 billion Skilling Australians Fund. The fund will create an extra 300,000 apprentices over the next four years. It represents nearly triple the funding allocated to training than was provided through Labor's National Partnership Agreement. This government is providing $60 million for industry specialist mentoring program to support those apprentices who need it most to complete their training and that is for some 46,000 apprentices. There will be 50,000 pre-apprenticeship places. I put my hand up proudly as one of those who did a pre-apprenticeship. Pre-apprenticeships give young people the opportunity to dip their toe in the water and see what it is like before they commit. It is a fantastic way of learning a little bit about your trade before you commit.
However, VET sector failures continue, unfortunately. We can and we must do more. The Assistant Minister for Vocational Education and Skills announced this month a major review of VET sector legislation to be conducted by Professor Valerie Braithwaite of ANU. The report will be available by the end of this year. The bill before the house will ensure that ASQA can continue to collect fees and charges that it needs to conduct its important intelligence collection and data analysis. We need that work because we need a well regulated, sustainable and high-quality VET sector into the future. I would like to commend the assistant minister on the work that she has done on this.
I rise today to speak on this range of bills which Labor supports. These bills put the continuation of the current funding arrangements for the Australian Skills Quality Authority or ASQA beyond doubt. Labor recognises that these are essentially technical amendments to make sure that ASQA's industry-funded regulation of vocational education can continue with certainty. I have worked in both the training sector and the higher education sector and with both quality frameworks and I can speak highly of both those quality frameworks. The quality framework used in the training sector, in particular, has been invaluable for dealing with issues of dodgy VET providers and ensuring we have and maintain a high-quality vocational education sector.
Intelligence collection and data analysis are effective and efficient parts of modern regulatory systems and, for this reason, it is vital that ASQA continues to fund these activities with confidence. I am happy to stand up here with Labor to support the changes inherent in the bills which allow those activities to continue. Labor supports vocational education and training, or VET, providers in their delivery of high-quality training to domestic and international students.
If I am going to talk about VET, about the quality framework in VET and about the delivery of quality training as part of our broader education system here in Australia, it would be remiss of me not to talk about some of the things that we could be doing better. Several years ago I worked in the training industry. I was a policy maker in the Western Australian department of training for some time before I got poached to do policy in another area and, before that, for many years I worked at TAFE as a teacher, but I also consulted for other registered training organisations in helping them meet their standards of quality for what was then called the AQTF, the Australian quality training framework, which was administered by the body that we know as ASQA. I have seen a lot of change, now that I am outside. I have seen a lot of change from the outside looking into the training sector and the quality training sector. The previous speaker spoke highly and at length about the fact that some students do not necessarily have to go to university. Even as a university professor, I would certainly have agreed with that. Not everyone can; not everybody should; and not everybody needs to go to university. So having a very strong, robust and effective vocational education and training sector is absolutely essential to ensure that all Australians, regardless of their aptitude or their career aspirations, are able to do that with access to quality education.
But the fact is that some dodgy practices in the vocational education sector in recent years have done significant reputational damage to the sector. We have all heard the stories of the dodgy providers, who have been charging tens of thousands of dollars for courses with completion rates of less than two per cent. These dodgy private providers have ripped off students and the taxpayer. As a matter of fact, they have thrived under this government in particular. They have thrived, while our public TAFE system has been absolutely gutted by the Liberals. It does not just stop there. Over the next four years, $637 million will be ripped out of TAFE and vocational education and training compared with current levels.
These bills go some way to ensuring that the sector is compliant with constitutional requirements and in repairing some of the damage that has been done to the sector's reputation through the practices of dodgy providers, who took advantage of the legislation, the policy and the procedures that were in place. They also took advantage of vulnerable young people—mostly young people, but also some older mature age students. They took advantage of the system.
As that damage is being repaired, it is essential that the integrity of the regulation system is beyond doubt. We need to have trust in the regulation system, which is what these bills go some way towards doing. The most important step we can take as a nation to repair the reputation of vocational education and build quality is to re-establish trust. We need to re-establish trust between TAFE, other providers, registered training organisations, industry, government, teachers and, most importantly, students, because this is a sector where trust and collaboration are absolutely crucial for success. Confidence in the capabilities of ASQA is central to developing that trust in the institutions that run vocational education and training and oversee the compliance for vocational education and training, right through to the registered training organisations that offer accredited training and right through to our public system in TAFE.
The regulation and quality in the VET sector matters to students. It matters to students, to providers and to the industry. Ultimately, it matters to our national economy. That is why Labor, recognising how much it matters and how important that trust is, supports a strong, high-quality vocational education and training sector. We support students who undergo training through VET providers. We recognise their need for certainty and security. It is part of the quality experience of training. It is part of reducing the stress on students, because Australia is actually one of the top 10 countries for costs for students to study, and also for student stress as well. This is all part of that. Studying is often a stressful and very expensive exercise, and, as I mentioned, Australia is in the top 10 most expensive countries for students. Labor believes it is crucial that we support students, as well as their education providers, to make the experience not just easier but also a more quality experience.
I speak as somebody who has worked in education. I am a huge advocate of education. I have worked in both the training and the higher education sector. But I have also been a student for a good part of my life—too much, actually, Mr Deputy Speaker! Having a good education experience really does matter in setting somebody up for not just their first job coming out of university or coming out of training or TAFE but also their future beyond their first job. Having a good, strong and positive education experience takes one into life as a lifelong learner. So it is essential that this government leaves behind its ideology and joins Labor in committing to a strong public TAFE system as the backbone of our vocational education system.
Labor has consistently supported a strong public TAFE system and a strong VET sector. While we support these bills and the funding certainty that they provide to providers, we cannot forget the cuts to TAFE and to the sector more broadly under this government. As I mentioned earlier, over the next four years Malcolm Turnbull and this government will cut $637 million from TAFE and vocational education, compared to the current funding arrangements. So it is all very well and good for members on that side to stand up and laud how wonderful the VET sector is and how essential it is to be able to provide every Australian with an opportunity for an education regardless of the vocation that they choose—whether it is something that requires higher education or something that requires a vocation education degree. It is all very well and good for those on the other side to stand up and say that, but it is time for this government to stand up and return to TAFE the integrity that it once had. Put the funding back into TAFE and build it up as a robust public education system.
In WA, these planned cuts for TAFE are going to result in $56.4 million taken out of our public sector VET system. Those cuts are going to mean higher fees as well as fewer courses—so more money, less choice. I like to meet with some of the young people in my electorate. There was once a time when I mentored a lot of young people, both as somebody who ran a not-for-profit organisation and as a lecturer. I often meet with young people in my electorate who are at that precipice of trying to work out what it is that they want to do with their lives. Many of them want to go to TAFE and study in vocational education training, but they simply do not have the opportunity. They simply cannot find the courses and they cannot afford the courses. We cannot let this continue. Labor understands that TAFE and vocational education are critical to creating jobs, helping business expand and growing our economy. If you want jobs and growth, that is jobs and growth. If you want jobs and growth, you give people jobs. You give people jobs through giving them an education. As a result of the Liberal cuts, funding for TAFE and vocational education is lower than it was a decade ago.
It was in 2011, when I was travelling around the world doing the work that I was doing, in pretty much every country I went to people in equivalent roles stopped me and talked to me about how wonderful the Australian TAFE system was and how wonderful our vocational education and training sector was. Believe me, it was a source of real pride for me to be overseas in other countries and have people commend Australia on our vocational education and training system and want to replicate the quality that we had in our vocational education and training system in their countries. So it is an absolute travesty that it has disintegrated to such low levels; that the integrity of our system has been compromised so much; and that cuts to the system will further compromise that by making it less available to those most in need. Our quality public TAFEs have been neglected. Too many campuses have been forced to close. Australia used to have a TAFE system that was the envy of the world, but now, thanks to these cuts, our TAFE and VET system is suffering, and our students are suffering—our children are suffering. Labor supports these bills, yes, and we recognise the importance of ensuring certainty in funding for providers. However, much as we support this, much as we recognise that the integrity of the system must be upheld, and much as we recognise that there is value in ensuring that there is certainty of funding for providers—despite all of that, we must also recognise that the Turnbull government has consistently undermined the TAFE and VET system, providing anything but certainty for providers and students.
The government needs to invest in education, it needs to invest in skills, and it needs to invest in training, now more than ever. We cannot talk about Australia having a strong, robust, effective, quality education system if we do not include in that a recognition of the role that vocational education and training plays, and if we do not pay attention to ensuring that our TAFE and vocational education and training system is enabled, as much as it can be, to be and to deliver the best quality education that it can.
I rise to speak in the cognate debate on this bill, the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Amendment (Annual Registration Charge) Bill 2017 and the related bill. As indicated by the shadow minister, I will indicate up-front that I also support these bills before the House today.
These two bills go to some corrections needed to improve the Australian Skills Quality Authority's ability to effectively do its job in a reliable framework; in particular, in a reliable funding framework. On many occasions over recent years, where the government has brought forward bills to address regulation and the role of ASQA, we on this side of the House have been able to support those bills. In the two bills that are before us today is a recognition that there is a risk at the moment that the charges which are levied by ASQA could be considered taxes under section 55 of the Constitution rather than fees for a service. At the moment, regulatory activity by ASQA is generally covered by a fee-for-service type of structure. But ASQA has developed, and does very important work in intelligence collection and data analysis. As we know from the way the sector has been decimated by appalling conduct by too many providers, there is a need to have a regulator who is also out there proactively gathering intelligence and looking at the sector. These bills go to those issues, and for that reason I would like to commend them. I want to take a bit of time to cover the detail of what is in the bills, and then I want to talk about the context within which these bills sit and the current status of the sector.
The bills before us will amend ASQA's establishing legislation. As I said, the purpose of the bills is to clarify that annual registration fees are collected under an act dealing with the subject of taxation for the purpose of section 55 of the Constitution, and that is to mitigate the constitutional risk and to put the continuation of the current funding arrangements for ASQA beyond doubt, which is obviously something we would all support.
I have to just report to the House that I think that some of ASQA's most significant work has been on the sector-wide reports that they have done on a number of industry sectors over a number of years. Those intelligence-gathering or strategic types of reports have been very important for leading the debate in this country on what needs to be at the heart of any debate on vocational education and training, and that is quality.
Hundreds of thousands of Australians rely on a vocational qualification to get them into the workforce. That is, by and large, the main reason most people study in the sector. They might be young people, or retrenched workers looking to re-enter the workforce, or parents who have been out of the workforce with child-raising responsibilities and are looking to train to re-enter the workforce. We have to ensure that anybody who studies in this sector knows that the piece of paper they will walk away with is valued and recognised in the Australian economy.
In particular, what comes to mind is the work that ASQA did on strategic reports on two important sectors which are actually employment growth sectors: child care and aged care. These are obviously sectors where we are constantly seeing the need for more workers and there are good career opportunities for people. We want to make sure that we are giving Australians the quality training that they need to give them a good start in those sectors.
We have seen reports on this. One that most particularly sticks in my mind was on ABC radio in Victoria. In that report a group of childcare providers indicated that, as some of the childcare training being done in the private sector was so badly done, they had unofficial blacklists of training providers that they would not employ people from. Members in this House might think about what that actually means. Say a young person does childcare training with one of these providers. They are very keen to get a job in the sector. They are doing all the things that we—as their parents or their community or the parliament—ask them to do. Then they get that piece of paper and they go out and apply for jobs, and they constantly miss out. The problem is: they have no idea why they are missing out, but it is because their training provider has been unofficially blacklisted. So they have paid—in many cases, quite exorbitant amounts of money—for that qualification, but it has no standing or value for them in actually getting them a job.
That is why it is so critically important that we put quality and trust back at the centre of the vocational sector. I have to say: much of the work that ASQA was doing in this space was critically important for those reasons.
As I have indicated, the vocational education and training sector is a hugely important education sector in the system. Those opposite often like to criticise Labor for encouraging people to go to university. We had the outrageous target of 40 per cent of Australians having a university qualification! I hardly think it is an encouraging sign that those opposite think that having a target of 40 per cent of the population having university qualifications was overreach. But we never walked away from the fact that the other 60 per cent of the population in a modern economy were going to need post-secondary qualifications as well. What we had in place were a range of national partnership agreements that looked at working with the states and territories to fund the broader vocational education and training sector.
What we are seeing from this last budget, as we approach 1 July, is the end of that national partnership agreement. Nothing has been indicated by this government as to what, if anything, will succeed that funding agreement. That is, in effect, ripping over $630 million out of the vocational education and training sector.
We have seen reports on this. Indeed, in New South Wales, only today, the managing director of TAFE New South Wales talked about the devastating impact on enrolments that the decisions of this federal Liberal government are having on TAFE in New South Wales. So we, on this side of the House, think that that is an absolute abrogation of responsibility to this sector. It is beyond time that those opposite stopped treating the vocational education sector as some sort of poor cousin.
The government announced a $1.5 billion skilling Australia program. Let us have a look at what that actually is. One of the most important things about our skilled migration program is that it is a temporary program. It is there quite rightly and should be quite effective in providing for a short-term skills gap when there are not sufficient trained Australians to do a particular job. Why is it temporary? It is temporary because the expectation in this country is that we will be training up Australians to do those jobs in the longer term.
What sort of Orwellian proposal does the government put forward in vocational education in this budget? They say, 'Well, we've got this program on 457 visas so we're going to charge a levy on them to fund a skills program.' If you put the two together it does not take long to work it out. If you are decreasing the number of skilled migrants coming—which, one would suppose, was the target—you are decreasing the pool of money available to train up Australians to take on those jobs. And you will just have the same problem arising again. Instead of as the national partnership agreements did under the previous Labor government, providing an agreed joint arrangement with the states and territories to fund vocational education and training, this is a pea-and-thimble arrangement. It is perverse in its intentions.
In effect, the government cannot guarantee they will raise $1.5 billion. They have been very vague on where exactly that is to go towards, in terms of apprenticeships. They are talking about 300,000 apprentices but there is no indication whether that is going to be employer incentives or training programs. What exactly is this money going to be spent on? And what is the government going to do if they manage to see the number of 457 visas go down, because they are training up Australians, and the money disappears? What happens to the next round of people looking for employment? This is the problem at the heart of what the government does in this sector. It is all short-term. It is all just to grab the headline. It is all just to give members opposite something to say when they talk about vocational education and training. But it never actually addresses the structural issue at the heart of this critically important sector in Australia.
My colleague the member for Cowan made this point, quite rightly, and I am sure everybody in this House has had this experience. Around the world there are two countries that people look to for vocational training and apprenticeship systems: Germany and Australia. It has been a national advantage to us, our trades training system in this country. Indeed, in our own region, as the emerging economies—in particular, India and China—move away from unregulated trade based work in their economies to requiring people to have qualifications and more regulation of who does that work, they are coming here to see how we are doing that sort of work. We are, at the very same time, dismantling those things. It is very short-sighted.
I am very pleased that as part of his budget reply speech the Leader of the Opposition, in talking about education and jobs, put this right at the centre of what Labor is committed to. I want to remind the House that not only are we committed to returning the over-$630 million that the government has cut out of the sector but that we also committed $100 million to the rebuilding TAFE facility program. We are so conscious of the devastation that has been wreaked in TAFEs across our country. It does not matter where you go—towns, cities or small suburban areas—I will tell you one thing: everybody loves their TAFE. And they love it for a very good reason. It has been there when they need it. They know it is there for their kids, and they can trust it because it provides quality. We need to make sure that we do not lose that, and we need to commit funding to make sure it is able to do that critically important job. An important part of that is the Leader of the Opposition's commitment that, for federal money, two out of every three dollars we invest in this sector will go to the public provider. It is critically important to have that solid backbone to our system that the public system provides and that TAFE has done for many generations of people.
Those opposite have not said a word on TAFE. They never mention it. They have made no commitments to it. They have grabbed the apprenticeship issue because they think that they can get a bit of a bang out of their budget for it. It is a con job. Yet behind our great apprenticeship system has been the quality TAFE system in this country. If you do not do something about ensuring that TAFE continues to have a viable future not just online and in the big cities but also in all the communities, towns and suburbs across the country, we will pay an economic price for that in this country. So I am very pleased that Labor has been clear on our commitment to TAFE and to how we need to rebuild it for the future. I also want to acknowledge that one of the real ways you can create apprenticeships is that, when government puts money into building projects, you actually make sure a percentage of those people on those projects are apprentices.
Those opposite liked to criticise the BER program and the social housing program during the GFC. I went to site after site in my electorate where builders said to me, 'I was about to put off my apprentices before this program came into place.' When government leverages its spending it can create real opportunities for apprenticeships. We actually did not see a decline in the number of apprentices over that period of the GFC, which is unprecedented. This needs to happen now. When government is spending money, as Labor has committed, at least one in 10 will be an apprentice and that will create real jobs and opportunities for those apprentices.
So I say to government members opposite that it is nice to say the motherhood statements and it is nice to say you get the sector, but you need to make sure that you are putting your money where your mouth is, and this budget did not do that. The commitment around the Skilling Australia Fund has no guarantees, and I would encourage members opposite to start pushing for a solid, firm and long-term commitment by their government into TAFE and into apprenticeships in this country. I thank the House.
I am very pleased to be able to talk on these bills, the National Vocational and Education Training Regular Amendment (Annual Registration Charge) Bill 2017 and the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator (Charges) Amendment (Annual Registration Charge) Bill 2017, today. I propose to explain why it is that vocational education is important and I will go into the reason that this legislation is necessary to address a constitutional issue. I also want to deal with the history of technical and further education in Australia. I believe it is important that we understand the context of why technical and further education, particularly the public TAFE system, is so much a part of the Australian psyche. Finally, I want to talk about the economic plan that Labor took to the 2016 federal election, because TAFE was front and centre in that economic plan and it is front and centre of our economic plan going forward.
Vocational education is really important, and we need to continue making investments in vocational education. The Australian Skills Quality Authority, ASQA, is the federal regulatory body for vocational education. In the past the authority has operated on a partial cost-recovery basis. It charges for its services as a regulator to registered training organisations and Commonwealth Register of Courses and Institutions for Overseas Students, CRICOS, providers. It charges a mixture of annual registration charges together with these with respect to substantiated complaints or on the occasion of audits which discover breaches.
However, the techniques that the authority uses have evolved over time. Those techniques now include intelligence collection and data analysis. These activities, as you would expect, are now a core part of the authority's business. Whilst those activities informed targeted compliance and enforcement, they cannot be the subject of any fee or charge which can be attributed to particular providers. Over time these activities have been funded out of the annual registration charge. Because of changes to the scope of the authority's activities, there is a risk that the charges that have been levied by the authorities might be considered as taxes rather than fees for services. This of course raises the risk that the charges are unconstitutional by virtue of section 55 of the Australian Constitution.
These bills will amend the establishing legislation of the authority to clarify that the annual registration fees are collected under an act dealing with the subject of taxation for the purposes of section 55. This will mitigate the constitutional risk and facilitate the continuation of current funding and current activities and, as a result, put those activities beyond doubt. These bills, accordingly, are technical in nature and, for this reason, Labor supports the bills. It is perfectly appropriate that the authority pass on to industry the cost of regulation. This is a situation where, because of the evolution of the role of the authority over time, these amendments have become necessary. It is important to note that the authority has determined that intelligence collection and consequential data analysis play an effective and efficient part in performing its regulatory function. This is consistent with modern regulatory systems. It promotes efficiency and the targeting of resources based upon the evolution of the sector—a sector which continues to evolve even now.
It is vitally important that the maintenance of quality in the VET sector is something more than aspirational. This matters to students, it matters to providers and it should matter to industry. Above all, we need to have and to maintain the best vocational training system we can so that we can drive increased productivity in our economy. Well-paid, highly skilled jobs are driven by the flexibility and responsiveness of our vocational training sector. Industry demands that highly skilled employees are available as we make a transition towards specialised manufacturing and highly skilled trades.
Nevertheless, there have been significant problems in the sector—in particular as a result of dodgy practices. Many students have been left high and dry by unscrupulous providers who have exploited the system. There are of course well-run and highly regarded private operators in the VET sector as well as the state-run TAFE colleges. Good operators have had their reputations damaged by those who have exploited the system and have left students in the lurch. It is arguable of course that the reputational damage has hit the entire sector. Whilst it is clear that education—whether it is at university or in the TAFE sector—is acknowledged as the best pathway towards a better job, the fact that so many students have been left with debt or have been offered poor courses of little practical value to them is of significant concern.
As the reputational damage to the sector is repaired, it is very important that the regulatory system operates with integrity and is properly funded. Re-establishment of trust in the vocational training sector involves building quality and sustaining that quality at all levels. That means that there needs to be trust between TAFE, other providers, industry, government, teachers and, above all, students. For too long, the question of trust and collaboration has been undermined by the presence of unscrupulous operators. An effective regulator will ensure that all of the providers, whether in the public or private sector, are able to trust that no-one gets a free ride by behaving in an unscrupulous manner. This also must mean that ideology is left behind in funding technical and further education.
Labor believes that there is a place for a strong public TAFE system as the backbone of our vocational education system. The exploitation of students in the past by unscrupulous private operators has meant, in some respects, that the public system has been left to pick up the pieces. Distortions in the market have meant that these unscrupulous operators have flocked to easily-delivered, cheap courses, maximising their profit from public funding. In the main, the public system has been forced to address most of the expensive equipment-intensive, low-volume training load. There needs to be recognition that a public technical and further education system fulfils a vitally important role in preparing our workforce for the more complex skills based future.
There is another thing that needs to be highlighted about our public TAFE system. These colleges are locally based and enhance local communities. As has been highlighted by the Leader of the Opposition—and indeed in speeches today regarding the importance of technical and further education and, in particular, the public TAFE system—our cities, suburbs and towns are enhanced by the presence of these vital institutions. TAFE, the Leader of the Opposition argues—and I agree—is central to jobs in the regions and country towns. It is very easy to understand why. I did some background reading on the history of TAFE. If anyone wants to refer to a very good summary on the development of technical and trade training since the establishment of the mechanics institutes in England in the 19th century, I recommend a read of the Development of TAFE in Australia by Gillian Goozee.
The earliest iteration of these schools were schools of minds—the mechanics' institutes and technical schools established through the first half of the 19th century and throughout Australia. The mechanics' institutes were an interesting case in point. They were found in many cities and towns, and provided education to the working classes and the first public libraries. These were locally focused and provided direct benefits to local communities. They subsequently evolved; some may have become technical schools, some may have been subsumed into public library systems. In Tasmania, there have been many mechanics' institutes, some of which survive as buildings today, including the delightful Scottsdale Mechanics' Institute, which was recently renovated and now fulfils a function as a public hall. But the point is that these were, and are, local institutions. As the Leader of the Opposition has recently said, if a regional town in Australia has a TAFE, it is invariably better off than a town without a TAFE.
Opening up the vocational education and training sector to competition has not detracted from our TAFE colleges remaining local and well supported, and it has also focused on attracting overseas students to the regions. Recently I hosted in my electorate the member for Longman in her capacity as chair of Labor's Australian Jobs Taskforce. We visited the central Launceston campus of TasTAFE. We were able to see firsthand the importance of TAFE training in addressing workforce demand; in this case, delivering a Diploma of Nursing, which provides trained staff for aged care. It was particularly interesting to note that this TAFE had recruited students from overseas. Investment in innovation and the maintenance of high quality meant that overseas students were prepared to invest time and money in practical training in my electorate in Launceston, to enhance their employability within their own countries. I must also mention that one overseas student had previously worked in IT. He determined that IT was not going to provide stable, secure, long-term employment due to the threat of being outsourced, so he decided that a Diploma of Nursing with a focus upon aged care was going to provide for his long-term job security.
The history of technical and further education shows and successive reviews over more than 100 years have highlighted the positive economic benefits of investment in TAFE, whether the system is described as a system of technical colleges, schools of minds, trade schools or otherwise. The great economic advantages that were made after the Second World War were, in part, driven by investment in TAFE. The Whitlam years saw a transformation of the education sector, from technical and further education to universities. Gough Whitlam saw—as Labor does now—that investment in education transforms not only an individual's future but also the future of our communities and of our economy. The challenges that we faced in the 1970s, commencing with the dropping of tariff barriers and the deregulation of the Australian economy in the Hawke-Keating years, meant that we had to transform our workforce. Investment in education meant that we as a nation needed to ensure that we invested in both higher education and vocational education.
The economic plan that Labor took to the 2016 election was founded on education and training. Labor had a plan for investing in job-creating infrastructure to boost productivity. Labor knows, of course, that needs-based funding is essential to ensuring that lives are transformed using the power of education. This message is easily understood throughout our communities. The government says that it has adopted needs-based funding, but their actions speak otherwise. Central to our economic plan was a focus upon TAFE and upon restoring integrity to our national training system. We want no more of the shonky institutions that have sold to the most vulnerable in our society the false hope of real vocational training—when in reality, all they have been doing is generating enrolments through dubious inducements, free iPads and dodgy scholarships. In 2014, the 10 largest providers of vocational education in Australia received in excess of $900 million in funding. However, their results speak volumes. Only five per cent of their students graduated—that is 4,181 students. In other words, the public system spent over $215,000 a head on these 4,181 students.
Our future will be determined by our ability to provide training for the well-paid jobs of the future. Just as the IT worker from Singapore recognised that there is a better future in aged care, we need to recognise that the future will involve responding to outsourcing and automation. Faced with the potential for outsourcing and automation in a market which either has to increase demand or drive down cost, we need to be mindful that the secure jobs of the future are those which are unable to be outsourced or automated.
We are determined that our future is not a low-wage economy. Labor understand that we need a high-skilled, high-productivity labour market to support well-paid jobs. We know that by 2020 we will need at least 100,000 new medical allied health workers and carers in the aged-care sector and to assist in delivering the NDIS. Low-skilled work does not provide a secure future for our children. We must build a skilled and smart workforce. We recognise the importance of a fair wage. We support protecting low-paid workers who are in receipt of penalty rates. We need to recognise that the payment of fair wages supports not just the employment of individuals but sustains the local economies of local communities. As I indicated earlier, these bills are technical in nature but vitally important to ensure that the regulatory regime is maintained and is responsive on a fee-for-service basis. Labor supports these bills. I commend the bills to the House.
Deputy Speaker Kelly, you know what is so tragic about tonight? It is that we have had these passionate, eloquent, committed speeches being delivered on the Labor side of the House on the value and importance of vocational education and training to our nation's future and in providing the transformative powers for people to advance their careers, to advance their options in life and to give them choice—and we have had a long, long list of speakers on this side who are very committed to vocational education and training and very passionate about it and we have had some excellent and eloquent speeches—but on the other side, what is the commitment on VET, Deputy Speaker? Their commitment on VET is one speaker. That is how much those on the other side of aisle value vocational education and training. That is how they value it; they put up one speaker. It is absolutely appalling.
An opposition member: Shame, shame!
Yes, shame. VET is one of the great Australian traditions, such as the workers colleges that my colleague just spoke about and the mechanics institute that my colleague spoke about. VET provides us with opportunities for exports, particularly to developing nations like India. We have had all these fabulous speeches on this side and one from the other side. It speaks absolute volumes about what the Turnbull government, the Liberals and the Nationals, think of vocational education and training and how much they value it.
I am going to share some of the experiences of my father, who was an electrician. He was dragged kicking and screaming from high school in Preston in the fifties. He wanted to stay on and live the dream to go to university, which was impossible for a working-class boy from the wrong side of the tracks. It was absolutely impossible, so he left school at 15 and went and trained as an electrician. He loved that career but he had other aspirations. So while he was married to my mum and after I was born and my middle sister was born, he would go off to night school at the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, after finishing a full day's work as an electrician, and study to become an accountant. That took many, many years. Anyone who studies part time, particularly at night, knows it is a very tough gig. It is tough because you have to pull those hours of a full day at work, a long and committed day, and then go off and study for a couple of hours each night at night school—and in the middle of winter, it is pretty ordinary. My dad did that at RMIT and he got his certificate in accountancy, and then went on to live a whole different life from the path that was originally planned for him by his parents. It was a life where he achieved many of his dreams and aspirations, and it was as a result of him realising the transformative qualities of vocational education.
I have spoken many times in the House about how my sisters and I are the living proof of the transformative powers of education—and there I am talking about secondary and tertiary education—but my father was living proof of the transformative powers of vocational education. His first career was vocational, as an electrician. His second career was vocational, through an accountancy degree. My father did that accountancy course at the RMIT, and I have a real soft spot for it, not just because it educated my father to realise that transformation but also because I was union president at what is the oldest workers' college in the world.
What a great vision. Australia, in the late 1800s, was living those principles of social enlightenment, and one of them was providing educational opportunities to workers, providing educational opportunities through mechanics institutes in little country towns in remote and regional parts of Australia, providing people with the opportunity to read books, to actually go and borrow books, which were outrageously expensive. Books were so valued and treasured.
So there were the mechanics institutes and there was the grand old RMIT—the first workers' college in all the world, and it was realised in this country. It was created in this country, driven by those strong principles of social enlightenment, the great Labor principles and values of equity and access to opportunity and education for all, no matter what your background, your postcode or what side of the tracks you live on. So I have a very proud connection with the RMIT, the oldest workers' college in the world, not just through my father but also as a result of doing my second degree there and being union president there and affiliating them to the National Union of Students—but we will not go there.
I also have a very strong connection with another fabulous vocational education institute, and that is the University of Canberra. It is not in my electorate, unfortunately, but I tutored out there before I went into politics. I loved tutoring. I have a number of friends who are still tutoring out there. Again, it was a great opportunity to bring my industry experience, my background, to shape the new communicators of Australia, the new communicators of Canberra.
We have heard a lot about the dodgy practitioners and organisations that have basically caused this bill, and the significant reputational damage that has been done to the entire sector—particularly those really good-quality, world-class outfits, and I will come to one of those in a minute. We have also heard about the debt of so many of the students who went through these dodgy courses—how these dodgy operators can sleep at night, I do not know. Debt has been incurred by these students, who went in in all good faith and trust to get a decent education and got what was very often a very substandard qualification.
We have heard so much about the trust deficit that has resulted from the fact that these dodgy people have been operating for so long and have gotten away with it. I am concerned about the trust deficit in vocational education and training because vocational education and training provides so many transformative opportunities, but it also provides great export opportunities. It provides great export opportunities to developing nations. India is going through a boom under Modi. It needs to educate hundreds of thousands of people in the tertiary sector. It needs to educate hundreds of thousands of people in vocational education and it just does not have that tradition of vocational education and training that we have here in this nation, as the first country in the world that had a workers' college.
I can see tremendous export opportunities for Australia in the vocational education sphere, particularly with nations like India that basically need the skills to build a thriving, growing, developing nation. It needs those skills. It needs the standards that come with that skills development. That is why VET is so important to Australia, not just to get the skillsets that we need here but also as an export opportunity and to develop the world and to assist the world in its progression, growth and prosperity. The fact that there is a trust deficit is a concern on so many levels, but, most importantly, it essentially damages the reputation of the really good outfits, one of them being the Academy of Interactive Entertainment. I met with them just recently and they expressed a number of concerns about the legislation and the changes that the government is introducing in terms of cuts to TAFE. They are a very good outfit that specialises in games design, the careers of the future, virtual world development, animation and production.
I want to briefly speak on the cuts that this government has implemented since it has been in power. Since the Turnbull government was elected, it has cut more than $2.8 billion from TAFE, skills and apprenticeships. In this year's budget, it cut a further $637 million over the next four years. Australia, thanks to this government, now has 130,000 fewer apprentices and trainees than it did when this government was elected. To give you an idea about the scale of that, that is one third of the ACT population. The list goes on and it is incredibly depressing. So many TAFEs have been cut in regional towns and centres, again defying the tradition of the mechanics' institutes and the workers' colleges. Investment in TAFE and vocational education infrastructure has fallen by 75 per cent and the hours of training that have been delivered by TAFE have fallen by over 25 per cent. That is just a fantastic legacy! Well done, Turnbull government! You are winners when it comes to vocational education and training! No wonder you have no-one talking about it. No wonder you have no-one wanting to stand up and talk about the value of vocational education and training to this nation. It is because of that absolutely appalling record.
I am conscious of the time, so I will conclude by saying that TAFE and vocational education is in Labor's DNA and in my DNA. Generations of Australians have now got new and better jobs because they trained at TAFE or did an apprenticeship, just like my dad. While we support the bills that are before the House tonight, there is so much more that needs to be done in terms of investment in vocational education and training and TAFE by this government. There is so much more that needs done, and they can start by showing the sector a little bit of respect.
I am pleased to rise tonight to speak on the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Amendment (Annual Registration Charge) Bill 2017 and the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator (Charges) Amendment (Annual Registration Charge) Bill 2017. I support the bills before the House tonight as I support the TAFE sector and vocational education and training.
These bills ensure that the ASQA, the Australian Skills and Quality Authority, will have certainty. They make changes and amend ASQA's establishing legislation to make it explicit that registration fees are collected under an act dealing with the subject of taxation for the purpose of section 55 of the Constitution. This will ensure the current funding arrangements for ASQA and, further, ensure that ASQA techniques to investigate complaints—techniques like intelligence collection and data analysis, which are effective—are able to be funded into the future. These amendments go to the core of ensuring quality in the VET sector, which is critically important in skills development and employment.
I rise tonight to speak on this bill because I value every opportunity in this place to speak about education—tonight explicitly about vocational education and training, the great history of our TAFE sector and what a wonderful job it has done in service to our nation. ASQA and the sector have suffered enormous reputational damage across the last few years. We have heard stories of student victims: people who have been charged a lot of money and have gone into debt to pursue a certification, only to find that certification ripped away from them because of shonky providers operating in this space. Students have had their certifications cancelled. This bill is part of the first step, I hope, in rescuing that reputation, in retrieving that reputation of our TAFE sector and our vocational education sector. To this end, I also welcome the government's review of ASQA and VET regulation. It is long overdue—four years overdue—but it is welcome. I welcome the appointment of Professor Valerie Braithwaite to head that review.
Let's be very clear: this review needs to result in improvements to restore faith and trust in the sector. Only genuine quality providers should operate in this sector and there are no better providers than our publicly funded TAFEs. This review will hopefully see steps made to put TAFEs back on the map to ensure that they are funded so that we can have a vocational education sector that is about excellence, not just compliance. We have seen where the road of compliance has taken us with some shonky providers in this space. They were all compliant on paper but not compliant when it came to offering excellence in education. The importance of vocational education to our economy cannot be underestimated. It is essential that this system be given its due resourcing and have a quality assurance system put in place. To do that, the government need to leave their ideology behind. They need to join with Labor in committing to a strong public TAFE system as the backbone of our vocational education system.
We heard from speaker after speaker on this side of the House who rushed to put their name on the list to come in here and speak about TAFE and vocational education. We heard about the government's record, a bit of a state of the nation report, if you like, around vocational education and the problems that we have with TAFE. The record of the past four years is not good. We have had $2.8 billion cut from TAFE, skills and apprenticeships across four years. In the most recent budget were further cuts—$637 million across the next four years. We have just heard from the member for Canberra that there are 130,000 fewer apprentices and trainees than when the government was elected in 2013. It is an extraordinary record of neglect. Both TAFE and vocational education funding and the number of students have gone down over the decade, despite population growth and an increase in the number of jobs requiring vocational skills. Between 2013 and 2015, dissatisfaction in regional and rural areas with the availability of vocational education doubled. Investment in TAFE and vocational education through capital expenditure has fallen by 75 per cent and hours delivered have fallen by 25 per cent over the two-year period. The government came in here tonight, late to the party, to make some changes, which we support on this side of the House. They will give us some assurance that ASQA will be able to rebuild its reputation and ensure its funding so that it can continue to look into complaints made by students and members of the public.
A few speakers have spoken tonight about the export opportunities. In my electorate, I have a lot of international students and a lot of them are enrolled in vocational education and TAFE. The reputational damage that has been done to this sector is also damage done to our reputation internationally as providers of international education. It is time for this to stop. I welcome the review and I hope that the review goes far enough to ensure that TAFE is put back as the backbone. It appears to me that the government has very little planned for TAFE or VET. I do not say that on a whim; I say that after being in this chamber for four years and not seeing any action taken to stop the shonky providers from ripping off students and setting up business practices that have damaged the reputation of our nation as an educator.
Labor's policy is clear—we took it to the last election—and it is about investing an additional $637.6 million into TAFE and vocational education, reversing the government's 2017 budget cuts in full. We will guarantee at least two-thirds of public vocational education funding for publicly funded TAFE. We will invest in a new $100 million Building TAFE for the Future Fund to re-establish TAFE facilities in regional communities, meet local industry needs and support teaching for the digital economy—a critical element. We will set a target of one in 10 apprentices on all Commonwealth priority projects and major government business enterprise projects. This is absolutely essential, and I offer it to those across the chamber as a great piece of policy, something that they might look to implement—and, please, as soon as you can. We will invest in pre-apprenticeship programs, preparing up to 10,000 young job seekers to start an apprenticeship to be delivered by TAFE, the traditional place for pre-apprenticeships to be delivered. We will establish an advanced entry adult apprenticeship program to fast track apprenticeships for up to 20,000 people facing redundancy or whose jobs have been lost. That, too, will be delivered by public TAFE.
Building the skills that we need and giving people the capacity to enter the workforce or to change jobs are absolutely critical. Having the ability to train or retrain is a promise that we have given to the Australian people, and we have a long tradition in it. We need to see this government take action to ensure that that tradition continues, that it gets back on track and that we start to undo the reputational damage. TAFE and vocational education are absolutely critical in this country. Generations of Australians have got new and better jobs because they trained at TAFE or did an apprenticeship. In our fast changing world, a modern, adaptable TAFE and vocational education system would not just be a good thing to have, it would be essential. I see the member for Chifley in the chamber and I know his connection to innovation; he knows the importance of having a growing vocational education sector that goes into the digital economy to ensure jobs for the future.
In closing, Labor supports the legislation in front of us tonight; it supports TAFE and it supports the vocational education system. So I commend this legislation to the House and commend the government on calling for the review. I just hope they get on with the job and get on with it quickly before any more damage is done to this sector.
In this cognate debate, I indicate from the outset that I support the passage of these bills. It is essential to ensure certainty for the Australian Skills Quality Authority, ASQA. It also gives me the opportunity to talk a little about vocational education itself. I know that those on the other side are not exactly knocking at the dispatch box to have an opportunity to speak on this. Looking at the speakers list, only one government member chose to speak on this issue.
Vocational education is very important to our nation—there is no question about that. People on the other side might think it is all about university, but, Deputy Speaker, you would acknowledge the value that vocational education plays in your own electorate. We as a nation are certainly in transition. In building airports, building roads and other construction we need tradespeople. The answer cannot be that we import all our trades from wherever we need them from overseas, and 457 visas are not the answer to this country's future.
I find it passing strange that in the last three budgets handed down by this government, they have taken $2.8 billion out of vocational education and training. That is hardly an investment in this nation's future. In this budget alone about $630-odd million was taken out of vocational education. That money would ordinarily be put to creating the trades and the skills base that we need for the future. Here is a government that no doubt relies their free trade agreements and puts exemptions in so they can bring workers in at will who are not subject to the same restrictions of ordinary 457 visas; and think they will get away with it in looking at the vocational needs of this country. The net result of what has occurred since the government took office in 2013 is we have had 130,000 fewer apprentices and trainees in this country.
For some reason, those opposite seem to have this view that public education is not good. We are seeing that in the schools debate at the moment. But with public education in the vocational sector, TAFE is a brand which is universally recognised. Employers all around the country understand and value of the TAFE brand. The standards of vocational educational delivered through TAFE are, as I say, well recognise and respected. Yet, TAFE has been subject to a series of cuts. TAFE has certainly not been well funded. For various reasons, TAFE has largely been the poor cousin. Yet, TAFE should be the predominant vocational training agency in this country because TAFE actually sets the standards.
In a recent report that, as I understand it, just fell off the back of a track or was leaked, the New South Wales TAFE management has confirmed these concerns about the government's policy on TAFE. The report reveals an alarming and devastating drop of 51 per cent in diploma enrolments as a result of this government's cuts. The document also discloses that this is as a result of a revamped student loan and massive gap payments of as much as $8,000 that TAFE students would now face, putting courses out of reach for many people, particularly those coming from very much working-class areas that I represent.
Mr Jon Black, Managing Director for TAFE New South Wales, has certainly not been backward in pointing the finger at the new VET Student Loans scheme, as introduced by this government in January this year. Mr Black illustrated the disincentive for prospective students when he said:
(It's) harder to get a loan for a vocational course than a peace agreement from the UN.
That is the managing director of TAFE NSW. So it is certainly pointing the finger of blame at the way this government has decided to review the funding capabilities of students. If you add to that the intention to free up universities with sub-bachelor courses—again, a disincentive to steer students away from public-funded TAFE—it puts further pressure on the public-funded system.
It is important that we maintain a properly funded TAFE system. Certainly, it is important for the future of this nation to have confidence in the development of the schools that we do need for the future. That is why Labor will reverse the government's $637 million cuts to TAFE and schools around apprentices. Labor will also reverse the pattern towards privatisation and guarantee that at least two-thirds of all public vocational education funding will go to TAFE itself. Labor is committed to establishing to a new $100 million Building TAFE for the Future Fund so to establish TAFE facilities in regional communities and revamp facilities that have been neglected for so long by this government. In the budget reply speech, the Leader of the Opposition made the pledge to invest in pre-apprenticeship programs, as well as establish advanced adult apprenticeships. Labor will commit to one in 10 apprentices on all Commonwealth priority projects being met. This will drive the development of tradesmen for the future and necessitate that we do have a vibrant and well-funded TAFE system to support that development.
I support the bills that are before us. It is only right that ASQA be properly resourced so that they can do their fundamental work to ensure that vocational educational is conducted to the requisite standards and that qualifications are recognised and valued across the nation.
Debate interrupted.
I got a text message from a friend a couple of weeks ago, and this is what it said:
If it means anything… I couldn't be prouder of Labor right now. My dad has MS and has been in a wheelchair for 10 years. For 7 years, he has not been able to stand or move his legs
Since receiving funding from the NDIS he has been able to pay for intense physiotherapy, gym and hydrotherapy. He has been doing this now for a month now.
Yesterday my father went to the bathroom UNASSISTED for the first time in 7 years! He got off and back on to his wheelchair without anybody's help!
It was a good day in our household yesterday! Without the NDIS funds we could not have been able to afford such expensive therapy options.
The Labor Party should be as proud as our family is right now. Thank you so much for the NDIS.
That is why we get into this job—to help people, to change people's lives. It is the decisions that we make here in Canberra that can change lives like that of my friend's dad. There are lots of great stories like this, and there will be many more in the future, but that does not mean that everything is perfect with the NDIS. It is not. It is still just getting started, and the people who are running and implementing the NDIS do make mistakes. But, where that happens, we need to make sure we fix it.
One example of that is Michael, from Bass Hill in my electorate. Michael is 13 and he has severe global delay, epilepsy and cerebral palsy. He attends a special needs school and he is supported by the NDIS. His NDIS plan was approved in November last year, and it included funding for a walking frame and a standing frame. In the same month, Michael's physiotherapist lodged the formal application for his walking frame and his standing frame, on the basis that they were an essential part of restoring his mobility after a hip operation.
Four months later, in March of this year, after 10 visits to the NDIS Bankstown office and 17 phone calls and emails, the walking frame was finally delivered, but the standing frame was not. In May, six months after Michael's NDIS plan was approved, Michael's mum and dad, Caterina and Guy, received a letter from the NDIA informing them that they had decided not to fund the standing frame for Michael. The impact of this decision cannot be overstated. As mentioned, Michael's physiotherapist advises that the standing frame is necessary to restore him to his presurgery mobility. The delay in providing this equipment has meant that Michael has regressed and now he is unable to walk.
According to the NDIA, the reason they are not providing Michael with the standing frame is that, based on their assessment, Michael is unable to use the standing frame for more than 30 minutes. However, his mum tells me that that is not right. Michael currently has a standing frame on loan from Cerebral Palsy Alliance. He has outgrown it and it does not have the full functionality that he needs, but he is able to stand in it for at least an hour a day, sometimes twice a day. It is a simple mistake made by the NDIA and it could have been easily fixed if they had spoken to his mum or if they had spoken to his physiotherapist.
Michael's NDIS plan also includes vehicle and home modifications, and his mum has been told by the NDIA not to lodge her application for this equipment until the standing frame application has been resolved. The delays and errors the NDIA have made in this case therefore mean more delays in getting the equipment Michael needs to get in and out of bed, in and out of his wheelchair and in and out of the family car. The real-life impact of this is that his mum has to lift Michael, who is 52 kilos, in and out of bed and in and out of his wheelchair. It also means that Michael cannot leave the home on weekends or school days.
Michael's mum and dad are watching tonight. I am sure that anybody watching this or listening to this will know that this is a simple stuff-up and something that can be and should be fixed. I spoke to Minister Porter today about this and I asked him to intervene and reverse this decision by the NDIA. He has agreed to look at Michael's case, and I really thank him for that. We all want the NDIS to be a success, and I know that it will be. But, to be a success, it needs to deliver the equipment and the services that people like Michael so desperately need.
For many decades, liquefied natural gas has been a strategic energy source for Australia and a key industry for our nation's economy. I am pleased to inform the House that a number of visionary business leaders from Western Australia and around the world will be travelling to Canberra this week for the official launch of the LNG Marine Fuel Institute on Wednesday, 21 June. Their collective mission is to see Australian LNG being adopted as the primary fuel for marine transportation, and their vision is for Australian LNG fuel to also power road, rail and mining industries.
This group of innovative and forward-thinking industry leaders has identified an opportunity to position Australia at the forefront of LNG as a marine fuel and for future fuels development. With extensive gas reserves, especially in Western Australia, there is a significant business case to develop these energy resources for the benefit of the Australian economy. Liquefied natural gas projects are driving an unprecedented level of investment in Australia while also delivering reliable and cleaner energy to Asia and the world. Australia currently has seven operating LNG developments, including: the North West Shelf Venture, Darwin LNG, Pluto, Queensland Curtis LNG, Gladstone, Australia Pacific LNG, and Gorgon. Three developments are currently under construction, including Prelude, Wheatstone and Ichthys. In 2015-16, Australia shipped 37 million tonnes of LNG, earning $16.5 billion in export revenue. Australia's 2015-16 LNG production was 48 per cent higher than its 2014-15 production. Australia's LNG exports will more than double over the next five years.
Australia's natural gas reserves have the unique potential to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions at low cost. Globally, the marine industry is rapidly transitioning to gas for shipboard power generation and propulsion. International regulations on the air pollution created by ships are becoming increasingly stringent, with increased pressure for reduced emissions being pursued by both the International Maritime Organisation and the United Nations. Australia is well positioned to influence the agenda ahead of these impending regulations through early adoption of LNG as a marine fuel.
With reference to the current energy debate, renewable technologies are only part of the solution to power the nation in the medium term. The desire for cleaner fuels is creating a potential worldwide market for LNG as a transition fuel to renewables. LNG is a reliable source of fuel providing energy security without supply interruption. Trade routes from northern Australia are the perfect place to drive the transition to LNG as a marine fuel, with exporting industries in close proximity to world-class LNG supplies. The opportunity exists to establish supply chains through existing logistics routes, such as those established for the bulk iron ore and LNG shipping industry between Australia and China, Korea, Japan and other emerging South-East Asian economies, with the establishment of an Australian LNG bunkering facility industry to facilitate this.
On behalf of the parliament, I commend the contribution of the founding directors: Richard Sandover of Jackson McDonald; Captain Walter Purio of P and H Marine Australia; Mike Utsler of Woodside; Mary Hackett of General Electric; the Hon. Stephen Smith, former minister; Tony Brooks of Altegra Property Group; and Hero Gohda of Mitsubishi. It has been an honour to work with this team of entrepreneurial business leaders for the past two years since the initial concept was first introduced to me by my the energetic friend, Tony Brooks. We brought the idea to Canberra and drafted the incorporation documents during late-night sessions around my dining room table in Yarralumla.
The marine fuel institute will actively promote the use of LNG as a marine fuel. It will work closely with government and industry stakeholders to develop new industry potential that can deliver enormous benefits to Australia with regard to export revenue, balance of payments, energy security— (Time expired)
In Australia, someone has their identity stolen every 45 seconds. Online criminals are at work around the clock, trying and succeeding in stealing our identities for nefarious purposes. And a lot of the time, we do not even know about it.
At a mobile office in my electorate of Paterson, Julie came to me last week at her wit's end, wondering what she could do to try to get her life back. Julie now knows her identity was stolen in February. She suspects it was through her driver's licence.
Since that time, Julie has had 18 loan applications made in her name—one for $10,000; it is incredible. Seven of those 18 applications are still not resolved—that is, Julie is still trying to prove that she was not the applicant. Julie's credit rating has plummeted from 900 out of 1, 000 to almost 530—almost half what it was.
She cannot get a new licence number, because she is not yet considered a victim of crime. This is despite 18 applications for credit being made in her name in five months, seven of which she is still arguing about. And she cannot get a new licence number. She cannot get a new tax file number, and she has to prove who she is every time she is contacted about a loan and that it was not her who made the application.
She has flagged her name with the Australian tax office as having her identity stolen. She has registered with three separate credit agencies that will send her information when someone accesses her file. But that has not stopped the applications.
Julie has contacted police, but they really have nothing to go on. And she has followed all the government's advice about getting her identity back. Says Julie:
If you had something from the police to say you were a victim of identify fraud then you could show that to credit organisations and sort things out.
But it is not that simple. When she first discovered the theft, Julie took two weeks off work to try to sort it out. Every day she was on the phone from 7.30 in the morning to 5 pm, and she still spends a lot of time on the phone trying to sort this mess out.
The positive in this—and it is only a small one—is she did find out. Many Australians do not find out. They do not know until it is too late, and huge debts are racked up in their name, totally destroying their credit rating and making it nearly impossible to restore their good name.
Julie only found out, because she lives in a small town and knows the postie. A bill from Telstra, which was sent to an address she had 20 years ago, was put in her current postbox by a postal worker who knows her. The overdue Telstra account in question was in Julie's name, but it was not Julie's. She does not have an account with Telstra, and it was nearly impossible to convince Telstra of that. Julie went online to do a credit report and found there were 18 loan applications in her name—loans of $5000 and $10,000 from big banks such as Westpac, the Commonwealth and Citi Bank. They had apparently given loans to someone using her identity without ever sighting her.
The applications were all done online. You do not even have to go into a bank or provide any physical evidence—just a drivers licence number and you can fudge the rest. Julie has been told by those in the know that a driver's licence is now the most powerful form of ID you have and the most likely to be stolen.
Banks have dedicated fraud teams to deal with this, but still they seem to lend without adequate proof of identity. Julie believes organisations such as Telstra and these big banks are not moving quickly enough. They are not keeping up with the cybercriminals and they are not doing enough to restore the credit rating of victims so they can get on with their lives. Even if a court were to issue Julie with a victim's certificate, this does not compel any organisation to take action. It does not remove a fraudulent transaction from their records nor does it restore your credit rating.
Identity theft is now one of the most common crimes in Australia. It is more common than assault, break-ins, robbery and motor vehicle theft. One in 10 victims requires counselling or medical treatment. Almost a third are over 55. About a quarter are too embarrassed to report it. Another quarter do not know where to go. But, even if they do, it is far from smooth sailing to recover their credit rating. It is a long hard battle. We have to make it harder for thieves to apply for credit in other people's names, and we have to make it easier for victims to get their lives back.
Tonight, I rise to note my constituents' concern around Australia's liquid fuel security. I have spent the last few months conducting town hall forums in my electorate of Canning. There is no better way to connect with your electorate. It is an opportunity to hear directly from them and hear about their concerns and their anxieties. One of things that keeps popping up is national security. They are deeply concerned about national security. I would regard my electorate of Canning as very patriotic. People love Australia. They want our country to continue long into the future. So the things I talk about regularly are the two key tasks of the federal government—national and economic security.
My constituents are observing the rapidly changing world that we live in. They are noting the terrorist attacks that we are seeing throughout the West. We have seen another one today in London. They are watching North Korea closely. I get a lot of emails about that. They are watching an assertive China, particularly in the South China Sea. They are also watching the Middle East. People are, indeed, concerned. One issue that keeps surfacing is the issue of foreign ownership, particularly the sale of critical infrastructure to state-owned enterprises. The sale of the Port of Darwin continues to emerge. There is a lot of frustration about that. We cannot roll that back. But, certainly, I will not this in the House: my constituents do mention it to me quite regularly. I am proud that our government has taken action. Last year, in March, the Treasurer announced new laws that any state infrastructure worth $250 million or more, if it was to be some, would first have to go before the Foreign Investment Review Board. That has given the Australian people a lot of confidence that we will not just be selling off critical infrastructure.
Having said all that, fuel security is something that keeps popping up. I am not going to say anything new tonight. This is all on the public record. But I do want to note two reports. The first was by Mr John Blackburn AO, who submitted a report to the NRMA on Australia's liquid fuel security in February 2013. Also, I want to mention the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee report which was submitted in June 2015 and entitled, Australia's transport energy resilience and sustainability. Both reports make very interesting reading. Taken together, Australia is in a position of significant vulnerability. A couple of themes emerged. We are a resource-abundant nation. We are the world's ninth-largest energy producer. By the end of the decade, we will overtake Qatar as the greatest producer of liquefied natural gas. We are geographically isolated. Geoffrey Blainey, one of Australia's famous historians, talks about the tyranny of distance. We have always relied upon imports for a lot of our supplies.
Despite the strategic advantages that we have in the abundance of energy supplies, we are heavily dependent on imports of refined petroleum products and oils to meet the demands of Australian consumers and, also, to carry out essential tasks, like maintaining a defence force, maintaining supply chains throughout the country and all those other essential parts of the economy that we take for granted.
So why are we at risk? We have a limited and diminishing refining capacity in this country. If you look at the detail closely, we only have four refineries still in this country. In Queensland, there is the Eromanga refinery. It is a regional refinery for local industrial use. It only produces 1,200 barrels per day. In Victoria, you still have the Altona and Geelong refineries producing about 200,000 barrels per day. Then, finally, in Western Australia—and just to the north of my electorate—we have the Kwinana refinery which produces 138,000 barrels per day. It is the largest refinery in this country. I note the closures in New South Wales of the Clyde and Kurnell refineries in 2012 and 2014. In South Australia, the Lonsdale refinery was mothballed in 2003. It closed in 2009 and it will be demolished in 2019. So we rely upon supply from overseas. Fifteen per cent of crude oil is produced in Australia; the other 85 per cent we receive through imports. In 2012 we were refining 75 per cent of that oil, but as of 2014 it is about 57 per cent.
The world is changing and there are great risks and so we need to secure our energy supply.
I do rise today to talk about a very important issue that a lot of young people in my electorate are calling for, and that is an investment in skills. The big concern is about this government undermining skills and training, particularly in the TAFE system. It is no secret at the moment that many young Australians are finding times tough—whether it is home ownership or whether it is finding a secure job. The outlook for many young Australians is not certain or secure. When we look at the youth unemployment rate, hovering at around 13 per cent and even higher in my electorate, we know that one of the important areas we must invest in is skills and training education.
Vocational education, in particular, provides many young Australians with the opportunity to gain real skills, a formal qualification and long-term employment. It is also important for employers, and I recently hosted the Southern Suburbs Jobs Taskforce in my electorate, and, not unsurprisingly, the topic of skills and training was raised time and time again by business owners. They told me how important a population of skilled and trained workers is for their businesses' ongoing success. They told me that they want to employ more young people and apprentices, but often could not find people with the appropriate skills. They told me they wanted to see a government invest more in the skills and training sector.
It is more important than ever for our country to be investing in vocational education and training. It has been incredibly disappointing that the federal Liberal government has done everything in their power to undermine the sector. Since coming into government, the Liberals have cut $2.8 billion from TAFE and vocational education. Funding for the sector and the number of supported students are lower than they were a decade ago. There are 130,000 fewer apprentices and trainees than when the Liberals came to government. Then in this budget, to add further insult to injury, this government cut a further $637 million from vocational education.
What has been particularly disappointing is this government's failure to support TAFE. We have seen over the past few years a number of less reputable private providers who have ripped off students. The value of our public TAFE as a trusted and quality training provider has become even more apparent under the cloud of private providers who have not provided high-quality vocational education to so many.
In my electorate, we are lucky to have a fabulous TAFE campus, the Noarlunga TAFE. I recently visited the campus and met many local students who are passionate about their areas of training and excited to enter the workforce after finishing their qualification. Indeed, just down the hill, in the old Mitsubishi site, we also have TAFE Tonsley, which is also delivering excellent, high-quality vocational education training to so many.
Instead of supporting our public institutions like TAFE, this government has done nothing but neglect and undermine TAFE. They have continued to cut funding and to force many campuses around the country to close.
Labor knows the value of TAFE. We know that a failure to support TAFE is a failure to support jobs. That is why we have committed to reinvesting into TAFE. We will ensure that TAFE is restored as the backbone of our skills and training system by ensuring two-thirds of public funding for TAFE. Labor also understands the value of apprenticeships as a pathway relied on by so many young Australians to gain long-term employment. You heard those statistics before—the way the number of apprenticeships has plummeted under this government and that is why Labor has taken the important step of setting a target of having one in ten apprentices on all Commonwealth priority projects. This is a really important commitment, to say that we value and see the importance of apprentices in this country. So I will continue to advocate for decent, accessible training and vocational education in my electorate, and we will make sure that TAFE is put back in the centre of our vocational education, as the public provider in this country.
It is my great pleasure to rise and talk about the many ways in which the Turnbull government is building and delivering in Corangamite. In doing so, I reflect on the comments by the member for Corio, who quite falsely, as I will demonstrate, gave these quotes to the Geelong Advertiser: 'All Liberal governments give our city is rhetoric,' and 'They do a lot of talking, but no building.' I am really very disappointed that the member for Corio would seek to misrepresent matters so gravely, given our outstanding record of achievement. It is a really good opportunity tonight to put on the record the many things that we are doing, delivering and building.
As residents in the south-western part of my electorate—in Colac, Birregurra, Winchelsea and further west—would know, we are building the Princes Highway duplication. That is an outstanding project. So many people are saying to me that the progress on that duplication is wonderful. The duplication between Winchelsea and Colac is well underway. This is a project for which I fought so hard, and it has received $185.5 million from the Turnbull government. That is just one example.
We are building better roads. There is probably no better example than the $50 million that we have put towards the upgrade of the Great Ocean Road, which is a very significant and iconic road not just in Victoria, not just in Australia but internationally. I fought tooth and nail for that particular project. In stark contrast, this was a project that Labor, when it was in government, refused to support. That was a very big mistake, and now we are seeing matching funding from the state and a great deal of energy and a great deal of commitment to this upgrade.
We are building the National Disability Insurance Agency a $120 million state-of-the-art building. We are so proud of the way in which we are supporting our great city and our great region. The member for Corio a number of years ago spoke about how Geelong was going to be on its knees. The way he talked down our local economy was very unfortunate. But in fact our unemployment rate is tracking very much with the national rate, despite the challenges that we have had, particularly in manufacturing. We have delivered, just under the Geelong Region Innovation and Investment Fund, 857 jobs—building new factories, new workshops and new installations to support those jobs and to support so many wonderful businesses such as Cotton On and the Australian Lamb Company, just a couple of examples. We have built—and it is well and truly underway—the Australian Bureau of Statistics National Data Acquisition Centre. That opened in April last year. That is a very exciting Commonwealth agency, right in the middle of Geelong, creating some 260 local jobs. There will be a total workforce of 300 at any one time.
And, of course, we are building the duplicated rail track between South Geelong and Waurn Ponds, a $100 million commitment made in this budget. We are very, very proud of the way that we are focusing on very important transport infrastructure projects. This was a project that worried my mother—my beautiful mum—when she was the member for Geelong some 20 years ago, and it is really a great credit to the Turnbull government, to the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, that we recognise the importance of this project. We are of course hoping that the Victorian government will release its plans, its costings. We need that matching funding. Rather than a wish list, which is what we have seen in the budget from the Victorian government, we need funding allocated.
Of course, we are also trying to build the East West Link, which is a critically important project for Victoria. We have allocated $3 billion in our budget to the first state government which wants to build this road, because, regrettably, as even Labor members in Western Melbourne know, the West Gate Tunnel project is really a poor cousin to this project. We have to do a lot better than that.
House adjourned at 20:00
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Buchholz ) took the chair at 10:30.
I was recently in Frankston with the Leader of the Opposition, Bill Shorten, where we held a town-hall-style Q&A for local residents. It was a great success, with standing room only at the Frankston Mechanics Institute.
I was unsurprised when each of the Liberal Party's big three broken promises in Frankston—NBN, the electrification of the Baxter line and school funding—were raised. Residents of Frankston recalled how in 2013 the then communications minister, Malcolm Turnbull, said that every house in Australia would have access to a world-class NBN by 2016. Then, once that promise was broken, the Prime Minister came to Frankston in 2015 to announce that all premises in the seat of Dunkley would be connected by 2017. That promise, too, was broken, and earlier this year, the new member for Dunkley, Mr Crewther, told Frankston residents that they would not get the NBN until 2019.
With the Liberals having broken their promise to Frankston on the NBN twice already, why should local residents believe them now? I would go so far as to say that they do not. The Liberals have simply no credibility left, and the new member for Dunkley has only added his name to the Turnbull government's list of broken promises.
From the failure of the NBN to the failure that is the Baxter train line electrification: in the dying days of the 2016 election campaign, the Liberal Party matched Labor's commitment to fund a business case for the electrification of the Baxter train line but then did not deliver a cent in the 2017 budget. This is an important project and the business case should be underway but it is not—another betrayal of Frankston residents. According to Public Transport Victoria data, 58 per cent of travellers to Frankston station come from more than 20 minutes away. The business case, had it been funded in the budget would have been a significant step forward to electrifying the Baxter train line, to the associated improvement in social mobility access to the city and to the work opportunities that come with it.
But this government's incompetence does not stop with the NBN or the Baxter train line. There are 44 schools in the city of Frankston. It is a young and vibrant community, with thousands of students that would benefit from Labor's plan for schools. The Abbott-Turnbull government's broken promise to match Labor dollar for dollar on school funding is the last straw for Frankston residents. Schools and students in the city of Frankston are worse off under a Liberal government, and the Liberal member for Dunkley continues to sit on his hands as his government cuts from school to school and from classroom to classroom across the city of Frankston.
The Liberals have broken their promises to Frankston residents on the NBN, on the Baxter line electrification and on school funding. The Turnbull government has abandoned the city of Frankston; the member for Dunkley stands by and says nothing. The good people of the city of Frankston have had enough, and rightly so. The Liberals have had three strikes; it is time to throw them out and let Labor deliver on the NBN, on the Baxter line and on schools.
I rise today to speak on the city of South Perth's proposed Westralian Centre, a multipurpose interpretive facility, public space and major tourist attraction on Sir James Mitchell Park. I understand that the proposed centre will be used to celebrate, commemorate and remember moments of local, state and national significance. The initial designs include an internal interpretation and exhibition space, an outdoor recreation interpretation space, a small theatrette, a cafe and restaurant, an office, public toilets and a gift and souvenir shop. The city plans to seek both federal and state funding for the project, currently estimated to cost $7 million.
As with all council projects, the City of South Perth has undertaken community and stakeholder consultation to seek feedback on the proposal. After receiving a petition from the City of South Perth Residents Association, the City of South Perth scheduled a special electors meeting, which was held on Thursday 8 June. The residents association also wrote to me to voice their concerns about the proposal, noting that they also have questions about the necessity for such a centre in this location, the rationale used to develop the concept, the impact planning, the capital and ongoing costs and a lack of consultation.
I attended the meeting along with about 450 residents and members of the South Perth community and the South Perth MLA, John McGrath. At the meeting it was obvious that there were many residents who were strongly against the current Westralian Centre proposal as it stands. Members might wonder why they were strongly against it. To start off with, when the project was first announced the wife of one of the councillors in that area put out misinformation and lies in a piece of literature and letterboxed it to the whole area—it sounds like a Labor Party campaign—which created a lot of angst in the community about what was going on, until the facts came out, but by that time it had steamrolled to a fairly anti-project stance. George Jones and Graham Miller, who are local identities, stood up and spoke for the project at the meeting. There were interjections and resident disapproval of what they were talking about. The City of South Perth has put forward proposals for this site in the past and each time it has faced organised opposition from the community. The people who live near the foreshore definitely do not want anything on their foreshore except open spaces.
A feasibility study was completed in May 2015, which the federal government funded, for a nine-lane-pool component of the aquatic centre, which has been costed at $8.9 million by the feasibility study. But that is not for the foreshore but for the George Burnett Park area. I would suggest to the City of South Perth that it pull that out of the archives and put that forward to the community, because that is what they want.
As the co-chair of Parliamentary Friends of Heart and Stroke Foundations, I am very pleased to work in parliament to raise awareness of heart disease generally and in this week in particular to raise awareness of Australian women's heart health by promoting the Heart Foundation's campaign Making the Invisible Visible for the month of June.
Heart disease is the No. 1 killer of women in Australia, claiming three times as many lives as breast cancer. Unfortunately, many women do not consider heart disease as a prime health issue that affects them. However, each day 50 Australian women have a heart attack, with heart disease claiming 24 female lives in Australia every day. Women tend to focus on awareness raising and preventative measures for gynaecological and breast cancers, but we also need to pay attention to heart disease as a matter for women as well as for men.
Risk factors such as lifestyle, obesity, depression, cholesterol and blood pressure all contribute to heart disease, and these factors are common issues throughout our community, especially in my electorate of Calwell, where the number of non-English-speaking background residents with cultural nuances make it imperative that awareness is focused in a linguistically relevant way on diseases that may ultimately claim the lives of beloved family members. It is important, therefore, to ensure that women in my community know the risk factors of heart disease and are also taking precautionary steps to protect their heart health.
Women are more likely to experience atypical symptoms, such as jaw, shoulder, neck and back pain, when having a heart attack, but only one in four women are aware of at least one of the symptoms. So we need to do everything we can to educate and inform women of all the symptoms of a heart attack so that they can act immediately in order to save their life or the life of another.
This month marks the Heart Foundation's Making the Invisible Visible awareness month. It is a time to shine a light on women's heart health and, as the campaign suggests, make the invisible—women's heart health—visible. So on Wednesday, I and my co-chair, the member of Capricornia, in conjunction with Abbott Vascular will host an event to raise awareness for women's heart health and the need for innovations in detection and treatment. At this event we will hear from professors of heart health, but importantly, we will hear the journey of Emma Waite, a mother of three who at just 41 was diagnosed with a blocked artery.
There are many ways every Australian can show how big their heart is. Throughout June, the Heart Foundation is urging all Australian's to put women's heart health of the national agenda by organising fundraisers, donating online, giving through work or campaigning in the community. You can go online to the Heart Foundation's website and download posters and post on social media with the hashtag #womenshearts.
I think we should all show our support. I encourage my colleagues to attend the meeting on Wednesday and help to protect the hearts of the women we love.
On 8 June, 75 years ago, Sydney came under direct attack for the second time in its history. Eight days earlier, three Japanese midget subs had entered Sydney Harbour, firing a torpedo which hit HMAS Kuttabul and killed 21 sailors. On that 8 June of 75 years ago, at exactly 0015 hours, the 102-metre long Japanese submarine I-24 surfaced about four miles off the Sydney coast. The submarine had previously participated in the attack on Pearl Harbor and in the Battle of the Coral Sea. The submarine opened fire with its deck gun on the sleeping city of Sydney. It fired 10 shells. Six of the shells failed to explode, and the other four caused minor damage to houses.
At Bankstown airfield, Lieutenant George Leo Cantello of the US Air Force's 41st fighter squadron received a call that Sydney was under attack. The 27-year-old was the only pilot at that time stationed at Bankstown airfield. He took off just after midnight into the sky alone, facing attackers unknown. His plane climbed to 1,000 feet, where, tragically, the aircraft's engine failed. He plummeted into the ground and crashed in a ball of flames at Hammondville about five kilometres south-west of banks and the field.
John Jewell, a young boy who lived at Hammondville, witnessed the crash and saw the aftermath. John has fought for decades to ensure that Lieutenant Cantello is recognised as a true hero. Last week, we were most fortunate—I congratulate Liverpool council for organising a most moving ceremony—to recognise the great sacrifice that Lieutenant Cantello, an American, made to protect our city of Sydney.
The I-24 finally met its fate when it was depth charged and rammed, and sank with all hands—104 officers and men—by the United States Navy sub chaser USS Larchmont off Alaska on 11 June 1943. Although we should always remember Lieutenant Cantello, we should also remember that during World War II 28 Japanese and German submarines operated in Australian weapons. They sank 30 ships, killing 654 people, including 200 merchant seamen.
Lieutenant Cantello was an American of Italian descent. He came to Australia to protect our nation. He gave his life in the protection of Sydney. We will always remember him. Lest we forget.
I was pleased on the weekend to be able to attend one of the fabulous festivals in Melbourne's west, the annual Williamstown literature festival—the Willy Lit Fest. Judging by the audience reaction the festival winner was Andy Griffiths, the author of the treehouse storey series, who is a local literary icon in Melbourne's west. He was mobbed by young children in Melbourne's west demanding to know when the 91-Storey Treehouse would be coming out.
Another icon of the Willy Lit Fest is the annual Ada Cambridge writing prizes. I would like to acknowledge in the chamber this year's winners. The biographical prose winner was Fikret Pajalic for All the Wrong Things. The poetry winner was Edward Reilly for 'There Were Limits'. The short story prize winner was Keely Brown for 'Freedom'.
I would like to thank the sponsors, volunteers and committee members for making the festival a reality for literature lovers in Melbourne's west. I would particularly like to congratulate committee members Angela Altair, John Webb, Barbara Hughes, Brian Christopher, Christopher Ringrose, Elisabeth Grove, Carol Winfield, Lindy Wallace, Anna Brasier, Sue Martin and the inexhaustible program director, Loraine Callow.
I was particularly pleased to be able to sponsor the event this year and to introduce Williamstown's own Leigh Hobbs, the 2016-17 Australian Children's Laureate. We have a special place in our heart for Australian children's writers, as they not only provide a doorway into a new world, into a new experience, through literature but also open that whole experience to children for the first time. Leigh Hobbs is a best-selling children's author and illustrator, best known for creating characters like Old Tom, Horrible Harriet and the Watts family favourite Mr Chicken.
The Australian Children's Laureate is an initiative of the Australian Children's Literature Alliance and its role is to promote the importance of reading, creativity and story for Australian children.
Leigh Hobbs told the Willy Lit Fest that his priority as the Australian Children's Laureate would be:
… to champion creative opportunities for children, and to highlight the essential role that libraries play in nurturing our children's creative lives.
I would like to echo Leigh's call in the chamber today. School libraries are like children's literature authors: they open up that new world to our children. School libraries are crucial for instilling a love of reading and building critical thinking and information evaluation skills.
The House Standing Committee on Education and Employment found in its 2011 report School libraries and teacher librarians in 21st century Australia:
Whilst research demonstrates a clear correlation between a good school library and teacher librarian and student achievement, the link is not always appreciated, acknowledged or made best use of.
There are challenges to ensuring that all children enjoy these benefits, including, notably, the need for school libraries to employ qualified teacher librarians in order to properly serve their communities. Unfortunately, the Australian Council for Education Research has found that more than one-third of primary teachers and one-quarter of secondary teachers working in school libraries have no tertiary qualification and, further:
… there is evidence of a greater number of teachers in library roles in high socio-economic … schools and correspondingly fewer in low SES schools.
We ought to have a school library and librarian for every child. (Time expired)
I want to highlight the significant economic opportunities that arise from rehabilitating old mine sites. There must be 1,500 around the world. It is fascinating that an Australian company is leading the way with the work at Century Mine up in the Gulf of Carpentaria. After 16 years of operation there by Century, there are large amounts of zinc residing in a tailings pond. They have a responsibility to rehabilitate this site, but now it can be done in not only an economically viable way but also in a way that is increasingly an economically valuable opportunity for secondary players who are experts.
One of these groups is Raging Bull. I want to talk about their work today. Those substantial recoverable zinc mineralisations are sitting in a two- by three-kilometre tailings dam about seven metres deep. It represents about 1,940,000 contained zinc tonnes. Part of the rehabilitation is to move that, remove zinc that should have been taken out in the first place but was not because of the emphasis on throughput rather than maximisation, and return it to the old pit and then encapsulate it. That will fulfil their obligations to rehabilitate the site. Of course back in the nineties the emphasis, as I said, was on throughput, so only about 74 per cent of the zinc was extracted at Century because they were making the most of high mineral prices at the time. But, with a secondary player like Century Bull, independent studies show that what we will see is that this is potentially a $6 billion resource of zinc. It is absolutely remarkable. In many cases, there may be other resources as well.
What is more important is that nearly every mine site in Australia has significant obligations through a bond to the respective governments, but where they are an Australian entity that is part of a global player and if that Australian entity has been liquidated then there is no way for the people to get rehabilitation of that site. That is a large burden on the taxpayer, so we want this rehabilitation occurring as soon as possible, not extending out decades. In Century, of course, there is the mine site; there is a flotation processing plant; there is a large port facility at Karumba, which the mining company owns; there are large cattle properties; there is an underground slurry pipeline; there is the pastoral holding—it is all there to be maximised, and this is work for local Indigenous communities in the area for decades, rather than it all being dismantled now.
Its head office will be in my electorate in Capalaba, which obviously I am very excited about. This has been an MMG-Century Bull partnership, which shows that there are massive resources available in tailings deposits. It is leading the way as a harbinger for other opportunities around the world, and I wish them well in paying down this obligation to the government, rehabilitating this two- by three-kilometre site and, obviously, giving Australia yet another export product to take to the world. I congratulate both of those parties for coming to an economically sensible, if not a highly lucrative agreement, for the benefit of those who live in the Doomadgee and Karumba area.
I rise to talk about the utter travesty that is the Turnbull government's pathetic second-rate NBN. Before the 2013 election, now Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull promised he would deliver minimum download speeds of 25 megabits per second to all Australians by the end of 2016. And yet, here we are halfway through 2017 and average connection speeds are just 11.1 megabits per second, and millions of Australians are still waiting to be connected.
Australia now ranks 50th in global internet speed rankings. This puts us behind countries like Bulgaria, Ireland, Kenya and New Zealand. This weekend, we learned from the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman that NBN users are five times more likely to complain about their broadband than other internet users. This news came as no surprise to me, as my office is constantly fielding calls from constituents who simply are not getting the service they paid for. I am particularly concerned about the impact this is having on our local businesses. Everywhere I go and speak to local businesses and telecommuters, they tell me that the Prime Minister's second-rate NBN is holding them back. One local business owner rang me when her business was threatened because the transition to NBN resulted in her losing not just her internet connection but her longstanding phone number. Another desperate constituent contacted me because she feared her completely unreliable NBN connection and the constant telco buck-passing could cost her her job and home business, which obviously requires a fast and reliable internet connection at her home. And more businesses than I can count tell me that their NBN speeds are just not fast enough.
Fast, reliable and affordable broadband is a fundamental ingredient for the productivity and profitability of Australian businesses. Labor's real NBN would have been the single greatest enabler of productivity, jobs and growth in decades. Instead, the Liberals' inferior offering, built on last century's copper, is shackling Australian businesses and holding our economy back. It is time the government fixed the mess they have created so that we are not destined to be left behind the rest of the world, rendered completely uncompetitive in the global economy. Small businesses deserve much better from this government. The offering of a fast, affordable and reliable NBN was a game changer for our nation's economy. It just has never been delivered by the government. We have a Prime Minister whose single responsibility in his last portfolio was this job. He needs to do it now.
May was musicals month in Berowra and I was delighted to see two extremely high quality community theatre productions. I attended the Dural Musical Society's entertaining production of Oliver! The Dural Musical Society has been entertaining local audiences since 1972. It welcomes members from eight years old and up and prides itself on its professionalism and its values of fun and creativity, and the society produces two shows a year at the Dural Memorial Hall. Oliver! brings to life the characters of Charles Dickens and encourages the audience to consider poverty, parentage and other social conditions common in Victorian England. With memorable Lionel Bart songs like Oliver, Oliver, Where is Love?, Food, Glorious Food, Oom-Pah-Pah and the Polka inspired Reviewing the Situation, it is one of the most popular musicals of all time.
The production was brought to life by Director Julian Floriano, Musical Director Hugh Humphreys, Choreographer Chrissy O'Neill, Assistant Director Laura Murdocca and Assistant Musical Director Stephanie Quaglia. The night I saw Oliver! it contained excellent performances by Elliot Sullivan in the title role, Isaac Koorey as the Artful Dodger—indeed, a number of Isaac's brothers were in the cast—Sarah Aylen as Nancy and the inimitable DMS president, Eddie Bruce, as Fagan, always looking to pick a pocket or two. Indeed, the production picked a pocket or two for a very good charity, The Sanctuary, which is designed to prevent violence against women.
The second production I saw was the outstanding production of HMS Pinafore by the Berowra Musical Society. It was directed by Andrew Cousins and Musical Director Sally Cousins, with an extraordinary 28-piece orchestra in a local community theatre. Choreographed by Jessica Edward, the production starred Rhiannon Winchester, Aleks Justin, Paul Thomson, Amy Lewis, Matthew Seidl, Louise Longhurst and Christopher Butt. The Berowra Musical Society was formed in 1986. It produces two shows a year and a children's pantomime. Each production requires the efforts of up to 100 people, including cast, orchestra, backstage crew, front-of-house crew, set construction crew and costume crew.
One of the profiles that was written of me at the time of my maiden speech was that I was a Gilbert and Sullivan tragic, and I suppose I should own that. One thing about Gilbert and Sullivan that is important to me is that it reflects on British tradition, its society, its humour and its freedom. Pinafore is fundamentally a satire about the British government's management of the Royal Navy and the class system. When you think about the Royal Navy in Victorian England, it was the most important institution of Britain. It was the dominant navy in the world. It was the tool that allowed Britain to keep its empire. Britannia ruled the waves. Yet there was this hugely popular satire of it, making light of the leadership, the governance and the political class surrounding the navy. That says something about British humour, but it also says something about the freedom of Englishmen and the freedom of Australians too.
Each of these musical societies brings our community together. In a world where our lives have become increasingly stressful and demanding, it is wonderful to see that community theatre is alive and well in my electorate.
I rise to talk to something that I am very hopeful will at least start from a bipartisan or even non-partisan sentiment. That relates back to those good old days where, as kids, we used to fondly recall that there seemed to be so many more chips in that bag. There seemed to be so much more Freddo in that frog. Not only could a lot less go a lot further but the show bags at the royal show used to be so much fuller. I am here to confirm that that is just not all of us harking back to a gentler, simpler time with rose coloured glasses. It is actually true. As we see commercials activities evolve, very sadly I am here to confirmed that indeed we are seeing fewer and fewer chips in a full pack.
The CHOICE article titled Three chips short of a full packusually a term I use to describe those on the opposite side—relates to the fact that we are seeing fewer chips in Smith’s crinkle cut potato chips, fewer corn chips in Doritos and Freddo frogs shrinking in size from 15 grams to 12 grams, but we are still being made to pay the same price. It just should not be the case that Australian consumers do not get an extra few Tim Tams in their pack. It is very important that organisations stand up for consumer choice in relation to knowing what it is they are going to buy.
As for those opposite, this is sadly where we part ways as far as that non-partisan warm fuzzies of yesterday go. On 19 May, the government opened a consultation process in relation to national trade measurement regulations. One would think that would be because of the fact that consumers deserve greater choice and awareness as to what it is they are buying. But it arose as a result of the fact that the Department of Industry, Innovation and Science admitted the review was actually prompted by a request—wait for it—from a European cosmetics company that did not want to have to relabel their products to bring them to the Australian market.
The 2017 Queensland Community Foundation's Philanthropist of the Year Awards were announced on Friday 16 June, held as part of the Queensland's Philanthropy Week. Now in their seventh year, these awards recognise outstanding individuals and organisations that support community, volunteer and charity groups right across Queensland through a variety of means. The QCF's SME philanthropist of the year award this year went to Hallmark Property of Toowoomba. It is headed by Ian Knox, who has more than 20 years' experience in commercial and residential property in Toowoomba. Hallmark was nominated by Vanguard Laundry Services.
Hallmark has contributed over $1 million to ensure at-risk teenagers and people with a mental illness are given the opportunity to work and that they are cared for by the local community. This has been achieved in their case through their support of Vanguard Laundry Services and Teen Challenge in Toowoomba. As well as substantial monetary support, Hallmark Property have also provided pro bono advice and services to both groups over a number of years, including the provision of business contacts, mentoring opportunities, employee time and the support of their board to create substantial and lasting community change.
Earlier this year I hosted the Prime Minister in Toowoomba, during which time he officially opened the new Vanguard Laundry Services, and it was just a fortnight ago that the Assistant Minister for Social Services and Disability Services, Jane Prentice, and I were back there at Vanguard Laundry Services with Luke Terry, its CEO, to check on progress. Vanguard is a dedicated social enterprise based around a new, purpose-built commercial laundry using state-of-the-art technology aimed at delivering significant economic and environmental savings for its customers in the healthcare, aged-care, hospitality, accommodation facilities, management and agribusiness sectors. It is, importantly, also a dedicated enterprise focused on creating more jobs and career development for people in the Toowoomba region who have experienced mental illness and struggle to get back into the workforce.
I congratulate Vanguard Laundry Services on its commercial and social mission. On behalf of our community, I acknowledge in particular and I thank Hallmark Property and the many other philanthropists across our region and nationally as well who are so generous in supporting this and other social enterprises providing support to those in need in our community.
I thank the member for Groom and all honourable members for their contributions. In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has now concluded.
I move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) illicit drugs can cause untold harm in our communities and on our streets; and
(b) the Government:
(i) is committed to targeting the supply, demand, and harm caused to our communities by the scourge of illicit drugs; and
(ii) has made significant investments in our law enforcement agencies to do all they can to keep drugs off our streets;
(2) acknowledges that:
(a) in the last two years alone, our agencies have detected and intercepted more than 12.5 tonnes of narcotics that have been attempted to be imported into Australia; and
(b) Australian law enforcement officers continue to confront Australia's drug market and combat the criminal syndicates that peddle illicit drugs; and
(3) calls on all members of the House to promote greater awareness of the harmful effects of illicit drugs on individuals and communities across Australia and support our law enforcement agencies in keeping drugs off our streets.
Firstly in this motion, we note that illicit drugs can cause untold harm in our communities and on our streets and that the government is committed to targeting the supply, the demand and the harm caused to our communities by the scourge of illicit drugs. Secondly, we note that the government has made significant investments in our law enforcement agencies for them to do all they can to keep drugs off our streets. We acknowledge that in the last two years alone our agencies have detected and intercepted more than 12.5 tonnes of narcotics that have been attempted to be imported into Australia. We also acknowledge that Australian law enforcement officers continue to confront Australia's drug market and combat the criminal syndicates that peddle illicit drugs. Thirdly, we call on all members of the House to promote greater awareness of the harmful effects of illicit drugs on individuals and communities across Australia and to support our law enforcement agencies in keeping drugs off our streets.
The Joint Committee on Law Enforcement, which I am the chairman of, have been having a very extensive inquiry into the scourge of crystal methamphetamine and its effect across our country. We have seen some very alarming evidence in our inquiry. We have been to hospitals, and we have heard how the emergency rooms of hospitals are being greatly disturbed and affected by people coming in affected by crystal methamphetamine. We have heard in Saint Vincent's Hospital Sydney about patients coming in and physically ripping monitors off the wall, something that requires superhuman strength, and throwing them across the room. We have seen that in the hospital emergency rooms they have to have special lock-ups, almost detention cells, where they can put these people into virtually a special padded cell within the emergency room to try to keep them away from other patients. We have seen the amazing work that our doctors are doing in this area in the emergency wards, and we give all credit to them. We also heard from parents who lost their kids to the scourge of drugs in most tragic and heartbreaking circumstances—loving parents who gave evidence before us, telling the circumstances of how drugs took the lives of their children.
We also heard evidence from our law enforcement officials. What they told us, which was quite surprising, is that the street price for crystal methamphetamine in Australia is the highest in the world. They said that nowhere is the drug's street price for drug dealers as high as in Australia, and, because it is so high, it is attracting criminal gangs and smugglers from all over the world who are targeting Australia. The drugs come from multiple sources—through China, the Philippines, Indonesia, Malaysia. Drugs are being manufactured in these countries, many of which have drug problems of their own, and imported into Australia.
The difficulty for our customs and border protection forces is that the drugs are physically so small and difficult to detect. So, whilst we congratulate the great work of our law enforcement officials, one of the particular concerns I have is the source of supply. Even if we were able to have a real clampdown and cut off that supply it would only boost the price and attract more and more people into the market. Ultimately we have to work on education. We have to work more on educating our young people and help them to realise the harm that these drugs do to them. That is certainly not an easy task. We heard from specialists in this field who explained to us the difficulty of trying to educate the young, who have immature minds that do not have fully developed powers of reasoning and logic, who are being taken by the scourge of these drugs. We need to continue to work on this. I believe the key focus going forward must be education.
Is the motion seconded?
I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
I want to thank the member for Hughes for putting forward this motion about such a critical issue. Illegal drugs affect every single person in this chamber through the communities that we represent. Every electorate between mine, as the member for Hotham, the electorate of the member for Hughes and the electorates of the member for Herbert and the member for Holt behind me—all of us represent families and communities who have been touched by illegal drugs.
A lot of the focus of the comments from the member for Hughes today was on ice. I think that is appropriate. Certainly in the conversations that I have with law enforcement there is no doubt that there has not been a drug in this country for a long, long time that has had the vast repercussions for communities that ice has. Ice does not discriminate. In my electorate I have families from very different walks of life who have been touched by ice.
Unfortunately, it is not just about the people who are affected and their families; it is often about the criminal behaviour that results. The member for Hughes mentioned the impact on first respondents. This is something else that I hear a lot about in my discussions with people around Australia. The fact that we have people who have devoted their lives to helping the sick and protecting the community who are then subject to what is pretty serious danger from people who are addicted to this horrible drug is just not tolerable. That is why I am very supportive of having a rich discussion in this House about what it is that we need to be doing to help protect the community better, and I think that there are some things that we can do along the lines of what will be discussed today. Before I talk a little bit about the specifics of the problem, I want to acknowledge the incredible work that is being done by law enforcement, not just on ice but across the spectrum of illegal drugs.
The motion notes that in the previous two years our agencies have detected and intercepted 12.5 tonnes of narcotics entering our community. That in itself is an extraordinary achievement. And just last month we saw the Australian Federal Police and Border Force seize 540 kilograms of methylamphetamine in Sydney. This was one of the 10-largest drug hauls in Australia's history, and stopped $300 million worth of drugs from entering the Australian market. These are important notes about the impact that law enforcement is able to have on this problem, and I think a testament to the hard work that is being done behind the scenes on this.
But despite these busts, what I hear when I talk to law enforcement people around the country is that we are fighting an uphill battle—against ice, in particular. In fact, I often hear from law enforcement that they will make a huge drug bust, take millions and millions of dollars worth of drugs of the street and then they will look to the market to see a price response—for the price to go up—but they see nothing. That tells us something very important, and that is that we are probably not yet winning that war against the supply that is heading out into our streets and that addicts are able to get in touch with.
There is pretty good data that tells us that this problem is actually getting worse over time. The National Wastewater Drug Monitoring Program report found that current methylamphetamine levels are consistently increasing and that they are at historic highs. We do know, and the people involved with this problem are well aware, that the worst state for this by far is Western Australia, where we can see the highest levels of methylamphetamine use around the country.
We have some Queensland members of parliament who will be speaking on the motion today. I note that the evidence of their discussion is that the methylamphetamine price has halved in South-East Queensland in the last year. We have also heard reports that guns are increasingly being used to trade ice. So I think there is very much evidence there that this is a significant problem which is creating a lot of crime around it.
I want to say that it is important in this parliament that we do all we can to help law enforcement to tackle this problem. One of the things that I have talked about consistently since I have been shadow minister for justice is the issue around Australian Federal Police funding and cuts that have been made to this organisation. We saw in the 2017-18 budget, released just a few weeks ago, that the AFP is losing funding and staff over the forward estimates. Over the next year alone, the Australian Federal Police will lose 151 staff members. Now, we have a united front in this parliament for tackling of illegal drugs, but we do need to call out the importance of resourcing this problem. I would ask the government to take that into account when they are looking at how to tackle this terrible scourge which is affecting families right around the country.
I thank my friend the member for Hughes for raising this motion and focusing the attention of those of us in this place on the continuing impact of illicit drugs on our community.
Drugs destroy lives. They diminish a person's mental capacity; they alter a person's behaviour and personality; they lead to mental health disorders, to violence and to crime; and their effect on families and communities can be devastating. I remember as a child the campaign spearheaded by the former First Lady of the United States, Nancy Reagan, to encourage children just to say no. I remember John Howard's 'Tough on drugs' strategy, spearheaded by Brian Waters of the Salvation Army, which is at the front line of dealing with this issue. But we do not seem to hear those sorts of messages as much as we used to.
Instead, dance parties are held all over the country and have become venues for dealing in ecstasy. Casual cocaine use in fashionable suburbs among professionals is on the increase. Marijuana is decriminalised in some jurisdictions and, as we have heard from previous speakers, the ice epidemic is in every single community. And whilst smoking and alcohol use rates declined significantly between 2001 and 2016, illicit drug use rates over the same period have remained fairly constant.
There is perhaps an erroneous view that the war on drugs is too hard; that young people are not listening and that we should give up trying. That is not a view I accept. At the end of 2016 I conducted a community survey in Berowra. Over one-third of respondents listed the scourge of drugs as a major concern. And while some of the traditional messages are not working, I want to suggest a new angle on the campaign to highlight and to reduce drug use dependency, and that is the mental health risks associated with illicit drug use.
This is an issue that the public is not hearing enough about. I want to talk about this issue because I made mental health one of the key issues that I want to work on during my time in this place. Drugs, including cannabis, methamphetamines and ecstasy potentially have severe and lasting damaging effects on the mental health of substance users. There is dramatic impact on brain development and cognitive function. A substantial body of international research links substance use and psychiatric disorders. The 2012 National Survey on Drug Use and Health in the United States found that over 40 per cent of adult drug addicts also suffered from mental health disorders. It found that those with a substance use disorder in the past year were more than five times more likely to attempt suicide.
Cannabis is the most commonly used illicit drug in Australia. Some people think it is a safe drug, but they are wrong. The National Drug Strategy Household Survey found in 2004 that more than one in three Australians aged over 14 had used cannabis in their lifetime, and in 2016 more than 10 per cent of Australians had used cannabis in the past year. Research shows that cannabis is linked to mood disorders, depression and psychotic disorders including psychosis and schizophrenia. I am particularly concerned about the impacts of drug use, particularly cannabis, on young people as the brain continues to undergo critical growth and development during this period. A German study of 2,400 young people found that exposure to cannabis during adolescence and young adulthood increases the risk of psychotic symptoms later in life. Further studies in Australia and the United States found the use of cannabis increased the major risk of depression by a factor of four and was associated with an increase in suicidal thoughts. So much for a safe drug!
The dangers associated with drug use in our communities are not limited to cannabis. Methamphetamine users exhibit major psychological and behavioural problems, including psychosis, anxiety, depression and cognitive problems. A 2014 inquiry by the Victorian government found dependent meth users are three times more likely to suffer impairment in their mental health functioning, with rates of major depression and anxiety disorders substantially higher than in the general population.
Hospitalisation rates connect illicit drugs with admission for mental health conditions. The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare found in 2014-15 that 7.3 per cent of mental health related hospital separations without specialised psychiatric care were due to psychoactive substance use, with more than 7,000 hospitalisations recorded. I know from my involvement on the boards of hospitals in Victoria and New South Wales, which run mental health units, that many of the patients in these units have multiple drug-induced psychoses. These patients can be violent, putting the safety of other patients and staff at risk. We need to hear more about the mental health effects of drug use.
Every year we hear in the media the reports of somebody who has died from a drug overdose. A former constituent of mine, Tony Wood, was at the forefront of the campaign to stop young people dying. His daughter, Anna, died 20 years ago, and he said:
We hoped Anna's death would make a difference, but we are not making progress against drugs. I think the pro-legalisation lobby has a lot to answer for. They keep on about harm reduction. They say just take the stuff safely.
But there is no safe way. You just don't know what will happen when you take drugs.
The reason Anna took ecstasy was the same reason most kids take drugs: they are fashionable and available. We have to stop them being fashionable.
I also thank the member for Hughes for his motion.
The damages caused to social cohesion by illicit drug use places a heavy burden on government authorities, while also affecting the productivity of the nation.
That is a statement taken from a briefing paper prepared by the New South Wales Parliamentary Research Service which I believe encapsulates the heart of this issue about illicit drugs. According to the 2016 National Drug Strategy Household Survey, 43 per cent of Australians reported having used illicit drugs at some point in their lives, whether it be for experimentation or dependency purposes. This statistic is a snapshot that shows the prevalence of illicit drugs in our community, with almost one in every two Australians having some exposure throughout their lives.
Illicit drug use is the cause of considerable concern across Australian society, particularly for young people. Although only a small proportion of people use illicit drugs on a dependency basis, the related harms to people using drugs in our community are nevertheless of very significant concern. Illicit drug use affects not only the individuals involved but also their families, their friends and businesses; indeed, it impacts on government resources. The obvious harm to individuals from drug abuse includes chronic illness, serious mental health issues, depression and in some cases, as we all know, death. Bear in mind that these health issues are born out of drug use. Also, there is a significant economic and social burden placed on our government resources—and, ultimately, the taxpayer—that flows from drug crime in our communities.
Studies have shown that many parents who are involved in drugs often put the needs of their drug dependency well ahead of welfare for their children. This should raise serious concern for all of us that live within communities. The risk is even greater when parents are involved in the manufacture of illicit drugs or the cultivation of hydroponically grown marijuana in domestic environments. Earlier this month, Strike Force Zambesi arrested a 43-year-old woman after they seized 58 cannabis plants from her Fairfield West home in my electorate. What was more concerning about this story was: in the home at the time of the search—when the drugs were found—were her four children. They were living in the house. Crime syndicates often prey on vulnerable people, many of whom have run up significant gambling debts to loan sharks. They are referred off to drug syndicates and they are entrapped in this illicit drug crime. Drug crime also has an impact on businesses. It is about not just whether a person can hold down a full-time job but whether a person will put others at risk, or, alternatively, whether they are involved in areas requiring high-level decisions or cooperation with others. These are concerns to the community as a whole.
Drug use in my electorate was once very, very high. Cabramatta was once known as the heroin capital of the nation. Cabramatta has certainly come a long way over the years, thanks to our police. Drugs still remain a concern, with ice, specifically, being problematic to our local area. The prevalence of methamphetamine has certainly been on the increase over the last five years. Presently, Cabramatta accounts for 26 per cent of all drug possession incidents. That is up 41 per cent over the last five years. To put this in some perspective, of the 64 search warrants executed by Cabramatta police between July 2015 and June 2016, police located drugs in 57 of those 64 incidences. I have nothing but pride in our local police, particularly their use of the MERIT Program, the Magistrates Early Referral Into Treatment Program. This has accounted for many young people being saved from a dependency on drug life.
The Melbourne Age reported on September 30 last year that almost 40,000 frontline workers will be trained in how to deal with ice-affected people, in an admission that the drug epidemic is taking a toll on an unprecedented number of workers. The paper had earlier reported that:
The devastating impact of the drug ice has hit Victorian schools, with agencies fielding calls from desperate principals wanting help.
Students are turning up to class ravaged by ice, or crystal methamphetamine, with some teachers now working in pairs for safety.
Australia's approach to the challenge of illicit drug use has broadly fallen into three, possibly four, phases. Approximately a decade in length beginning in 1985, the first phase was a response to the outbreak of HIV AIDS. In an endeavour to reduce injury while not stigmatising the inflicted, a policy of harm reduction was adopted. Deliberately or otherwise, the previous approached was changed. Drug use was seen as a legitimate lifestyle choice.
The policy drift away from prevention was reversed by the Howard government in 1998. Implementing a tough-on-drugs program, the national government placed greater emphasis on the reduction of illicit drug supply and prevention through education, diversion and treatment programs. The implementation of a balanced model, more akin to the Swedish approach, drew local critics who regarded addicts as victims. Since the Howard era, drug policy in practice returned to the earlier harm reduction model. While prevention is given lip-service, the emphasis remains on decreasing the injury to individuals rather than tackling the supply and the use of illicit drugs as such.
A fourth phase has hopefully replaced the third following widespread community concern about the ice epidemic. The National Ice Taskforce, established by the Howard government in 2015, found that more than 200,000 Australians were using the crystalline form of methamphetamine, commonly known as ice, in 2013 compared to fewer than 100,000 in 2007. It found that the distress that the ice causes to individuals, families, communities and frontline workers is disproportionate to that caused by other drugs. It proposed both primary prevention and effective treatment.
So, looking at these four phases, what has been the impact of the previous various approaches? First, illicit drug use increased from 39.3 per cent of people aged 14 years and older in 1995 to 46 per cent in 1998. In 2001 it had fallen back to 37.7 per cent, rising to 38.1 per cent in 2004. But, since 2007, it has climbed again, to 41.8 per cent. Secondly, the death rates from opiate overdose for persons aged 15 to 54 increased from 36.6 deaths per million in 1988 to 101.9 in 1991. From 1999 to 2004 they fell back to 31.3 deaths per million. In 2004 there were 320 overdose deaths. By 2011, the number had risen to 715. Thirdly, hepatitis C infections also increased significantly, to a peak of 14,000 new cases in 1999, before falling in the following years. Fourthly, the use of methamphetamines has escalated to alarming levels over the past decade. We know that, for some people, tragically, ice can trigger psychological disturbances or violent or aggressive behaviour. Long-term use may damage the brain and cause impaired attention, memory and motor skills.
So we see that, in terms of the intensity or the incidence of use, the use of these drugs has largely replicated the approaches that have been taken over the last 20 to 30 years or so. When the policy has been one which has been lax on drug use, adverse consequences have gone up and when it has been a tougher approach, particularly on prevention and supply, use has gone down. Evidence reveals that Australia's recent approach is far from world's best practice and is failing many individuals and families. Therefore, a return to a policy of education, prevention and early treatment and rehabilitation is overly warranted.
I thank the member for Hughes for moving this motion as illicit drug use is a very important issue in our contemporary times. Before being elected as the member for Herbert in the 2016 federal election I worked for 15 years in the community and mental health sector working across north and western Queensland from Palm Island to Mount Isa, where I saw firsthand the devastating impact of illicit drugs on individuals, families, emergency services and communities. The reality is that the management and control of illicit drugs in communities requires more than a law and order solution. Addressing the issue of illicit drugs also requires a social and health solution. Illicit drugs have a huge emotional and financial impact on the health of the drug user themselves, their families and their communities. The use of illicit drugs has had an extremely negative impact on my electorate of Herbert, where youth crime has been a major issue which has often involved desperate young drug users.
I acknowledge the difficult and hard work carried out by Australia's law enforcement agencies in tackling illicit drugs. This motion has revealed that, in the previous two years, our agencies detected, intercepted and prevented more than 12.5 tonnes of narcotics from entering our community. In fact, last month, the Australian Federal Police and Australian Border Force seized 540 kilograms of methamphetamine in Sydney. This was one of the 10 largest drug hauls in our country's history and stopped an estimated $324 million worth of drugs from entering the Australian market. These are significant achievements and are a testament to the commitment and hard work of our law enforcement officers.
However, despite successful interceptions, our agencies are fighting an uphill battle as Australia's drug problem is getting worse and worse. This year's National Wastewater Drug Monitoring Program report found that methamphetamine levels have been consistently increasing and are currently at historic highs. Increasingly, the highest methamphetamine levels were in fact in the Minister for Justice's home state of Western Australia. The Crime and Corruption Commission's Illicit drug markets in Queensland: 2015–16 intelligence assessment has stated:
The demand for illicit drugs and the huge profits to be made from supplying them in Queensland, particularly in regional areas, has made Queensland an attractive market for interstate and internationally based crime groups to expand their criminal activities. Our previous assessment of illicit drug markets conducted in 2012 identified that organised crime groups were starting to establish themselves in areas previously unaffected by traditional drug supply chains. Since 2012 there has been greater targeting of regional areas such as Toowoomba, Mackay, Rockhampton, Gladstone, Townsville and Cairns, particularly by interstate-based crime groups.
Methylamphetamine continues to be rated as the illicit drug market that poses the highest level of risk (Very High)—due to the high level of organised crime involvement and the significant harms the drug causes to individual users and the community. The main change in this market since 2012 has been a shift in the form of methylamphetamine, with increased supply and demand for high purity crystal ("ice") rather than powder, and an increase in imported final product compared with locally produced methylamphetamine.
But these are not just figures. There is a human cost to every shipment of ice: every criminal syndicate that gets their hands on a source of revenue and every addict that easily gets another hit. In my community I have seen an illicit drug user released on parole, and within a matter of days he had murdered an elderly woman in her home in a bungled home invasion. On 5 April 2017, the Leader of the Opposition, Bill Shorten, the Shadow Minister for Justice, Clare O'Neil, and myself conducted an ice forum where we talked with ambulance officers and policemen and women who are often put in situations where they have no idea how offenders will react upon engaging with them either on the streets or in their homes. The violence towards first responders is simply unacceptable. Clearly, we need to do more.
On 8 May this year the Prime Minister and the Minster for Justice announced an additional $321 million in funding for the AFP and an extra 300 AFP personnel. Sadly, in the 2017-18 budget we saw that despite this announcement the AFP is actually losing funding and staff. Next year the AFP budget will be cut and they will lose over 150 staff. Again, instead of supporting law enforcement and intelligence organisations, this government is cutting funding to important bodies. Illicit drugs are having a significant impact on our communities from crime, domestic violence and health perspectives. This government must fully fund agencies and organisations to address this serious issue because not to do so is a failure that will simply have a negative impact. (Time expired)
I want to compliment each of the speakers and thank the member for Hughes for bringing this illicit drug motion before the House. We have heard speakers from both sides of the House put their heartfelt cases forward as to what needs to be done in this space.
I will not detain the House longer than I have to, but I do want to make a plea to the users and the potential users—our children in our community, our children of the state and our children of this nation. I ask the question first: what is the draw? Why are the youth of today drawn towards such a horrific drug? We have heard from the previous speaker, who worked in mental health. It must be horrifying.
I have the story of Nathan, an incredibly talented young footballer who was potentially going to be signed up by the Broncos. That was his goal. He was conducting a second and third year of apprenticeship. By all stretches of the imagination, he was exceeding in his field. He got tied up with ice and spent some time in the mental health facilities in Rockhampton. He was convicted, sentenced and did time in the Etna Creek jail. Nathan will never be the same. I know this about Nathan because he is my nephew. It is a terrible scourge. My sister went through just hell. You often hear people say, 'He was a good kid.'
My plea to law-abiding children of this country is be strong; do not make the mistake. It is a terrible drug. Just say no. Get high on life through sport or the warmth of your friends or whatever, but, if you have got a choice, just back out of the drug scene. There is no upside to it. The only people who prosper out of the drug scene are the pushers, who take your money to make more drugs. Stop the cycle; just say no. It is so difficult. My request is so simple. It is a plea not only to make our communities safer but to not destroy lives. It is a plea for the kids to just back out of it, to say no.
If you are tempted and you need to speak to someone, there is a lot of support out there in the community for you. Strangely enough, go and have a chat to an emergency services worker, your local sergeant or an ambulance driver. I am horrified when I catch up with our emergency services personnel. They are increasingly saying that the younger women that are affected by drugs are now becoming the aggressor in engagements.
Drugs have been around for ages—the sixties, the seventies, the eighties—but this is a terrible drug. In summary, my plea to our kids is: just back out of it; do not take drugs.
I rise to speak on this motion on this important issue of illicit drugs as well. We are really faced with two policy frontiers. The first is there has been a lot of discussion around random illicit drug testing of jobseekers. The second is the issue of caregivers. This is primarily the responsibility of the states and territories, but I want to put to this chamber the importance of testing caregivers, which the Queensland government performed earlier this year. What they found was that, of child notifications in Queensland, 60 per cent of caregivers were ice positive—not six or 16 per cent.
The drug ice or the simpler versions of amphetamine have come within five years from being an also-ran to now passing alcohol to be the No. 1 clear and present danger in raising children. In Queensland alone, with 9,000 children requiring protection and only about 3,000 of them finding foster care arrangements, we have to be genuinely concerned about the thousands of children in Queensland living with ice-addicted parents. Before we get too hostile about random drug testing and say that we are selecting or picking on a particular demographic, I would ask for the counterargument: how exactly do we break this nexus of ice addiction where children are involved, where children are in the house?
We have about 20 deaths in Queensland each year that are difficult to explain. Often ice is not mentioned as a precursor because it is deemed a mental health issue, so of course the general public does not know the extent of the challenge. But where children end up at the bottom of a pool because the parents are sleeping off ice upstairs, where children are locked in bathrooms in nappies that have not been changed because adults are walking in and out of the house trying to pay off drug debts, the state has to do something. Under current law, a housing agency can have a suspicion because of a complaint which is passed to police, who can do a welfare check but cannot enter the dwelling. It is preposterous that every second police officer cannot even do a drug test because they are not credentialled to. They are limited to—do not be so bemused—driving past the house and waiting until the occupants jump into a vehicle in order to be able to use current laws around operation of a vehicle. This is an incredibly serious challenge. Currently we are let down, even though the technology is there to test. We need to engage in this area or we will see more than 60 per cent of those at risk of ice addiction leaving children utterly exposed.
The other fad I want to talk about is pill testing, particularly at music festivals, where it is trendy for anyone slightly to the Left of the political spectrum to say what a fantastic idea it is to be able to pill-test. Pills do not belong at music festivals. Pills do not belong in your pockets at music festivals, and no-one should have to tolerate a person consuming illicit drugs sitting next to them at a music festival that is run by an entity responsible for the safety of attendees—basic common sense. But as a doctor I say to you: before you do colorimetry at a music festival and tell festivalgoers, 'Your E's are safe,' let us remember colorimetry has a 15 per cent false-positive rate. What does a musical festival goer do when you test one pill and tell them, 'Your bag of 20 is no good'? What does the person do? They return to the music festival and sell them because they are no good. No-one surrenders bad pills. How do you test a pill if its heterogeneous content is such that you test one side of a pill, or one pill in a batch, and it is completely different to the other? These are amateur-cooked tablets. You cannot just test one part of a tablet and say the whole batch is okay. What happens when someone says, 'That pill is okay,' so a young Australian takes five of them—because they are 'okay'? True testing of these drugs requires laboratory analysis, which, apart from being $300 a test, cannot be done in the time required at a music festival.
A focus on harm reduction is incredibly short sighted when, in fact, there is no harm reduction when you identify a pill as not safe and the owner simply goes and resells it to someone else because it is not. In these pills they substitute the ice derivative with other, more lethal elements in order to give the high but save their money, because it is cheaper and easier to manufacture. This is the challenge. What is in these tablets is not talcum powder; it is actually more dangerous, with a lower lethal dose, and it is utterly random. Colorimetry does not pick that up. Colorimetry just says there is a little bit of ice in that tablet, so it is okay. That is all colorimetry does on the spot. Pill testing at music festivals is a joke. We need a way to help families where there is ice addiction—and, first of all, remember the greatest challenge here in this ice addiction issue are children themselves.
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) music fans are missing out on tickets because bots have bought up tickets in bulk and these tickets are being on-sold at inflated prices;
(b) music fans are also having to endure the disappointment and the loss of missing out on seeing live music through no fault of their own but because websites like Viagogo allow the selling of fake tickets and tickets that have been sold multiple times over;
(c) major search engines are profiting from advertising these websites and the tickets sold on these websites at the top of search results; and
(d) the loss felt by many people is not simply the loss of an experience but a substantial loss of money for what can be one of their biggest discretionary purchases of the year; and
(2) calls on the Government to explain the action being taken to ensure that if someone buys a ticket to live music, they know they can turn up and get entry to the music they love.
It is impossible to be serious about anything in arts or cultural policy without also defending the right of concertgoers, of people who want to enjoy and experience the arts, and, effectively, defending the audience as well. Without the audience being able to attend these events and without the audience being able to trust the pathway by which they get tickets to attend events, the whole system falls over.
What is happening now with concert tickets needs to be seen in this very particular context, which I have referred to in the motion, and it is this: for many Australians, buying a ticket to a major music event will be the biggest discretionary purchase they make in the course of an entire year, and to have confidence in buying that ticket and then being able to get in the door is essential. But what is happening now is not like the old days, where some people would wake up early, buy a heap of tickets at Ticketek at the local shopping centre and then be outside the door trying to onsell. At the very least, for all the problems that involved, you knew that you were buying from a scalper; you knew that was what was happening. But now people have absolutely no idea.
I was chatting only a few minutes ago to the member for Holt about it. He has heard me refer previously to the viagogo website. I said to him: 'Just check on your phone now. No-one starts at viagogo to buy tickets. Just type in "Midnight Oil tickets" and see what comes up.' Straight away on his phone, only a few minutes ago, up comes 'Midnight Oil viagogo tickets, official site'. People are being taken by the search engines directly to a site which is selling fake tickets, selling tickets at an extraordinary premium, and onselling the same ticket over and over again so that only the first person to the gate on the day will get in the door. At the event the barcode gets scanned, one person gets in, and all the other people who bought the same ticket on viagogo never get in the door, because they get told, 'Oh, no, that ticket has already been used.' For the fake tickets, even the first person does not get in the door.
I thought, after we had seen it come up on the phone, 'What happens for a concert that has not even been announced yet but that we have been told is on the way?' I typed in 'Paul McCartney tickets', because there have been rumours that a McCartney tour might be on the way. Well, up it comes. It takes me straight to viagogo. I click through and we get a photograph of Paul McCartney, we get the words 'Paul McCartney tickets' and we get told this is the first time we have ever seen Paul McCartney in Australia, which would be news to people who have previously seen him in Australia. Then we get the date that he is playing at the Perth Astor Theatre on 22 July, which is great. You go to the Astor Theatre website and you find out it is a tribute concert. At every stage what is happening on the viagogo website is deceiving people. StubHub is not much better.
The reason people are being consistently caught is that the search engines—and it is not just Google; you can go through Yahoo and a series of different search engines, such as Bing and DuckDuckGo—are all accepting advertising money from viagogo so that, when you type in the act and the word 'tickets', the first thing that will appear will be a link that takes you to a site designed to rip you off. It is designed to rip people off and to tell them that they have to move really quickly or they will miss out.
The search engines know about it, and they just keep taking the advertising revenue. Viagogo obviously know what they are doing, and they are making money overseas out of it. Until the government of Australia is willing to start making this a priority, to say that we will not stand for Australian consumers being systematically ripped off, and to take a stand on this, it is going to keep happening. It is not enough to simply put out the message, 'Be careful of viagogo,' because a whole lot of people will only buy a ticket once every five years or once every 10 years when a particular act arrives in this country. The government needs to be willing to take the lead on this. It is not good enough when thousands of people are turning up at the door, having paid more than the ticket was worth, and then not getting into the venue. (Time expired)
Is the motion seconded?
I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
I take great pleasure in rising to contribute to the motion put forward by the member opposite, the member for Watson. It is a very important issue, and it is an issue that does not just apply to the major concerts and the major theatrical events. This is an issue that filters right down to, effectively, any festival or any musical event that the groups who do this work behind the scenes are confident will sell out. If the Meredith Music Festival in Victoria has a history of selling out each and every year, what happens is the first 1,000 or 2,000 tickets available are bought by scammers overseas that obviously have no intention of coming along to the event; however, they are going to recoup their money four or five times over by reselling the tickets at a later stage.
These issues have previously been put to the Victorian government. There is a way that we can address this, and it is by giving major event status to each of these festivals or events. When an event has major event status, each of the tickets that are released is, effectively, registered and therefore can be traced. As we know, you are simply not allowed to scalp tickets that are at a price over and above the face value of those tickets. One problem with this is that many of the promoters do not want to go through the hassle and expense of having their event declared a major event. They do not want to partake in all of the regulation that surrounds the Major Sporting Events Act 2009. It does not even need to be a sporting event; they can fit into these areas. So there is a bit of an issue here in relation to the promoters and event organisers. They do not want to go down the pathway of being declared a major event.
However, the concept of the member opposite, who has put this motion to the House, remains absolutely valid: many people are being duped. I was not aware of the viagogo website, which the member makes reference to. I did have a quick look while he was talking and, yes, there is an opportunity to lose your money very easily on some of these sites. It is especially worrying when everyday people, not even looking to go to viagogo, get directed there by the search engines themselves. It is an issue that warrants both the federal government and the state governments getting their heads together to see if an outcome can be addressed.
I know that the Australian government is very strong in its support for live performances in Australia. Certainly, there is this whole push towards the communities and the arts sector themselves. I know that the Minister for Small Business, Michael McCormack, has the portfolio responsibility for the Australian Consumer Law in the particular area relating to Australian audiences' consumer interests and how they are protected. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission have been working closely with the live performance industry to ensure safeguards are put in place to prevent ticket scalping, particularly through the use of bots. The department is working closely with the Treasury to look for options to address these concerns about online ticket scalping. However, the issues and options need to be considered carefully and methodically, including the practicality of trying to regulate the bots as opposed to clearer consumer protection rights in this area.
Whilst I give the member opposite full credit for bringing this issue to the House and making everybody aware that this is going on, I would encourage all levels of government to get together. Even local governments will pay the price when everyday local people are denied access to places such as Meredith and a range of other festivals around Victoria and Australia, and when people who are actually able to go are ripped off. People who wanted to go and see Paul McCartney ended up watching a tribute band. That is just horrendous. If this is going to happen on an ongoing basis, it needs to be addressed. (Time expired)
I am very pleased to second this motion. I went to a gig a few weeks ago at the Metro in Sydney—Julia Jacklin. I do not get to see a lot of music at big Sydney venues. I live a long way from the city and I tend to make the most of the local music scene that we have in places like Katoomba in my electorate of Macquarie—that is, if I have a chance to head out. But I did go to the Metro. My son, Harry, is Julia Jacklin's bass player, so there was a good reason to see them play for the last time in Sydney before they headed to Europe for a few months. It was not just me who went. It was a whole bunch of family and friends who helped fill the absolutely sold-out gig. We went with tickets on my phone, pretty confident that we had real tickets that would get us in the door, and indeed they did.
But what must it feel like when you have travelled for several hours to go to a gig and get there only to be told that you just cannot come in? For people in my electorate, just to go to Sydney can mean booking a hotel for the night because of the poor train service, which can add hours and hours to your journey at the other end of the night. And so to get to the door, only to be told, 'Sorry—you've got dud tickets,' would be devastating. Imagine the same thing happening if you have bought tickets for a three-day music festival and you get there and you are turned away? This is what we are seeing happen in Australia.
Of course, the problem of dodgy tickets has always been with us; scalpers have been around for as long as musicians have been performing. I am not quite sure how we got tickets for gigs like Australian Crawl and Cold Chisel in the eighties, but I seem to recall a long queue and giving someone the cash or turning up on the night and hoping that a scalper would give you tickets and that they would be legit! It has really changed since then.
I remember the pressure of trying to buy my first online tickets. I recall punching the rehit button repeatedly to get tickets for my then 13-year-old son to the 2007 Red Hot Chili Peppers Stadium Arcadium World Tour Sydney show. We did it, but the stress was huge! The big problems that we are seeing overseas are being exacerbated by bots. To be clear: a bot is a computer program that automates the ticket-buying process, completing it faster than a human can—including searching for tickets, filling in identity details and payment information. It lets the ticket scalpers purchase large quantities by quickly running multiple transactions at the same time.
In the early 2000s I was just competing with other human beings; now you are competing with robots. It means those same tickets can go online for resale really fast, while the general public are still trying to make a sale from the primary site. That is why the official site might sell the ticket for one price and the unofficial, but very official-looking, site has it for $50 or $250 more.
Sites like viagogo are a huge part of the problem. They are branded as official sites but they actually allow the selling of fake tickets and tickets that have been sold multiple times over. Also, viagogo seems to play very loose with the details of the show, and the member for Watson has highlighted the problems with the Paul McCartney tour. Rumours are running hot that McCartney will tour Australia, so if you see something flash up as an ad on your search engine saying, 'Paul McCartney—Perth,' then you are very easily going to be confused and deceived by the resale site.
It does not really matter which site we are talking about; the search engines and the fake ticket sites are a real problem. I would encourage people to jump on to see. What strikes me about them is the high-pressure sales tactic. You find yourself in a queue with a stick figure moving through and with the clock ticking—the pressure to make the decisions fast and to sign off your purchase is really on. It does not encourage you to check the details out thoroughly, and for less-regular ticket purchasers this is a disaster waiting to happen. Already, tickets for the Dan Sultan concert—also at the Metro—are still available through the reputable sources and are on these viagogo sites.
We should not ignore the fact that major search engines are making profits from the advertising. It is time the government explained in detail what they are doing to ensure that if someone buys a ticket to a live music gig that they then have confidence they can turn up, get in and see the musician they have paid to see. With live performance being such a key part of a musician's income stream now we really need a live music industry for visitors and locals that everyone can access with confidence. Our own live music industry helps us tell Australian stories, not just here but to the rest of the world. We need to make sure that people who turn up to these gigs have a great time supporting Australian and visiting talent.
I am delighted to rise to support the honourable member for Watson's motion, also moved in his capacity as the shadow minister for the arts.
It is part of the life cycle: it is true these days that if I need to purchase tickets to a concert they are more likely to be to The Wiggles than to Pink Floyd's 'The Wall', but I have to say that the principle in relation to this very worthy motion remains precisely the same. And that simply is that there is an enormous risk of misleading and deceptive conduct right here in our community every day when it comes to hardworking mums and dads, whether they want to go and see a rock concert or The Wiggles—The Cockroaches as they were back in the day, before they were The Wiggles, I should say—or both, being taken advantage of, with money that they can ill afford to hand over if they are not going to be getting what they reasonably bargained for, and that is tickets to live entertainment.
The Wiggles are on viagogo.
The Wiggles, I was just informed by the honourable member for Watson, are also on viagogo. There is no aspect of the community that is safe—not even The Wiggles and their Big Red Car are safe—from the perils of the bots that are dispensing tickets that are arguably either overpriced or, more to the point, not what they purport to be.
I have to say—just going back to the issue of Paul McCartney that was raised earlier—that the Astor Theatre is right in the heart of my electorate, in the federal seat of Perth. I must say that, but for the fact of driving down Beaufort Street and seeing the banners advertising the Paul McCartney tribute show, one would have no reasonable way of knowing that a consumer was purchasing a ticket to a tribute show as opposed to ostensibly the real deal, a once-in-a-lifetime experience for many of us who grew up loving the music of the Beatles, the Wings and then Paul McCartney in his often much-maligned—in my view, for no good reason—solo career.
It goes to the heart of a very, very serious issue. The serious issue is simply that, in today's society, notwithstanding a technical breach of 'misleading and deceptive conduct', this practice is now so widespread that, without the government acting upon this motion brought by the honourable member for Watson, we risk seeing this conduct perpetrated time and time again. It is a practice that not only harms consumers but also harms artists, and it also harms small communities and businesses like the Astor Theatre, who are unnecessarily targeted by disappointed consumers who mistakenly believe that there may be some culpability involved at the shopfront in relation to marketing something that people just are not expecting to receive. It is why we saw the United States Congress passing the Better Online Ticket Sales Act, or the BOTS Act, making it unlawful to buy up tickets in bulk, using bots, for the purpose of reselling them at a profit. It is also why we saw this side of the Chamber support a motion in the other place that was passed in or about late March, calling for action from this government to protect consumers in this space.
On behalf of Australian performing-arts consumers—and I am delighted to join the shadow minister for the arts, the member for Watson—I say quite frankly in this place that enough is enough. Consumers want and deserve better protection. Artists want and deserve better protection. Primary ticket sellers want better protection. Technology in the 21st century evolves very rapidly, and in this place we need to make sure that we get ahead of the curve to respond to disruption in a circumstance where we can see that the appropriate level of regulation here would prevent the misleading and deceptive conduct that is happening all over the country right now. Surely it is not a challenge beyond us here to craft a fix for this that will protect consumers whilst facing a legitimate ticket resale market for those who have had to change their plans—although, in fairness, it may well be beyond the wit of those opposite. They are struggling in education. They are struggling in climate change. They show no signs of responding to the needs of consumers. I certainly hope those hardworking families who need to see The Wiggles will get what they deserve. (Time expired)
There being no further speakers, the debate is adjourned, and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
I move:
That this House:
(1) notes:
(a) that the Australian Government grants free access and unrestricted travel to officials, journalists and citizens from the People's Republic of China, and the same level of access and freedom to travel to Tibet is not afforded to Australian officials, journalists and citizens by the Government of the People's Republic of China;
(b) Australian officials, journalists and travellers wanting to visit China's Tibetan Autonomous Region and Tibetan autonomous prefectures in China's Qinghai, Gansu, Sichuan and Yunnan provinces are routinely denied access and if access is granted, are subjected to close monitoring, compelled to join government-organised tours, and/or face other restrictions;
(c) repeated requests since mid-2014, for the Chinese Government to respond positively to members of the relevant Australian All-Party Parliamentary Group seeking approval for a delegation to visit China's Tibetan areas, and that over the same period, delegations representing China's Tibetan Autonomous Region, Qinghai, Gansu, Sichuan and Yunnan provinces have received approval to enter Australia and travel freely within the country; and
(d) reciprocity is a fundamental principle of diplomatic practice that promotes mutual exchanges, mutual benefit and the development of friendly relations between countries;
(2) expresses concern that:
(a) China has regularly closed the Tibet Autonomous Region and other Tibetan areas in China to any entry by foreign tourists; and
(b) Australian officials, journalists and citizens regularly face refusals and restrictions when applying to visit Tibetan areas in China;
(3) calls on the Australian Government to:
(a) renew efforts to ensure reciprocal access to China for Australian officials, journalists and citizens and for travel within China—as Chinese officials, journalists and citizens have to Australia for travel within Australia; and
(b) ensure that visits to China by Australian officials and journalists, to a similar extent as visits to Australia by Chinese officials and journalists, are unrestricted and allow open interaction with the local population, freedom to move about and observe unhindered, and promote genuine understanding between the peoples of the two countries; and
(4) calls on the Chinese Government to lift restrictions on access to China's Tibetan Autonomous Region and Tibetan autonomous prefectures in Qinghai, Gansu, Sichuan and Yunnan provinces for officials, journalists and citizens from Australia and respond positively to the pending request by Australian parliamentarians to visit Tibetan areas in China.
As the co-chair of the Parliamentary Friendship Group for Tibet, I am passionate about helping the Tibetan community seek the justice and freedom they so rightly deserve. The issue of access highlighted by the motion is one that is ongoing. A visit to the Tibet Autonomous Region by a delegation of Australian parliamentarians would certainly not be unprecedented. Representatives from other governments including Britain, New Zealand, the USA and Canada have visited the TAR since the very gradual opening up of access in 2012, albeit in highly controlled circumstances.
A visit would provide us with an opportunity to make informed comments on the plight of the Tibetan people. I note that the visit in 2015 by the US delegation came about after US House minority leader, Nancy Pelosi, raised concerns about democracy and human rights with the Chinese President, Xi Jinping, during a visit to the US. He said at the time, 'Come and see for yourself,' and she considered that an invitation. This is very similar to what happened here. Back in 2014 in this place I took the opportunity of raising concerns about human rights and the environmental situation in Tibet with a visiting representative from the Chinese government. He challenged my information by asking as to whether or not I had visited Tibet and, on hearing that I had not, he suggested that I should. That was three years ago and, since then, the Parliamentary Friendship Group for Tibet has been endeavouring to accept that invitation. There has been a request supported by our foreign affairs minister, and numerous letters to and from as we continue to reach out to the Chinese government requesting that they honour their invitation but, unfortunately, to date it has been fruitless.
In the meantime we continue our advocacy within Australia. On 8 August this year my co-chair, the member for Melbourne Ports, and I will have the honour of hosting Dr Lobsang Sangay, president of the Central Tibetan Administration. Dr Sangay's academic record is certainly impressive. In 2004 he became the first Tibetan to receive a degree from Harvard Law School, and he is now considered an expert on international human rights law, democratic constitutionalism and conflict resolution. He has spoken at hundreds of seminars around the world and, in 2007, he was selected as one of the 24 young leaders of Asia and as a delegate for the World Justice Forum in Vienna. In 2011 he was elected to the post of Kalon Tripa and, in 2016, was re-elected as the Sikyong, president of the Central Tibetan Administration, for the second time. During Dr Sangay's visit we will endeavour for him to meet with relevant senior Australian government representatives to arrange a function so that members can meet the delegation and hear the stories of Tibet first hand.
The Tibetan community is also approaching Australian universities to try to educate people on what they continue to experience in exile. It is important to note that the middle-way approach taken by His Holiness the Dalai Lama does not seek independence for Tibet, but rather genuine autonomy within the framework of the People's Republic of China. This vision is articulated in the Memorandum of Genuine Autonomy for the Tibetan People which was presented to the Chinese government in 2008. Unfortunately, meaningful dialogue between the Dalai Lama and his representatives with Chinese authorities has been absent, so this policy has not progressed. The stalemate does nothing to lower tensions or resolve differences, and it is extremely disappointing that the Chinese government has continually refused to participate.
In closing, I would like to strongly encourage my colleagues in this place to recognise that this issue is a priority for the global stage, and one that is of high profile in parliaments such as those of the United States and Canada. Here in Australia, however, our friendship group struggles to get engagement from colleagues, and it saddens me to assume that this is the result of Chinese influence in so many aspects of our economic and political life. The Tibetan resistance will only go away when China has once and for all extinguished their religious freedoms, devastated their cultural heritage and destroyed their unique environment. As a country that has played an active role in ensuring freedom and democracy prevails in all global conflicts, we cannot sit back and allow this to happen. I strongly support this motion. (Time expired)
Is there a seconder for the motion?
I second the motion.
There being no further speakers, the debate is adjourned, and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
I move:
That this House:
(1) notes that the Australian Medical Association's survey highlights that the freeze of the Repatriation Medical Fee Schedule (RMFS) is leading to some healthcare professionals no longer accepting Department of Veterans' Affairs (DVA) clients;
(2) recognises the negative impact that the DVA RMFS freeze has had on veterans accessing specialist medical care;
(3) notes that the Australian Institute for Suicide Research Prevention, the Australian Psychological Society and the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists have raised the negative impact that the freeze is having on veterans accessing skilled clinicians;
(4) expresses concern that some mental health and allied health services are not accepting veterans into their service as a result of the indexation freeze; and
(5) calls on the Government to immediately drop the RMFS indexation freeze, which is significantly impacting on veterans' access to mental health and specialist medical services.
This motion highlights the impact that the Repatriation Medical Fee Schedule indexation freeze is having on our veterans and our ex-serving community. Our ex-service men and women have served our country with pride and devotion and, if wounded, deserve world-class care and support. However, access to the very best specialists and health providers is being eroded by the government's Medicare indexation freeze. As it stands, veterans who have access to the gold or white cards and who are covered by the extension of non-liability health care can access allied health care for conditions that are covered under their respective card.
As part of accessing these services, psychologists and other clinical practitioners are paid by the Department of Veterans' Affairs at a set fee, with no gap payable to the veteran. This fee is known as the Repatriation Medical Fee Schedule and is tied to the Medicare rebate and indexed in line with the Medicare rebate indexation. As such, this fee has remained stagnant since 2014, directly impacting those professionals who are helping our veterans. This ongoing freeze has led to a situation where the rebate is no longer covering the costs of medical treatment and, because our veterans cannot be charged a gap payment, there are some medical and allied health professionals who have had no choice but to turn DVA clients away. These are hardworking, dedicated health professionals who would help veterans but are hamstrung with this gap in funding—a gap which is starkly illustrated by the difference between fees for psychologists paid by Defence, at a rate of $200.95 per session, and those paid by DVA, which pays only $148.95. This is a difference of $52, which only stands to grow under the current indexation freeze. Fifty-two dollars is a considerable gap per session and, as we know, this difference is determined only by whether you are currently serving in Defence or have served our country and transitioned into civilian life. The service may be the same, but there is now a gap in what is paid to those health professionals. We must recognise that a veteran's treatment plan could be quite complex, requiring a number of sessions. For some mental health specialists, this gap is simply too wide to overcome.
The impact on our veterans was highlighted by Griffith University's Australian Institute for Suicide Research and Prevention in recent evidence given to the Senate inquiry into suicide. They stated that there has been a fee freeze for psychologists since 2014, which is creating a disincentive for experienced and skilled clinicians to see veterans. This freeze has meant that the supply is not meeting the demand of our veterans and ex-service personnel who require this specialised mental health support. This sentiment was echoed by the Australian Psychological Society and the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists, who said in their evidence to the same Senate inquiry: 'We know it is important for our veterans and ex-service personnel to seek support when they need it. However, when the support is not available to them due to the government's freeze on indexation, then we realise a greater issue in the system.' The Australian Medical Association recently released the outcomes of a survey of their members in relation to these issues. The survey demonstrated that the indexation freeze is also impacting other specialist services, including surgery, medicine, psychiatry and ophthalmology, amongst others. Of those who participated, they cited the government's current indexation freeze as the primary reason to refuse service to those with DVA cards. The AMA survey highlighted that 71 per cent of specialists are currently continuing to treat veterans under the DVA RMFS system, with the remainder adopting a range of approaches, including closing their books the new DVA funded patients or treating some is fully private or public patients. This means that there are many who have responded who are saying they are reluctant to actually use the white card and bill DVA patients.
This is a serious issue. It is time that the government lifted this unfair freeze, as it is affecting veterans access to specialist healthcare services. Our veterans deserve better, and I commend the motion to the House.
I acknowledge the service that the member for Kingston provides to the veterans' affairs community and her work in that area. This government could not be more committed to understanding and promoting the health and, in particular, the mental health of our veterans' community. In 2016, the government released the most statistically robust study of the mental health—in particular, in relation to suicide rates—of the Defence service personnel. That was the most robust study that had ever been done before.
In 2013, of the 148,000 veterans with service-related disabilities being supported by the Department of Veterans' Affairs, 46,400—almost a third—were living with an accepted mental health disorder, including post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety, depression and substance dependency. In 13 years to 2014, there were 292 deaths by suicide among people who had served in the ADF for at least one day since 2001. Among male veterans, the suicide rate was 13 per cent higher than for the equivalent general population. Given that the statistical data was so limited in relation to women serving, I am unable to provide the data in relation to women—but I am not trying to take away from anything in relation to the service of servicewomen. Among male veterans aged 18 to 24, the suicide rate is twice that of their peers. There have been 23 deaths since 2001.
So what has the government done? In this year's budget, we have increased the financial support by $350 million to support our veterans. Last year's budget made treatment for depression, post-dramatic stress disorder, anxiety and drug and alcohol misuse free for anyone who had served full time in the ADF. In this is budget, we have extended that to all mental health conditions. We have increased the budget by $33.5 million. Importantly, there is now no need to prove that a condition is related to their service. Funding has not been capped.
All veterans with a mental health condition have access to the Veterans and Veterans Families Counselling Service. The government has provided $8.5 million in this budget to extend this service to all current partners and children of veterans. Also, former partners of ADF personnel, up to five years, are also eligible after the couple separates or while they are co-parenting a child under the age of 18 years. There has been $9.8 million provided to pilot a new approach to suicide prevention and improve care and support available to veterans. I am hopeful that some of this pilot money will go to the Thompson Institute to research PTSD for veterans.
One of the best ways to ensure good mental health is to ensure employment. The government is providing $2.7 million for the Prime Minister's Veterans Employment Program, launched in November last year. This money will be used to help businesses understand the unique skills that former ADF members can bring to a job through supporting the industry advisory committee, creating an ex-service organisation industry partnership register and developing the Prime Minister's Veterans' Employment Annual Awards. Another $9.1 million is being provided for accelerated access to rehabilitation services, streamlined access to incapacity payments and improved access to the totally and permanently incapacitated disability pension for veterans working past the age of 65. DVA has further committed to implement a suite of initiatives to support members to successfully transition out of the ADF, such as conducting a two-year trial that will allow veterans to access medical treatment while their Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act claims are processed.
This government stands by its veterans. As the Prime Minister has repeatedly said: the best way we can honour the memory of our Anzacs is to properly care for our ex-service men and women. (Time expired)
I rise to support the motion put by the Hon. Amanda Rishworth, our shadow minister for defence personnel and veterans' affairs, and thank her for the careful attention she is paying in her portfolio to the things that really do impact on our veterans.
Like all members here, I have met with veterans who live in the electorate: I have heard their stories, I have marched with them on Anzac Day, I have attended remembrance ceremonies with them. I would agree with most in this place that spending time with our veterans is an eye-opening experience into some of the challenges that they face on returning to civilian life, and particularly the challenges they face around their health after serving our country. It is with that in mind that I thank the shadow minister for raising what is a considerable issue.
It is an issue where we need to see from this government their rhetoric meet some action, because on the ground now our worst fears about the 2014 budget cuts are being lived out by our veterans. They are being lived out because the indexation freeze for the DVA rebate paid to the health professionals helping our veterans has been frozen since 2014. It has created a gap between what the DVA will provide for services to our highly skilled medical practitioners who are trying to support our veterans, particularly in the area of mental health. This is a $52 gap that is not being picked up by the government. As a result, we are finding that veterans are unable to access the support, the clinicians, that they need to access to ensure their continued mental health. This is particularly concerning if you think about our veterans who may be in some kind of personal crisis. Their ability to get on the phone and access the best clinicians in this country is being blocked because of a simple indexation change that needs to be made by this government to ensure that the best people are available to our ex-service men and women.
The good news is this can be easily fixed, and this motion calls on the government to take the action required: to lift the freeze and ensure that our veterans have access to the professional health support that they need. It is a simple fix, one that this motion calls to the attention of the government. I am sure—I am absolutely sure—that the minister in this area would be supportive of this motion if he were in this chamber today, because no-one who takes a commonsense view would see this as a difficult thing to do. Everyone I have spoken to supports the notion that this gap should be taken away so that our veterans can access the service they need. And we do not have to go far. I listened to the member for Fisher. He raised some very important points around ex-servicemen and veteran suicide rates, particularly in young men. They are extraordinary numbers, and numbers that need to be addressed. Having this small thing, or what seems a small thing in parliamentary terms, standing in the way of them accessing the clinicians they need seems an absolute shame and something that could be fixed quite quickly.
The member for Fisher made reference to the inquiry into veterans suicide and the impact there. Griffith University's Australian Institute for Suicide Research and Prevention gave evidence to that inquiry into the suicide of veterans and ex-service personnel. Dr Katelyn Kerr stated:
… there has been a fee freeze for psychologists since 2014, creating a disincentive for experienced and skilled clinicians to see veterans.
This freeze has meant that supply is not meeting the demand of our veterans and ex-service personnel who require mental health support. That pretty much sums this up. It is an easy fix. I call on those on the government benches to have a look at this motion, to have some clear understanding, to speak directly to the Minister for Health and try and influence him to have this index freeze unfrozen to allow this gap to be filled and ensure that the next time we are standing with ex-servicemen around our country, laying a wreath or at a memorial, we can look them in the eye and say, 'We are doing everything possible to ensure your health and wellbeing into the future'.
There being no further speakers, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
Sitting suspended from 12:26 to 16 : 00
Last Friday evening in Kangaroo Island—a beautiful and very innovative part of my community—there was hosted the second annual Kangaroo Island Food, Wine and Tourism Awards. It was the second presentation and it was even bigger and better than before. A new category was introduced this year: Most Outstanding Contribution by an Individual. There were two winners of the award. Representing the tourism sector was Pierre Gregor, the long-serving chairman of Tourism KI, who has grass roots experience as a B&B operator. A posthumous award was given to the late Augie 'The Boss' Boettcher, who is considered a pioneer of the local food industry. Other winners included the Mercure Kangaroo Island Lodge, for best dining; Emu Ridge Eucalyptus, for best farm-gate experience; Dudley Wines Cellar Door, for cellar door experience; Hannaford and Sachs, for their unique food and beverage experience; and Kangaroo Island Ocean Safari, which was recognised as the best natural tourism experience. There was so much on offer. Kangaroo Island is a magnificent part of my electorate. I say congratulations to all of the winners, including American River Snaptop Oysters, for their best value added product award. The award for wine of the year was won by the 2015 shiraz of Kangaroo Island Trading Co. I look forward to going back to Kangaroo Island next year. It is a fantastic place and I welcome all members. (Time expired)
Last weekend I visited north and south Burnett in the south of my electorate. I visited Gayndah, which is approximately 400 kilometres south-west of Gladstone. Gayndah is the oldest town in Queensland and was once considered to be the capital city of Queensland. Gayndah is now in the middle of a fruit-picking season. The citrus industry in the region is powering ahead. Mandarins, oranges and lemons are being picked for export and domestic consumption. I sampled some of the mandarins, and I can tell you that they were super sweet and super delicious. Moving on to Mundubbera, I spoke to Mark and Jenny Postle, who have just restored an old building into a 70-room backpacker hostel. Truly, it is a great achievement for the town, and I congratulate the Postle family on this very much needed piece of infrastructure. I next went to Boondooma homestead, near Proston, where I enjoyed an afternoon with the locals. Boondooma homestead was the centre of the original Boondooma station, which was settled in 1846 by three Scotsmen. Boondooma homestead is open every day from 9 am to 4 pm. I very much enjoyed the afternoon catching up with locals at this very beautiful old homestead.
Anyone in the chamber who lives in a bushfire area knows that it is that time of year: the Rural Fire Service AGM season. There are more than 40 individual brigades in the Blue Mountains and the Hawkesbury, in my electorate of Macquarie, as well as the district offices and catering units. The most pleasing thing to hear at the AGMs I have been able to attend was how uneventful the last fire season was, but clearly none of the brigades has been idle. It has been a chance to do training, extending the skills of existing members and bringing online new members like Pete Henderson and Alex O'Connor, at Winmalee brigade just this last weekend. For Valley Heights, there was more than 3,000 hours of volunteer time to the community under retiring president Lachlan Joyner—we try not to talk about losing a vehicle to flood, but it will find its way into the affectionate history of the RFS in the mountains. For Wentworth Falls brigade, among others, the fact that there were more volunteers than positions shows the level of commitment to the brigade. Peter Belshaw is to be congratulated on taking home the crown for attracting the most publicity—and here is your first mention for next year's award! At Blaxland, the stirrers paddle found another home, and the brigade showed off their first fire tanker, the 1943 ex-RAAF Blitz, which is in the process of being lovingly restored. The Queen's Birthday honours recently also recognised a long time Hawkesbury RFS member, Group Captain Craig Burley, with an Australian Fire Service Medal. It is a great achievement for his years of work.
Every minute of every day in our community there are people volunteering their time to strengthen our community. In my electorate of Barker, we are blessed to have a large and varied army of volunteers, without whom our community would be much the poorer. Some of Barker's stand-out citizens were recognised in the Queen's Birthday honours, and I would like to ensure that the Chamber notes these well-deserving members of our community and the extraordinary things they have done to make our community stronger.
They are Mr Allan Dowdell, of Mount Gambier, for 'service to the community of Mount Gambier'; Mr John D'Souza, of Mount Gambier, for 'service to the community through social welfare organisations'; Dr Anne Johnson, of Penola, for 'significant service to community health, particularly child injury prevention, through executive roles, and as a researcher and academic'; Mr Michael Kemp, of Millicent, for services through emergency response organisations; Mr Peter Magarey, of Loxton, for 'service to the community of Loxton, and to plant pathology'; Mrs Carla Magarey, for services to Loxton; Mr Kelvyn Prescott, of Nuriootpa, for services to the law and to target shooting; Mr David Snook, of Beachport, for 'service to the community of Beachport'; Mayor Erika Vickery, of Naracoorte, for services to local government; Mr David Ward, of Loxton, for services through a range of organisations; and Mr Merv White, of Mount Gambier, for services to Mount Gambier. Senior Sergeant Peter Brown, of Mount Gambier, was awarded the Australian Police Medal; David Long, of Wellington, the Ambulance Service Medal; and Gary Wyld, of Millicent, the Ambulance Service Medal. I thank these citizens for their valued service. Our community is richer and stronger for your contribution.
There is no social or economic argument for cutting penalty rates and for taking money out of the pockets of workers who tend to be part time and low paid, workers who are more often young and more often women. There is no justification for cutting pay that rightly compensates people who undertake work during unsociable hours. And it is important to remember that penalty rates are an incentive or a reward that goes some way to ensuring that unsociable work is not lumped as an additional form of social exclusion on those who are already marginal or disempowered.
I represent a community that depends on and values a strong tourism and entertainment economy. This sector flourishes on the weekends and on holidays, and there is simply no case for saying that cutting penalty rates will address an existing problem, deliver more services or lead to more jobs. The truth is that penalty rates should be recognised and protected as part of a broader social compact.
There is an opportunity here for the government to stand up and protect some of the lowest paid workers from having their wages cut and from having their lives made meaner and more fragile. Cutting penalty rates is not fair and it is not right. It is not smart at a time when flat and low wages are contributing to a general economic malaise in this country. Governments are judged on both action and inaction, and the Turnbull government must act to protect penalty rates or else wear the responsibility for having punished those who already struggle with job insecurity and low wages.
I rise today to speak on the visits that I had here in parliament last week from school students from Geraldton Grammar School, Port Hedland School of the Air, Carnarvon School of the Air and the Nullagine Remote Community School. I can tell you that all of the students from those schools were impeccably behaved, and they did their communities proud, even though they were very, very cold whilst they were here—as am I, so we have that in common.
All of these students, every single one of them, will benefit from the Turnbull government's school-funding reform package. We are going to see an extra $15 million in additional federal funding for Geraldton Grammar School, an extra $600,000 for the Port Hedland School of the Air, a similar amount to the Carnarvon School of the Air and an additional $1.5 million for the Nullagine Remote Community School. These important reforms are backing the kids in regional Western Australia, and I am very proud to be part of a government that is pushing hard to encourage meaningful reform in regional education.
Madam Deputy Speaker Claydon, I think that you would agree—I know you have some experience in rural Western Australia—that, on a scale of need, it is obvious to everyone that the greatest need for federal government funds is in regional areas. My electorate indeed has some of the most disadvantaged areas, specifically regional areas.
I rise in this place to celebrate Refugee Week, which began on Sunday, 18 June and will finish on Saturday, 24 June. The theme this year is 'With courage let us all combine'. The United Nations will celebrate World Refugee Day tomorrow. Refugee Week recognises people who have sought a safer place to live and now call Australia home.
In my electorate of Herbert, the Townsville Multicultural Support Group supports new refugees and in the past year has settled 170 new residents. Townsville is also home to the Townsville Intercultural Centre, where migrants and refugees can seek help after the six-month settlement phase. During the week, the Townsville community along with the Townsville Multicultural Support Group welcomes new residents and celebrates the significant contributions and achievements of those refugees who have made our community their home.
Australia is a nation built on migration and Refugee Week is an opportunity to hear the many positive stories of those who have sought asylum in Australia and help people to understand the many challenges that refugees face. Labor believes in a compassionate approach to asylum seekers so that genuine refugees can progress their claims safely, securely and in a timely manner. At a time when the number of displaced people fleeing from war, conflict or persecution is at its highest since World War II, Australia, as a responsible global citizen, has a role to play in helping with this extraordinary humanitarian crisis. We have all benefited from the invaluable contribution that refugees have made to our society. Let us celebrate Refugee Week.
It is that wonderful time of the year when the nation's largest seniors forum run by a member of the House or the Senate is once again on in July. The Northern Gold Coast Seniors Expo is a forum that attracts upwards of 3,000 of our most valued seniors in the northern Gold Coast. This year, on 12 July from half past eight until half past 12, the Northern Gold Coast Seniors Expo will once again be on. Hosted in the same venue, which is the Runaway Bay Indoor Stadium, it will be another gala event. It will be another celebration of seniors—a celebration of growing older gracefully in years, but more importantly, in wisdom. It is going to be a great celebration for all who attend. It will be free for all of the seniors on the northern Gold Coast. There will be free morning tea, free lunch, speakers during the day and over 150 exhibitors with a range of information, services and equipment to help and assist people in later years. The 'Wizard of Oz' himself, Noel Whittaker, will be speaking on financial management. It is going to be a cracker of a day, and I welcome all northern Gold Coast senior citizens to come along and get involved.
There are a lot of facts around school funding that are flying around at the moment. Today, I want to use the opportunity of my 90-second statement to actually deliver the facts. The fact: under Labor's school funding plan, 80 per cent of the extra money went to public schools. That is because public schools teach the vast majority of Australia's poorest kids, Indigenous kids and kids with a disability. The fact: under the Turnbull government's plan, more than half of funding will go to private schools. That is despite the fact that private schools only account for around 30 per cent of the nation's schools. The fact: under the Turnbull government's plan, 85 per cent of public schools will not reach their fair level of funding, even after 10 years, while virtually every private school will be at or above their fair funding level. The fact: under the Turnbull government's policy, public schools get huge cuts, while many elite private schools get huge multimillion dollar funding increases. By way of example, St Thomas More's Primary School in Campbell in my electorate will lose $214,400 over 10 years, while the King's School in Sydney will get an increase of $19 million and Geelong Grammar will get an increase of $16 million. This is absolutely outrageous. It is inequitable. I call on the government to reverse its cuts to schools.
Last Saturday was the 33rd annual City of Shoalhaven Eisteddfod Stars of the Eisteddfod performance. The opening act by the dance troupe from Batemans Bay Public School was so good that I thought the dance was done by the high school students. In his very professional and practised style, George Windsor OAM steered the audience through a concert of the best acts taken from dance, folk, instrument, speech and drama. There were a number of award winners: Jeremy Lindsay was the teenage piano champion and also won the Rotary Club of Nowra Lindsay Fowler Memorial Scholarship; Patil Kourshounian was the junior piano champion; Aleah Gooding was the junior solo vocalist at only 10 years of age with singing that was absolutely beautiful; Denva Dwyer, a student from Amy Evison's dance school, won the Shoalhaven Arts Board Medallion, which was a very well deserved award for being an outstanding emerging and inspiring dancer; and Rosie Ellery was recognised with the $500 Gilmore Award for her outstanding contribution to the Eisteddfod and encouraging performing arts in the Nowra Christian school.
Illaroo Road Public School won the $1,000 school encouragement award in recognition of hard work, promotion and encouragement of performing arts in the school. Some other great performers included Jaslyn Mackenzie from Milton. And an entertaining and well-executed version of 'The Three Little Piggies' made us all laugh, and was recited by Adrian Le and Lucas McDonald, also from Milton.
The talent and creativity of our local residents was terrific. I am so proud of our volunteers, helpers and organisers and, most of all, of George.
Just over a year ago, Jo Cox, the UK Labor MP, was cruelly, brutally and senselessly murdered in the course of going about her business in her constituency, doing the job that all of us here do. Afterwards, through a motion that I was proud to be associated with, this House paid our respects to her and made a tribute to her, to her family, to all who knew her and to the work which she had done and which continues.
I was very pleased to be here for the contributions of my colleagues and friends the members for Griffith and for Ryan, and for the contributions of many government members, like the member for Corangamite, in a debate which showed the better side of this House. I am proud that we all stood in solidarity then. But, a year on, I believe that we cannot rest on those laurels if we are to pay tribute to those values and to that way of conducting ourselves in public life.
As I stand here, a year on, these are obviously very difficult times in the UK—and in London in particular. I have been reflecting on Jo Cox's words, when she said:
… we are far more united and have far more in common with each other than things that divide us.
These are words we should have regard to, as I know people did in the UK in having a great get-together on the weekend to commemorate her approach to politics.
As I stand here, I think we should all try to commit ourselves to different ways of conducting the debates which divide us, recognising that there is far more which unites us.
I rise to draw attention to today's Productivity Commission report into the future of Australia's telecommunications universal service obligation.
In the short time I have here, I wish to highlight the report's recommendation to ensure that everyone has guaranteed future access to a wireless-generated voice service. Very shortly our reliance on the old Telstra copper network will disappear. That also means the existing universal service obligation will be obsolete. The answer is to replace that agreement, recognising the technological reality and need for an available, accessible and affordable mobile phone network for all. While NBN fixed-line or fixed-wireless areas will likely have a secure voice service over the internet or mobile network, the commission found that 90,000 premises inside the NBN satellite footprint would be left behind. Many of these people reside in regional New South Wales, and a number in my electorate.
The commission recommends a re-evaluation and prioritisation of our government's Mobile Black Spot Program, to help to build towers and to fill coverage gaps where there is no mobile service. Mobile telcos currently go where they will get the best return for investment. In my view, government funding should not be used to help them achieve commercial outcomes. Right now, they have no obligation, and they do not seem to have any interest in looking after small communities with little or no mobile coverage.
Government policy needs to encourage mobile providers to build in areas of need, and the Productivity Commission has given us a clear path for that. (Time expired)
It was a great pleasure to join with the Governor of South Australia, many other dignitaries and the Sikh community on Friday to recognise the centenary of the death of Private Saran Singh.
Private Saran Singh was one of 19 Sikhs who actually enlisted as Anzacs in the First World War. This was quite a unique situation, because the Australian Imperial Force was restricted to enlistment by Europeans. But 19 Sikhs did enlist and Private Saran Singh was the only one we know of who was killed in combat.
He enlisted at the age of 33 on 15 May 1916 in Adelaide and was finally placed in the 43rd Infantry Battalion. He saw action in December 1916 and in May and June in 1917, in France and in Belgium. Unfortunately, he was killed in action on 10 June 1917. This is one of those stories about the Centenary of Anzac that we are learning and need to recognise.
I would like to commend the Australian Sikh Heritage Association for bringing his story to us so that we can recognise the important role that our Anzacs played right across this country, and the sacrifice they made for our country. (Time expired)
Today I would like to speak about my recent visit to Moreton Bay College in my electorate. I, along with the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Deputy Leader, the Honourable Julie Bishop, met the senior girls at MBC to discuss important issues and events affecting them. The MBC community has been shaken by the latest terror attack in London, which claimed the life of MBC old girl, Sara Zelenak. Minister Bishop advised the girls on how to turn this tragedy into motivation, to go forth and be the very best that they can. She spoke about the importance of standing strong together in the face of tough times. She also gave the girls an insight into her own life and the trials and tribulations she has faced as a lawyer and politician. The students then had a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to present questions to the minister.
The school motto at Moreton Bay college is 'Breadth of mind. Depth of heart.' This motto is no doubt embodied within the MBC community. The minister told the girls life is not without obstacles and battles, but if you believe that you can achieve great things then you can. I was impressed by the self-awareness and intelligence of the girls, demonstrated when they questioned the minister, and I have no doubt that they have great things ahead of them. I thank the minister for joining me at Moreton Bay College and for sharing her insight with the senior girls.
In 10 days time, Queensland's only state-wide domestic violence legal helpline will be forced to cut its services. Half of the vulnerable women who receive advice from this service live in rural, regional and remote Queensland. Since this service commenced, the number of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women it has helped has doubled. Cutting this important service will mean that over 13,000 calls from vulnerable women will go unanswered—that is the figure for this year alone. We know that at least one woman is killed by their partner or former partner in Australia each week. We know that one in four Australian women has experienced physical or sexual violence at the hands of an intimate partner.
This crucial service saves lives, so I call on the members for Capricornia and Flynn to fight for vulnerable women in their electorates so that when they call for help, there will be someone on the other end of the line. I call on the members for Leichhardt and Wide Bay to fight for the women in their electorates who may need to flee a violent relationship, so they will have the help they need to leave safely. I call on the members for Dawson and Maranoa to fight for women and their children in their electorate so if they find themselves to be in immediate risk, they will have help available that may save their lives.
If the Turnbull government was serious about tackling family violence, it would do more than talk about it. It would make sure that this service continues to help Queensland women in the bush. This service saves lives and should be defended and funded.
It is with great pleasure that I rise today to speak about the fantastic work that our chaplains do in our local schools. On a day when debate is raging about what is best for our schooling systems, I would like to take a step back for a moment to give my thanks and appreciation to some of the unsung heroes in our nation's schools, our chaplains. Last month, I attended a Scripture Union chaplain's dinner at the Beenleigh Events Centre to show my unwavering support for this important and valuable undertaking in our school communities.
It is an unfortunate fact of life that many of our nation's youngest are doing it tough. Many school students, even primary school students, in this country are under enormous pressure academically, socially and sometimes within the confines of their own family homes. Our schooling system has changed dramatically over the last couple of decades but, thankfully, our school chaplains are there to answer children's pleas. These selfless individuals provide the listening ear so many children need and work tirelessly to make sure that each and every child feels valued, accepted and confident.
The principle of Mount Warren Park State School, Mr Clay McCann, said it well when he addressed us at the chaplain's dinner last month. He said the aim in any school is to have a school that allows learning to take place in a safe and supportive learning environment. How do you measure emotional support? This is the field that chappies work in and succeed in every day.
I rise today to pay tribute again to the work of the South Australian chapter of the Vietnamese Community Association, which works particularly in the western and northern suburbs of Adelaide; to the president, Mr Tin Le; and to all the officers, staff and volunteers of that community. Working together, we have been able to achieve agreement by a number of local councils now to fly the yellow flag at culturally significant events for the Vietnamese community in Adelaide. I spoke briefly about the Charles Sturt Council decision and applauded that decision only a number of days ago. Last week, the Port Adelaide Enfield Council also decided to approve the petition from the Vietnamese community in Adelaide to fly the yellow flag at culturally significant events in that council area. I applaud the council for doing that.
I also want to congratulate the community on the new Go Vietnamese app, an app which allows translation of Vietnamese language, available free on iTunes. It will give valuable assistance to frontline workers who work in healthcare settings, mental health settings, aged care, gambling settings and the like. I want to pay particular tribute to Ms Lan Nguyen, who was the project coordinator for this project, building on similar apps that are used in the Italian, Bhutanese and Greek communities. We are very fortunate indeed to have such a vibrant, active community as the Vietnamese community in the western suburbs of Adelaide.
Scripture Union Queensland is one of the largest providers of school-based chaplains in Australia. They focus on bringing hope to a young generation by enabling them, with skills and strategies, to face life's greatest challenges. Chappy Kelly Davis and chappy Sarah Dwyer from Meridan State College in my electorate of Fisher are shining examples of the Scripture Union vision. I recently had the honour of attending their annual fundraising dinner, where I was provided with an insight into their amazing work. Parent Karina Bombski reflected on the support given to her family after the passing last year of their daughter and sister, Sophie, who had been a student at the primary school. Support came by way of home-cooked meals, a shoulder to cry on and, most importantly, a listening ear—and there was not a dry eye in the house.
Well-known Sunshine Coast locals Dave and Adrienne Larkin also shared their personal experiences of being foster carers and how Dave, a chaplain himself, has navigated his own path from a life of struggles to the ultimate responsibility of being a parent. Chaplaincy and becoming foster parents has given this family a focus and a life purpose that they are incredibly grateful for.
Our children these days are facing complex social and environmental challenges, and chaplains provide support and guidance that makes no judgement. To all of the chaplains serving at our schools in Fisher, I say thank you for your dedication and support.
I want to take the opportunity to raise the impacts of the WestConnex project on St Peters, a community in my electorate. The fact is that St Peters has suffered substantially not just from the compulsory acquisition of tens of homes but also where the state government literally withheld a report that they had about the financial compensation that should be due to those homeowners. They have suffered from the demolition of those homes and factories in their area, much of which has had an impact on local schools, particularly St Peters Public School. But since March they have suffered from a noxious smell that has impacted the local community from the fact that much of the major works is in an old tip. Indeed, the Environment Protection Authority produced a prevention notice to contractors in March which said that they should 'undertake all reasonable and feasible measures to prevent leachate from pooling' and to cover or remove pooled leachate as soon as practicable. That has not happened. Children are being kept inside St Peters Public School, unable to play or go out at lunch. This needs to be fixed by the state government. and it needs to be fixed now.
Over the next two days, 500 students from 16 high schools across the Central Coast will take part in the annual Science and Engineering Challenge in East Gosford. The challenge started in my electorate on the Central Coast back in 2000 as a one-day event. Seventeen years on, it has become a nationwide program, thanks to collaboration between the wonderful University of Newcastle, Rotary, local sponsors and our community. I am proud to say that this year the event will reach more than 21,000 students across 800 schools nationwide.
Barry Henwood from Gosford Rotary told me the idea for the challenge began when the engineering faculty from the University of Newcastle noticed that enrolments in engineering were beginning to decline, but the challenge is now so popular that there is a waiting list for schools on the Central Coast and the university employs a full-time team to take the challenge around the nation. The challenge is about engaging students in science, engineering, technology and mathematics, or STEM, subjects. The challenges designed by the University of Newcastle are focused on creativity, innovation, problem solving and teamwork. We know that STEM skills are vital for jobs of the future and it is outstanding to see our local community working with our local university to inspire so many students. I would like to pay tribute to the 14 local Rotary clubs who make this event possible year after year, helping to fund the program and also providing the volunteers needed to ensure that the day goes smoothly. Congratulations to every student involved in this year's event, to Barry and the team at Rotary and to the University of Newcastle on what I know will be another successful year.
Australia grants unrestricted access to citizens of the People's Republic of China to all parts of Australia, and the same level of access and freedom to travel to Tibet is not afforded to Australians. Australians wanting to visit the Tibet Autonomous Region and the surrounding prefectures of Xinjiang, Gansu, Sichuan and Yunnan are routinely denied access. There have been repeated offers since 2014 by the Embassy of the People's Republic of China to respond positively to members, led by Mr Entsch, of the Australian all parliamentary group for approval for a delegation to visit the Tibet Autonomous Region.
A division having been called in the House of Representatives—
Proceedings suspended from 16:32 to 17:50
In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded.
I move:
That this House:
(1) notes that on Friday, 28 April 2017 four individuals faced court charged with terrorism offences in relation to a 2016 Christmas Day terror plot to attack Melbourne landmarks;
(2) acknowledges the:
(a) excellent work being undertaken by Australia's law enforcement and security agencies to keep the community safe, including:
(i) 61 people charged as a result of 26 counter-terrorism operations around Australia;
(ii) 38 people convicted of terrorism related offences;
(iii) 41 people before the courts for terrorism related offences; and
(iv) 12 major counter-terrorism disruption operations in response to potential attack planning in Australia; and
(b) importance of providing law enforcement agencies with the appropriate powers and resources to disrupt terrorist activity and protect Australians; and
(3) congratulates the Government for its world leading counter-terrorism strategy, including:
(a) eight successful tranches of counter-terrorism and national security legislation;
(b) significant investment of $1.3 billion to support law enforcement and intelligence agencies to combat terrorism;
(c) tripling investment in initiatives to counter violent extremism to $45 million; and
(d) investment in our law enforcement and security agencies to ensure they have the appropriate powers, skills and resources to fight terrorism.
Before entering parliament, I was a member of the Victoria Police force and, more specifically, of the Victorian police counterterrorism unit. From firsthand experience, I got to see the great work our law enforcement do, working in a cooperative manner right across the country. There are two issues, though, when it comes to legislation, which I have had great concern with. I have made numerous speeches in parliament about preventative legislation and the need to question the person who is being held under preventative detention.
To my knowledge, at a Commonwealth level, since this legislation was first introduced under the Howard government, in fact it has never been used. It was set up for the purpose at the time that, if law enforcement believed that a person was going to commit a terrorist offence, the police would have the power to grab that person and hold them in custody to ensure that no offence would take place. They never had the ability to question a person whilst in custody, which to me was something that, right from day one, I said would be a major issue.
When you look at counterterrorism operations, whether here in Australia or overseas, especially when you have multiple offenders and multiple attacks, these are different from any other normal investigation—even, say, a homicide investigation—because terrorism is so difficult when it comes to an investigation. That is for a number of reasons. Quite often those involved, if they are caught beforehand in the planning stage, do not speak English. Also, if an attack has taken place, evidence is often destroyed. And, when it comes to the police investigation, the going round and executing search warrants and seizing computers and mobile phones and potentially picking up secondary offenders, this becomes very involved. Also, to put it another way, when it comes to the need for the questioning prior to an arrest, if law enforcement are aware of a terrorism plan, compared to, say, a drug-trafficking matter, they never have the grace of waiting to see how it will pan out. For example, in my day in the police force, if someone was trafficking drugs, you could allow the buy bust to go down, pick up those involved, collect the drugs and collect the money. When it comes to terrorism, law enforcement do not have that option. They must go in early.
I will come back to the great work of the police, and I mean this in the most sincere terms. Our law enforcement agencies and ASIO working together cooperatively right across the country have just done an incredible job when it comes to early intervention and being involved in ensuring that a number of terrorist plots have never eventuated. We go back to 2005, when planned attacks at the AFL Grand Final at the MCG were averted just two months before the game after police raids disrupted preparations for the attack. During this case, one of the country's largest terrorist trials was told that the plan to attack the MCG had been foiled. The group then decided to target the Crown casino during the Formula 1 Grand Prix weekend or the AFL preseason NAB Cup football finals early the following year. The key prosecution witness, Mr Attiq, an insider who admitted to using his skills as a credit card fraudster to purchase airline tickets, telephone credit and other goods for the group, told the Victorian Supreme Court that he first learned of the proposed targets about a month after ASIO and police raids on members' homes in July 2005. During conversations with Abdul Benbrika, Mr Attiq said he was told that the money raised to finance a terrorist attack on grand final day in September 2005 had been seized by authorities during the raids. This is one example of the great work that is being done by the AFP, state police and ASIO. It was an incredible investigation. Who knows what would have happened if law enforcement working with ASIO had not been able to stop this attack.
There have also been many other attacks, foiled plots—improvised explosive devices in central Melbourne and areas of Federation Square on about Christmas Day last year, a planned Anzac Day attack and the Mother's Day attack, just to list some of the examples in Melbourne. It is also hard to forget the harrowing scenes of the Lindt Cafe siege in Sydney, where Man Monis took the occupants hostage at 2.03 am on 6 December 2014 . A very loud bang was heard as Monis shot towards six hostages fleeing from the building. Police declared the siege over soon after, later confirming that minus was killed in the raid. It was very sad. Our thoughts are always with the victims of terrorism and their family members of those who died and also the three injured.
When it comes to law enforcement, in the Lindt Cafe siege and also during the recent incident in Brighton I take my hat off to the very brave members of the Special Operations Group and their counterparts in New South Wales. I have been told by reliable sources, especially from New South Wales, when members were going into a situation where there was a terrorist, they were sending SMS messages to their partners, basically saying, 'We may not be coming home tonight.' That shows the incredible bravery of these members who are taking out those involved in terrorism related activities. All members of parliament—I know the member for Isaac and the member for Holt, who are in the chamber, have been very strong on this— support our law enforcement agencies. I know the member for Cowan, who also is in the chamber, and I worked together on a MyHack program in my electorate.
This motion today is more about thanking the men and women of the law enforcement agencies right across the country. Since 2001, 39 people have been convicted of terrorism related offences. Twenty-one of them are currently serving custodial sentences, one of whom is a juvenile. There has been legislation go through parliament when people have been concerned about the age of people as young as 14 years of age. Sadly, when it comes to extremism, when it comes to terrorism, age does not seem to matter.
I would like also to mention my great concern about something else that needs to be put in place: community protection intervention orders. These are something that law enforcement need. They would work similarly to a family violence order, especially with young people. Law enforcement do not have any tools in the box to take them before a court to stop people from associating with extremists or going online to view radical material. To me that is something that law enforcement needs to do.
Since 2014 the Turnbull government has invested an additional $1.5 billion to support Australia's efforts to combat terrorism. I know this has the support of the opposition. We recently announced $321 million. We have passed eight tranches of legislation to strengthen the ability of intelligence and law enforcement agencies to investigate, monitor, arrest and prosecute home grown extremists and returning foreign fighters. These agencies include the National Disruption Group; the AFP's online targeting team; Customs' counterterrorism units; the Foreign Fighters Task Force; and the national security operations team, a part of AUSTRAC. ASIO's jihadist network mapping unit is providing vital intelligence to law enforcement to make sure police right across the country have the best information they can get. The National Terrorism Threat Advisory System has been working very effectively, as has the National Security Campaign, the National Security Hotline.
I do mention, I know the Victoria state government is now looking at a pre-arrest questioning. I congratulate it for that. It is going to work similar to preventive detention. My view is that preventative detention, if there is no constitutional reasons, we should have questioning at the Commonwealth level. The problem we are going to have is soon is New South Wales will have pre-arrest questioning, Victoria has pre-arrest questioning so what about the other states and territories? I congratulate the Prime Minister, who has put this on the COAG special agenda with the state premiers to actually look at this issue and address it.
I second the motion and I rise to speak on the member for Latrobe's motion. I join him in acknowledging the excellent work being undertaken by Australia's law enforcement and security agencies to keep our community safe and our nation secure. Much is often said about the important role of national security legislation in ensuring that our law enforcement and security agencies have the powers they need to keep Australians safe, and Labor has consistently taken a bipartisan approach to such legislation. But it must also be recognised that there are limits in the ability of the criminal law to provide a thoroughly adequate response to the threat of terrorism. While terrorism is frequently referred to as a criminal matter, it is a far more complex issue than traditional crimes and it does require a multifaceted response. The traditional criminal law enforcement framework is not by itself equipped to respond to the threat of terrorism.
As a society, we aim to reduce crime. Our general approach is to involve police after a crime has been committed so that investigation and prosecution can occur, criminal sanctions can be imposed to deter and punish criminal activity and, ideally, so that criminals can be rehabilitated. But when it comes to terrorist conduct or a terrorist offence, given that the potential losses are so grievous and the perception of harm caused to society so serious, our paramount objective should be ensuring that our agencies can stop terrorist attacks before they take place and that is why the suite of policies that are often described as countering violent extremism are so important. These policies are essential to responding to the terrorist threat as it now exists because they aim to prevent people from becoming radicalised in the first place.
Our security agencies have advised repeatedly that community harmony is an essential element in helping to prevent the conditions from which terrorism arises. We must focus on increasing social cohesion and on reducing the kind of social isolation that turns people towards radicalism. That is why fostering Australia's multicultural ethos is important for countering violent extremism. We must do all that we can to reject racist discourse in Australian society because that discourse seeks to divide our community by fostering hatred against particular groups. We must also remember that anything we do to increase divisive attitudes towards Muslims is playing into the hands of terrorists. As the former director of ASIO, David Irvine, has said:
… the tiny number of violent extremists does not represent the Islamic communities of Australia – we are talking about a few hundred aberrant souls in a community of nearly half a million – and it is grossly unfair to blame Muslims, who see themselves as a committed component of Australia’s multi-cultural society, for the sins of a tiny minority. Our fight is with terrorism, not with Islam or with our Muslim community.
We should also recognise that the strongest defence against violent extremism lies within the Australian Muslim community itself.
We must work with the Australian Muslim community to identify people at risk of radicalisation and prevent them from going down that path. People who are around those who are marginalised can respond by alerting those who need to know—parents, teachers, community leaders and those within our government—and security agencies who are able to respond. If we focus on prevention—CVE programs that aim at negating the conditions in which radicalisation occurs—we have a much better chance of keeping Australians safe. We will be safer if we can inoculate our young men and women against radicalism, extremism and violence in the first place. That is why in government Labor set up a range of programs under the countering violent extremism initiative, including in particular a program of grants for building community resilience. These programs were entirely preventative in focus and designed to encourage people to resist or disengage from intolerant or radical ideologies.
Unfortunately, the Building Community Resilience program was still in its infancy when the Abbott government came to power and cut all funding. At the time, this seemed to indicate that the government did not consider countering violent extremism to be an important part of Australia's counterterrorism work; however, the following year the government accepted that it had made a mistake and restored funding. We are still to see exactly what that restored funding has produced, but it is encouraging that that has occurred. Australia will be safer if we can promote a cohesive society that fosters inclusion instead of division. We must ensure that all members of our community are valued and treated equally.
I acknowledge at the outset the valuable work done by security agencies throughout Australia in relation to the threat of terrorism. I want to place my remarks in a slightly broader context than the actual day-to-day work of those agencies, because the latest terrorist outrages in Manchester, London and Melbourne, as well as elsewhere in the world, are a reminder that the war against the West is an ongoing one and it is deadly. No group—as we have seen, not even innocent young people attending a concert in Manchester—is beyond the target of this evil assault on our culture and our values.
The fact that terrorism in the West is often perpetrated by young, radicalised second-generation migrants is indeed worrying. I submit that programs of deradicalisation have been insufficient to address this threat. We are often told that the real cause of terrorism is poverty, despair or disenfranchisement. But many of the young terrorists have been educated young people from relatively well-off families who are otherwise making the most of their new home.
The terrorists, and those who recruit and radicalise them, who committed those atrocities in Manchester, London, Paris, Berlin, New York and elsewhere do so because they believe that they work. Whether it is for publicity, recruitment or in the hope of winning concessions from Western nations, they believe that their war against the West will be rewarded. Let us not forget that Australian authorities have thwarted 12 imminent terrorist attacks on our soil and over 200 residents of this country are under surveillance and investigation by security agencies.
Unless we acknowledge that the enemy has a fanatical opposition to the values the West, then I believe we will never defeat it. What is at stake is the heart and the soul of our civilisation that upholds individual—with obligations and responsibilities to others—who is ultimately judged on his or her own conscious and actions, as the possessor of an inherent human dignity and inalienable rights. The assailants on our civilisation share one characteristic: the individual is subjugated to the group, defined in terms of race, religion or some other identity. This is at the core of the fundamentalist ideology. It must be exposed and defeated, because if we do not we run the risk of the backlash that could be equally deadly.
There is, I suggest, one central issue here and that is: how can we ensure the peaceful coexistence of different groups within our community? The issue is not new to the West. In the 16th and 17th centuries, a series of religious wars consumed much of England and Europe. In order to prevent the continual war of all against all, leading thinkers of the era, such as John Locke, arrived at the idea of toleration. It was a political virtue, a means of allowing individuals to subscribe to their individual and collective beliefs while allowing the nation to be separately governed. Toleration is a reciprocal obligation: each of us tolerates the belief systems of others. I tolerate somebody else's belief system in the reciprocal knowledge that they tolerate mine if they happen to differ.
But what do we do when some people refuse to tolerate the beliefs of others? This is a pressing question in the Western world today. A spate of terrorist offences involving young people who have not been prepared to peacefully coexist and are determined to violently force their views upon society make this a critical issue at the present time. There is, I suggest, a limit to toleration. When individuals or groups, through violence or incitement of violence, refuse to tolerate the beliefs of others we are not obligated to tolerate their activities; we are obligated to take whatever measures are necessary to ensure that the breakdown of that reciprocity does not continue to infect society as a whole with the deadly consequences which ensue.
I would like to thank the member for La Trobe for moving this motion that relates to terrorism and terrorism offences relating to the 2016 Christmas Day terror plot and other matters. It talks about the number of people that have been charged, the number of people that have been convicted, the number of people before the courts on terrorism offences and the disruption that has occurred to terrorist plots by the AFP and our intelligence agencies. It talks about the issue of violence and extremism that we are confronting collectively.
This has a very personal aspect for me, as I have said in this place on numerous occasions. It particularly has a personal aspect, I am sure, for two particular people and others that will be watching the address that I give here this evening. On 23 September 2014 terrorism took place in my electorate of Holt—a place I never thought would ever feel the touch of terrorism. That was at the Endeavour Hills Police Station, when a young individual attempted to kill two counterterrorism police officers. If it were not for the bravery of both of those officers and if not for the response of one of those officers in that life-threatening situation, both officers would have died. My children used to play in the area when they were younger. This was one of the first events that happened in the Western world post a particular edict that was issued by the Islamic State about attacking police officers. Little did I know that it would happen on my doorstep, on the evening of 23 September 2014.
There were two very fine individuals that were involved in that event—two police officers. I am proud to say that I know both of those police officers as friends and as two individuals that have experienced a lot. The media pays attention to the immediacy of the event, but those two individuals still live with that night. We are waiting for the coroner's findings. I am hoping that after nearly three years those two officers find some peace when the coroner brings down his findings about that night. I am quite sure that the officers will be mentioned very favourably in terms of their endeavours and what they did on that evening. That evening is going to live with them for the rest of their lives. When we are talking about terrorism we are talking about the impact. It is never going to leave those two individuals. I just wanted to assure them, because they will see this speech, and to thank them for their sacrifice, to thank them for what they did and to say that I will continue to support them and remember the sacrifice they made that night on 23 September 2014.
I was not involved in Operation Rising but I happened to stumble across Rising before it occurred, which was the Anzac Day plot. I would particularly like to thank the special operations group that was involved in that, and in particular the individual I would call the spiritual head of the special operations group. I want to thank this officer for his insight, for his support of his officers and for the guidance he provides to the officers in the special operations group.
What we are confronting here is an ideology as powerful as any that I have ever seen. I think what the public needs to understand is that, notwithstanding potential combat victories in Syria and Iraq, this ideology is not just going to be extinguished. We are going to be dealing with the manifestations of this ideology—this perversion—for a long period of time. I would counsel those who would think that, because we are going to defeat these people, we will not see events occurring on our shore. I said in 2014 that I thought, on the basis of what I was being told by intelligence agencies, that we would have a terrorist attack in our country, and it occurred. We will have other events, Mr Deputy Speaker Hastie, as you know, that will happen on our shores.
One thing I will tell those who might be even thinking about perpetrating this sort of act is this: never underestimate the Australian people. Never underestimate their strength and resolve. Our values and our society will always be and will always outlast those who seek to divide us and seek to terrorise us. As you can see with what they have done in Manchester and in other attacks on English soil, they have made a mistake to awaken the Blitz spirit of the British, and they will find the same will occur to them if they try to do that in this country. They will never break our resolve. We will defeat them not just militarily but ideologically. We will not succumb to their threat of terrorism. We will not succumb to what they will try to do to our country.
I am pleased to speak on this motion and I thank the member opposite who moved it this evening. Since joining the parliament, my Labor colleagues and I have done all in our power to support our agencies in their efforts in counterterrorism, both here and in other countries. In government, Labor did the same. Success in preventing terrorism, as we have heard tonight from many speakers, is the key. We know that the current threats are likely to come from within, and the motion lists the successful counterterrorism activities that have prevented, in recent years, terrorist acts that were being planned on our shores. But I would like to stress that, particularly in this place, we cannot be paralysed by fear. We must listen to the experts. We must listen to those who are on the ground working with people who are having contact with elements that would radicalise them. We must be in touch. We must build trust between the community and our counterterrorism and security agencies. That is key in our efforts to ensure that, as previous speakers have suggested, we are doing as much as we can to prevent radicalisation of people in our community.
We have heard a little about countering violent extremism, and I also wish to speak on that. It is critical in keeping us all safe. Our agencies have been forthcoming in highlighting the importance of prevention. In order for us to do that, we need to ensure that we have that trusting relationship. We need to be actively building trust between the community and our agencies. We need all Australians to feel assured that they can contact someone if they are fearful that they know someone who is being radicalised in any way. I make the point that, as we have seen today in London, terrorism comes in many forms. The notion that terrorism is limited to one set of people in our community is very naive, and I would speak to establishing trust across our community. Like our security agencies have said, I suggest that our multiculturalism and our positive multicultural community is actually the best preventative measure that we have on the ground. I encourage people in this place to take every opportunity to speak about what a strong multicultural, multi-faith community we have and to assure people in our communities that they are valued and that, in this country, everyone is equal. We need to ensure that those things happen to make people feel safe and connected to the central core of our democratic principles and our democratic institutions. This is vitally important. I support the notion that our multiculturalism and our support for multicultural policies that our society and the majority of mainstream Australian politicians often express are an example of primary counter-violent-extremist action. I encourage people to do so often at home in their electorates and in this place. There are people in our community who are easily radicalised, people who feel marginalised, people who feel isolated and people who live lives where they feel that they are not being heard, and that is the breeding ground for people to see themselves as separate to Australian society and, therefore, look for someone to blame. There are lots of things to consider here, but I think that is probably the most important.
The second think I strongly suggest—having come from an education background and having seen the number of young people who have managed to become part of this radicalisation—is that connectedness to school and connectedness to community are cornerstones of protecting our society. I encourage those opposite to look closely at school connectedness as something that needs work and needs resources. Those resources and the resourcing of schools are in your hands.
I am pleased to rise to make a contribution on this motion and I thank the member for La Trobe for putting this motion before the House and enabling this very important debate. Mr Deputy Speaker Hastie, I acknowledge the very significant role you play in our parliament in relation to matters which are the subject of this debate and wider concerns relating to our security. I was very pleased to be here for the contribution from my friend the member for Lalor, and I associate myself with her remarks, both their tenor and their substance. I note that speakers on this side of the House have included the shadow Attorney-General and also the member for Holt, who, over a very long period of time, has made a very significant, measured and always thoughtful contribution to these questions of national security. He is someone whose advice I have often been the beneficiary of. Hopefully, I have taken that advice appropriately.
This motion sets out some very significant events for all of us in this place but particularly for me as a Melburnian. Noting that, I think it is also appropriate that we turn our attention to more recent events in the United Kingdom and express our thoughts to those affected there and our hope that justice will be done in the short term but also in the longer term, which I think are the two aspirations we should be seeking to achieve in this area. This motion is one that I am very pleased to speak to, support and make a few additional remarks in relation to.
Firstly, it is important when we discuss questions of national security, as this motion does—particularly matters which are before the courts—to remember our role, which is, of course, first and foremost as lawmakers and as legislators. I know this motion goes specifically to some questions there and I will turn to that immediately, but it is absolutely critical that we respect the role of other branches of government and allow them to do their job. We should confine ourselves to setting a framework of community standards and, indeed, for community safety rather than engage in commentary which transgresses those bounds. We also need to reflect on our role as community leaders, as the member for Lalor did. She put it neatly in saying that we must not be paralysed by fear. We must create circumstances through the laws we enact and the manner in which we resource the enforcement of those laws but also the way in which we conduct ourselves and the way we show our best face and Australia's best face to ensure that we stand for the values that we are all striving to protect in this place. Those are important matters in any consideration of security debates. We must always be mindful of the sort of society we wish to protect and not unnecessarily undermine it.
On our role as lawmakers, I turn particularly to item 3(a) of the motion. I was pleased to be part of the parliament that dealt with very difficult questions of national security through those eight trenches of counterterrorism and national security legislation. I do not think anyone can doubt that the parliament significantly improved both the substance of the legislation and the acceptance of that legislation in the community through the work of the joint intelligence and security committee, and the parliamentary process more generally. And I hope, while I am in this place, I can continue to devote myself to thoughtful consideration of significant laws to get the balance right between security and our personal freedoms. It is a difficult balance, one which will have to be addressed in the particular circumstance of each law and each case, but it is a balance we must all be mindful of in exercising our responsibility and, indeed, our duty as lawmakers.
I will touch very briefly on one additional matter. I acknowledge the positive elements of the government's counterterrorism strategy. National security is a bipartisan issue in this country, and I think we are all thankful for that, but I do think there are some issues, highlighted by the Manchester Arena bombing, that require some further consideration. I have been guided in this by the work of my colleague the member for Cowan, Dr Anne Aly. If the terrorism profile is changing, there needs to be a further focus not just on punitive measures but also on early intervention, early identification of those people who might be at risk of radicalisation. Otherwise, I am very pleased to support this resolution.
The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned, and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
I move:
That this House:
(1) notes the growth of the craft brewing sector in recent years as a generator of employment, tourism and exports in capital cities and regional communities;
(2) further notes:
(a) there is an inequity between how Commonwealth excise is calculated for small and large scale brewers which disadvantages the craft brewing sector;
(b) that excise currently accounts for a disproportionate amount of the costs of production for small brewers and the calculation of excise imposes a significant burden on them; and
(c) this small business sector provides local employment and is an emerging tourism attraction; and
(3) urges:
(a) the Australian Government to ensure policy settings which encourage the realisation of the potential of the craft brewing sector; and
(b) state and local governments to update their planning controls and development approval to facilitate the growth of the craft brewing sector.
I do so in support of those Australians who are currently employed by the more than 400 craft brewers around Australia. The craft brewing industry is a job creation powerhouse, but if we get the policy settings right it could generate even more jobs not just in our capital cities but also in our regional communities. Craft brewers employ locals and buy local produce for their operation, while craft brewing related tourism is booming.
Craft beer is a quality product; however, the industry has been restricted by outdated planning controls and development approval processes at the state and local levels, and this resolution calls for local and state governments to provide support to the craft brewing sector. But the fact is it is also disadvantaged at the federal level by poor legislation related to the excise rates faced by small brewers. Today the rate of the federal excise charged for a keg containing 50 litres of beer is less than the rate charged for a keg containing 30 litres. In addition to this, a maximum tax rebate a brewery can receive per calendar year is $30,000, which compares unfavourably to the wine industry's producer rebate of some $500,000.
These anomalies put Australia's craft beer brewers at a competitive disadvantage against mass produced beers. With excise making up approximately 40 per cent of operating costs for most craft breweries in Australia, this has to change. On Friday, five brewers from the inner west of Sydney in my electorate came together to form an industry association that aims to turn the precinct into the craft beer capital of Australia. This association was formed following a forum of microbrewers I hosted in March with the shadow minister for agriculture, Joel Fitzgibbon. Peter Philip is the founder of Wayward Brewing Company, located in Camperdown, and one of the five founding members of the association. Peter has noted the operating costs are not the only problems that have come out of unfair excise on smaller operators. He said: 'If there was no tax discrimination for smaller kegs, then most pubs and breweries would prefer to use 30-litre kegs, which make for fresher beer, more variety and fewer injuries. Not only would changing the excise on craft brewers give the industry the economic shot in the arm it needs, it would also lead to safer working conditions and better beer.'
As our brewers do better, so do the industries that they rely on for their operation. Microbreweries are large consumers of agricultural produce, going through tonnes of grain and hops a week—mostly Australian grown. Hopsgrowers have gone from selling low-value, bittering hops to the big breweries to selling high-value innovative hops to craft breweries. The unique beers produced by these unique ingredients are fuelling the premium beer sector in China, estimated to be worth some $35 billion by 2020. There are also great opportunities for craft beer tourism, whereby operators set up walking tours for enthusiasts to visit several breweries to sample different types of beer.
If the government is serious about supporting small business in Australia then it needs to get serious about changing the legislation to help our brewers. Despite the obstacles faced by the industry it continues to expand, and the type of kick-on employment that the sector supports, such as boutique hops growers, is vital to a healthy and diverse national economy.
With proper support from the federal government, the potential for growth is enormous. Already, major regional centres, like Ballarat, Wagga Wagga, the Hunter, the Illawarra and in Tasmania—including Scottsdale, where I visited the brewery there—have seen growth in local jobs, with people being employed and local communities being able to gather. I certainly have respect for the resilience and success of the craft beer-brewing industry. I have respect for the sector's contribution to the national economy. And I have respect for the fact that local breweries employ local people.
I will end with a quote from Russell Crowe, as his character John Nash in the film A Beautiful Mind:
I have respect for beer.
I commend the motion to the House.
I took the member for Grayndler to be a simple man who perhaps went for Tooheys, but there you are! Is there a seconder for the motion?
I second the member for Grayndler's motion and I reserve my right to speak.
This is an important motion at the heart of our national economy and the role of small business.
I would have to say that I welcome the opportunity to have a motion put before us by the member for Grayndler that calls for cutting regulation and cutting taxes. In fact, I wish that he would make this a habit! I would call on him then to become Leader of the Opposition, he would be so well qualified! I will also say that this motion has inspired me. Clearly, I can presume that the member for Grayndler is a fan of the product for which he has been spruiking. I say that with affection, because I am one too. But it does prompt me to think that maybe there should be a motion brought to this parliament to advance the cause of the craft gin market as well. I look forward to bringing that at some point in the future.
The independent brewers around Australia should have their voices heard in this national parliament. I am glad to see this motion today, because they have identified that high excise rates, cashflow issues from excise administration and access to markets do constrain their growth. I do not think that you would ever get an argument from me about that important proposition. We have a duty to ensure that the independent brewing industry is operating in a competitive manner and in a favourable regulatory environment. As the member said previously, there are now 420 independent brewing businesses in Australia, up from 200 in 2013. And of those, 330 are physical breweries, with the balance being brewing companies who have others brew their beer.
The wonderful electorate of Goldstein, member for Grayndler, you might like to know, if you ever wish to come to visit, has its two microbreweries, or craft breweries: Bad Shepherd in Cheltenham and Black Heart Brewery in Brighton. Both are fine ales which will contribute to joy in your life. Both justifiably reflect the wonderful taste of our community, which is exceptional.
These small business powerhouses are, of course, not just in cities. Approximately 65 of them are located in rural and regional areas. In fact, I will concede that one of my favourite craft beers is a Mornington Peninsula Brewery pale ale—a particularly delicious product.
You want to come to Newcastle!
No! You have to try a Mornington Peninsula Brewery pale ale, as well as Bad Shepherd and the like. They are all wonderful products. The Craft Beer Industry Association counts some 2,100 full-time people employed in the industry, while also supporting 15,000 positions in the broader economy. That is 65 per cent of all those employed in the Australian brewing industry, and that is a great story for this country to tell. A large group of entrepreneurial Australians generating hundreds of millions of dollars in economic output, of which a large amount is value-added output. And that is only the beginning of the story. There is so much economic potential, not just to meet the domestic market but also to export around the world and to continue to build brand Australia. And I know, Deputy Speaker Hastie, you like beer from time to time. In fact, I have had one with you on famous and less famous occasions, so I am sure you will be supportive of this motion as well.
It is the small entrepreneurs who are doing so much to create employment opportunities, and, more importantly, they are taking on big business. That is what I will always stand up for: people who want to have a go and take on established, vested interests and challenge people in the marketplace in a competitive environment, because that is what brings liberalism alive. It excites me. It is freedom, Member for Grayndler; if only you would realise it. That is what is significant and special about the treatment of this sector by the government. It has to send signals and signs about the importance of the sector and its role in the future of this country, particularly in contributing to the national economy. Having said that, of course, we have a duty to ensure that there is an equal playing field for sectors. We have overly burdensome regulation and uncompetitive tax regimes that are a handbrake on their growth and further investment—something that should be looked at very seriously. The microbreweries excise refund scheme was introduced in 2013, which allows independent breweries to claim back up to 30 grand of their excise that they pay. This has not increased in that same period.
The brewing industry, like many others, faces a great deal of red tape in the administration of this excise, which is why I again welcome the opportunity where the member for Grayndler argues for tax cuts. I just wish he would do it more often, and from a position of principle rather than selective products. Settlement is required on a weekly basis for most businesses, which intrudes on their cash flow in dealing with excise. Most independent brewers and their products are subject to different rates of the excise, depending on the amount of alcohol in the beer and the size of their container. This has created a regulatory nightmare. At a practical level we should be doing more, always, to help industries grow, to help smaller businesses and medium-sized ones take on the big players. That is what the coalition is committed to doing.
I thank the honourable member. We almost made it without a reference to Coopers.
I love it when we have bipartisanship in the House of Representatives. I welcome the member for Goldstein's unqualified support for the motion moved by the member for Grayndler, and I invite all other members who might be speaking in the House tonight to join with us to express their support for what is a very reasonable, very innovative and very worthwhile motion.
I congratulate the member for Grayndler. As he indicated, I was very pleased to be able to join him at a roundtable in his electorate where we had an enormous number of brewers—a somewhat greater number than I have in my own region—join together to make their point not only about the beer excise and the unfairness of it but also about red tape and more particularly local government planning challenges which pose a real hurdle for growth in the sector.
I said to those in the chamber that if Coca-Cola's coke in Australia attracted a 10 per cent GST, but an Australian-made cola—which was just as good, if not better—attracted a 14 per cent GST, there would be a collective outrage at that proposition: that the Australian cola was at 14 per cent GST while the American company's Coca-Cola was at 10 per cent. That is what is happening with our microbrewers. That is what is happening in the craft brewing sector. If you are putting your beer into a 50-litre or greater keg, you pay one level of excise, and if you are putting it in a smaller container, you are paying up to 40 per cent more excise than your big competitors. We are not asking tonight for any particular advantage for craft brewers; we are just asking for a level playing field. But it is not just about the tax, of course. As the member for Grayndler indicated, this is a job-creating proposition, and, importantly for me, a regional job-creating proposition.
Since the member for Grayndler encouraged me towards this project I have made a habit of visiting craft brewers—sadly not yet in Scottsdale, but I am sure I will make my way there at the earliest opportunity. Around the country, I make a point of going and talking to local craft brewers about the challenges they face. What I have learnt as an old bloke in this place is that the habits of young people are very different from the habits of the generation of me and the member for Grayndler. I like my VB, and that is all I want, but younger drinkers are not interested in over consumption, as we were when we were younger I must admit. They are more discerning. They are looking for a new experience. They are looking for the beer that they can only get at the Thirsty Crow, in Wagga Wagga. They can only get it at the Thirsty Crow. When asked by their friends whether they went to the Thirsty Crow to try a particular beer, the answer is there for them because it is the only place they can do it.
In my own region in Hunter wine country, we are enjoying new economic diversity. They once just came to sample wine at the cellar door. Then we opened restaurants, so they came for our restaurants as well. Then we moved on to concerts, weddings and balloon rides. Increasingly and very quickly, we are now moving on to beer tasting. That is the sort of diversity you want in any region to cushion you against the shocks.
Just in my own backyard, I have the IronBark Hill Brewhouse, the Hunter Valley Beer Co., the Lovedale Brewery, the Hope Brewhouse and the Matilda Bay Brewhouse Hunter Valley. Once it would have been sacrilegious to have beers, a brewery and a pub, if you like, in the heart of the Hunter wine country. It is making an enormous difference. It is creating jobs. I learned with the member for Grayndler the great potential for beer tours, which they are already having in his part of the world. It is already happening in Newcastle, not so distant from me. I have no doubt that those tours will make their way up to the Hunter as well.
This is a growth industry. It is a popular industry. It is a job-creating industry. It is an industry that brings happiness to people in many ways. Why wouldn't we be addressing this inequality? Why wouldn't we be addressing this mistake of governments past? We all know that the differentiation between the taxes was a fix put in by the Howard government to make sure that, when they introduced the GST, beer in pubs would not unnecessarily increase. If it is good enough for the pubs, it is good enough for our microbrewers as well, and it is good enough for the jobs that rely upon it.
It intrigues me now that you can go and get a paddle with a range of craft beers on it so you can taste each one out of those very small glasses. I did not think I would see that in my lifetime, but I welcome it because it is creating jobs in my electorate. It is creating jobs right across this country. Every member in this place should be supporting this initiative.
I rise to speak in support of previous speakers on this motion. It is not every day that an opportunity comes along to talk about beer in this place—and in the week of the second State of Origin game as well! What an opportunity to be a euphoric Queenslander! I am happy to report to the Chamber that the beer drinkers of Brisbane are well served. There are now 10 craft breweries in my electorate of Brisbane and counting. We obviously also have the longstanding and iconic XXXX Brewery at Milton. It has been fascinating to watch the craft brewing industry grow so quickly in the past few years. It has been especially interesting when you consider the overall trends, as the member for Hunter just described, of how Australian drinkers, particularly younger drinkers, are drinking less in total. They are clearly seeking out quality products and different brands.
Brisbane seems a natural fit for many of the new craft brewers to set up, given our great nightlife scene and the new offerings we have for clubs, pubs, live music, food, drinks and entertainment. I am very, very pleased to say how true that remains now after we won the fight earlier this year to put a stop to Labor's lock-out laws coming into force in Brisbane. Locally, we have some great and emerging new craft brewers in Brisbane—the Newstead Brewing Company, the Green Beacon Brewing Company, Aether Brewing, Fritzenberger, the Brisbane Brewing Company and Brewhouse Brisbane, amongst many others.
I have a couple of statistics, just in passing, on this very important sector. I am informed that nationally there were only about 30 craft brewers 10 years ago. That has risen to about 420 around the nation today, with a direct workforce of, I believe, over 2,000 full-time jobs. The $650 million-odd size of the economic activity of this sector contributes, I understand, $66 million in excise tax through excise duty to the federal government.
I mentioned before how fascinating it is that these craft brewers have been able to carve out a share in the domestic beer market in times when the overall volume of beer consumption is trending down. I also want to pick up on the member for Grayndler's point that there is this huge opportunity that exists for Australian craft brewers to grow their sales by considering exports to big overseas markets. This is a great opportunity to plug the free trade deals that this government has managed to strike with some of the biggest markets that there are around the globe. I do see craft brewing as a leading example of Australia's manufacturing sector. In turn, it provides growth in our agriculture and other manufacturing industries as well as hospitality and tourism, as the member for Goldstein pointed out. This growth, I should note, has been achieved with minimal assistance from government, as is often the case for agile, successful and truly sustainable businesses.
A few weeks ago, I met with Adrian Slaughter and Marc Christmas, the owners of Green Beacon Brewing Company. Green Beacon stands out, not only as a successful brewery, but a very successful business. Over a couple of years now, they have grown from just a handful of staff to almost 30, with further big expansion plans underway. Last year, they won Champion Medium Brewery of the year and the Champion Specialty Beer award for their Bourbon Barrel Strong Ale at the Craft Beer Awards. This year, at the AIBA—Australian International Beer Awards—they won Champion Small Australian Brewery of the year. I can tell you right now that Adrian and Marc are passionate about their business, passionate about Brisbane and passionate about beer and they deserve all of our congratulations for their success.
I come from small business and have spent much of my career fighting for small business. We had a long and detailed conversation about the challenges that craft brewers face—the complexities of their tax regime, the competitive neutrality issues both within their industry and between different alcohol types and just the general challenges that there are with running a small business. I note that there is this microbreweries excise refund scheme, which was introduced in 2013. More broadly, what is not to like about the proposals to cut regulation and tax? As a broad policy principle, I do respect calls for fairness in respect to how different businesses and products are taxed. I also appreciate how protracted and complicated the recent discussions around tax have been in other areas of the alcohol industry.
I look forward to speaking further with my local craft brewers and working together with them into the future. I know they will be very happy with the tax cuts that they just got from this government as well as the extended eligibility for the $20,000 instant asset write-off. It will definitely cover some of their brewing equipment and fit-out as they grow their business. I thank the member this motion. I trust that this will be one of many areas where we can all work towards bipartisanship in this place. In the spirit of this State of Origin week, I also look forward to Brisbane's craft brewers continuing to beat Sydney's craft brewers in international and national competitions.
Deputy Speaker, I know that you and the member for Goldstein are passionate beer drinkers. First, can I say this: beer is 90 per cent water, so why doesn't it qualify as a health drink? In fact, back in the medieval times, around when the member for Goldstein and others were forming their political views, beer was, as a result of boiling the wort, safer to drink than water. In parts of my electorate that still suffer boiled water alerts under the Tasmanian Liberal government, it arguably still is.
My colleague Darren Clark tells me that, back when he was at primary school in 1978, he could buy from the school canteen Cascade shandy in a can, alongside a meat pie and sauce. I can imagine the kids in the playground; lolly cigarettes in one hand and gold cans of shandy in the other. They were the good old days. As much as I want to support the craft brewers in my electorate, I will not be advocating just yet for the pilsners or the pale ales to take their place alongside orange juice and choc milk at the school tuckshop.
But I do happily rise today to support the member for Grayndler's motion calling for a fairer deal for Australia's craft brewers, who have more than doubled in the past five years alone, and now number, depending on who you talk to, more than 400 nationwide. They are growing all the time. In my electorate, I am proud to host to Two Metre Tall in the beautiful Derwent Valley; Van Dieman, outside Evandale; Ironhouse on the north east coast; T-Bone in Kempton; and Seven Sheds in Railton. I am sure that more are on their way. Visit these places and the first thing that you are struck by is the heady aroma of hops, yeast and malted barley. The second is the passion that drives the brewers. They are not doing it for the money. They are doing it for the love of beer. They are artists. Just like the whisky and gin distillers in my state, Tasmania's craft brewers are increasingly recognised on the world stage. Last year, Ashley and Jane Huntington at Two Metre Tall reimagined those Aussie classics, cider and beer, for the extravagant opening of Noma Australia in Sydney. While guests at such soirees are traditionally offered a glass of champagne, this time their bubbles and fizz were elegant glasses of Snakebite, described as 'barrel aged, yet fresh and aromatic.' Tasmanian beer and cider replacing champagne at a major Sydney event—that surely puts Tasmanian craft beer on the map.
In the north of my electorate is Van Diemen, where brewer Will Tatchell is keen to source everything that goes into his beer from within his own local area. He is from a farming family, and his brews are keenly sought after. He does his hops and his barley himself—he does it all—and he still does much of the running around, trying to flog the beer to local hotels and local pubs. As the member for Hunter said, these beers go into local shops, local taverns and local hotels—they do so much to support the local tourism industry. Brewers like Ashley, Will and their families are so passionate that it is a joy to be in their presence, preferably with one of their brews in hand. They are pioneers of an industry that has the potential to make a very valuable economic and social contribution to regional communities like mine.
Deloitte estimates that craft brewing already contributes well over $160 million into the Australian economy, I think it was, back when they did the report, but we hear from the member for Brisbane that it is now $650 million. And the industry is only in its infancy. Global market researcher IBISWorld estimates craft brewing will grow five per cent a year per year for the next five years. While the imagery of craft brewing might be of bearded vegans with ponytails bottling a small number of piquant ales in a rustic converted barn, there is much more to it. It is potentially very big business.
The potential for craft brewing to make a significant contribution to the national economy, and particularly to the local economies of regional communities, is there. But it is being held back by current tax laws. A little tweaking here and there just to make it a level playing field—no special treatment—will make all the difference. This motion notes there is an inequity between how Commonwealth excise is calculated for small and large brewers, which disadvantages the craft brewing sector. Excise costs more to produce a 30-litre keg than a 50-litre keg. It is absurd, and it needs to change. Excise is important, but it should not be used to disadvantage small brewers. We need to do all we can to give this industry the support that it needs to grow.
I call the honourable member for Bennelong to bring it home for craft brewers everywhere!
I will drink to that! I would like to thank the member for Grayndler for raising this debate. It is overdue. It cannot be denied that there are many, many independent breweries in his electorate but, while he may have quantity, we have true quality at our local—the Endeavour Vintage Beer Company.
An honourable member interjecting—
I have invested deeply in beer over the years, and I should have. Endeavour's story is truly one of local success. Starting at a family kitchen table in Ryde, they now run one of the best pubs in Sydney—the Endeavour Tap Rooms at The Rocks. Hopefully, the coming years will see them expanding locally and bringing great things to our part of the world.
For any members who attended the Bennelong Innovation Fair—and you would be silly if you did not—in the Great Hall, this would have been a chance to sample this great beer. Owner and founder, Ben Kooyman, was at the door presenting a sample of his great beers to everybody who entered the room. Anyone who did so will agree that this is a great beer, and that we have quality over quantity. Beyond Bennelong, however, the independent brewing industry is going gangbusters in Australia. There are now more than 420 independent brewing businesses in Australia, up from 200 in 2013. In the last financial year the industry directly employed 2,100 full-time workers while supporting 15,000 positions in the broader economy. While they produce just three per cent of the nation's beer, the workers employed represent 65 per cent of all those employed in the brewing industry. They also generated $655 million in economic output.
In September last year IBISWorld conducted a study of independent breweries in Australia. They predicted that independent brewing enterprises were forecast to grow at 11 per cent over the coming decade. They also found that consumption of full-strength traditional beers has been in steady decline over the past five years, purely because drinkers have switched to the premium and independent beers. And they expect exports to grow at 2.5 per cent over the next five years, largely driven by increased demand for our quality Australian independent beers overseas.
Beyond the financial benefits, local independent brewers play a vital role in our communities. Their smaller reach compared to the multinationals provides a more intense local community engagement. They provide local jobs and are often linked with a tighter community identity. They also have health benefits. Figures suggest that people drinking more flavoursome and interesting beers are less likely to binge drink. Independent brewers really provide a complete package.
It is undeniable that the independent brewing industry is going through an incredible growth and success period, changing the drinking landscape across Australia. This inevitably presents a challenge for government. For decades, legislation has been providing for an environment dominated by big multi-label, multinational brewers and wine producers, so we are having to catch up in this area. But I am happy to say that the government are making inroads on the many new challenges presented by the needs of this new industry. The government provide excise relief to Australian brewers through the brewery refund scheme, which provides eligible domestic breweries a refund of 60 per cent of excise paid up to $30,000 per year. Craft brewers are also supported by the brewery refund scheme and are provided a rebate of 60 per cent, up to a maximum of $30,000—small beer perhaps, but a good place to start.
Additionally, for those companies which fall into the category, many brewers are able to take advantage of the government's new tax breaks and benefits for small business. This means access to the $20,000 asset write-off, through which they can immediately deduct assets costing less than $20,000 each that were purchased in the last financial year. We have also cut the tax rate to 27.5 per cent, the lowest level in 50 years. While currently this applies to small businesses, it will relate to all companies with a turnover of under $50 million by 2018.
To conclude, our independent brewing industry is a shining light in our community. I congratulate all local brewers for bringing jobs, happiness and community spirit into our regions. I must say, though, as an elite athlete often competing in the most testing heat, my training made me vitally aware of the importance of maintaining hydration. That is why I always keep handy my favourite fluid loss replacement, Endeavour Pale Ale. Be there or be square!
I thank the member and I will overlook the use of that prop. The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
I move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) there has been a significant increase in crime in Victoria;
(b) the latest figures from Victoria's Crime Statistics Agency show that the total number of offences reached 535,826 during the past financial year, an increase of 13.4 per cent, with assaults increasing by 11 per cent, robberies by 14 per cent, and aggravated burglaries by 7 per cent;
(c) Victorians increasingly feel unsafe in their homes and on their streets;
(d) the Victorian Government has lost control of the Victorian justice system; and
(e) Victoria has the most lenient bail laws in the country, a contributing factor in the prevalence of crime; and
(2) calls on the Victorian Government to:
(a) start taking crime and community safety seriously;
(b) dramatically strengthen Victoria's bail system;
(c) fix the crisis in the youth prison network, which has seen unprecedented riots and breakouts; and
(d) dedicate more resources to community safety and Victoria Police.
I have to say, I move this motion with great disappointment, because it reflects a problem now faced by the great state of Victoria, where crime has become an endemic part of our culture in a way that we have not known before. In fact, when this motion was originally presented to the chamber, the Victorian Crime Statistics Agency showed the total number of offences reached 535,826 during the past financial year, which was an increase of 13.4 per cent. I do not have it with me right now, but I do know that only last week new data was released that showed crime has continued to rise in the great state of Victoria.
In particular, the nature of the crime is shifting. As members may be aware, recently there was a terrorist incident in my electorate of Goldstein. I think that brought home to everybody not just the problems with crime but the violent nature of the crime. We are seeing home invasions, people attacked and carjackings as well as terrorist incidents and deaths. Tragically, in Victoria we have seen assaults increase by 11 per cent, robberies increase by 14 per cent and aggravated burglaries increase by seven per cent.
I am not alarmist on these issues. One of the great things about living in this country is that we have traditionally had low rates of crime, but what we are seeing is a relatively rapid increase in the rate of crime, and it is having a human effect. I talk often to constituents who are concerned about the rate of crime now within my community or neighbouring communities and how much it has an impact on their sense of safety, particularly for older Australians. Older Australians, from the first position, have always lived in a relatively crime-free society, but in addition to that are increasingly fearful of leaving their homes or being exposed to the risks of what happens when they confront somebody who wants to break and enter their home or may do something like break into their car.
Surely, I would have thought that all members, regardless of your views and political persuasions, would accept the principal obligation of every government is to protect citizens from undue harm. The crime wave that has swept across the great state of Victoria continues to cause angst and fear for that harm. We have been forced to confront the idea that our communities are no longer safe and harmonious. We have now exceeded half a million offences during the past financial year, as I read out before. Only a couple of weeks ago, we had the tragic death in my electorate, as I said, of Kai Hao, who was murdered by a man who should never have been walking our streets. This is the reality. A lot of people are asking, including the Prime Minister in his leadership after this incident, why this man was on bail and whether there is now a crisis around bail. I know COAG is now acting to reform the bail crisis that is not just in Victoria but across the country.
Particularly, I think we have to look very clearly of the role of the current state government, led by Daniel Andrews, who has actually been far too dismissive of these risks and the impact it has on community safety, as well as the justice system. I am not going to try to pretend there are easy answers. Having proper engagement programs to ensure that young Australians have pathways for constructive involvement with their community is very important. As the saying goes, idle hands do the devil's work. That is why we have to make sure that we do have the social and support infrastructure in place to make sure that we do not have people committing crimes.
It is also hard to ignore the problems with sentencing, bail laws and the watered down and closed police stations that we now have. The Premier has promised to tackle the violent youth gangs who have consistently terrorised Victorians, but clearly has not made the progress that I am sure even he concedes he would like to have achieved. As I said, I have examples of carjackings just outside of my electorate and far too many examples are now occurring—in fact, one only relatively recently—within my electorate as well. There is clearly a need for bail law reform, and I recognise the leadership of the Prime Minister and also of COAG in bringing that about at their recent meeting. But we need more leadership at the state government level.
This is what I hear from my constituents. Just to quote Jonathon, who lives in my electorate. He wrote three separate letters addressed to the Victorian Minister for Police. He wrote: 'This is not the Melbourne I grew up in. It seems that having home invasions and carjackings are now the norm and we are expected to accept it.' This is not a reality that I will accept and neither should any other Victorian member of parliament. The tragedy of this is Jonathon has written these letters, but the state government and the ministers have not even bothered to reply. (Time expired)
Is there a seconder for the motion?
Yes.
Attempts by this government to politicise the judicial system and police enforcement in this country are becoming a disgracefully common occurrence. I am shocked and disappointed that the member for Goldstein has chosen to continue the degradation of our democratic principles in his pathetically dishonest motion today. He should have learned from the example of the three senior ministers of this government found themselves in court last week.
We gain nothing, absolutely nothing, from attacking either state or federal jurisdictions with spurious allegations that they are somehow soft on crime. It is an insult to our hardworking and incredibly brave police officers, to our independent judges and courts and, indeed, to the state and territory attorneys-general to suggest that they are focused on anything other than keeping Australians safe while upholding the values and freedoms that Australians hold dear.
The member for Goldstein makes a series of sweeping statements in this motion. He has made a few more here this evening. On what basis does he say that:
Victorians increasingly feel unsafe in their homes and on their streets …
How dare he make such a generalisation, which can only be designed to whip up fear and division in Victoria. The exploitation of fear to try to gain some partisan political advantage, as this motion is clearly intended to do, shows just what kind of politician the member for Goldstein is.
The member for Goldstein also makes a number of incorrect statements. In fact, they are ridiculous statements. It is blatantly untrue—and again I quote—that 'the Victorian government has lost control of the Victorian justice system' or that 'Victoria has the most lenient bail laws in the country'. Victoria's bail laws are already tough, and, in the wake of the Bourke Street tragedy, state Attorney General Martin Pakula announced a series of reforms which will make Victoria one of the toughest states to get bail in in the country. A report by Justice Coghlan earlier this year found:
The number of people received into adult prison on remand in 2015-16 was 70% higher than in 2010-11 …
He continued:
The data also shows that bail is refused more often now than five years ago.
That is right: five years ago, when there was a Liberal state government in Victoria. The report found that Victoria's bail system is already arguably 'the most onerous in Australia'—that is a direct quote. Nevertheless, the Andrews government has chosen to embark on some further important reforms.
Let me help the member for Goldstein with some other facts—though, having received his training at the institute for paid advocacy, it is no surprise that he seems to have very little interest in them. The Victorian government announced the single largest investment in police in the force's history in the 2017-18 budget—that is just last month—including a funding injection of $2 billion which will pay for more than 3,000 new sworn police officers. This is part of an effort to roll back the rising crime trend that began under the former Liberal state government. The crime rate rose each year under the previous coalition state government, following 11 years of a declining crime rate under Labor. Turning around a long-term crime trend does not happen overnight, but the Victorian government is committed to reducing crime and protecting the community.
But there is a larger issue here. Politicians conducting a slanging match over community safety are the last thing that Australians want to hear when they feel they are under threat. Honestly, what does the member for Goldstein wish to achieve in moving this motion today? If the member for Goldstein has something positive to offer in the fight against crime, he is welcome to put it forward, but baseless accusations of the type that he has made today do not serve the people of Victoria any more than they serve anyone anywhere else in Australia.
I was shocked by the swiftness with which the Prime Minister tried to attack the Victorian government in the aftermath of the recent Brighton terror attack. The name of the innocent victim had not even been released before Mr Turnbull took a cheap shot at Premier Daniel Andrews. There is a time for politics, and there is a time when politics should be put to one side. The fight against terror is clearly a time when politics should be put to one side. The Australian community gains absolutely nothing in these sorts of partisan political attacks. The member for Goldstein should be ashamed of himself for putting forward this motion, and perhaps next time he speaks in this parliament on this subject he will actually have some constructive proposition to put forward.
I rise today to discuss the serious surge in crime in Victoria which has been allowed to flourish under the Victorian Labor government. Thousands of Victorians have been directly and indirectly affected by this crime surge, and, moreover, thousands of Victorians will continue to be affected directly and indirectly by crime that has happened recently in Victoria. The latest crime statistics show that, since the inception of the Andrews Labor government, violent crimes from murder to assault, rape and aggravated robbery have significantly increased. The Labor government continue to drag their feet and are not addressing the crisis, given this surge of violent crime. Rather, Labor continue to defend the status quo on sentencing, bail and reform and will not support the Liberals' mandatory sentencing policy view.
Repeat violent offenders should serve mandatory jail time and not be out in the community committing more violent crimes. In Victoria, attempted murder is up 141.2 per cent; rape is up 14.4 per cent; assault is on the increase by 33.6 per cent; and there is an increase in aggravated burglary of 65.89 per cent. There have been gang crimes, carjackings, burglaries of jewellery stores and the horrific Bourke Street attack. In my electorate of Chisholm alone, a neurological surgeon was bashed outside the Box Hill Hospital with a one-punch bash.
In fact we saw in Mount Waverley a memorial service with a large gathering of the wonderful Chinese community in Chisholm, who held a service for the grieving devastated parents of the victim of the Brighton siege, a hardworking family man who was shot down and killed by a man known to police, who had an extremely violent history and should never ever have been out on parole. It is exceedingly unthinkable that the victim's killer was on parole. How many times do we have to hear on the news every time another crime is committed that the man was known to police? It seems that every day in Victoria there is news of another significantly violent crime.
Whilst the primary suspects of this crime wave are members of the Apex street gang, following investigation by police, other street youth gangs have also now been identified as engaging in similar conduct. In other words, the Apex gang is one gang of many youth street gangs that are terrifying our streets. These youth gangs' high-risk criminal offending involves aggravated burglaries, the theft of luxury vehicles from Melbourne homes, home invasions, assaults, on-the-street carjackings of luxury vehicles, and all of this has become all too common place. These street gangs predominantly utilise weapons and firearms in the process of offending.
Victoria's bail laws in particular are generally considered to be the nation's weakest. We were promised a review of them by Premier Andrews and some action but of course we are still waiting. Commonwealth agencies have assisted their state law enforcement counterparts in Victoria to the extent that they can, acknowledging that this is very much a matter for the Victorian government and its police force. But alas, they either turn a blind eye or prefer Labor's do-nothing approach rather than tackling the problem head on.
By contrast, as our Prime Minister has said, the Turnbull government will continue to do everything it can to keep Australians safe. That is our absolute priority. The Turnbull government has brought in the biggest changes in a generation with respect to terrorists who commit the most heinous and horrific of crimes, as we have seen in Manchester, London Bridge and at home in the bayside suburb of Brighton. The Turnbull government's approach has enabled our agencies to prevent 12 planned terrorist attacks, including mass casualty attacks and one that was disturbingly planned around Christmas time in Melbourne's Federation Square.
The Commonwealth government is committed to making our community safe and supports crime prevention initiatives to address antisocial and unlawful behaviour through the $50 million Safer Community Program. Importantly, the coalition government committed at the 2013 and 2016 elections to toughen up penalties for gun related crime. The government has introduced legislation to increase the existing maximum penalties for firearm trafficking and, crucially, to implement five-year mandatory minimum sentences. This sends the strongest possible signal that we will not tolerate gun crime on our streets. The Turnbull Liberal government will always maintain that our No. 1 priority will be to keep Australians safe, no matter what the domestic debate is. But it is about time that Labor stopped being soft on crime.
I associate myself with the comments of the member for Isaacs but in so doing I share my concern with him about the way in which this issue has been politicised by the motion which is currently before this chamber. I would like to refer to a number of the comments that have just been made by the member for Chisholm. The member for Chisholm has outlined her concern around a range of crimes that have occurred that she has described. Of course any person shares the concern and the outrage associated with those crimes, the people who perpetrate them, and shares empathy, concern and consideration for those people who have been the victims of those crimes. But nothing is made safer, we do not make our communities safer by needlessly politicising areas of policy which do not require it and by seeking to make political mileage in circumstances which are blatant and crude, which is what we are seeing now.
The contributions that we are hearing from the other side in their description of the way in which Labor is behaving to the question of crime is just plainly wrong. The member for Chisholm is right in describing that there have been a number of measures which have been undertaken by the Turnbull government around counter-terrorism but all of them have been done in a bipartisan way with Labor. We are the party that has ensured that all of this has been placed above the political fray so that we can be acting in the national interest to make Australians safer. That is actually what we need to be doing across the board.
In my constituency there is a real concern around the question of crime, as there would be in constituencies all over the country. That can be from the reports we see in the news in relation to acts of terrorism, to serious crimes people are also watching on the news, to smaller crimes such as graffiti people see around their neighbourhood. All of that is a matter for concern. What makes people feel far less safe in their house is when matters are needlessly politicised for political gain and when the positions of both parties—the position of Labor, in this case—are being totally misrepresented around the question of dealing with crime.
Here are the stats. We see in this motion a suggestion that there has been a 13.4 per cent increase in crime—which in fact is not right—over the last financial year. The increase is around just four per cent. Indeed, there has been a stabilisation in relation to significant crime, where the offence rate has risen by only 2.5 per cent in the last financial year. Bear in mind, Deputy Speaker, that throughout every year of the former Liberal government we saw an increase in crime. In terms of the total amount of crime there was a 21 per cent increase during the period of the last Liberal government, and a 14 per cent increase in terms of the rate of crime. So if we are actually going to look at stats the reality is that crime rose during the last Liberal government. It has been stabilised under this government.
We hear claims suggesting that parole is easy in Victoria and that the Victorian government and judicial system is soft on parole. Yet the reality is that from the time of the Napthine government the number of those on parole has dropped from 1,700 to 800—more than halving the number of people who are on parole. That occurs by making it far harder to get parole. We also need to bear in mind that parole plays an important role within our society and within our corrections system by providing an incentive for those who are within the corrections system to behave more appropriately, as well as giving rise to more graduated integration of those who have left the correctional system into our society. I do not think anyone is suggesting that we should be doing away with parole. The reality is that compared to the situation as it was during the last Liberal government the situation in Victoria is far tougher in respect of parole numbers now.
Add to that the fact that under the Victorian government's community safety statement made in December last year we have seen a $2 billion investment into new officers and resources throughout Victoria—the single biggest investment in Victoria Police's history. In my constituency, in Geelong, what that has given rise to is 32 new police and a whole range of programs which have involved increased resources, increased patrols across the Bellarine and in the Geelong CBD, and an additional $700,000 being provided to specific intervention programs to work with young people who are at risk of offending.
There is a lot of work being done in relation to this. It is absolutely essential that we take the politics out of this issue. (Time expired)
The sheer fact is that Victorians are now feeling the full brunt of having had a Labor Party in the state of Victoria as government over 14 of the last 18 years. So this concept that somehow or other Labor are not soft on crime and that Labor are somehow putting in place magistrates that are dealing with community expectations is absolutely laughable. The fact is that no Victorians feel safe in their homes, especially in those eastern suburbs. People in Victoria feel unsafe in their cars and even walking down the street. What has happened is that there is this very small but very dangerous cohort of youth throughout Victoria—the eastern suburbs of Melbourne particularly, but sometimes in the western suburbs—conducting their raids in this totally unlawful and absolutely carefree manner, with absolutely no regard for the law. We see that so many of these perpetrators have been released on bail for previous crimes. This is a theme that has happened time after time, where people are arrested for committing some horrendous crime and then we find that they had been released on bail for other crimes. The community response is that it is simply unbelievable that these people could be walking the streets as free people.
The biggest issue is that the Labor Party, both here and in Victoria, do not think that there is a problem with the crime wave that is currently going through Victoria. They do not think it is an issue that so many of these perpetrators have been let out on bail and also that there are these amazing, lenient sentences that are totally outside of what we would call normal community expectations. Attorney-General after Attorney-General has appointed magistrates to the bar in Victoria for 14 of the last 18 years. It is no wonder that we have this most-worrying situation where the sentences that are handed down in the state of Victoria so often do not meet community expectations.
The other fact that I know first hand, because of my experience in the Victorian state parliament, is that the state Labor Party have to be pulled, kicking and screaming, to put extra police on the job. Going to the last election, the coalition put forward a policy to put on some 2,000 extra police. The Labor Party put forward 300 to 400 extra back-office staffers as their law and order policy and their contribution to fighting crime. It was a totally inadequate response to what was happening in the real world. The Labor Party ridiculed the protective services officers throughout Victoria, the 940 PSOs who were employed to look after our train stations from six o'clock every evening until they knocked off with the last train. The Labor Party thought they were a great joke and ridiculed them at every opportunity, calling them plastic policeman and wondering what they were going to do when they saw somebody committing a crime.
Of course, the Labor Party get themselves in the situation where they do not know what to do with their own policies when they find themselves in government. The 300 or 400 back-office staffers that were supposed to fix the whole problem of the Victorian police force—the statistics of some of the crimes against individuals show stark increases. The extent and damaging nature of some of these crimes are quite horrendous. The lack of respect and any regard that we see with the youth prisons at Parkville and also at Malmsbury is quite staggering. Then we have a Labor Party in the federal parliament and a Labor Party in the state government who refuse to acknowledge that there is a problem at all. And we wonder why motions like this get up. I commend the member for Goldstein for his motion. (Time expired)
I am sure it has escaped none of us in this chamber the irony of a Liberal member bringing forward a motion calling on the Victorian judiciary to be tougher at a time when no fewer than three ministers are facing charges before a Victorian court for scandalising contempt. But it is vital in this debate as in all debates that we begin from the facts.
Over the course of the last two decades, Australia's murder rate has fallen by a third, our armed robbery rate has fallen by a third, and car theft has fallen by two thirds. Yet, at the same time, our prison population is rising at an extraordinary rate. As of June 2016, 38,685 Australians were behind bars, and on the current trajectory the prison population will soon pass 40,000. If our jail population were a city it would be the 36th-largest city in Australia, larger than Albany, Bathurst or Devonport.
But what matters is incarceration as a share of the adult population. By my estimate, our incarceration rate now is around 207 prisoners per 100,000 adults. That gives us a higher incarceration rate than Canada, India, Germany, Indonesia or Britain. It also gives us a higher incarceration rate than we have had in some time. From looking back through historical archives to see just how long, my analysis suggests that it is not since 1901 that Australia's incarceration rate has been as high as it is now. If we are to reduce Indigenous incarceration and deal with the fact that a young Australian Indigenous man is now more likely to go to jail than to university, we need to recognise the challenge that incarceration poses to Australia. We know that for every prisoner, approximately, there is a child who has a parent behind bars. That now means 40,000 Australian children with a parent behind bars. Prison costs around $300 a day, or around $110,000 a year, which means that Australia is now spending more than $3 billion a year on our jails.
There is another approach to this. In the United States, where around one per cent of the adult population are behind bars, there has been a bipartisan movement to cut incarceration, epitomised in a joint opinion piece last year from Democrat economist Jason Furman and Republican Douglas Holtz-Eakin, who argued that the additional prisoners in the United States tend now to be nonviolent offenders whose imprisonment will have little impact on the crime rate. The two economists point out that, while a father is in jail, the chances of his family falling into poverty rise by 40 per cent and that prisoners develop criminal networks which cut their chance of holding a regular job upon release. That is why, over recent years, we have seen more than 20 states roll back mandatory sentences in the United States, including Michigan in 2003 for drug offences, New York for drug laws, and South Carolina for drugs and other categories.
It is ironic, given that the mover of the motion originally came from the Institute of Public Affairs, that it is the Institute of Public Affairs which is now arguing that Australia needs to learn these lessons from the United States. In a new report, Andrew Bushnell, a research fellow at the free market think tank—not a think tank I think I have quoted in this place before, but even a stopped clock is right twice a day—writes:
Violent criminals must be locked-up. But many nonviolent offenders currently being jailed can safely be punished with home detention, community service, fines and restitution orders.
He notes that the experience in the United States could well be taken note of in Australia as we look to reduce crime and incarceration.
Mark Kleiman, the author of When Brute Force Fails, spoke in this parliament in 2013, drawing out his distinction that this is a system which places, in his view, too much emphasis on severity and not enough on certainty and swiftness. A 10-year sentence costs the community 10 times as much as a one-year sentence, but rarely do people think that it achieves 10 times as much deterrence. In Kleiman's view, we ought to place much more emphasis on certainty and swiftness. That means, as the Law Council has suggested, that we need to beware of mandatory sentencing, which in the Law Council's view can potentially increase the likelihood of recidivism, because new prisoners are inappropriately placed in a learning environment for crime. (Time expired)
I am pleased to follow the contribution of the member for Fenner, but it is disappointing that we are having this debate. I will, in the very short time available to me, set out the reasons why. It was only a few weeks ago that an almost identical motion was put before this House by another Victorian MP, and it makes one wonder why it is they want to talk about these state issues rather than the agenda of the government. Perhaps that is a question we all know the answer to: this is a rudderless government.
It was particularly striking to see the contribution to this debate from the member for Murray, someone I have a lot of time for. It is ironic in the extreme given that he came to this place from the state parliament of Victoria and, indeed, he was a member of the former coalition government under which most crime indicators in Victoria began to rise, a matter he did not dwell on in that portion of his contribution that I was present for. This motion speaks to very little other than the sense of this government needing to create distractions.
The member for Fenner, on the other hand, spoke to some really significant and important matters that members of this place should be concerned about: the costs of incarceration to the community generally and the particularly shocking statistic that an Aboriginal man is more likely to find himself in jail than going to university. These are challenges which we have levers in this place to respond to, as opposed to the chorus of complaint that is contained in this motion.
I note that much of the motion is tendentious and much of it is straight-out wrong. The comments on the need to strengthen Victoria's bail system strike me as inopportune given that strengthening has already happened. On the other matters that it touches on, like the devotion of more resources to community safety in Victoria, please! We know the Victorian government has already attended to these matters through recruiting 2,729 extra police.
The time allotted for private members' business has expired. The debate is adjourned, and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
Federation Chamber adjourned at 19:30