I have received advice from the Chief Government Whip nominating Mr Ted O'Brien to be a member of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade in place of Mr Wood.
by leave—I move:
That Mr Wood be discharged from the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade and that, in his place, Mr Ted O'Brien be appointed a member of the committee.
Question agreed to.
On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, I present the committee's report entitled Review of administration and expenditure No. 15 (2015-16)—Australian intelligence agencies.
Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).
by leave—Before I start I would like to acknowledge students from Canning, from Byford Secondary College. Good morning to you. It's great to have you in the chamber.
This report fulfils the committee's statutory oversight responsibility to review the administration and expenditure of the six Australian intelligence agencies, including the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO), the Australian Secret Intelligence Service (ASIS), the Office of National Assessments (ONA), and the three defence intelligence agencies.
Through its review, the committee received comprehensive submissions and conducted private hearings with each of the agencies. The committee also took evidence from the Australian National Audit Office and the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security. The committee is satisfied that agencies are overseeing their administrative functions effectively.
The committee was provided with an update on the security environment in the reporting period and an outlook for the years ahead. Security challenges included terrorism, communal violence, border integrity, espionage and foreign interference. Agencies have continued to respond to the changing security environment. With the support of funding, agencies have also invested in a range of new programs and capital projects to enhance their future capacity. Workforce management continues to be a key focus of agencies. Agencies discussed the strategies they had taken to recruit and retain staff and to finalise security clearances as efficiently as possible. It was clear, however, that lengthy delays and the provision of positive vetting clearances continued to have an effect on agency recruitment. The committee will closely monitor progress on this issue.
Turning now to expenditure: the committee carefully scrutinised each agency's financial management arrangements, including their internal controls. On the basis of the evidence provided, the committee was satisfied that agencies appropriately managed their expenditure in 2015-16. During that period, agencies benefitted from additional funding under a range of new funding measures. The committee has previously noted its concerns about the constant resourcing pressure on agencies as they carry out their work to secure the Australian people and our interests. As the committee notes in its report, both organisations were provided with additional funding by the Turnbull government to support their operations and strengthen their capacity to meet strategic priorities. These measures are welcomed by the committee as they will offset some of the resourcing pressures on the agencies. The committee will continue to monitor the resourcing of both agencies in future reviews.
The committee's review this year took place in parallel to the 2017 Independent Intelligence Review conducted by Mr Michael L’Estrange and Mr Stephen Merchant. The report on that review had not yet been finalised at the time the committee's report was finalised. However, the committee recognised that the outcomes of the independent review could have significant implications for the administration and operation of intelligence agencies. This has proven to be the case. The independent review has recommended, among other things, the establishment of an office of national intelligence incorporating an expanded Office of National Assessments and the elevation of the Australian Signals Directorate into a statutory authority within the Defence portfolio. The review's recommendations, if implemented, will also have significant implications for the oversight role of the committee, including by expanding the committee's remit to additional agencies and enabling the committee to undertake own-motion inquiries into the administration and expenditure of those agencies. Additionally, the independent review's recommendations would strengthen the committee's relationship with the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, who has a key oversight role in ensuring that each intelligence agency acts legally and with propriety, complies with ministerial guidelines and directives and acts consistently with human rights. The committee's position is that it is essential for the inspector-general's office to be sufficiently resourced to perform its role, and the independent review makes strong recommendations in this regard.
The committee looks forward to continuing to engage closely with the intelligence agencies as the administrative arrangements within which they operate are revised. I commend the report to the House.
As I was indicating yesterday, climate change is the critical issue of our generation. It is happening right here and right now, and we are seeing the real-world effects not only in Australia but around the world. Ban Ki-moon has eloquently pointed out that we're the last generation that can take steps to avoid the worst impacts of climate change. Urgent revisions of the Reef 2050 plan were recommended by an expert independent panel led by former Chief Scientist Ian Chubb which would have enabled 'mitigation, adaptation and management of the reef in the face of inexorable global warming'. A World Heritage Committee report released this month confirms that global action is required to save the reef and that, if the world doesn't keep global temperatures in line, the reef will continue to deteriorate. It is unacceptable that the government will not act to protect one of Australia's most precious resources.
In the 1970s, the Whitlam government established the nation's very first maritime reserve to protect the Great Barrier Reef. Labor released the world's largest network of marine protected areas and national parks in 2012, under the previous Labor government. This network was based on the latest science and extensive community consultation. Labor has a strong record of protecting our oceans and its ecosystems. While we were in government, we expanded shipping movement surveillance across the reef. Labor's shipping policies promoted the use of experienced Australian pilots to navigate the reef, which not only protects the reef but also supports Australian jobs.
When the member for Warringah was Prime Minister, he put our plans on hold. Now the Prime Minister directly attacks them. Carbon emissions have risen by 1.4 per cent in the last year. The government's own projections on emissions show that Australia will fall well short of the mark regarding our obligations under the Paris Agreement as a result of this Prime Minister's climate and energy policies. It is time for the Prime Minister to find a backbone, stand up to his party and start doing what he knows is right. The member for Wentworth once said that he would never lead a party that was not as committed to genuine, effective climate change action as he was. Those words have been put back in the closet, along with the leather jacket from his Q&A days. It's time for action to deliver on protecting the reef and its ecosystems by introducing better climate and energy policy.
Over the last few months, we have seen the government's plans to reduce the protection of oceans. No other government in the world has ever removed so many hectares from conservation areas before. It's a sad state of affairs when Australia is making history by taking huge steps backwards on ocean protection. Prime Minister, putting your head in the sand will not help you find the solutions our reef desperately needs. This government's failure on climate are far reaching. Not only do they threaten the reef but they also cause emissions to rise and electricity prices to rise. They cost us jobs in the renewal energy sector. The government have refused to acknowledge the danger that climate change poses for the reef. Their answer to climate change is an ineffective and expensive $2.5 billion climate policy—something the Prime Minister has previously referred to as an 'environmental fig leaf' to cover a determination to do nothing. Those opposite and their willingness to sacrifice our environment for short-sighted and short-term economic gains, illusory economic gains, has been illustrated by sustained budget cuts to environmental programs. The environment portfolio has approximately half the resources that it did when Labor was in power. You can't be serious about protecting the reef unless you're also serious about climate change policy.
Beyond direct reef protections we must stop the land clearing that is happening in Far North Queensland. The Queensland Auditor-General has reported that land clearing in the Great Barrier Reef catchment area has tripled as a result of the former LNP-Newman government's law changes. An important part of the 2050 Great Barrier Reef sustainability plan was to get land clearing laws in Queensland back under control. This government has not done a thing to enact our commitment to the World Heritage Committee, UNESCO, in its 2050 sustainability plan. A key part of the variety of commitments made in this plan were designed to stop the Great Barrier Reef from being placed on the endangered list. Australia needs an ambitious, commonsense pathway to a low-pollution economy. The Labor Party has a clear plan, with six key elements focusing on leading renewable energy economy, cleaner power generation, building jobs and industry, cutting pollution, carbon capture on the land and increased energy efficiency. The environment will always be a priority for the Labor Party. We do not see the false dichotomy between protecting the Australian environment, protecting the Great Barrier Reef and fighting for Australian jobs and the Australian economy.
Indeed, I was very pleased to see the recent announcement by the Leader of the Opposition that a Shorten government will inject $1 billion into new tourism infrastructure in northern Australia to support the industry and to create new jobs. This new Northern Australia Tourism Infrastructure Fund will provide financing and concessional loans to build new tourism infrastructure in northern Australia. Well, I can tell you, you can build all the infrastructure you want, but if you lose the biggest drawcard, if you lose the Great Barrier Reef—one of the most iconic drawcards of the Australian tourism industry—this will be for nought.
Tens of thousands of jobs rely on the Great Barrier Reef. These are jobs that will be sustained. They are not just for an initial start-up period, not just for the construction period of a project, but are permanent jobs that communities across regional Queensland can rely on long into the future, but only if we have a government that is willing to do what it takes to protect the Great Barrier Reef. The Labor government recognised that the World Economic Forum's 2017 travel and tourism competitiveness index ranked Australia seventh for overall competitiveness but 14th for overall infrastructure. That's why we're taking action. This $1 billion infrastructure fund for tourism in regional Australia, in North Queensland, will have a positive impact on building jobs for our nation. But, again, it will all be for nought if we sacrifice the reef in the interim.
I've had an overwhelming response from my constituents about the future of the reef. I thank all the constituents who've taken time to write about this very important issue. They may not have faith in the government's approach to the management of this issue and the government's commitment to defending the Great Barrier Reef, but I can assure them that the Labor Party is committed to protecting this iconic Australian asset. Labor will continue to fight for the environment, we will continue to do what it takes to fight climate change and we will continue to fight for the preservation of the Great Barrier Reef, not only for the benefit of this generation but for the benefit of generations to come.
It comes as no surprise that the government brings a bill to this parliament that says it is about protecting the Great Barrier Reef but doesn't mention global warming or climate change once. Under this government's watch, pollution keeps going up and up, climate change keeps getting worse, and they chuck around lumps of coal in parliament and pretend the problem doesn't even exist. What's also distressing is that throughout this whole debate on the Great Barrier Reef so far we haven't heard a word from either the government or the opposition about something that is going to turbocharge global warming and affect the Great Barrier Reef, and that is the Adani Carmichael coalmine that's proposed in Queensland. We know, because we've been put on notice now for a very long time, that global warming threatens our way of life in Australia, because we now face going to every Christmas holidays wondering where the next bushfire's going to hit, how bad the droughts and heatwaves will be and whether, when the next cyclone hits, it will be power packed because the hot air above the sea is filled with heat and moisture, which makes these cyclones much more devastating and pack a much bigger punch when they land.
Our way of life is under threat from global warming like never before. But it doesn't just threaten us in this country; it threatens nature and it threatens those parts of Australia, like the Great Barrier Reef, that people thought would be there forever. Two-thirds of the Great Barrier Reef has now been devastated by severe coral bleaching. We've had back-to-back summers of bleaching that scientists previously just didn't think was possible. An aerial survey by the Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies of the reef's 2,300-kilomoetre length showed that 1,500 kilometres of our Great Barrier Reef had been bleached—on our watch.
As the former Chief Scientist has made crystal clear, the biggest threat to the Great Barrier Reef is global warming. And, as the UNESCO centre has made crystal clear, the biggest threat to the Great Barrier Reef is global warming. Ian Chubb, the former Chief Scientist, led an independent expert panel and said we need a complete rethink of how we manage the reef because the reef is undergoing major long-term damage that may be irreversible unless action is taken now and that the planet has changed in a way that is unprecedented in human history. We have not seen this happen to the reef before and, whilst that might be extraordinary, it's the rapidity of this change that should be ringing alarm bells for this parliament. We shouldn't be introducing bills to talk about the Great Barrier Reef and not mention climate change, and we shouldn't, in this parliament, be doing everything that the government and Labor can to facilitate the Adani Carmichael coalmine. We've been told the reef is in trouble, we've been told that global warming is getting worse, we've been told that global warming is the single greatest threat to the Great Barrier Reef and we've been told, by our former Chief Scientist, that we've got to limit global temperature rises to 1.2 degrees if we're to have a chance of saving the reef. So we have to do even more than we've agreed to in Paris if we want to have a chance of saving the reef.
You would think, with us being put on notice about all of those things, that parliament could make some responsible decisions—but, no. Here comes a bill about the Great Barrier Reef that doesn't even mention climate change, and the Liberals, Labor and the Nationals are working hand in glove to light the fuse on a climate bomb that sits in the Galilee Basin in Queensland. What we know is that, if all of the coal that's in the Galilee Basin is dug up and burned, that's the equivalent of what all the European Union countries together put out in a year. We are talking countries' worth of pollution that sits under the ground in the Galilee Basin. We are talking about a coalmine at a time when scientists have told us that, if we're to have a decent chance of stopping dangerous global warming, we need to keep 80 per cent of our fossil fuel reserves in the ground. In other words, we've been put on notice that, to have the best chance of protecting the reef and protecting our way of life, 80 per cent of all existing coal reserves need to stay in the ground. Instead, we're having a competition between Labor and the Liberals to see who can dig it up and burn it the quickest.
In Queensland, where, according to government figures, there are almost 70,000 jobs reliant on a healthy reef, the Queensland Labor government can't move quickly enough to give free water, a free pass for native title laws and other environmental laws and free coal to the multinational company Adani so that they can dig it up and export it. This is Labor doing this. And they're aided and abetted by the Liberal-National Party here in Canberra, because the government here wants to take $1 billion that could be going to schools and hospitals and put it into Mr Adani's pocket, essentially, by building a rail line that, on any reading, a company that wants to make money out of wrecking the planet should have to fund itself. It shouldn't be taking money.
You expect that from the Liberals, but what is galling is Labor's complicity. The message to the Liberal Party is clear but is not getting through, which is that we need to act on climate change. They seemingly don't care. They seemingly don't care, because the climate deniers and the Trumps on the backbench dictate what Prime Minister Turnbull does. We are going to keep fighting the government, but we've almost given up on them because they are, effectively, run by the coal lobby. But Labor now has an opportunity. If the Leader of the Opposition, today, stood up and said that if he wins the next election he will stop the Adani Carmichael coalmine, it would not go ahead because this project is so precarious that it's relying on the old parties bankrolling it and supporting it to go ahead. So there's an opportunity.
Today, I want to give Labor that opportunity to vote for it. We've heard lots of speeches from Labor about the importance of protecting the reef and acting on climate change. The message is simple, Labor: your choice is between Adani and the reef. You can't have both. Choose which one you want. I move, as an amendment to the second reading amendment moved by the member for Watson:
That all words after "notes" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
"that global warming is the greatest threat to the Great Barrier Reef and calls on the government to immediately take all available steps to stop the Adani Carmichael coal mine".
Labor could stop the Adani Carmichael coalmine today by voting for this amendment and making a very clear statement that, if it wins the next election. it will not allow the coalmine to proceed.
There is precedent for this. You only have to go back and look at what happened in the Franklin Dam campaign. In the Franklin Dam campaign there was a rogue state government intent on wrecking something that was of crucial importance to Australians. A people's movement was built up around that to stop the damming of the Franklin. That people's movement got a commitment out of the then Labor opposition that, if it won power, it would stop it from going ahead and would override the rogue state government. That people's movement won, the government was changed, the dam was stopped and we are all much better for it.
We can fast-forward now to today and press repeat on that. If the Leader of the Opposition today responds to the growing people's movement that says, 'It is time to leave coal in the ground and switch to solar,' then this coalmine could be stopped and the Great Barrier Reef and the Australian way of life protected. It is no longer possible to walk both sides of the fence on this. It is no longer possible to say, 'We're in favour of a bit more renewables locally, but we're quite happy to ignore the world's scientists, dig up all the coal that we have here in Australia and have it exported and burnt overseas.'
In doing so, Labor and the Liberals are relying on the drug pusher's defence: 'If we don't sell it to them, someone else will.' What rubbish! We don't dig up and export asbestos anymore on the basis that someone somewhere in a rogue state might supply asbestos. We used to clad our housing in asbestos because we thought it was a good idea. Then we learnt that it kills when it's used in that way and so we phased it out. We were put on notice. We used to think there was no harm in tobacco. Then we were put on notice about the harm that tobacco causes, and so we're now in the process of restricting the use of tobacco. So it is with coal: it makes no difference to the atmosphere whether the coal is dug up and burnt here or somewhere overseas; it adds to pollution at a time when we cannot afford to add to pollution at all.
To give us a decent chance of protecting our way of life and making sure that the quality of life that we leave for our kids and grandkids is better than the one that we've enjoyed, we need to leave coal in the ground. That includes the coal at Adani. If your concern is about jobs, you cannot put in jeopardy the nearly 70,000 jobs that depend on a healthy reef for the sake of what Adani said in court under oath will be 1,400 jobs over a decade—1,400 jobs! They've also said elsewhere that they want to automate their mine from pit to plug. So anyone who thinks this is some job bonanza is kidding themselves. But, if jobs is the argument you're relying on, you are trading off almost 70,000 jobs dependent on a healthy reef for maybe 1,400 jobs that will be gone once the mine is automated.
We have an opportunity here in this House now to take a stand. This parliament could actually make a meaningful contribution, far more meaningful than anything the government has done, to the fight against global warming. As I've said, pollution is actually rising on this government's watch. We're meant to be cutting pollution and it's rising on this government's watch. What we can do is say, 'Australia will not be a climate criminal that aids and abets others in the burning of coal.' It's time to take a stand. We know where the Liberals stand, because they're the party of climate deniers.
It is also a time now for the opposition to take a stand. It is a very simple amendment. Immediately, take all available steps to stop Adani's Carmichael coalmine. Vote for this amendment, signal a change in position from the federal Labor Party and we can stop this Carmichael coalmine stone dead. We know that the Adani Group is now begging everyone for finance. We know that banks in Australia will not touch it with a barge pole. We know they're now hopeful that the government will write them a cheque, and they're also hopeful that the government will give them all the approvals they need to continue to allow Australia to facilitate pollution.
We have the power under federal law to say we're going to regulate the amount of pollution that Australia generates, we're going to regulate how mining takes place in this country and we're going to regulate the protection of the environment. Here, today, we can do far more than something symbolic; we can contribute to stopping the Adani mine in its tracks. So I urge everyone in this parliament, especially the opposition, to support this amendment. Then we will have done something real that future generations will thank us for.
Is the amendment seconded?
I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.
I thank the other speakers, particularly the previous speaker, for their contributions to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Amendment Bill 2017. The previous speaker and the other house know Labor takes very seriously the threat of climate change to the one natural wonder of the world for which Australia has stewardship responsibilities—that is, the Great Barrier Reef. We have in the chamber today the former environment minister, who did a great deal of work with Queensland state governments and NGOs to put in place programs to secure the health of the reef. We've been very clear, particularly as the reef has experienced two very serious bleaching events in only the last 18 months, that the principal threat, the most serious threat, to the Great Barrier Reef is the threat of climate change. That is why we have been so vocal about the need to get climate change policy back on track in this nation.
Under the last Labor government carbon pollution came down by 10 per cent because of our suite of policies in climate change and energy, many of which I acknowledge were strongly supported and advocated by the Greens party. Since this government came to power, given its insistence on dismantling all of those policy frameworks and attacking the renewable energy industry, carbon pollution, unsurprisingly, as the member for Melbourne pointed out, has started to rise in this country—such that Australia now is the only major advanced economy where carbon pollution is rising rather than coming down. That will have a range of very significant impacts on Australia.
It has led to the destruction of thousands of jobs in the renewable energy industry while jobs are soaring across the world. It has meant Australia has not been able to participate fully in the investment boom, in clean energy and in clean technology. It also means we are not discharging our responsibility to our children and grandchildren to safeguard the health of this continent—a very vulnerable continent—in our agricultural regions, coastal communities and, as this bill deals with, one of the seven natural wonders of the world, the Great Barrier Reef.
We've had a look at the amendment moved by the member for Melbourne, seconded by the member for Denison, to the member for Watson's second reading amendment. Were the Greens and Labor able to have some discussions about this, I imagine we'd be able to agree on some words, particularly around the issue that is before the federal government and the national parliament now, which is the question of taxpayer-funded subsidies through the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility to the Adani coalmine, particularly to the railway line. I know that Labor and the crossbench are in furious agreement about that question. And were, for example, the member for Melbourne willing to consider an amendment to his amendment that would stop any taxpayer subsidies to the Adani Carmichael coalmine, there would be agreement between the Labor Party and the member for Melbourne and the member for Denison.
Unfortunately, we're getting quite close to the end of the debate on this bill—I know the assistant minister is about to sum up for the minister on this—but I do make that invitation here, with the member for Watson in the chamber as well, for the member for Melbourne to have some discussions with Labor about a form of words that would secure the support of the opposition, as well as the crossbench, on a second reading amendment.
I thank all members for their contributions to the debate on the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Amendment Bill 2017. The bill will prevent plans of management from being revoked if regulations giving effect to these plans are repealed. In particular, where regulations are repealed due to the sunset process, the bill will ensure this does not trigger an automatic revocation of corresponding plans of management. Plans of management are a key environmental management tool to ensure that activities within the Great Barrier Reef are managed on the basis of ecologically sustainable use.
Now, while the amendments made by the bill are small and technical, I appreciate the crucial role these amendments will have in ensuring that the Great Barrier Reef continues to be protected and conserved by the protective measures in the plans of management. The government is committed to ensuring that the Great Barrier Reef, one of the world's greatest natural treasures, is protected for the future. This bill will support the continuing protection of this World Heritage area. I commend the bill to the House.
The original question was that the bill be now read a second time, to which the honourable member for Watson moved an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The honourable member for Melbourne has moved an amendment to the amendment that all words after 'notes' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Melbourne be agreed to. There being more than one voice calling for a division, in accordance with standing order 133 the division is deferred until after the discussion of matters of public importance.
Debate adjourned.
I rise to speak on the Petroleum and Other Fuels Reporting Bill 2017 and also the Petroleum and Other Fuels Reporting (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2017 that have been joined in cognate debate. Energy is the lifeblood of modern economies, and, if anything, is likely to continue to be the lifeblood in an accentuated form in the 21st century as we move from an industrial society to an industrial and information based society, as we see the electrification of transport and a range of other very exciting technological transformations sweep across the globe and sweep across Australia. It is critically important that the parliament, business, non-government organisations and the community more broadly have a very clear understanding of how those raw materials that go to drive our energy system are operating in the Australian economy.
It is, most obviously, critically important that everyone have a clear line of sight of our energy materials to ensure that we have energy security. Particularly in an island continent, removed from significant parts of the globe, it is critically important that at any point in time the Australian parliament and other players in the Australian economy have a clear line of sight of Australia's energy security. Connected to that, it is also important that we have an understanding about energy supply to ensure our compliance with international energy reporting, particularly under the auspices of the International Energy Agency—and I'll have a few more words to say about that because there are clear reporting and stockholding obligations to which Australia is a signatory under the auspices of the IEA and also matters that are of clear interest to our allies and partners across the world.
It is also important that the Australian government, the Australian parliament, be able to publish detailed statistics and data about our energy supply to ensure that business and investors, most importantly, are able to make wise investment decisions, with the fullest information available to them that is possible, but also that academics and other levels of government be able to make considered decisions about communications to their constituencies about the state of the energy market in Australia. I think it is fair to say that the transparency of some of Australia's energy resource markets does significantly lag behind comparator nations, and that has become most obvious in the gas market, as we've had a furious debate around the gas market in the eastern part of Australia—all of those parts other than the Northern Territory and Western Australia. It has been made clear by a number of expert independent commentators that the transparency of the eastern Australian gas market, frankly, leaves a lot to be desired, and it does lag behind a number of our competitor and comparator nations very significantly. That is causing a great deal of unease in the investment market, both in the market investing in gas per se and downstream in hampering investment decisions for those that are big gas users. Frankly, we need to do better than that.
For some decades, 40 years, the Australian government on both sides of the political divide has produced statistics on fuel through a voluntary survey of business, and for a good part of our history that has served the country and served the economy very well. The statistics derived from the information that was reported by businesses have been released in a range of longstanding government publications, the most notable of which probably is the Australian Petroleum Statistics, or the APS. But this bill really flows from the clear fact that in recent years the proportion of the fuels market that has been participating in that voluntary survey unfortunately has declined, reducing the reliability of the statistics that the Australian government is able to publish, particularly through the APS but otherwise as well. So the Turnbull government has taken the decision to introduce a system of mandatory reporting which will enable the development of more accurate, reliable and informative statistics on petroleum, other fuels and fuel related products. The Shorten opposition supports the government's decision in that respect, for the important reasons that I outlined earlier. Having good information is critical to the Australian economy by enabling us to ensure we have energy security but make the right investment decisions.
Importantly, mandatory reporting of petroleum and other fuels will also facilitate a return to compliance with the International Energy Agency, or the obligation of IEA signatories to hold oil stocks that are equivalent to 90 days of the previous year's average daily net oil imports. The capturing of all IEA-relevant stock under mandatory reporting will ensure that a much more accurate picture of Australia's stockholdings can be determined and can be published. The introduction of mandatory reporting also implements a major recommendation of the Senate References Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport inquiry that dealt with this matter in a report published in 2015. That is an important development—to implement the recommendations that were made two years ago by that Senate committee, which explored a whole range of the matters that I and the minister, when he introduced the bill, have dealt with.
The bill empowers the Minister for the Environment and Energy to require persons who are specified in the rules to report prescribed information to the secretary of the department, which incorporates the mandatory element of this bill. The bill then empowers the secretary to collect, record, use and disclose this information, or statistics that are developed from the information, in certain circumstances. Importantly, the bill provides a range of safeguards to ensure that personal and commercial in-confidence information, obviously, is able to be protected in that collection and publication process. The bill also provides the minister with wide-ranging powers to designate certain activities, fuels and fuel related products as reportable. It is important, in a fast-moving and fast-developing sector such as energy, that there is the scope to add additional activities and products to ensure that the statistics that are published by the Australian government remain relevant and remain critical to those investment decisions as consumer preferences change and as technology continues to advance, as it is doing so quickly in so many different sectors of our economy, whether that's the development of hydrogen fuelled cars, electric battery-powered cars or the like.
The minister also has the power to relax the reporting requirements—for example, where data-sharing between different government agencies removes the need to collect information directly. That is an important efficiency measure that the Shorten opposition supports as well. The Petroleum and Other Fuels Reporting (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill that we're debating cognately also enables the ACCC and the Australian Taxation Office to share information with the department, which might obviate the need for separate reporting and is, as I said, an important efficiency measure.
I can indicate that the opposition does support this bill, but can I also foreshadow that I will be moving, at the end of my remarks, a second reading amendment to this bill to highlight the fact that, although we think this is a laudable and important contribution to sensible energy policy in this country, every debate in this chamber on energy policy just serves to highlight the gaping vacuum in serious energy policy—investment policy—that has endured under this government for the past four years, frankly, whether it was under Prime Minister Abbott or now under Prime Minister Turnbull. The opposition is deeply concerned, as are most players in the Australian economy and Australian society, about the ongoing paralysis in energy policy more broadly that continues under this government. Australia, undeniably, is in the throes of a very deep energy crisis, and, unlike so many energy crises that we've experienced over the decades previously, since World War II, this is not a crisis that has been engendered by an external shock. This is largely self-inflicted because of a range of factors—most importantly, the absence of a clear, stable and enduring national energy policy with investments, to be frank, that can be taken to the bank.
This energy crisis is manifesting in so many different ways, but, perhaps most importantly and most obviously, it has manifested in the doubling of wholesale power prices. Wholesale prices in the electricity market, in the four years that this government has been in power, are feeding through to power bills for households and for businesses that are just going up and up and up. We know the reason for that. We know the principal reason for that because, alongside all of those business groups that have called upon this government to finally put in place an enduring energy policy—the Business Council; the electricity industry; the National Farmers' Federation; and the Finkel panel, most recently, chaired by the Chief Scientist, Alan Finkel—the Reserve Bank Governor added his voice only last Friday to the cacophony of voices calling for this parliament, this government, to finally adopt a national energy policy. The Reserve Bank Governor was giving evidence on Friday to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics, I think it was.
Mr Keogh interjecting—
Yes, it was the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics, as the member for Burt reminds me. He is a hardworking member of that committee, among many others of my colleagues. The Reserve Bank Governor echoed the plaintive calls from so many business organisations for this parliament to get its act together under the leadership, obviously, of the Australian government and put in place an energy policy.
It is worth quoting from a couple of the Reserve Bank Governor's remarks. The Reserve Bank Governor was asked about the energy crisis, and he particularly said, first of all, that the most important factor driving that crisis was 'uncertainty in the policy environment'. He said that this is delaying investment not just in the electricity sector—which is leading to supply starting to get to a position where it falls short of demand because of investment paralysis. That is very different from the position that we had for most of the last decade, where we had a surplus of wholesale power supply. He didn't just point to that, which many other organisations have pointed to; he also said that, because of the skyrocketing power prices that households and businesses are experiencing under this government, investment decisions more downstream in the economy are starting to be delayed as well, because businesses don't know when they are going to get price relief. They don't know when they're going to get price relief in their power bills and their gas bills, because this government just cannot seem to get its act together and respond to the key central recommendations that business groups and, more recently, the Finkel panel, have made.
In relation to households, the Reserve Bank Governor made these remarks—these incredibly important remarks. He said: 'The higher prices of electricity are also affecting household budgets, particularly for lower income households, who spend a disproportionately high share of their income on electricity. It's crippling their budgets and having an effect on consumption.' Although I know that my friend the member for Hughes and I disagree about the causes of this, we agree on the symptoms. We agree that this is crippling, particularly, low-income household budgets. When asked by the deputy chair of that committee, the member for Kingsford Smith, 'So it would help if the Australian parliament sorted out this issue on a clean energy target and provided some policy certainty?', the Governor said, 'I couldn't disagree with the proposition that providing some certainty about the future structure of the electricity generation industry would be useful for the country, for investment, on prices and on household budgets. Yes.' That is a critical contribution to economic policy by the Reserve Bank Governor.
While the Prime Minister professes to cry crocodile tears and have concern for the position, particularly, of low-income households, we also learnt some very precise data about something that we've been seeking to draw the parliament's attention to for some time. We learnt precise data on Sunday, when the Sydney newspaper the Sunday Telegraph published clear data on the impact of the Prime Minister's insistence on stripping the energy supplement from hundreds and hundreds of thousands of pensioners, carers and other benefit recipients in the Australian economy. Just to remind the House, at a time of spiralling power prices, this Prime Minister intends to rip from the hands of hundreds of thousands of low-income households the energy supplement that provides them, if they are single, with $365 per year, and, if they're a couple, with $550 a year, to help with the cost of power—to help with the cost of energy. That is why it's called an energy supplement. Why you would do that at a time when power bills are out of control and wholesale prices have doubled under this government beggars belief, particularly when the Prime Minister tries to profess his deep concern for the predicament of low-income households with their power bills. The Sunday Telegraph pointed out on the weekend that more than 400,000 age pensioners will lose the energy supplement. More than 109,000 Australians on the disability support pension will lose the energy supplement; 105,000 informal carers, caring for their loved ones in their home, will lose the energy supplement; and many, many other benefit recipients will lose it as well.
The Prime Minister made a lot of the meeting that he had last week with the retailers. As we've said in our discussions since 2015, and expressly in our election policy last year—we have been saying this for months and months—these energy market rules are not working for consumers. Too often they are working in the interests of the big power companies. Many of those big power companies are operating businesses that were privatised over the past two decades by Liberal state governments, making very big profits off the back of Australian consumers, particularly Australian households.
Finally, the Prime Minister woke up to this, as he did with the gas prices. Even though we'd been talking about this for two years, he finally woke up and decided to pull the retailers into a meeting and jawbone them, to give them a stern talking to, wagging his prime ministerial finger. And at the end of that he said: 'Everything's fixed. There aren't going to be any rip-offs anymore; households are going to get the best possible deal.' But then, on Friday, only two days after the meeting with retailers, we read in the Financial Review an interview with Energy Consumers Australia, an organisation set up particularly to represent the interests of consumers, particularly household consumers, in the national electricity market, and an organisation that's doing very important things to improve the lot of consumers, to improve the information that they receive in order to make the best possible choice in the national electricity market. Well, that interview drew attention to the possibility that there were millions of customers whose position would not be improved one jot, one iota, by the meeting and the stern talking to that the energy retail companies received from the Prime Minister last week.
So all of the Prime Minister's attempts to have a meeting here and a press conference there, professing concern for the predicament of households with their power bills, really comes to very little when you look at what he's doing on the other hand: ripping the energy supplement from hundreds of thousands of low-income households and trying to come up with a solution with the retailers that leaves literally millions of households probably no better off than they were before the retailers got the stern talking to from him.
But at the end of the day we come back to the key problem, and that is that there is no central, stable, enduring energy policy in this country. As with so many things with this government, when they were in opposition, under the member for Warringah, they had a very clear plan to get into government. They had a very clear plan about what they were going to rip up, destroy and dismantle. The problem was that in so many policy areas they had no plan about what they were going to put in their place, and none more so than the area of energy policy. They dismantled all of Labor's climate and energy policies. They tried to dismantle the renewable energy target in its entirety. They weren't able to do that; they just gave it a very significant shave. They tried to dismantle every single element of our climate and energy policy without putting anything in its place.
I gave credit to the minister for cooperating with the state energy ministers and the COAG Energy Council and commissioning the Chief Scientist, a very clever, insightful man, to head a wise panel to look at these issues and start to bring together a range of different strands that had started to develop at the state and federal level around energy policy into a single report to give the country a blueprint about a way forward that would allow us to get back to our legacy, our tradition, of having good, reliable energy provided at an affordable price for households and business but also deal with the challenge of getting our carbon pollution down, dealing with the fact that we have an electricity sector in this country that is twice as polluting, on average, as the American electricity sector and the OECD average and reconciling those challenges that are, as the Chief Scientist calls them, the 'trilemma' of reliability, affordability and sustainability. And while I've publicly disagreed with a whole range of the underlying assumptions of the Finkel panel, it did a great job, pulling together a range of 50 very important recommendations. The critical recommendation, though, is to have a clear energy policy.
On the weekend the minister did an interview with Sky's Agenda, I think it was, on Sunday morning, where he repeated a remark that he's made a couple of times.
Opposition members interjecting—
Yes. A few people were watching it. He repeated a remark he's made before, which is: 'Well, the clean energy target's only going to start in 2020, so there's no rush. We'll get back to you in, I don't know, 2018 or maybe 2019. As long as it's all in place by 2020, it'll be fine.' He didn't quite say that, but that was the underlying implication. He said there's no rush. He said before that there's no rush to deal with this. Well, that's not the view of the business sector, I can tell you, because there is an investment freeze. Other than the renewable energy target, which is doing well at the moment, it will start to roll off in terms of investment decisions in the course of the next year. In broad terms, there is an investment freeze. The Reserve Bank governor described this only on Friday. Until the investment community—banks, equity lenders, the electricity industry and downstream investors that are seeking to make decisions about their factories and suchlike—gets a clear signal from this building about what energy policy is going to be in the medium to long term, that investment strike will continue.
I just want to contrast the words of the minister describing this as a no-rush situation with the clear words of the Finkel panel, because in recommendation 3.2 of their report, where the panel dealt with this question of a clean energy target, the words could not be clearer from the Chief Scientist and his panel:
There is an urgent need for a clear and early decision …
There is an urgent need for a clear and early decision on the clean energy target. I urge the government not to think that this is some position they can revisit over the next 12 or 18 months; it needs a clear resolution this year. We need to get to this.
It's all well and good to have this bill and some of the other bills that are being dealt with today and in coming weeks where there are some good decisions being taken by this government, but they will not amount to much if we do not deal with the central recommendation of the Finkel report. The minister knows what needs to be done. I'm pretty sure the Prime Minister knows what needs to be done. He just needs to summon the courage to take it through the coalition party room. With those remarks, I move a second reading amendment:
That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
“whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading the House notes the Government’s:
(1) lack of national energy policy, which is causing an investment strike in new electricity generation; and
(2) failure to ensure an adequate and affordable gas supply for Australian industry while Australia becomes the world’s largest LNG exporter”.
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 Port Adelaide has moved an amendment that all words after 'that' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. If it suits the House, I will state the question in the form that the amendment be agreed to. The question now is that the amendment be agreed to.
I rise to speak on the Petroleum and Other Fuels Reporting Bill 2017 and related bill. It is always interesting to follow a member of the Labor Party from South Australia after he gives us a lecture on energy prices. We all know that the policies that South Australia followed to give certainty to the South Australian industry have delivered the highest electricity prices in the entire world. That would take some special achievement, a special set of skills, a special set of policies, to have the highest electricity prices in the world, but that is exactly what the Labor Party have done in South Australia.
We have members of the Labor Party from South Australia coming in here and lecturing us on energy policy. Recently, we saw the disaster in South Australia with their beautiful, wonderful renewable energy target for the clean, green state of South Australia in order to keep the lights on over this coming summer: they're bringing in banks of diesel generators that will chew through 80,000 litres of diesel fuel an hour. Just think about that: 80,000 litres an hour. That's the equivalent of four large petrol tankers every single hour to keep the lights on.
Yesterday, we had the announcement of a solar thermal electricity plant. No-one in their right mind or no-one who cared about the cost of energy generation or about making sure that the investments are what is needed in this country would invest in a thermal plant. Just look at some of the recent costings, Mr Deputy Speaker, to see how completely and hopelessly uncompetitive a solar thermal plant is. These are from America's US Energy Information Administration. These are the latest numbers for the levelised cost of electricity generation for new plants entering service in 2019: advanced-cycle gas, $48.80 a megawatt hour; wind, $57 a megawatt hour; solar PV, $77 a megawatt hour. So we have $48 for gas, $57 for wind and $77 for solar PV, but for solar thermal it is $217. It is three to four times the cost of wind and five times the cost of gas. It is completely and utterly insane, if you have any concern about the cost of energy in this nation, to invest in a solar thermal plant, but this is exactly what we're seeing in SA—and we wonder why the cost of electricity in this nation is so high.
If the member for Port Adelaide is so concerned about the cost of electricity, I say: join with us, join with me, and let's freeze the subsidies. There is already $3 billion—that is, three thousand million dollars—that is going to be added to consumer bills this year, and there will be more next year and more the year after, to subsidise the renewable energy target. If the member for Port Adelaide is really concerned, let's freeze that target. If we want policy certainty, let's give some policy certainty to industry and freeze that target, because it is adding an incredible $3 billion annually. And they are only the direct subsidies. Of course, there are all the hidden, indirect subsidies. There's the additional cost of distortion in the market. If we want certainty, we know the way forward.
But the market can't have certainty. The paralysis is because anyone that invests, whether it be in coal-fired generation or gas-fired generation, needs to get a return for at least 20 to 30 years and they are terrified that in those next 20 to 30 years a mad, crazy, green, Left Labor government will come in and pull the rug from underneath them. That is why the investment is not occurring in this country. That is why we are punishing consumers with such high electricity prices.
The member for Port Adelaide complained in his speech about Australia's emissions from electricity being much higher than America's. There's a simple reason for that. The Americans have a thing called nuclear power. If we want to match America's emissions in our electricity sector, maybe we should copy them in having the same percentage of nuclear power plants. Maybe we should encourage more drilling for gas, like the Americans have done, because the other reason they have lower CO2 emissions per unit of electricity generated is their gas. Yet we see Labor governments—state Labor government after state Labor government—wanting to ban any further exploration and drilling for gas.
These bills establish the compulsory collection of data on the production, refining, trade and stockholding of certain petroleum products, something that we need to make sure we are closer to our obligations under the International Energy Agency's commitments on energy fuel.
I understand there is some urgency in getting these bills to the Senate. There's one point I would like to leave on in my comments. The Labor Party want to have a Paris Agreement target of 40 per cent. That accounts for all sections across the economy. Fifteen per cent of our nation's CO2 emissions come from liquid fuels for transport and aviation. I would like any member of the Labor Party to explain to the Australian public how they will get a 40 per cent reduction in the use of our nation's liquid fuels by 2040. How are you going to get that? How will you get that in the aviation sector? How will you get that in transport? How will you get it in cars? What will you do with the price of petrol? Come and explain it to us. Put your cards on the table and explain to the Australian people how you will get a 40 per cent reduction in liquid fuel usage by 2030. They won't, because they know the havoc, the chaos and the disruption that that would cause to Australian families, industries and businesses. Instead, they'll go down the track that has caused the disaster in our electricity sector and they'll cause it in our transport sector.
I will leave my comments there. I commend these bills to the House. I call on Labor members: if you are really concerned, in your hearts, about Australian families having difficulty paying electricity bills, put aside that renewable energy target. Put aside those subsidies. Let's join as one and say that we actually care about Australian consumers' electricity bills—not some Green-left frolic of ideology and idiocy.
It's always interesting to follow the member for Hughes. Really, a Green-left frolic? You've got the entire world's climate scientists saying action is needed on climate change and energy policy. But, no, we should listen to the member for Hughes—he's the expert on everything! Who would believe that Australia could become the world's largest exporter of liquefied natural gas yet, at the same time, be facing a domestic gas shortage? That is what is occurring under this government, that the member for Hughes is a member of, which, for four years, has sat on its hands instead of adapting to the change in circumstances. In recent months those on the other side have stirred from their slumber and have realised that there is an energy crisis in Australia. Their answer? It is to blame Labor and continue childish attacks upon the renewable energy sector.
As investment in renewable power exceeds $260 billion—more than double what was invested in coal and gas—we have members opposite all but declaring war on renewable energy. We have the former Prime Minister, the member for Warringah, and his sidekick the member for Hughes calling on their own government to scrap the renewable energy target. The climate change wars continue on that side. What could they have done in four years if the flat-earthers over there had not been waging a climate change war within their party room, a war that shows no sign of abating? They could have used the past four years to develop a national energy policy, for a start. Instead, here we are, nearly half a decade into the coalition's term of government, with Australia the largest LNG exporter in the world, with the future of coal-fired power in the balance and a $3 billion renewable energy sector swinging in the wind. And those opposite only now realise that energy is, perhaps, something they should be paying more attention to.
Anyone who has dealt with the Australian gas market knows it is one of the least transparent industry sectors in the country. No-one knows how much gas is produced, who holds it, how much is sold, how much it is sold for or where it goes. So Labor are supporting this bill before the House because we believe Australians deserve to know more about the state of this country's fuel reserves, including gas. Under international agreements, Australia is obligated to hold enough fuel to keep the place running for 90 days, but we have not been keeping those commitments. We have been down to 48 days of fuel in this country—an unnerving prospect in uncertain times. Under this government Australia's maritime fleet and heavy-machine manufacturing capabilities have been gutted, impacting on our national security. But that's an argument for another time.
It is clear that voluntary arrangements with the energy industry to keep the government informed about fuel movements are not working. So this bill establishes a mandatory reporting regime and empowers the minister and department employees to distribute collected information while protecting that which is commercially sensitive. These are sensible measures. But no-one should think that this is in any way a solution to the energy crisis that is unfolding right now under this government. This is an energy crisis that has seen wholesale gas prices for Australian industry skyrocket from $4 a gigajoule a few years ago to $20 a gigajoule today. The international average is around $8.
To give some context to what we're talking about, Australia produces about 2,607 petajoules and consumes 1,500 each year. One petajoule is equal to one million gigajoules, meaning we produce in Australia 2.6 billion gigajoules a year and consume about 1.5 billion. That means wholesale consumption costs have quadrupled from $6 billion a year to $30 billion a year. To give you an idea of what a gigajoule is, the average Tasmanian consumes 207 gigajoules every year for lighting, heating and other uses. That's an increase from $828 to $4,140 per Tasmanian every year. I know these are wholesale industry prices and not retail household prices, which are much higher still, but they give some idea of how these price rises may be impacting Australians at the household budget level, let alone the cost burden that they place on industry and its international competitiveness.
Labor have been warning the government for years about the need for a national policy and, unlike the government, we have been developing a coherent plan. In 2015 we adopted a national interest test for gas at our national conference. At last year's election we announced how that test, applied under a Labor government, will ensure exports won't come at the expense of domestic users. What was the government's response to Labor's national interest test? There were shrill cries of 'red tape' and unfounded claims that it would hamper investment. Under those opposite, gas prices for Australian industry have quadrupled and they have no plan to address it. What a hopeless, hapless performance from a government that is unfit to run a lemonade stall, let alone a nation.
The International Energy Agency has slammed the administration of Australia's gas network, saying it is a market failure for domestic prices to have risen above those that are charged to export customers. It is up to government to intervene where markets fail and to guide markets so their outcomes have a community benefit, not just a private benefit. Grattan Institute Energy Program director Tony Wood says the government needs to act swiftly and release decisive targets or risk watching state governments embark on their own renewable energy plans that operate in a piecemeal fashion. But, instead of working cooperatively with the states, this government throws rocks at them, mocking them for taking action and blaming them for its failure of leadership. This government is so chaotic when it comes to energy policy that yesterday we heard that the Treasurer told a forum over the weekend that the era of cheap coal-fired power is coming to an end—just months after he brought a rock of coal into the parliament to extol coal's virtues as a source of abundant cheap power.
Today he's bringing a kiwi fruit.
Today he's bringing a kiwi fruit—thank you, member for Lalor! According to the AFR the Treasurer is now saying, 'Cheap new coal is a bit of a myth. Let's not think that there's cheap new coal; there's not,' he told a gathering of the Wombat Hollow Forum. This government's position on coal has been confusing, to say the least. Does anyone really know where the government stands, let alone the government? The Prime Minister proposed an idea to subsidise new coal, but that's been comprehensively rejected by the Prime Minister's own commissioned review by the Chief Scientist, as it would increase pollution, drive up power prices and leave taxpayers with a massive bill. The cleanest coal plants have emission intensities above 700 kilograms of CO2 per megawatt hour—twice as polluting as a modern gas plant.
I might just insert a plug here for biomass. As a renewable and reliable energy source, biomass can generate baseload energy on demand with virtually no net contributions to global emissions. Burning biomass releases no new carbons but releases what would be released naturally as organic matter decomposes. What's more, well-managed biomass can result in no net loss to plantations or forests, with essentially one or two trees planted for every one that is harvested. Technological advances regarding pelletisation have also resulted in a much more efficient burn rate. I mentioned biomass in my first speech to the parliament last year, and I continue to advocate for it as an underappreciated renewable energy source. It is an accepted baseload energy source across Europe and its potential deserves more scrutiny here, particularly in my home state.
But I come back to the Treasurer losing his love for coal. His cooled ardour will no doubt wound his fossil fuel fellow travellers, like the member for Hughes, whose heads remain stuck in the sand when it comes to the future of energy in Australia. But what the Treasurer's comments really do is underscore the chaos and inconsistency from this government regarding broader energy policy. For the past four years, Australian industry and Australian consumers have been pummelled by a government that simply doesn't know whether it's Arthur or Martha—or perhaps Tony or Malcolm—on energy. The former Treasurer, Mr Hockey, sent wind energy investment into a tailspin when he remarked how ugly he thought the turbines on his drive to Canberra were. The former Prime Minister has extolled the virtues of coal so often that I'm surprised he hasn't bitten into a piece to display his affection. The Clean Energy Finance Corporation was to be abolished, but then it wasn't. The current Prime Minister used to be a champion of renewable energy, but now that he's actually in a position to do something he's not on the field. He's at the back of the bleachers, hiding from a back catalogue of broken promises and disappointments. Six months ago the current Treasurer brought a rock of coal into the parliament for his colleagues to fondle; yet here he is now, admitting that coal's future in this country is limited.
He lost his lump!
He's lost his lump! Chaos, contradiction, uncertainty and backflips—what a disaster this government has been for energy policy and energy investment.
I started this speech saying those opposite do not have a national energy policy, but that is not strictly true. In this year's budget, the government did institute a national energy policy, and that policy was to inflict higher power prices on Australia's pensioners. Yes, after four years in government, those opposite believe their best contribution to developing a national energy policy is to make the nation's pensioners pay more for their power. Bravo! Slow clap! I'm referring, of course, to the axing of the national energy supplement for pensioners, which has had the immediate effect of forcing pensioners to find an extra $365 a year to pay their ever-rising power bills. Their power bills continue to rise because this government have failed to implement a coherent energy policy that will contain prices and drive them down.
The head of Australia's peak body for welfare organisations says that the welfare sector is:
… deeply concerned about the impacts of increasingly high prices on people who are disadvantaged and living on low incomes.
The Australian Council of Social Service chief, Cassandra Goldie, says:
The price of electricity has increased by 114 per cent over the past decade, leaving many people having to choose between paying high bills or heating their house and buying enough food to feed their family.
This is the reality that people in my electorate live with every day.
I'm sorry to report that an Australian National University study found that Tasmanian electricity bills are, on average, the second highest in the country, at $2,181 a year. This is especially troubling given that Tasmanian incomes are amongst the lowest in the nation and our rates of socioeconomic disadvantage are higher across the board. Tasmanians are, on average, paying 66 per cent more for power than we did 10 years ago and spending more of our household budget on electricity than anywhere else in the country—and that's despite being home to an abundance of cheap, renewable hydropower. It's fair to say that there's a bit of disquiet in my state about the state of the national electricity grid and whether it's working in the best interests of the people of my state. That's a debate we're having in Tasmania. I was going to talk about fuel prices in Tasmania—perhaps another time. I think one of my constituents paid 109c on the Princes Highway at Noble Park and a day later in Tasmania paid 133.9c. It's a massive difference. For a 60-litre tank, that's a $14 difference. So you can see that the fuel increases in Tasmania are massive.
So, yes, we need medium- and long-term solutions. We also need action that will have an immediate impact when it comes to ensuring domestic supply to contain prices of gas and the other fuels that we have. The difficulty in securing gas supply and prices is impacting not just electricity prices and security today but also the viability of new gas-fired power stations. As the Prime Minister has pointed out, the Commonwealth wields significant powers to ensure domestic energy security, but so far all he has done is ask others to solve his crisis. This isn't good enough, and it's not strong leadership. Labor calls on the Prime Minister to actively deliver domestic gas security, not to continue to grandstand and blame others while he continues to preside over a chronic domestic shortage. Labor back this bill, but we certainly do not back this government's failure to enact a national energy policy.
Labor supports the Petroleum and Other Fuels Reporting Bill 2017, as it creates a reporting regime for petroleum and other fuels and fuel related products to improve Australia's fuel statistics. Some people may feel that statistics is a very dry subject, but I think this week and last week, more than ever, we have gained a very keen understanding of just how important statistical collection is to our country, and this bill goes further towards supporting statistical collection in the area of petroleum and other fuels. It will be key to have those statistics to be able to review and identify problems with fuel security levels in Australia.
The information collected under the mandatory reporting will be used to monitor energy security, to facilitate compliance with international reporting and stockholding obligations and to enable the publication of aggregate fuel statistics for use by business, investors, academics and government. The Petroleum and Other Fuels Reporting (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2017 also enables the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission and the ATO to share information with the department which will assist in reducing the reporting burden associated with the mandatory reporting obligations created under this bill.
The Australian government has produced statistics on the production, refining, import, export, consumption and end-of-month stocks of petroleum and fuels, such as ethanol, for over 40 years. The statistics derived from this information and reported by business are released in a range of government publications. The most notable of those is Australian petroleum statistics. APS contains detailed monthly stats on the production, refining, wholesaling and end-of-month stock levels of—wait for it; it's a very important list—crude oil, condensate, liquefied petroleum gas, natural gas, gasoline, diesel, kerosene, fuel oil, heating oil, naphtha, compressed natural gas, liquefied natural gas, oil lubricants and grease, paraffin wax, petroleum based solvents, petroleum coke, bitumen, biofuel, hydrogen, and other fuel related projects that may be prescribed under the rules. That point is quite important, and I will come back to it at the end of my remarks.
In recent years the proportion of the fuel market that participated in the voluntary survey that existed has been declining. That has reduced the reliability of the statistics that have been collated. Mandatory reporting will enable the development of more accurate, reliable and informative statistics on petroleum and other fuel products. These stats are vital to the government in the monitoring of our markets and energy security for our nation. Also, it's very useful for business to be able to monitor supply-and-demand trends and priorities for future investment; and for international organisations, to help compile global statistics that not only increase market transparency but also help us understand energy consumption at a global level. Mandatory reporting also forms part of the government's plan to return to compliance with their obligation to the International Energy Agency to hold oil stocks equivalent to 90 days of the previous year's average daily net oil imports. The capturing of all IEA-relevant stock under mandatory reporting will ensure an accurate picture of Australia's stockholding position, which is very important. The introduction of this reporting also implements a major recommendation of the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee from 2015. It's good when the government gets around to doing things so quickly. But what these statistics will show is that Australia now imports some 91 per cent—
Order! The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour, and the member for Burt will be given an opportunity to conclude his speech at that time.
On behalf of Labor I extend my best wishes to Hindu communities in Australia and around the world on the celebration of Krishna Janmashtami. Janmashtami marks the birth date of Lord Krishna, the eighth divine incarnation for Hindus. Lord Krishna's beginnings, as a young child who enchanted worshippers with his musical skills and political wisdom over 5,000 years ago, are detailed in Hindu scriptures. Among the strong messages Lord Krishna taught is to discharge one's duties without attachment to the fruit of its action, a message that transcends religion. On this joyous occasion Hindu communities, families and friends will often decorate their homes and shrines with colourful signs and attend the temple for special programs which run until midnight. One of the most popular parts of the celebration is to adorn the cradles of the child form of Lord Krishna and gently swing the cradle throughout the day. Voices ring to the sound of bells ringing, singing melodious Sanskrit hymns in honour of Lord Krishna during the day until midnight. We're fortunate to have such a wonderful blend of different faiths and religious celebrations in Australia, in our modern, multicultural nation. In the differences of our faiths, we all share the values of the desire for peace in uncertain times, the love for life and land, and the hope for a prosperous future, united as one with many stories: our Australia.
Today I want to talk about a key part of my electorate: the suburb of Wishart. I spent some time in Wishart over the winter break, talking with residents and local groups about what's important to them. There was a great turnout at the NBN information session that I held recently for local residents and businesses. NBN Co has confirmed with me that this week over 4,300 premises in Wishart will be switched over to the NBN. These homes and businesses can expect a letter in the mail soon about the next steps they should take to connect to the NBN.
I recently met with the Wishart State School P&C Association to hear the latest on their five-year improvement plan. The P&C adopted this plan in July last year to help focus their fundraising efforts. They've already completed their first goal of putting air-conditioning in their resource centre. This October they're holding a spring carnival to raise funds to help them complete more of their goals, and I look forward to being there. I also met with the Neighbourhood Watch Upper Mount Gravatt Area 16 to discuss the best ways to tackle local crime in Wishart and surrounding areas. The next round of the government's Safer Communities Fund is coming up soon, and I encourage them to apply.
It's always great to catch up with my constituents in Wishart. I will be doing so again this weekend at a mobile office in Devlin Street Park, with the state member for Mansfield, Mr Ian Walker, and councillor for MacGregor, Councillor Steven Huang.
I stand up in this place today as a former federal prosecutor, and I want to speak about the travesty that is being visited upon the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions Office by this government. The independence and proper functioning of the Commonwealth DPP is vital for our criminal justice system, but now the Commonwealth DPP are proposing to outsource not just their administrative staff but also the actual prosecuting lawyers in their office. They want to use agency lawyers in the Commonwealth DPP. But wait for it: this isn't to save money; it's just to reduce headcount. It's to comply with a target that has been applied by this government just to save on headcount, but it won't actually change the headcount; they'll bring in the lawyers from agency firms. It won't save any money. It's going to cost the agency more, it's going to cost the government more and, after decades of efficiency dividends gutting the Commonwealth DPP and insufficient funds being allocated to it at a time when we're allocating—rightly—more and more funds to law enforcement, where's the money going to the people who have to prosecute these cases? There isn't any. All there is is cuts, and now we're seeing those cuts having the stupid effect of cutting a headcount by outsourcing the prosecutors and outsourcing admin staff within the Commonwealth DPP—and not to save money; it's actually going to cost them more. This is just another example of this how this government is trying to gut the Commonwealth Public Service and how it is not standing up for public servants—and I will.
I recently had the pleasure of announcing a grant of $3 million for the Events Centre Caloundra under the government's Building Better Regions Fund. This grant is going to help the events centre do even more to bring our community together and draw tourists to the Sunshine Coast with its world-class performance experiences. The events centre will get improved acoustics; upgraded foyer, bar, cafe and box office facilities; and new air conditioning throughout the building. Importantly, the grant will also allow the centre to increase accessibility at the main entrance and install facilities for patrons with a disability. As board member Don Smith says, 'Now we're going to have a facility that's fit for the Queen.'
I was actively involved in supporting this application from the beginning and I could not be happier with the outstanding results. The team at the events centre put in a huge effort to involve local people in the application, and this success is testament to that hard work. Congratulations to Don, Gary Mears, Councillor Tim Dwyer and all of the staff at the events centre and the local council who were involved in putting together this fantastic application.
Last week, I had the pleasure of being joined by the shadow minister for defence, the honourable Richard Marles; alongside the acting Mayor of Ipswich, Councillor Paul Tully; the state Labor candidate for Jordan, Mrs Charis Mullen; and members of the local community to call for a consultation process by the federal government and the Department of Defence to see the Springfield environmental corridor placed in community hands. Equal in size to 10 Suncorp Stadium precincts, the 137-hectare parcel of land is currently owned by the Department of Defence. However, it sits directly adjacent to housing and the local school, Woodcrest State College, meaning Defence activities are significantly restricted.
Throughout the past 12 months, and indeed during the 2016 federal election campaign, the Springfield community have been calling for the bushland to be handed over to the local Ipswich City Council and put to better use. From bushwalking and birdwatching all the way through to heritage and cultural walking tracks, this land is an important part of Springfield, and it is what we call the 'green lungs' of Springfield. It should be handed over to the local community. Such handovers are not without precedent, including the rezoning of nearby Wacol bushland back in 2005. The Springfield community have been loud and clear that this land should be handed over to the local council and kept in public hands. I call on the federal government and the Department of Defence to engage with the community, listen to what locals have to say and see this bushland protected for the future.
Right now we're in the middle of the 20th annual National Science Week. It runs until 20 August and it's an outstanding opportunity for all Australians to celebrate and discuss important scientific discoveries and to recognise the ways in which science has shaped our lives. National Science Week has become one of Australia's biggest events, with more than a million people expected to take part in around 1,000 events across the nation. We know that many jobs of the future are going to be based around science, maths and engineering, so this is a great opportunity to recognise the hard work of our Australian scientists and also to inspire the next generation of scientists, to ensure that their passion and knowledge are passed on.
Schools around our nation have been invited to join a virtual classroom on the topic of 'future earth', hearing about world-class Australian scientists working in the space industry. One of the schools taking part will be the outstanding Niagara Park Public School, where year 5 and 6 students will be taking part in the virtual lesson, followed by hands-on STEM activities—in this case, designing a parachute. At Kincumber High School, students have been part of a local waterway monitoring project, conducting water quality tests and surveys of Kincumber Creek to determine the health of the habitat. It's a fantastic example of science coming to life, inspiring and educating our next generation. National Science Week's popularity over two decades underlines the important role it plays in shaping our present and our future. I encourage everyone to get involved.
With the 20th anniversary of the closing of Coats Paton, I reflect on the changing face of employment in northern Tasmania. At its peak, Coats Patons was the largest mill of its type in the Southern Hemisphere. Over 2,000 people were employed at its site in the early 1970s. The loss of this icon was felt deeply, not just as an economic impact but also as a very real loss of history. The transition from this manufacturing past to a knowledge and skill based workforce was painful, and the scars still show. Launceston lost its textile mills, railway workshops and thousands of skilled jobs, but, starting in the early 1990s, Launceston took stock and changed focus. There was redevelopment of the railyard site and diversification of its economy to tourism, health, education and new agricultural opportunities, particularly in viticulture and investment in irrigation.
Now we need to prepare our children for jobs that have not yet been imagined. That workforce must be flexible and skilled. It cannot happen without preparation and planning. I'm passionate about the work being done at UTAS and, particularly, the Australian Maritime College on energy production and high-end maritime technology research and engineering. The Northern Tasmanian Development Corporation states that the most important investment regional communities can make is in education. That is why the UTAS relocation investment is vital for building the bedrock of our children's educational future and providing secure full-time, higher paid employment.
I rise today to update the House on the Prime Minister's recent visit to Albany in my electorate of O'Connor. The PM was warmly welcomed to Albany Senior High School by Principal Jenny Firth, Head Girl Danaleigh Victor and Head Boy Aiden Matson. He wished ASHS a happy birthday ahead of their 100th anniversary next year. The PM spoke to students about leadership qualities and received feedback on the challenges facing country kids pusuing tertiary studies in the city. In an art class he met students getting their hands dirty, before posing for selfies with school prefects amid stripy blazers and dazzling smiles. The PM tweeted 'Bright blazers and even brighter minds', which gave the school national exposure.
At the National Anzac Centre he was greeted by RSL WA president Peter Aspinall, Albany sub-branch president Geoff McNeill, Laurie Fraser and retired Brigadier Geoff Hand. The City of Albany Mayor, Dennis Wellington, CEO Andrew Sharpe and facility manager, Matthew Hammond, guided the PM through the award-winning facility, where he left a message for his chosen serviceman, saying: 'Your service kept us free. We thank and honour you. Lest we forget.' A civic reception was held after that for 300 people at the recently completed Centennial Park pavilion, which was built with an $8.5 million Commonwealth grant. I thank the City of Albany for hosting this event, where the PM gave a short address before mingling with school groups and community volunteer organisations, and he took the opportunity to thank two of Albany's World War II veterans, Harold Martin and Murry Maxton, for service to their country.
Labor has always said that the easiest, fastest, cheapest and least divisive way to deliver marriage equality is through a free vote in parliament. All 25 or so changes to the Marriage Act have been made by the parliament, so why is marriage equality any different? Unfortunately, thanks to this divided, dysfunctional government we are now faced with a $122 million non-binding postal survey on marriage equality, which is just a fabulous outcome for the Prime Minister. Despite Labor's concern about this non-binding postal survey, we have been encouraging people to sign up, to enrol to vote by 24 August. But like so much of what this government touches, this has not been easy.
We have been hampered by a lack of information, a lack of detail and a lack of clarity. My office has been inundated with questions from Canberrans asking: if people are overseas, can they vote early? How do people get a postal vote sent overseas if they're travelling, particularly if they're not staying in one place? What happens to people registered as silent voters? How does the information get given to the ABS? Do I need to register to receive the postal vote?
I encourage Canberrans to get on the AEC website to find out how to enrol to vote and to check if you are enrolled to vote and to change your details. The survey is not ideal, but Canberrans: get out there and enrol to vote. (Time expired)
I rise to encourage young Australians in the Goldstein electorate to enrol so that they can participate in their government's postal survey on marriage for same-sex couples. My view on this issue is unambiguous. I have always supported a change in the law, and now you get the opportunity to have your say. If you are not currently enrolled or you are not enrolled at your current address make sure you update your details at www.aec.gov.au.
This decision is your decision and, ultimately, you have to make a choice about the direction of this country. This is an opportunity, for the first time, generationally, to make our country and our Commonwealth a better place, where every Australian grows up with a sense of dignity and purpose in their lives and is treated equally before the law. But if you don't have your say because you're not enrolled, you have to fix it before 24 August. You can do so by simply going to www.aec.gov.au. If you need assistance, don't hesitate to contact the Goldstein electorate office: the number is (03)95574644. I encourage you to participate. You won't regret it.
Last Saturday I attended a Teej festival celebration in Hoppers Crossing organised by the Nepalese Organization of Wyndham and ably led by their president, Kamal Pyakurel. It was a privilege to be a part of the local Nepalese community's celebration of women. I was made to feel incredibly welcome and thoroughly enjoyed the dancing, laughter and spectacular dresses the women were wearing. I joined the local mayor, Henry Barlow, and other councillors at this event where the young MCs, Anuska and Anzelina, did a superb job of introducing everybody at the event and taking us through some of the detail of the evening. Anuska later did a dance performance, while Anzelina acted as an interpreter for me while I spoke to the people in this group.
The president gave a compelling speech where he expressed his love for Australia and his desire to make sure that he and his children make substantial contributions to repay the country that has given them so much. He spoke about how proud he was to be a member of the Wyndham community and how much he appreciated the opportunity to contribute to the local community and to Australia broadly. I could not think of better people to be Australian citizens than Kamal and his daughter Anzelina. With the changes that this government brought in yesterday, I'm worried about people like them and what those citizenship changes mean. (Time expired)
I rise today to commemorate and acknowledge the recent passing of Mick Morland, an icon from the La Trobe electorate who died in a tragic road accident last month. Mick served six terms as a councillor in our local government, including two separate years as the Mayor of the City of Casey. Last year, Mick was honoured with an OAM for his service to local government and his community, truly exemplifying the work and dedication that Mick gave over the last 25 years.
He was a staunch Rotarian who put in hundreds of hours volunteering with the Rotary Club of Narre Warren as well as being a passionate member of and volunteer with the local football club. Mick had great pride in his local area. He worked hard to deliver countless positive outcomes for our community, and whatever he took on was done to the best of his ability. He was involved in every major project in the local area.
Can I also say, on a personal note, that Mick was a great friend and supporter of mine. He was a Liberal branch member for so many years and a great supporter. I actually went up against him at a preselection and was successful, yet he was the first person to congratulate me and then worked on my campaign ever since. My thoughts are with his family—his wife, Kay, children and grandchildren. Above all, his legacy will live on in everything he achieved. Rest in peace, Mick Morland.
I, like many other Western Australians, was deeply saddened to hear last week of the death of former Labor senator for Western Australia Patricia Giles at the age of 88, but I'm also incredibly honoured to mark the occasion of her death with an acknowledgement and celebration of her life today.
Pat Giles is best known for her career-defining advocacy for women. She founded the Perth branch of the Women's Electoral Lobby in 1973 and was later the first woman on the executive of the Trades & Labor Council of Western Australia. When she was elected to the Senate in 1981, there were barely a dozen other women in our federal parliament.
Pat Giles, due to her amazing work, was instrumental in Labor's gender equality agenda in the 1980s and early 1990s. She led a number of international delegations and chaired the UN Global Commission on Women's Health. Following her retirement from politics, she continued to be an advocate, activist and mentor for women in the Western Australian community. In a fitting tribute, a few years ago a women's refuge in Perth's northern suburbs was named in her honour. EMILY's List has also created the Pat Giles Award in her honour, which is awarded annually to a woman advancing the lives of other women.
On behalf of all of the party, like others here, I extend my heartfelt condolences to all of her family—her children, Anne, Penelope, Fiona, Josephine and Timothy, now passed away; and also her grandchildren, Jessica, Michael, Brodie, Hugo and Rachel, now passed away. Pat Giles, your legacy will never be forgotten.
The National Disability Insurance Scheme is one of the most important social policy reforms undertaken by federal and state governments in recent years. All of us know Australians, be they family, friends or work colleagues, who are living with a disability, and any one of us could find ourselves or our loved ones, sometimes unexpectedly, facing life with a permanent or significant disability. The NDIS marks a major change in the way government provides support, with the introduction of packages which will better match people's personal circumstances and needs. We're giving back control to those with a disability, recognising that the old way too often represented a one-size-fits-all approach.
In New South Wales, the rollout of the NDIS is well underway. In the North Sydney region, it is estimated that 8,400 people will be part of the scheme by June 2019. Like all changes of this scale, many local residents are learning how the NDIS will relate to their own circumstances. I am, therefore, pleased that the National Disability Insurance Agency has agreed to participate in a forum I will be hosting so local residents can find out more about the NDIS and have their questions answered. The information session will be held on Tuesday, 29 August 2017, at Abbott Street, Cammeray, from 10.30 am to 1 pm. I encourage any resident who is interested in the NDIS to attend. These are important reforms, and I hope this forum will help our community better understand this scheme.
Namaste, kam cho, sat sri akal, vanakkam. I rise to wish a happy independence day to the citizens and descendants of the world's largest democracy—India. From scientific evidence of an Indian presence on our shores thousands of years ago to convict and free settlers arriving in the 1800s as labourers to Indian doctors, teachers and professionals migrating in the latter half of the 20th century, our two nations share many common values and traits, including the pride each of us holds in our respective multiculturalism. The bonds between our two nations have only grown over the years, including through migration, education, academia, culture and business.
In 2006, Australia had a population of 147,106 people of Indian background. By the latest 2016 census figures, this number had grown to over 455,000. In my local area, Blacktown was home to just over 7,000 residents of Indian heritage in 2006, which was 2.7 per cent of all residents. By 2016, this number was almost 26,000, comprising 7.6 per cent of residents.
I'm energised by the opportunities for a strengthened forward-looking relationship between India and Australia, a relationship which fully materialises into a regional Asia-Pacific partnership, incorporating links in business, innovation, diplomacy and trade. I wish the entire Indian community a joyous Indian Independence Day.
This Friday I'm looking forward to visiting the premier brain and spinal injury rehabilitation hospital in Australia—Royal Rehab, the Rehabilitation & Disability Support Network. This rehab hospital is one of the shining lights of Bennelong, founded by an amazing blind woman over 100 years ago. It has an incredible history of helping get people back on their feet after the toughest of tough times. Rugby league player Alex McKinnon is probably its most famous client recently, but he is only one of thousands who have benefitted from Royal Rehab's amazing work, each having incredible stories to tell.
I'll be supporting Royal Rehab's annual Wall of Fame celebration. This is held as part of national Brain Injury Awareness Week to celebrate the incredible achievements of the clients of Royal Rehab's brain injury unit who have literally reconstructed their lives. The clients publicly share the highs and lows of their rehabilitation journey and are then presented with a Wall of Fame ambassador badge and a hard copy of their story. These stories join the hundreds of others that are already lining the corridors of the brain injury unit, providing hope and inspiration to the new clients who are only now beginning their journey of recovery. Royal Rehab's Tony Staveley and Stephen Lowndes lead a wonderful staff. They should all be congratulated, and I look forward to supporting their very special day this week.
I refer to comments made by Senator Siewert yesterday which imputed that Labor have denied Newstart and youth allowance recipients an increase in their payments because we opposed, in the other place, a Greens private members bill that was introduced there. This is nothing but a cheap stunt by the Greens political party. Labor senators opposed that bill in the other place because it was just plain wrong. Section 53 of the Australian Constitution clearly states:
Proposed laws appropriating revenue or moneys, or imposing taxation, shall not originate in the Senate.
Senator Siewert's public comments are extremely misleading, and what we are seeing here is the Greens political party using Australia's—this is the shame of it—most vulnerable people as a prop to pull off a cheap political stunt. Make no mistake, those of us on this side, Labor, are fighting for the most vulnerable people in society. We are addressing inequality in a real way. We are fighting this coalition government's austerity measures, and that is what they are. They are attaching Centrelink auto-robo-debts, false debts, to the most vulnerable in Australia—the disabled, pensioners, students. We are fighting to restore penalty rates that make a difference to the working class, to working women, to migrant families. These people are not asking for a handout; these are people who are making choices between paying the power bill or paying the food bill. That is who we are fighting for on the side of the House. We are fighting for fairness for all Australians.
This Friday marks the 61st anniversary of the Battle of Long Tan, one of the most significant battles in which Australian forces were involved in Vietnam. On 18 August 1966, a small force of 108 members of D Company of the Australian Task Force were involved with an overwhelmingly larger Viet Cong force numbering somewhere between 1,500 and 2,500 soldiers. Facing these overwhelming numbers, the Australians withstood the assault. Eighteen Australians were killed and 24 were wounded in that battle, but when the battle was over it was discovered that not only had the Australians withstood the assault but there were 254 Viet Cong dead and the assault on Nui Dat had been stopped.
Despite being former enemies, our two countries have forged a strong partnership involving trade, tourism and culture. Along with the member for Cowan, I had the opportunity of participating in a human rights dialogue between Australia and Vietnam just last week. It occurred days before the commemoration of this battle, and it showed that Australia can make friends and be peaceful with former enemies.
The Australian Labor Party didn't want the farcical postal plebiscite currently being inflicted on LGBTI Australians by the Turnbull government, but if it's going to happen we'll throw ourselves behind the cause of equality and forcefully rebut arguments that relegate LGBTI Australians to the status of second-class citizens. Earlier this week the member for Menzies described LGBTI relationships as 'mere affectionate relationships', equivalent to his relationship with his cycling mates. This morning the member for Warringah claimed LGBTI relationships weren't 'diminished' by being denied equal status with hetero relationships, because they were 'different'. These statements do at least eschew the dissembling about kids and freedom of speech, and cut to the nub of the issue here. This is about whether we view LGBTI relationships in the same way as hetero relationships. Do we believe LGBTI Australians' relationships are as loving, as committed and as enduring as hetero ones and, as such, are deserving of equal treatment before the law or not?
I'm embarrassed and ashamed that this government is currently asking the Australian community to judge the quality of LGBTI Australians' relationships. But on this side of the chamber we recognise the human dignity of LGBTI Australians and their natural right to equal treatment before the law. We recognise that they are not different. We recognise the difference between a lifelong relationship of love and intimacy and a relationship with a cycling mate. We recognise LGBTI Australians as fellow human beings with equal rights and dignity. (Time expired)
I alert the House to the presence up in the gallery today of northern Mallee leaders and the community leadership from the Loddon-Murray, from the electorate of Murray and the electorate of Mallee. We build wealth by building capacity in our people. We build community by creating interaction. In our leadership course we take young, dynamic Australians on a great journey over a 12-month period. They've got to do community development, arts and culture, media and communications, regional economy and tourism, health, wellbeing, how to effect change through the state and federal political landscape, and water and environment.
We produce $5.1 billion worth of economic activity in the electorate of Mallee—$5.1 billion. Not many electorates in Australia can do that. But the best thing we produce is the people who live in the Mallee. The best thing we produce is hardworking Australians who want to contribute to their community and want to make this country a great place. Take the opportunity of this leadership course. It is envied—I bet you we should run it in every state, not just in the state of Victoria. Take the opportunity to admire and contribute. I'm sure that in this gallery are future representatives for the electorate of Mallee—I'm sure they will find a better guy than me in years to come! But I want to say that we are committed to ensuring that our people contribute to this great Australia, and the leadership program is a great program.
In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded.
My question is to the Prime Minister. It goes to the eligibility of members of cabinet to hold office. The Deputy Prime Minister told ABC Radio:
Unfortunately that's the law … They were members of parliament, but it's quite clear on Section 44 you can't be a member of parliament and have dual citizenship—it's black and white.
Why isn't the Prime Minister holding his deputy to his own standards?
The Leader of the Opposition should be aware that the Deputy Prime Minister does not claim to be a constitutional expert. The fact is—
Opposition members interjecting—
He does not. The Constitution—
Opposition members interjecting—
The Prime Minister will resume his seat. Members on my left! I remind members of what I said yesterday. We are not going to have a question time that continually obstructs the House, from members anywhere within it. The Prime Minister has the call.
Ms Butler interjecting—
The member for Griffith will leave under 94(a).
The member for Griffith then left the chamber.
The High Court has made it very clear in a number of cases that section 44 cannot be read literally and has to be read in accordance with its purpose and its intent, and there are limitations to its scope. There are a number of members on the Labor side—I can think of at least one who was a British citizen at the time she nominated for the last election. There's no question about that. To give the member for Braddon credit, her defence is that she had taken all reasonable steps to renounce her citizenship, but it had not been effective. If there were a strictly literal reading of section 44, she would be disqualified, because she certainly knew she was a British subject. So the point of the matter is: what the Deputy Prime Minister said in that interview was not a correct interpretation or description of the way the law operates. That's the fact.
Opposition members interjecting—
You can laugh as much as you like. But the constitution is interpreted by the High Court of Australia, and, as I've said, we are very, very confident that, when the matter of the eligibility of the member for New England comes before the High Court, he will be found to be qualified to sit in this parliament. That is consistent with the findings of the court.
But the real issue today—and I look forward to saying some more about it in the course of this question time—does go to an issue of allegiance and loyalty. No-one has ever doubted the loyalty of the Deputy Prime Minister to Australia, but what about the Leader of the Opposition conspiring with the Labour Party of New Zealand to undermine the government of Australia? He chose—in a way denounced by the Leader of the New Zealand Labour Party—to plot with his Labour Party comrades across the ditch to undermine the government— (Time expired)
Mr Brian Mitchell interjecting—
Mr Keogh interjecting—
Mr Taylor interjecting—
The members for Lyons, Burt and Hume are warned.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister update the House on the risks posed by foreign state interference in Australia's democratic processes and the measures the government is taking to protect the national interest?
We engage in this chamber in robust, even rowdy, debate, but we all operate—we trust—on the basis that our first loyalty is to Australia.
Mr Keogh interjecting—
The member for Burt will leave under 94(a).
The member for Burt then left the chamber.
What we have seen already in the Labor Party with Senator Dastyari is somebody who sold out the Labor Party's policy on the South China Sea in return for the payment of his legal expenses by a company called Yuhu Group led by Mr Xiangmo Huang, who had close links to China's Communist Party. That was cash for comment—no question about that whatsoever. Senator Dastyari was, for a very short time, dropped from the Labor executive as a result. In the last week we have seen the Australian Labor Party contact a Labour member in the New Zealand parliament and ask him to raise issues about the citizenship of the Deputy Prime Minister—
Mr Danby interjecting—
The member for Melbourne Ports is warned.
with the purpose and intent of undermining the Commonwealth of Australia's government. So outrageous and improper was that conduct that it has been condemned already by Jacinda Ardern, the Leader of the New Zealand Labour Party. She has condemned it. The question that we have for the Leader of the Opposition in Australia is: does he have the same character as Jacinda Ardern? Is he prepared to name the person who went to New Zealand to get them to ask those questions? Is he prepared to condemn that use of a foreign political party and a foreign parliament to undermine the government of Australia? He could have—very simply, straightforwardly and honestly—asked the Deputy Prime Minister a question. He could have asked him a question. Why didn't he do that? I will tell you why.
Mr Champion interjecting—
The member for Wakefield will leave under 94(a).
If they asked the Deputy Prime Minister to demonstrate that he was in compliance with section 44, they would have to expose—
The member for Wakefield will leave under 94(a). The Prime Minister will resume his seat. I've asked the member for Wakefield to leave under 94(a).
Mr Champion interjecting—
That's because you couldn't stop yelling. I am not going to let some members of this House disrupt question time for other members of this House. I need to hear the question and the answer; other members of this House are here on behalf of their electorates to participate in the parliament; and it's certainly not what the public have come to see.
The member for Wakefield then left the chamber.
If they had asked the Deputy Prime Minister for details of his citizenship—
Mr Watts interjecting—
The member for Gellibrand will leave under 94(a).
The member for Gellibrand then left the chamber.
they would have then had to provide details of their own eligibility and their own compliance with section 44. We have had assurances that everyone on the Labor side is in compliance, but we have had no evidence. We've had that great barrister, the member for Isaacs, say he is satisfied they are all in compliance. But where are the documents? Let's see them. (Time expired)
Is the Manager of Opposition Business seeking to table a document?
I seek to table the statement from Peter Dunne MP in New Zealand, who says:
This is so much utter nonsense - while Hipkins' questions were inappropriate, they were not the instigator. Australian media inquiries were.
Honourable members interjecting—
Leave is not granted. I will just say to some of those on my left, I thought it was a fairly obvious point that the clock's ticking. It's their question time.
My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I refer to the foreign minister's extraordinary press conference today where the minister announced that Australia's relationship with New Zealand would be determined by the partisan politics of New Zealand's next election. If the foreign minister won't be able to work with the New Zealanders, how will the foreign minister work with the Deputy Prime Minister?
As the Manager of Opposition Business, who is quite experienced, knows, that question was out of order and I believe it was drafted in a way to be out of order. I go to the next question.
My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Will the minister advise the House how serious it is for a political party in Australia to engage a foreign political party to undermine the Australian government?
It is one of the fundamental responsibilities of nations around the world to protect the sovereignty of their country. Indeed, it is enshrined in our Constitution. And it is a principle of international law that nations do not seek to interfere in the domestic political processes of other countries. This morning there was an extraordinary development when it was revealed that the Leader of the Opposition had plumbed new depths in his underhanded behaviour when it was found that the Australian Labor Party was colluding with the New Zealand Labour Party, a foreign political party, to ask questions in the New Zealand parliament, a foreign parliament, designed deliberately to undermine confidence in the Australian government. Indeed, the New Zealand Leader of the Opposition herself admitted that the questions came from a member of the Labor Party in Australia.
The Leader of the Opposition must come clean on his role in this tawdry affair. While we were used to seeing the Leader of the Opposition do backroom deals and grubby negotiations while he was the leader of the union movement, it's quite another thing to bring his lack of ethics into international relations. It was the Leader of Opposition's party who sought to recruit members of the New Zealand Labour Party to ask questions in the New Zealand parliament that were deliberately designed to undermine confidence in the Australian parliament. The Leader of the Opposition has shown that he has no interest in the true concerns about section 44. Uncertainties are awash on his side of the parliament. There are so many members of the Labor party whose status is uncertain—
Mr Dreyfus interjecting—
The member for Isaacs is warned.
yet he didn't raise it with the Prime Minister and he didn't raise it in our parliament, in our question time. I quote from the Minister of Foreign Affairs of New Zealand, the former defence minister of New Zealand, who said a short time ago:
It's extraordinary that a New Zealand member of Parliament has allowed himself to be used by a party in a different country with an intent to bring another party in that country down.
It's quite extraordinary. I just don't think we've seen anything like this before.
This is the work of the Leader of the Opposition. He is unfit to hold office in this parliament.
My question is to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister is due to attend the Pacific Islands Forum in Samoa on 8 September. Who will be Acting Prime Minister while the Prime Minister is overseas?
The arrangements will be made in the usual way.
My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport. Minister, we've had many discussions on the importance of improving the train service in north-east Victoria. I acknowledge the $100 million in the May budget and the $40 million in June and your genuine intent to try and restore confidence in this poor service. Can you tell the House today—could you please outline the scope of the works—how will the money be spent and on what? What is the timeline for delivery? And, most importantly, how will the communities of north-east Victoria, particularly Indi, be kept in touch about these decisions and know what the intentions of both the ARTC and the government are in this regard?
What a contrast! Those opposite are more interested in digging up dirt than actually moving dirt and building the roads and the railways—the infrastructure that Indi needs. So I thank the member for Indi for her question. It's a constructive question. I thank her for her positive approach to this important infrastructure project. We are working with the people of Indi to deliver the infrastructure that her community wants and deserves, both rail and local roads. She understands that all the members on this side of the House recognise that when you build good infrastructure you can change people's lives and save people's lives.
The member for Indi has been actively engaged on the north-east rail project for many months. I was very pleased to announce with the Prime Minister that the Turnbull-Joyce government would be providing $1.57 billion for a regional rail package, and it was welcomed by the members for Murray, Corangamite, Wannon, Farrer and McMillan. They are all very happy with this investment, because they recognise that it's going to make a real difference in their communities. As the member for Indi rightly points out, the coalition has committed to a $140 million rail package in her electorate. It will see substantial upgrades to the north-east line, which has been plagued by poor service for many years now. Her community deserves better, and we are endeavouring to deliver that in partnership with the local community.
To answer the member's question more specifically, the ARTC and the regional rail provider, V/Line, are currently assessing the priorities for the north-east line and will report back to the respective state and federal departments in the weeks ahead—hopefully, by the end of this month. It's the community's expectation that the scope of works will focus on ride quality. It will also focus on increasing the reliability and frequency of service into the north-east. Once ARTC and V/Line have reported to their respective departments, I will be having further discussions with the Victorian minister, who has engaged constructively on this issue, and, when we are working together, on how we implement that scope of works and firm up the detailed time frames that the member for Indi has asked me about. I expect that passengers on the north-east line will start seeing benefits from later on this year.
In relation to the member's question on consultation, there will be opportunities for discussions with the community and the respective rail operators around the scope of works. The member for Indi will, of course, be invited to participate and engage in this process. As the member for Indi knows, another key factor in this process is involving the Victorian government on the issue of rolling stock. I'm sure the member for Indi will continue her lobbying efforts with Premier Daniel Andrews to keep his promise to the Indi community and purchase the new trains that are required. She well understands that we can upgrade the line, but if we are still using rolling stock which is 40 and 50 years old the improvements will be very minimal. It's about ride quality. It's about improving the frequency and the reliability of the service, which is a critical element for the community. So these projects, which were announced by the Prime Minister and me, are part of us working together with the community to deliver the infrastructure we need. (Time expired)
My question is to the Minister for Defence Industry, representing the Minister for Employment. Will the minister outline to the House why it is important for employer and employee organisations to act in a way that promotes truthfulness and integrity and manages the potential for conflict of interest? Is the minister aware of any deviant approaches?
I thank the member for Canning for his question. The Leader of the Opposition wants us to trust him. He wants us to trust him that no member on the Labor side of the House falls foul of section 44 of the Constitution; that not one member of the Labor Party has the sword of Damocles hanging over their head. In spite of all the evidence to the contrary, we're supposed to trust this guy, the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Maribyrnong. But the Leader of the Opposition has proven in that last 24 hours that he's plumbed new depths. He is quite happy to plumb new depths. He's quite happy now to collude with other political parties, this one in New Zealand, to undermine the Australian government. How many other foreign governments or foreign political parties in other countries has the Labor Party been colluding with to try and undermine the sovereignty of the Australian government? Has he been talking to people in Indonesia; or China, the Chinese Communist Party potentially; or Japan; or the Labour Party in the UK? The Leader of the Opposition stands condemned because he's been prepared to collude with foreign political parties to undermine this Australian government—about which he should be ashamed.
He wants us to trust him. This is the fellow who got $32,000 from Unibilt, a company with whom he had been negotiating enterprise agreements, for his Maribyrnong campaign in 2007—he didn't remember it until 2015, when he had to appear in the Heydon royal commission—or the $27½ thousand that he got from AustralianSuper when he was on the board of AustralianSuper and he was also the National Secretary of the AWU. AustralianSuper gave the money to the AWU to be used in the Maribyrnong campaign, and he never declared his conflict of interest. Just recently we've discovered, after a lot of digging from the Minister for Employment, that in fact when he was the National Secretary of the AWU he gave $100,000 in start-up capital to GetUp! to campaign against his political opponents.
A government member: Did he get approval for that?
We don't yet know whether he got approval for that $100,000. So he takes money from companies for his campaign that he doesn't declare. He takes money from AustralianSuper to be used and doesn't declare his conflict of interest. He gives money to so-called independent progressive community organisations with which to attack his political opponents. Paul Kelly got it right on this bloke:
The distrust between Rudd and Shorten was intense and enduring.
The Gillard camp was contemptuous of [him].
Nobody trusted him.
My question is to the Prime Minister. The former member for New England, Tony Windsor, said yesterday:
Why is Barnaby Joyce different to anybody that has stood aside during this particular issue?
Why won't the Prime Minister direct the Deputy Prime Minister to resign from the cabinet? Is it because the Prime Minister relies on his single vote to cling to power?
The Leader of the House, on a point of order? Members will cease interjecting. The member for Rankin is warned.
Mr Speaker, this question was asked yesterday and fully answered by the Prime Minister, and, under the standing orders, a question fully answered cannot be renewed.
Whilst there was a question that was very similar, the requirement is that it's identical and—whilst I try to carry as much Hansard around in my head as I can!—I don't believe it's identical. That's how the standing orders are framed, so I am going to allow the question.
What the honourable member for Hunter did was not ask me a question; he quoted a rhetorical question from Tony Windsor which was apparently addressed to the world at large. But I won't put him to the trouble of reformulating his question. The member for New England is entitled to sit in this parliament. He's a member of the House of Representatives, he's the Deputy Prime Minister, he's a minister in my cabinet and he's entitled to be so. That's the case. We've referred the matter to the High Court not because we lack any confidence in his eligibility to sit here but because the High Court can take the opportunity to provide some clarification on this section of the Constitution, which has limitations, clearly, as the High Court has described. It's not unlimited; it's not to be read literally. That's very, very clear, and at least one member opposite is taking advantage of case law in that regard. So it's a good opportunity for the High Court to provide some further clarification. As I've said before, based on the advice of the Solicitor-General, the government is very, very confident that the member for New England's eligibility to sit in this House will be confirmed.
My question is to the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection. Will the minister update the House on the benefits of a well-managed national security agenda? Why are strong and consistent border protection policies important to securing our nation, and is the minister aware of any other approaches?
I'll tell you one thing the Labor Party doesn't like talking about—that is border protection policy. Why would that be? It could be because when John Howard left office in 2007 there were four people in detention, including no children. It could be because this Leader of the Opposition sat around the cabinet table pretending to be loyal firstly to Kevin Rudd, pretending to be loyal secondly to Julia Gillard, and they undid those policies. What happened? The Labor party should listen to this, because this is a very important lesson: 1,200 people drowned at sea. Thousands of children went into detention. They opened 17 detention centres. The fact is that, if they got back into government, they would do it all over again. That is the reality.
If the Labor Party wants to speak about fitness for office, let's have a look at the credentials of the Leader of the Opposition. Would he have the capacity, unlike his predecessors in Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard, to lead this country in relation to national security and border protection? Of course he wouldn't. He's demonstrated that he's been at the centre of every dodgy deal whenever he's been in a position of leadership, whether it's in the union movement or as leader of the Labor Party in this place. The fact is that this Leader of the Opposition has taken money from businesses. He's donated money to progressive organisations. Sadly, the paperwork around it has been lost. His memory doesn't allow for the recall to provide the details to the AEC. He has been at the centre of every dodgy deal going. That's the reality of this Leader of the Opposition. If the Australian public want to ask themselves, 'Is this man credible to be leader of this country?' the answer is, simply no, without any doubt. If he were Leader of the Opposition again in the next parliament or if he were Prime Minister in the next parliament, it wouldn't matter, because he cannot contain those members behind him who are completely opposed to this government's strong stance on border protection and national security.
Over the last few weeks, I'll tell you what's been the most important issue to the Australian public—that has been keeping them safe. I applaud the work of the Australian Federal Police and ASIO.
Opposition members interjecting—
Those opposite can scoff, but the fact is that agencies of this Commonwealth, led by this Prime Minister, have stopped a major terrorist attack which would have resulted in hundreds of people dying in this country. Those people opposite can scoff, but the reality is that when they were in government—and as this Leader of the Opposition now demonstrates on a daily basis—they did not have the credibility or ability to lead this country.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Senator Canavan resigned from cabinet over issues that he claimed he didn't know about. The Deputy Prime Minister has been referred to the High Court for issues that he has known about his whole life. How is it possible that Senator Canavan has had to resign from cabinet but the Deputy Prime Minister has not?
Senator Canavan explained why he resigned as a minister in his statement on 25 July. As I said yesterday in the House, his view is that he should continue to comply with or honour the commitments that he made to the Senate at that time and following. Now, the fact of the matter is this. On our side of the House we have been very up-front about these issues. The Deputy Prime Minister came into the House and disclosed the facts. Senator Canavan disclosed the facts.
On the other hand, the Labor Party, under the leadership of the member for Maribyrnong, takes a 'don't ask, don't tell' approach to citizenship issues. They're not prepared to ask the Deputy Prime Minister a question in this parliament. They'd rather get a member of the New Zealand Labour Party to ask a question in the New Zealand parliament. They'd rather conspire with a political party in a foreign country to try to get admissions, concessions or statements that can be used to undermine the government of this country—a country whose parliament they are in. You would think that the Labor Party of Australia would owe its first loyalty to Australia and that the Labor Party of Australia would be asking questions in the Parliament of Australia, not in the parliament of New Zealand. The reason they did not ask a perfectly straightforward question of the Deputy Prime Minister is that they don't want to tell the story of their own members—so many of them here! Where are the papers? Where is the evidence?
Ms Catherine King interjecting—
The member for Ballarat is warned!
Where is the evidence of renunciation? Where is the evidence that demonstrates that so many of those opposite do not have dual citizenship? They've been asked by journalists; it's been batted away. The member for Isaacs has been asked. He's assured us that everything is fine. Has he checked the documents? I don't think so. Maybe he has, but the reality is that the Labor Party has an absolute double standard. They will stop at nothing to undermine the government of the Commonwealth of Australia, even to the extent of conspiring with a foreign political party. And they will not fess up to the Australian people and disclose the facts relating to the dual citizenship of any of their members—or not. They can do so: put the cards on the table, produce the documents. How about a little bit of candour and transparency from Labor, just for a change? (Time expired)
Ms Owens interjecting—
The member for Parramatta is warned as well.
My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer outline to the House how the government is delivering on its commitment to build a competitive modern economy that creates jobs and lifts wages for all Australians? Treasurer, what are the risks of any alternative approaches?
At the last election the Turnbull government was elected by the Australian people to implement our national economic plan to drive growth, because that is what will support jobs, that is what will lift wages, that is what will drive investment. And we were elected to implement that plan. The Leader of the Opposition has no alternative plan. His alternative plan is to creep around another parliament to try and undermine a duly elected government of the Australian people in this country and to sneak around like a snake to try and slither into the Lodge, rather than put up real policies to grow the economy.
Mr Brian Mitchell interjecting—
The Treasurer will resume his seat. The member for Lyons will leave under 94(a).
The member for Lyons then left the chamber.
The Treasurer has the call.
There is no place this Leader of the Opposition will not slither to pursue his own interest on every single occasion. Those opposite who sit behind him know it because they've seen him do it over his entire political life. There has never been a Leader of the Opposition so committed to himself than this one. We see it on every occasion—the way he ripped off union workers who counted on him to deliver for them, but he only ever delivers for himself.
The alternative on this side of the House is that we have plans that we're implementing to grow the economy to support more jobs in the economy—more, better and higher-wage jobs. We are getting the results. There were 240,000 jobs created last year. That's the highest year of jobs growth that we have seen since before the global financial crisis. We're cutting taxes for small business, cutting taxes for wage earners, cutting taxes for innovators and for researchers, investing in economic infrastructure—$75 billion worth over the next 10 years—investing in our Defence industries right across the supply chain and investing in education and the future of our young people right across the country.
What do those opposite do? Having said they're for income tax cuts, now they're against them. Having said they're for company tax cuts, this Leader of the Opposition will flip and flop on whatever he says at any time because he will say and do anything in his own self-interest. Having been for tax limits and a tax-to-GDP cap, he's now against it. Having come into this parliament recently saying that he's a great trust buster, in government he was a trust booster. He actually passed legislation in this parliament to ensure capital gains could be distributed to beneficiaries. That's what he did himself when he was the minister responsible. This slidey snake of a Leader of the Opposition can slither away.
The Treasurer will withdraw that last remark.
I withdraw.
My question's to the Prime Minister. It goes to the eligibility of members of cabinet to hold office. Is the Deputy Prime Minister a citizen of a foreign power?
Mr Rob Mitchell interjecting—
The member for McEwen is warned. The Leader of the House, on a point of order.
The House of Representatives Practice, on page 562, refers to the sub judice rule. I understand that—
Mr Stephen Jones interjecting—
The member for Whitlam will leave under 94(a).
The member for Whitlam then left the chamber.
The Leader of the House will resume his seat for a second. I've made very clear my need to hear the Leader of the House and the Manager of Opposition Business. Members interjecting wildly make that an impossible task. I've said this on a number of occasions. I'm now saying to the House: don't expect to be warned and don't expect to be thrown out under 94(a) if you interject. Members who have a track record in this regard can expect more severe penalties. I want to hear the point of order from the Leader of the House because I presume that the Manager of Opposition Business actually wants me to consider his question.
Thank you, Mr Speaker. Under the standing orders in the House of Representatives Practice, the sub judice convention on page 562 says:
Questions should not raise matters awaiting or under adjudication in a court of law. In such cases the House imposes a restriction upon itself to avoid setting itself up as an alternative forum to the courts and to ensure that its proceedings are not permitted to interfere with the course of justice.
Yesterday, Mr Speaker, you had not yet written to the High Court referring the member for New England to the High Court for adjudication. Today, as I understand it, you have written to the High Court. Therefore, I believe that question, which asks a very specific question about the status of the member for New England, is now subject to the sub judice rule, and, therefore, should not be allowed to be asked.
Opposition members interjecting—
Members will not interject. The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. I thank the Leader of the House for his point of order. It won't surprise members that I've reflected on this matter for the last 24 hours and 40 minutes, since the beginning of question time yesterday. The Leader of the House quite rightly points out that the House has adopted certain practices in the past, and everything he read there was accurate. Members should also be aware that there are certain exceptions to this and the way the House has gone about things—for instance, with respect to a criminal matter where a jury is involved, with respect to what stage the case is at. I've considered this very closely.
In the first week I became Speaker, I said I wanted free-flowing debate, and my attitude as Speaker is that with the High Court—the highest court in the land—adjudicating on these matters, with the deepest respect to every member of this House, myself included, I am very confident the High Court is not going to be swayed one way or the other by what is said in this House. I say that with respect to everyone who has given an opinion, including that last interjector, the member for Isaacs, who has been warned and will now leave under 94(a).
Opposition members interjecting—
No, I will retract that—I've just been reminded it was a 'hear, hear'. I thought it was something else! All interjections are disorderly, but if it was a 'hear, hear', that's less disorderly than the others. So I'm going to allow the question. The Deputy Prime Minister has the call.
It seems that the decision to not have me speak lasted 24 hours! Over the course of the weekend, we went through the process of renunciation. We received verbal communication from New Zealand before question time that that has now been accepted, and we're looking forward to the written advice turning up pronto.
My question is to the Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment. Will the minister outline the importance of strong export markets with our reliable trading partners in creating and supporting Australian jobs, and is the minister aware of any threats to these jobs?
I thank the member for Leichhardt for his question. As I've said on many occasions, we on this side of the House take very seriously the importance of an ongoing open framework for trade investment to make sure that we drive the Australian economy and we drive jobs. This has been a government that has consistently ensured it has opened up preferential market access across the world for Australian trade exporters and for those businesses that are looking for opportunities to export, and made sure that, in the process, they grow the Australian economy and they grow, of course, Australian jobs. As the member for Leichhardt knows, one of our key exports is in fact coal. It is our second-largest export, valued at more than $42 billion in 2016, and, indeed, is Queensland's largest goods export.
But the member for Leichhardt asks if there are any threats to the jobs that are supported by the trade industry. Unfortunately there are threats that are displayed with respect to these trade related jobs, and we see it from an inconsistency of policy. We've seen today a consistent record of inconsistency from the Australian Labor Party and the Leader of the Opposition, Bill Shorten. If there is one thing that's crystal clear to making sure that Australia's exporters and all of those tens of thousands of jobs in, for example, the coal industry can rely upon good, consistent government policy to keep those export markets open, it's that we need to make sure that we are consistent on policy.
We saw, for example, that last year, anticoal activists like GetUp! proudly boasted that they would be running legal challenges that delay, limit or stop all the major infrastructure projects. They boasted about stopping mines, about stopping rail and about stopping ports, all to try and stop coal exports. The fact is that groups like GetUp!, who boast about these things, have ties. It should be no surprise to members on this side that, when the Leader of the Opposition was head of the AWU, he was personally responsible for donating $100,000 to the GetUp! campaign. This is the same guy who was on the board of GetUp! at the time. So the Labor Party runs around—in particular, the Leader of the Opposition runs around—claiming faux sincerity and concern for Australian coalminers. But this is the Australian Labor Party and the Leader of the Opposition who donates $100,000 towards GetUp!, who's on the board of GetUp! and—guess what?—was actually involved, it appears, with Clean Event and, in particular, the holding company Jagen Nominees, and donated $50,000 to GetUp! only four months after he resigned from the GetUp! board. The simple fact is: there is no clearer example of a guy who's trying to fake sincerity than the Leader of the Opposition, who will say anything, do anything and then change positions afterwards. (Time expired)
My question is to the Prime Minister. In the last answer given by the Deputy Prime Minister, he confirmed that, up until the weekend, he was in violation of the Australian Constitution as a member of parliament. He confirmed that he had renounced a foreign citizenship, which you are ineligible to nominate for parliament if you hold. Why is he still a member of your cabinet? Why is he still voting in this parliament, when, by his own admission, it's against the Constitution?
It's difficult, even for a thespian as accomplished as the member for Watson, to maintain that faux indignation right through question time. The thunderous look, the furrowed brow, the grave tones—all of this stuff starts to pale into irrelevance and unconvincing ham acting after a few hours.
The fact of the matter is, as the honourable member knows, as many honourable members on the other side know, the proposition that a person who is a citizen of Australia and a citizen of another country is, and by that reason alone, disqualified from parliament is not an unqualified proposition. The High Court has set limits on it, and at least one of the honourable members opposite is relying on those limits. That is to say, the member for Braddon, who was a British citizen at the time she nominated, says, 'Well, it's okay; because of what the High Court said in Sykes v Cleary, I made a reasonable effort to renounce, but it hadn't been completed.' Well, she may be right. Senator Dastyari is still a citizen of Iran—at least so he claims. He says he's put in a big effort to renounce, but it hasn't been effective according to Iranian law. He may well be right, legally.
The point of the matter is that the section has to be read in accordance with its purpose and intent. The court has made that very, very clear. It has made very, very clear that it is designed to deal with split allegiances or conflicted loyalties. And, of course, it follows that, if a person is not aware that they are—unbeknownst to them—a citizen of another country, how can they possibly have a split allegiance to that other country? So the reality is the advice we have from the Solicitor-General is very strong. We are very confident that the High Court will find that the member for New England is not disqualified from sitting in this House. We have every confidence in that. We look forward to the submissions being made in the High Court, and we look forward to the High Court coming to its decision. As I say, we have every confidence that they will decide that the honourable member is qualified to sit in this House, and that is why he's here. So, you can ask the question in another furious way again, and I'll just refer to this previous answer.
I move:
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Watson from moving the following motion forthwith:
That the House:
(1) notes:
(2) therefore, calls on the Prime Minister to;
We are only asking this government to hold to the standards that they've imposed on Senator Canavan—nothing more; nothing less. The Deputy Prime Minister himself today has conceded on the floor of the parliament that he was—
I move:
That the member be no longer heard.
The question is that the member for Watson be no longer heard.
Is the motion seconded?
I second the motion. This Deputy Prime Minister now stands condemned by his own words not on one occasion but on two occasions. The first time was when he decided to give us his learned opinion on section 44(i) of the Constitution when he admitted that anyone holding dual citizenship is not qualified to serve in this place. The second time was during question time today when he conceded that up until the weekend, at least, he was a citizen of New Zealand. Therefore, he is clearly in contravention of section 44(i) of the Constitution.
This motion before the House, put by the Manager of Opposition Business, is both important and urgent. Why? Because it goes to the very heart of our Westminster system. A minister of the Crown should not serve in this place, should not exercise the power of the executive, without the confidence of this place. When this House yesterday unanimously resolved to refer this minister to the High Court, it, in effect, expressed no confidence in this minister. His Prime Minister and the minister himself should have taken notice of that.
But they do have form. For the last two years I have been trying to get just a peep at the so-called coalition agreement. We haven't been able to get the coalition agreement. In fact, the Prime Minister has me in the Federal Court spending taxpayers' money, opposing my right and the right of the Australian community—
The Leader of the House, on a point of order. I think I know what it is. The member for Hunter will resume his seat.
Mr Speaker, at first I thought he was going to be better than yesterday. Then I thought the member for Watson might have shot him down. As he hasn't, I move:
That the member be no longer heard.
The question is that the member for Hunter be no further heard.
The question is that the motion moved by the Manager of Opposition Business be agreed to.
I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
I present the Auditor-General's Audit report No. 6 of 2017-18 entitled The management of risk by public sector entities: across entities.
Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper.
I commend the Auditor-General's report to every member of the House. It is about the mitigation of risk, which is what we do on a daily basis in this building.
Opposition members interjecting—
Easy to get a rise out of them, isn't it? Documents are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable members earlier today. Full details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.
Mr Speaker, I wish to raise a matter of privilege under standing order 51. Under the standing orders, as you are aware, I have to fully set out the case, so l will do so as quickly as I can, but there is a bit of detail to it.
Some of the circumstances I'm about to raise first came to my attention as a result of media reporting on 8 August 2017. However, many of the most concerning circumstances and material have not been reported in the media. I'm raising this matter at the earliest opportunity at which the House could be provided with as many of the relevant materials and circumstances as possible to ensure a full and proper consideration of this matter.
It is reported that on 9 March 2016 the former member for Dunkley, Mr Bruce Billson, was appointed as a director of the lobby group the Franchise Council of Australia. It is also reported Mr Billson began receiving a salary of $75,000 per year in respect of that position. These circumstances occurred while Mr Billson was a member of this House, and raise a number of concerns, including, but not limited to, whether his conduct as a member of the House both in and outside of the chamber was influenced by the payments he received from the Franchise Council of Australia, including whether any contributions he made in debates in the House may have matched public positions held by the Franchise Council of Australia; whether Mr Billson advocated for, or sought to advance, the interests of the Franchise Council of Australia while a member of the House, owing to the payments he received from the Franchise Council of Australia; whether Mr Billson sought to influence the conduct of other members or ministers to benefit the Franchise Council of Australia, owing to the payments he received from this lobby group; and whether the Franchise Council of Australia, through its payments, sought to influence Mr Billson in his conduct as a member of the House both in and outside of the chamber.
I note that some of the contributions made by Mr Billson to debate in the House after he was appointed as a director of the Franchise Council of Australia appear to reflect public positions held by that lobby group, including through its membership of the coalition for change group. On 16 March 2016, the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and the then Assistant Treasurer announced that the government would amend section 46 of the Competition and Consumer Act—that is, the so-called misuse of market power provision. On the same day that the government announced its amendment to section 46 of the Competition and Consumer Act, Mr Billson gave a speech in the House welcoming that amendment. I will not read his contribution to the House, but I have highlighted the relevant passage, and I will table the material. The next day, on 17 March, he made a speech in the House during which he again welcomed the amendment to section 46 of the Competition and Consumer Act. Again I will table the relevant reference.
These statements by Mr Billson appear to reflect the previously stated public position of the Coalition for Change group in its media release dated 14 October 2015. That media release advocated for the amendment which the government announced to section 46 of the Competition and Consumer Act on 16 March 2016. During his speech on 16 March, he also stated that the amendment to section 46 is 'another instalment showing how only the coalition can put the policies in place to energise enterprise'. The following day, he stated:
Whatever happens in my time, I hope in this parliament we never pass a day without respecting and celebrating those enterprising men and women—or, as I say, doing all we can to energise enterprise.
On 21 March 2016 he tweeted a photo of himself and others standing in front of a Franchise Council of Australia sign using that same term, 'energise enterprise', and he stated: 'Great to be at'—the Twitter handle for the Franchise Council—'lunch briefing. New unfair contract terms by @HallandWilcox#energise-enterprise.' Clearly, after being appointed as a director of the Franchise Council of Australia and while still a member of the House, Mr Billson not only attended a Franchise Council of Australia event but also sought to publicise the lobby group to which he had been appointed. It is not clear whether he attended that event in his capacity as a director of the Franchise Council or as a member of this House, or both. During his speech on 17 March he stated:
It seems to be me versus some of the biggest businesses in the country … There were the franchising reforms … the Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman … All of this meant, as I said in my National Press Club speech, that small business is the new black. Everyone wants to wear it and be a part of it and get engaged.
His support for the Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman appears to reflect the previously stated public position of the Franchise Council of Australia in its submission dated 9 April 2015.
However, that's not the end of it. On 4 May 2016 the Franchise Council issued a media release about the 2016 federal budget. Most concerning, in fact brazen, is that the media release contains lengthy quotes from Mr Billson, not as a member of this House but as the 'Franchise Council of Australia executive chairman'. While Mr Billson was a member of parliament, on a day that parliament was sitting he issued public comments to the media, not as a member of parliament but as the executive chairman of a lobby group, the Franchise Council of Australia—all while reportedly being paid a substantial sum by that lobby group to do so.
I find it extraordinary that Mr Billson was reportedly being secretly paid an annual salary of $75,000 to make public comments as the head of a lobby group while he was still a member of parliament. He is quoted in that Franchise Council of Australia media release, as its executive chairman, as supporting specific measures in the Commonwealth budget. Again I will table the relevant media release. This was not the first time that he made public comments, reportedly as the paid head of this lobby group, while still a member of parliament. Media releases from the Franchise Council of Australia dated 23 March and 8 April 2016 also include public comments from Mr Billson as the chairman of the Franchise Council of Australia. There is still more. An online report from the Sydney Morning Herald posted first on 9 August this year states:
MPs from both sides of politics said Mr Billson had been extremely active in lobbying them on franchising issues—which he was also involved in as small business minister—since he took on the role.
As Mr Billson was reportedly appointed to this role on 9 March 2016, this raises a serious prospect that from that date, and still a member of parliament, he sought to influence other members of parliament to advance the interests of the Franchise Council of Australia.
These matters raise serious concerns about the motivation for every action Mr Billson took as a member of parliament while he was reportedly being secretly paid by the Franchise Council of Australia. I also note that, contrary to the House resolution on the registration of members' interests, it is reported that Mr Billson failed to declare both his new position and the income he received in respect of this employment. It is not clear whether this apparent non-disclosure was knowing or unknowing. In relation to this matter, I understand the shadow Attorney-General has, in accordance with practice, written directly to the Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests.
Mr Speaker, to assist you in considering this matter I provide you with a number of documents. In doing so, I ask you to consider giving precedence to a motion to refer to the Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests whether Mr Billson's conduct in accepting an appointment as and acting as a paid director at the Franchise Council of Australia while still a member of the House amounts to corruption in the execution of his office as a member of this House such as to constitute a contempt of the House; whether Mr Billson's conduct amounts to lobbying for reward or consideration such as to constitute a contempt of the House; and whether the Franchise Council of Australia or any of its staff or directors has, by appointing and paying Mr Billson as a director of that lobby group while he was still a member of the House, sought to bribe or has bribed a member of the House such as to constitute a contempt of the House.
It's of the utmost importance that the Australian people can have full confidence that the people they elect to represent them in this parliament act in the public interest instead of being influenced by or seeking to influence others for private financial gain. I thank you for your consideration of this grave matter and I table the relevant material.
I thank the Manager of Opposition Business and I will consider his statement and the tabled material in the usual way. Because it was a very lengthy one with lots of detail, I'll report back to the House as soon as possible, but I will do so after fully considering all the material. So it mightn't be as soon as is normally the case, but it'll only be because I'm considering what he's put forward very thoroughly.
Mr Speaker, in accordance with standing order 105(b), I ask that you write to the Minister for Urban Infrastructure seeking reasons for the delay in answering questions in writing. The relevant questions appear on the Notice Paper as Nos 733, 734, 737, 738, 741 and 747 and relate to the impact of the WestConnex project in Sydney and how it relates to federal government policy.
I thank the member for Grayndler. I'll write to the minister in the normal way.
I wish to make a personal explanation.
Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?
Yes.
Please proceed.
In question time yesterday the Deputy Prime Minister stated that I have a family trust. That is incorrect. I do not have a family trust.
I thank the member for Batman. And I commend him as an example to others of raising a personal explanation quickly and concisely, without wasting the time of the House.
I have received a letter from the honourable member for McMahon proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:
The Government’s failure to provide leadership on the economy.
I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.
More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—
Understandably the attention of the House and in many respects the attention of the nation has been focused on the Deputy Prime Minister and questions that he has to answer. Not only is there no doubt that the Treasurer has questions to answer but, in fact, there's no doubt that he's not up to the job he holds. The Deputy Prime Minister may or may not be eligible for the job he holds, but the Treasurer is not up to the job he has. There's a pattern of behaviour when it comes to economic policy.
Mr Pyne interjecting—
Well, it might be a little bit complicated for you, Christopher, but you stick with it. There's a pattern of behaviour when it comes to the economic policy of this government—and I do use the term 'economic policy' lightly, because they don't have much policy. When it comes to a speech from the Treasurer, a press conference with the Treasurer, I'd encourage honourable members to do a word search. You will see 'Labor', you will see 'Shorten', you will see 'Bowen', but you won't see any vision, you won't see any plans, you won't see the economic policy of the government being laid out. The Treasurer and the government are obsessed with the Labor Party and have no plans of their own.
On the other hand, we on this side of the House have over recent weeks been continuing to lead the policy debate. For example, we've been taking something out of the too-hard basket and putting it on the to-do list, dealing with family and discretionary trusts—actually repairing the budget through difficult decisions. I fully acknowledge that we are not the first people to think of this. We are not the first people who think that family trusts have to be reformed. In fact, John Howard, when he was Treasurer, thought that family trusts should be reformed. In fact, Peter Costello, when he was Treasurer, thought that family trusts should be reformed. Joe Hockey thought that family trusts should be reformed. Out of the last four Liberal Treasurers, three have thought family trusts should be reformed. The only exception is the current one. I give credit to Treasurer Howard; he did introduce some reforms to family trusts. Peter Costello and Joe Hockey both tried but got rolled in their party room. Well, we'll actually do what was too hard for them.
What was the response from the current Treasurer? There were two stages to the response. The first was the hyperventilation stage. When the Leader of the Opposition and I were explaining the need for reform, laying out the problem, the Treasurer went out there and held press conferences about how we were cracking down on farmers. He was asking what we had against disability trusts and saying how terrible it would all be. Then, when we actually announced the policy, we got to stage 2. Everything the Treasurer had said was wrong. Everything he'd warned about wasn't real. So then he went back into the witness protection program. He'd been a week out warning of all these terrible things and then he went back into hiding.
But he burst back onto the scene yesterday, onto the front pages of the newspapers. Pulling at a hole in Labor's policy or having some sober or well-crafted criticism—he couldn't come up with any of that. We read in the papers that he'd commissioned the Parliamentary Budget Office to undertake modelling of Labor's policies—all of them—in terms of their impact on the budget and how much taxes would increase. We saw in the Daily Telegraph, on page 1, 'The Parliamentary Budget Office and Treasury conducted independent modelling of Labor’s tax plans …' We saw in the Courier Mail: 'The Parliamentary Budget Office and Treasury analysis shows …' We saw in the Herald Sun: Independent Parliamentary Budget Office modelling, out today …' We saw in The Australian: 'Independent Parliamentary Budget Office modelling, out today …'
Then, on the day those newspapers appeared, we saw a release. We did see something come out from the Parliamentary Budget Office—that is true. The Parliamentary Budget Office did release a statement; I do concede that. But it was a little different to how it was reported. It said:
References in the media this morning to modelling being released today by the Parliamentary Budget Office are incorrect … The analysis reported in the media this morning was not conducted by the PBO.
I do not hold the newspapers or the journalists responsible; they acted in good faith, based on advice from the Treasurer of Australia. A journalist, when told something by the Treasurer of Australia, I am old-fashioned enough to think, is entitled to believe it and entitled to write it. The trouble is that the Treasurer forgot that in this building your main asset and attribute is your integrity. There was no Parliamentary Budget Office costing.
Then he went into damage control mode and said, 'Oh, it was the post-election report that the Parliamentary Budget Office did.' Well, included in the modelling was our trusts policy, which couldn't have been in the post-election report because it was announced post-election, and there was the update to our superannuation policy which we have announced since the election. So the Treasurer's alibi actually made it worse.
There is a track record when it comes to this Treasurer. He always goes with the cheap shot. He always goes with the slogan. I hope the House will bear with me, because some of what the Treasurer says is hard to keep up with and understand. There was 'a snake eating itself' yesterday. I really didn't know what was going on. Somehow or other there was a snake eating himself, and there were snakes back today. There was a six-shooter gun. Well, the Treasurer has shot himself in the foot yet again. We've seen that from the Treasurer. But he has a track record that is clear. This is the Treasurer who had a $2 billion black hole in his bank tax costings within a fortnight of the federal budget being brought down, and then he again made up an excuse about it that was inaccurate and misleading. This is the Treasurer who told us he was passionate about bracket creep. He was passionate about tax cuts and giving back to ordinary Australians. He felt so strongly about it that it was going to be the hallmark of his tenure as Treasurer. What has he done? He is trying to increase tax for everybody earning more than $21,000 a year in Australia. So much for those big swinging tax cuts that he was going to introduce. This is a Treasurer who thinks the answer to bracket creep is to increase tax for all Australians earning more than $21,000 a year. By the way, while we're on it, those figures the Treasurer released yesterday included the fact that Labor would keep the deficit levy, but they did not include the fact that Labor would not proceed with the increase in the Medicare levy for those Australians earning more than $21,000—very conveniently.
And, of course, this is a Treasurer who says his biggest challenge now—he's got a lot of challenges, this guy—is wages growth. Just like his answer to bracket creep is to increase taxes, his answer to low wages growth is to cut the wages of those who work on weekends. He's happy to see that happen on his watch.
This is a Treasurer who said there are excesses in negative gearing and then has proceeded to do absolutely nothing about it. He did have a housing affordability package in the budget, and what a damp squib that was. One of those measures was allowing access to voluntary contributions to superannuation for a housing deposit. The Treasurer was out there on 1 July spruiking it, saying, 'This is now in; come and get your superannuation!' The minister at the table says, 'Yes, hear, hear!' They haven't even introduced the legislation to the House. They were boasting about it on 1 July and it has still not even been introduced! The tax office has warned people that they should not access a scheme which has not been passed by the parliament. This is the incompetence of this government and the incompetence of this guy here at the table, the member for Deakin, who said that the package in the budget would be huge, that it would be welcomed. Expectations management isn't your strong suit, sport!
This Treasurer and his sidekick have absolutely squibbed the issue of housing affordability that is so important to the Australian people right across the country. There are parents and grandparents who are wondering how their children will be able to get into the housing market. They'll be wondering how their children and grandchildren can possibly afford property investment—when we have the most generous tax concessions in the world, when we have investor rates at record highs and first home owner rates at record lows. They'll wonder how something can happen for their children and grandchildren to get into the housing market. While this government's in place, the answer is: nothing can happen, because they don't get it. They don't care. And this Treasurer is too incompetent to do anything about it.
There is a cost to be paid for this incompetence while the Treasurer is engaging in these frolics. We're not coming up with a plan to deal with income inequality, because he doesn't believe it exists in Australia; he's an inequality denier. We're not coming up with a plan to keep Australia's 26 years of uninterrupted economic growth going. We're not coming up with a plan for housing affordability. There's a real cost to be paid.
Kerry Packer once said, 'You only get one Alan Bond in your life.' Well, I've had Joe Hockey and Scott Morrison, so I'm luckier than Kerry Packer! But I'll tell you who is not lucky: the Australian people who have been lumbered with these incompetent treasurers, the Australian people who have been lumbered with a government that has no economic plan and a government that doesn't care about them. It has no ideas and no plans and no vision for the future.
What an arrogant contribution by the shadow Treasurer, on leadership. Do we want to see the same leadership that this failed former immigration minister showed when looking after the borders of this country? Is that the sort of leadership we want out of you? Is the sort of leadership that you are talking about the leadership that you subjected this country to when we had an $18 billion black hole for the very short and lamentable period that you were on the treasury bench as Treasurer? Is that the sort of leadership we want? Is the sort of leadership we want you failing to fight the hard Left of your party who have a vision for this country of higher taxes and strangling aspiration?
The shadow Treasurer talks a lot about John Howard. John Howard has a lot to say about you, I can assure you, and none of it is very kind. So don't refer to John Howard at this despatch box.
Order! I remind the assistant minister to address his remarks through the chair.
I apologise, Mr Deputy Speaker. I can assure the shadow Treasurer that John Howard does not have many kind things to say about his inability to stand up against the hard Left of his party, which has a vision for this country of higher taxes and strangling aspiration. We don't want to see this sort of leadership. We don't want to see the leadership, so-called, that we saw from this failed immigration minister—and the failures have followed you in every portfolio you've ever had. But in the Labor Party, when you fail, you get a promotion, apparently. That's what we've seen out of you.
Let's look at the Australian economy. This MPI refers to leadership and the Australian economy. Well, we now have an unemployment rate of 5.7 per cent. We now have GDP growth that's occurred for 26 years uninterrupted. Of course we don't take the credit for those 26 years, but we are continuing the great work that successive governments have done. But here, we're seeing the shadow Treasurer and his motley crew moving back to a pre-Hawke/Keating-era vision for this country—higher corporate taxes, higher small business taxes, higher personal income taxes. These were arguments that were won by our side of politics in the 1980s, and now we have the shadow Treasurer and his motley crew rehashing these ridiculous arguments from the 1970s. We shouldn't have to argue that lower taxes increases investment, that lower taxes for small businesses encourages them to invest more money, employ more people, expand their business operations and expand the opportunities for Australians. But we do have to make these arguments again, because we've gone back to a pre-Keating, pre-Hawke-era Labor Party.
We have seen an economy transition from a difficult mining investment boom and we've performed exceptionally well. Many pundits, and I suppose many in this House, have had private doubts about the ability of our economy to continue ploughing on, but we have. It doesn't happen by accident, shadow Treasurer. We had the opposition fighting one of the most important export trade deals that we've seen, the China free trade agreement. In that time, we've also seen a free trade agreement with South Korea and a free trade agreement with Japan. These things don't happen by accident. Twenty-six years of uninterrupted growth does not happen by accident. We've chased these opportunities and we've had obstruction from the Labor Party and this shadow Treasurer every step of the way. I had unionists in Melbourne handing out anti-China free trade agreement flyers—xenophobic flyers. It was absolutely disgraceful. We heard nothing out of the Labor Party for those months that that campaign was going on, but they skulked into the House and in the end voted for it, because they had to—after months of not speaking up. I suppose it's very difficult to bite the hand that feeds you. It's very difficult to speak about the union movement, but that xenophobic campaign—forget even the xenophobic aspects to it—was against the economic interests of this country.
So when we talk about 26 years of uninterrupted economic growth, these things don't happen by accident. We've chased these opportunities: the Howard government with the US free trade agreement; now, our government with three of the most significant markets in the Asia-Pacific region: Japan, China, and South Korea. It has provided opportunities to our small businesses as much as it has to our large businesses. It has provided opportunities to service industries, not just bulk commodities or agriculture. This does not happen by accident. It happens because we have a plan and we're working towards it.
It's very interesting. The shadow Treasurer referred to PBO costings. He didn't deny any of the numbers that were in any of those reports. He didn't deny any of the numbers that were in the News Limited reports, of $167 billion of higher taxes. $167 billion of higher taxes, and he claims to be the heir of Keating, the man who reduced corporate taxes. He refers to John Howard as though they're old friends! Corporate tax increases of $65 billion—outrageous! The Labor Party have still said that they will not give these big handouts to corporates and big handouts to small businesses, some of whom have two or three or four employees, some of whom are family businesses. They are apparently the big Apples and Googles of the world, these small cafes, small corner businesses. There is $65 billion there. We have housing taxes, taxes that purport to be housing affordability measures, of some $47 billion between negative gearing and capital gains tax. Why, or how, does increasing taxes on commercial properties increase housing affordability? Why should a teacher be denied the ability to invest in an investment property and negative gear it, but a surgeon who potentially has large amounts of investment income can negatively gear against that?
So the surgeon can negatively gear against their investment income, but the teacher or the nurse cannot negatively gear against their salary or wage. What a disgrace masquerading as housing affordability policies. What an absolute joke.
Now we've got the latest attack on small business, in what has been a succession of attacks on small business, with their family trusts policy. Small businesses don't engage through a structure in a family trust because they're criminal rorters of our tax system, and what a disgraceful thing to claim. The Labor Party claimed that farmers should be removed from their trust changes because farmers have lumpy income. Well, here's a newsflash for the shadow Treasurer and the Labor Party: most small businesses have very lumpy income. So the same rationale for taking farmers out of your changes equally applies to the hundreds of thousands of small businesses and families who will be subjected to a higher tax—another higher tax.
The Labor Party denied our implementation of the changes to the threshold for small business accessibility from $2 million to $10 million. The Labor Party think, if you're a business with a turnover between $2 million to $10 million, you're a massive corporate and not entitled to accelerated depreciation or increased tax cuts or the myriad other benefits in our tax law that apply to small businesses. So bereft are they of any understanding of small business that we just see, time and time again, policies from the Labor Party that smash small business. Small businesses employ millions of Australians. They are the engine room of this economy, and it's not by accident that we are where we are now. It's because of hard-won work and policies of this government.
I find it quite incredible that we've got a very discredited individual in the shadow Treasurer talking about leadership—a man who would be, between him and the member for Watson, one of the two worst immigration ministers this country has ever seen.
A government member: A close-run thing!
It's a very close-run thing—you're right. But I'd say that the member for McMahon probably takes the cake. And the chutzpah of that man to stand at the despatch box, arrogantly talking about how wonderful Labor are, is outrageous—absolutely outrageous! And he keeps getting promoted. This is the extraordinary thing about the Labor Party. I suspect it's because he keeps acquiescing to the hard left of his party. Some of us would like to think that he knows better, but we certainly don't want to see the sort of leadership we've seen from him in every portfolio he's ever had. We'll continue to work for Australians who aspire for better things in their lives.
That was pretty hopeless! I rise to support the MPI. Who could forget when the Prime Minister rolled the former Prime Minister, the member for Warringah, after the government had lost 30 Newspoll polls in a row? That was because the former Prime Minister was not successful in providing the economic leadership that our country needs. But I don't think we've seen anything like economic leadership from the Prime Minister since he rolled the former Prime Minister, Mr Abbott—no leadership at all. We keep seeing an absolute embarrassment of a national leader roll around every day. It just becomes more and more laughable.
But the economy of this country is not a joke. It's been two years since the Prime Minister rolled the former Prime Minister, and where is the government at now? There have been 17 lost polls. That's only 13 to go. The Prime Minister is on the home stretch, with 13 Newspoll polls to go. The way he's going today, he'll probably slip further. And he would deserve it because we have not seen any leadership on any issues at all from the Prime Minister. A bit of a newsflash: when you have to tell people you're a strong leader, you're not.
Where is the economic leadership that the Prime Minister promised us? All we've seen is blunder after blunder. I will give just one example. Who can remember the absolute shocker around the increases to the GST last year? First the government were increasing it to 15 per cent and then they weren't. Then they were again, and then they said they would not and would never change the GST rate—after all, it had never even been considered! I almost got whiplash from the speed at which they made those changes and the turnarounds on that issue. Then there was a statement by the Treasurer that Australia did not have a revenue problem and that everything was fine. Then he made a range of changes that this side of the House had suggested. It seems strange that, in the absence of a revenue problem, the government chose to increase revenue measures anyway.
If I talk about the Northern Territory, where my electorate is and where people are looking for economic leadership from the federal government, nothing is more telling and a better example of the incompetence of the coalition government, including the 'former Deputy Prime Minister', the 'former member for New England', than the backpacker tax. The Territory is still recovering from that absolute debacle, where there was government policy on the run and a smash-and-grab approach to the backpacker tax. It almost killed a mango season. For starters, no-one in the government could get their lines straight on how the backpacker tax would work. Then we had a government frozen by its inability to set a rate. First, we had 32.5 per cent. Then, after getting a bit of feedback from people that this was madness, they came up with 19 per cent—but, if you don't take 19 per cent, you'll get 32.5 per cent. And the government say that they support small businesses on that side of the House! Do you have any idea of how hard you made it for small businesses in the Northern Territory with that issue? Parliament didn't accept—
Ms Flint interjecting—
She's shaking her head.
She has no idea. Do you remember the backpacker tax? It was probably pretty forgettable. It felt like a bit of a bingo game. It was an utter farce, with 32 per cent, 19 per cent, 15 per cent, 13 per cent—
Mr Keenan interjecting—
That's right, Chuckles. Have a life! Have a laugh. Pick a number.
No-one knows what you're talking about!
The backpacker tax. You remember the backpacker tax, you tool! The backpacker tax hurt the Northern Territory. It was not economic leadership. It was a case study in absolute leadership failure. All we've seen from this mob opposite is absolute failure in economic leadership.
I think it's fair to say that Labor are a bit flat on this MPI topic today, because, probably after preparing their speaking notes, they have had a text from their Queensland colleagues reminding them that they're not really supposed to be talking about Labor's record on the economy right now, except if it's along populist lines. Any conversation this week on the economy, about our future prosperity, should really start with the fact that Queensland Labor has just walked away from Australia's trade agreements, flagging in a very significant way how Labor continue to crab-walk away from any economic plan whatsoever, away from the centre of politics, and how they're creeping towards populism.
We have the current shadow Treasurer moving this motion. He once said:
… Keating knew that the corporate tax rate needed to be cut to make Australia competitive, that capital and investment would flow to tax-competitive nations and that this was an important job-creation move. Today capital is even more mobile than it was then and it is important that our corporate tax rate is more competitive.
But now he leads the Labor Party's attempt to do the exact opposite—to raise small business taxes and to make Australia even less competitive. It used to be a bipartisan position in Australia's parliament that we all aspired to cut Australia's corporate taxes in order to grow our economy. Rudd, Gillard, Rudd again, Latham, Crean, Beazley, Keating and Hawke—the list goes on—all agreed. Even the member for Lilley once promised to cut the corporate tax rate, although admittedly he promised that at the same time as he promised this country four surpluses that never quite eventuated either.
The current Labor Party is walking away from the centre. They're walking away from trade in Queensland. They're walking away from the reforms that bring growth. They're walking away from policies that bring prosperity. And they're walking towards populism, away from the sensible centre of politics, under the leadership of the most left-wing leader that Labor have had in a very long time. You don't need to take my word for that: when the Labor member for Isaacs was asked by a journalist whether he could name a more left-wing Labor leader, he couldn't. Those opposite are crab-walking away from the centre of politics. They're walking towards populism and the sort of class warfare politics that was supposed to be eradicated when the Labor Party reformed itself in the eighties in order to be fit for office again.
This government has an economic plan. This government has cut taxes for small businesses and for middle-income Australians. That's economic leadership. Labor used to support that, but now they want to put taxes up on every single front they can think of. This government is making meaningful reductions to the debt and deficit, and that's economic leadership: cleaning up Labor's economic mess. This government is delivering the plan and the competence in leadership that was sorely missing in our energy market when Labor was in charge, and this government has delivered new trade agreements with the biggest and fastest-growing trading partners Australia has, so that Aussie businesses can sell to new markets overseas, employ more people and spread that prosperity. That's economic leadership. Meanwhile, Labor in Queensland undermines our trade. The Queensland Labor Premier, in The Courier-Mail the other day, even went so far as to say that trade doesn't make sense to her.
The Reserve Bank released its August statement a few weeks ago. Page 1 of the overview says:
The economy is expected to grow at an annual rate of around 3 per cent over the next couple of years, which is a bit higher than estimates … The unemployment rate is accordingly expected to edge lower.
That's the sort of measured and optimistic outlook that you get from an economic plan under a coalition government. In contrast, the Labor Party don't have an economic plan. They have a populist class war. They have the politics of envy. They want to make it harder for Brisbane families to make investments, for Brisbane businesses to create jobs and for a budding entrepreneur in Brisbane to create something exciting and new.
I will go through a brief hit list of how Labor plans to 'lead', showing how it will only hurt Australians in the future and crush opportunities. They want to increase taxes on small businesses and fail to implement this government's vision to bring corporate tax rates down across the board: $65 billion more in Labor taxes on Australian businesses. They want to scrap negative gearing: $32 billion more in taxes on Aussie families trying to invest in their future.
After almost four years here, I continue to be amazed by this government's inability to provide any economic leadership. I remember in 2015 they thought they were finally going to get it right. Arriving in the Treasury portfolio with such prospects, the member for Cook was lauded in the press as setting a new agenda and leaving the confusion of the previous two years behind. However, he, like the government, continues to disappoint by ignoring the problems of ordinary Australians and, instead, preoccupying himself with half-baked attacks on the opposition.
This isn't new. We have become accustomed to being disappointed when it comes to this Treasurer and the economy. How can Australians be expected to have any confidence in a government who gets it so wrong and is so out of touch on economic policy? The government steadfastly have not supported a royal commission into the banks, with the member for Cook claiming, in April last year, that ASIC has the powers of a royal commission. This continues to be untrue. In the meantime, those opposite have ignored headline after headline while the banks continue from one scandal to another, seemingly with impunity. There cannot be confidence in this sector when we hear day after day about incidents that point to systemic issues. While those opposite continue to ignore the problems, people like those in my electorate bear the brunt of them.
Another clear example of this government's lack of leadership is its approach to negative gearing. In fact, at one point it appeared the Treasurer wasn't even sure what negative gearing actually was. On 25 November 2016, he said:
… negative gearing … is the ability for you to deduct what is a business expense against a business income.
In fact negative gearing allows someone to deduct a business or investment expense against their wage or salary. The Treasurer was wrong. Given this lack of understanding, it's perhaps unsurprising that the government has been all over the place when it comes to negative gearing. Under this current Prime Minister and the Treasurer, the government was first open to negative gearing reform before ruling it out. Then the Treasurer said the government would only target the 'excesses' of negative gearing and began considering limiting the number of properties that can be negatively geared. Now here we are, 18 months later, wondering if it was all a dream. In April this year the Treasurer ruled out changes to negative gearing in the budget because, 'Regardless of one's opinion of the merits or otherwise of negative gearing, it is an established structural component of the Australian housing markets.' It exists. While the acknowledgment of the existence of negative gearing might cut the mustard for visionary leadership in this government, it certainly falls well short of assisting prospective first home buyers; nor is the mere existence of negative gearing a compelling reason not to act on it.
Then, in the same speech, the Treasurer lamented that there are 'key workers such as nurses, teachers and police officers who can't afford to rent or buy in the communities they serve'. Just yesterday, on The Chris Smith Show, the Treasurer claimed that one in five police officers negatively gear and for that reason Labor's policies are reckless. By the Treasurer's logic, the nurses and teachers and police officers who can't afford to rent or buy are also doing most of the negative gearing. To be fair to the Treasurer, it's been revealed his proposals to reform negative gearing were dumped by cabinet, making it the first time a Prime Minister and a Treasurer have been overruled by cabinet since the 1970s. It serves to show us that, despite the Prime Minister's assurance to the country, this is a government that lacks strong leadership.
Yesterday, the member for Cook came in swinging with what was supposed to be a big attack on Labor, backed by figures ostensibly from the independent Parliamentary Budget Office. The banner headline was that the Parliamentary Budget Office had determined there would be tax hikes of $100 billion, $150 billion or $300 billion under Labor—wrong on all counts. Of course we quickly discovered that the PBO had nothing to do with these costings at all when they very publicly embarrassed the Treasurer by pointing out in a press release that they provided no such advice. The fact that he failed to do his homework or critically research these figures isn't the most disappointing part. To people like those living in my electorate in south-western Sydney, what is most disappointing is that it shows yet again the Treasurer is more interested in political pointscoring than doing his job and taking an interest in problems that are faced by these people and their families everyday—jobs, wages, access to education and housing affordability.
While Labor is actually listening and responding to these problems in its policy, those opposite continue to demonstrate that their priority is simply clinging to government without any commitment to actually helping Australians. In fact, in many cases they're making things worse with measures like slashing penalty rates and reducing support for families in need.
When I first saw this matter of public importance on the Notice Paper, I wondered what Labor was up to. This is the party that hates talking about the economy—they have no economic plans, they have no economic ideas, they think taxing people more is going to somehow get us into greater prosperity. When they talk about the economy, it is usually in the context of what they want to raid next. It's trusts, multinationals, superannuation funds, high-income earners, low-income earners—God help you if you earn an income—small businesses or people who want to own a property. Mr Deputy Speaker, God help you if your children have piggy banks, because these people are out to get them. I well remember the shadow Treasurer's face when the Leader of the Opposition stood up to give his budget reply speech. He looked like a gibbon being shown a magic trick—'Oh, where did that coin come from from behind my ear? How did you put that there?' The absolute perpetual fear on his face, as he realised that somehow he was going to have to come up with an economic policy that held their disparate policies all together, was just extraordinary. Yet he has the gall to come into this House and talk more about what Labor's going to do for the economy.
It may come as a surprise to the ALP, but no country in the history of the world has ever taxed its way to prosperity; it has only ever come down to endeavour and making sure that people invest. If I am to take Labor at face value—always a dangerous thing—inequality is at a 75-year high. Yet this happened under the most redistributive tax system in the OECD. If you are in the top 20 per cent of taxpayers in Australia, for every dollar you pay you get 32c back in government benefits. If you're in the bottom 20 per cent, for every dollar you pay in tax you get $364 back in government benefits. The top 10 per cent of income earners in this country pay almost 50 per cent of personal income tax received by the government. The top one per cent of income earners pay a staggering 17 per cent of all tax received. The top 0.3 per cent of individuals pay 58 per cent of capital gains tax. The rich don't pay their fair share in this country; they pay everyone's share of tax.
I guess you would argue that, if inequality were at a 75-year high under that tax system, you'd want to end it. But, no, the people on the other side here want to double down. I take it, by their own logic, that they want to make inequality worse in this country. The only conclusion you can reach is that Labor do not believe a word of their economic policy. Having watched the shadow Treasurer's face as his leader stood up to reply to the budget speech, I believe that he doesn't believe a single word of their economic policy. Labor, so far, has proposed $150 billion in new taxes—taxes that will reduce economic growth, taxes that will reduce employment and taxes that will reduce the incentives and entrepreneurship in this country that provide jobs and growth. Just look at Labor's record. What do they want to do with all this extra money? The last time they were in government, they spent it on school halls. They spent it on pink batts. They spent it on detention centres, because the now shadow Treasurer was immigration minister then and he couldn't control the borders of this country.
Under this government, taxes have gone down and employment has gone up. Under this government, 240,000 jobs have been created. What thanks do we get from those opposite? Nothing. Yes, that's right. Those opposite cannot name a single policy they have to create a single job in this country. Oh, sorry, I may have got that wrong! The member for Isaacs does want to create a royal commission to investigate banks—another $100 million to his friends at the bar. I reckon the shadow cabinet works like this: they have this great idea, they have no way of knowing how to actually make the idea work, so they just say to themselves, 'We know! We'll just wait until those opposite get elected and they can work it out for us.'
That was remarkable—to hear that someone could defend one of the banks that have just committed 53,000 money laundering offences in this nation. It's an outrage that you would defend them under those circumstances. But, to return to the topic, I rise today to speak on this government's failure to provide real leadership on the Australian economy. This lacklustre, listless leadership—and perhaps 'Deputy-Prime-Minister-less' Liberal-National government—seems intent on pursuing issues that have long been resolved in the hearts and minds of Australians. Instead of facing the economic challenges that pile higher every day and affect ordinary Australians every day, they bicker. Instead of holding an ordinary parliamentary vote on the Marriage Act, they are subjecting Australia to a ridiculous household survey. Instead of investing in new industries like information technology and renewable energy, instead of focusing on providing Australians with affordable water and power and instead of developing and prosecuting economic policy to redress the acknowledged rising inequality, this government has chosen to pick fights with, of all places, New Zealand.
While I'm on leadership, I observe that it takes some kind of foreign policy leadership to turn the negligent omission and wilful blindness to our Constitution of the maybe member for New England and maybe Deputy Prime Minister into a diplomatic incident with our very good friends and neighbours in New Zealand. It's appalling. I ask: where is the direction and who is running this place? I know it's pretty hard to tell. It would appear the Prime Minister's chair is pretty hotly contested. There are a number of members wheeling around there. There is the member for Warringah, of course; the member for Dickson; and the member for Wentworth himself. It's quite a crowd. I'm sure there'll be some room soon.
In talking about leadership, it's all well and good for the Liberal Party to take the high ground, as always. They call themselves 'better economic managers', that title they gifted themselves that no-one else would. They have howled and screamed and stamped their feet, crying, 'It's Labor! Labor put us in this mess, the debt and deficit nightmares.' I remember those days. I was here. I watched it. The members opposite drove their agenda of fear and despair into the homes of every Australian. Who tripled the deficit, Mr Deputy Speaker? Four years later they are still in government, still looking over their shoulder and spouting the same message. It gets weaker every day in the face of that tripling of the deficit of this nation.
I urge everyone to take a look at every economic speech made by the Treasurer and every answer he has given here in question time. How long does it take before the speech starts to blame Labor for just about everything? It's not long. It's anywhere between 10 and 60 seconds, maybe a couple of minutes. In fact, I'm surprised Labor hasn't been blamed for the Deputy Prime Minister's very recent New Zealand citizenship. That's right—I think they did blame Labor. Not only have the Liberal government blamed the Australian Labor Party but also they've blamed the New Zealand Labour Party. It's a farce. At what point do this Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister stand up and take responsibility for these issues of omission and negligence? At what point does the Treasurer stand up and take responsibility for the economic mess and nonsense he is spreading?
They have gone on and on about their superior skills in economic management. Let's take a look at what's really going on with the deflated proposals they have put before us. We're just over a year into this lacklustre government and there are serious questions that need to be addressed. They affect constituents in Brand as well as constituents across every electorate of this country. Wages growth is stagnant. We've all heard that often. In some places there's a decline. Of course, it's not helped by a cut in penalty rates for over 700,000 Australians, 10,000 of whom are in Brand. Jobs growth is slow and is discouraged by the lack of policy direction and leadership from this limp federal government.
Yesterday many of the nation's papers reported modelling from the Parliamentary Budget Office—that's the thing; it was apparently provided by the Treasurer's office—that showed, depending on where you looked, a number of different figures: $100 billion, $150 billion, $300 billion in tax hikes under Labor. There we go. Get the bogeyman out again. The Treasurer thought he would get away with it. It is the latest in a line of unfounded, unresearched, unbackable and reckless claims they made about the Australian Labor Party. Let's look at the PBO's media release, when they responded to the Treasurer's latest fictional figures. It says:
References in the media this morning to modelling being released today by the Parliamentary Budget Office (PBO) are incorrect … The analysis reported in the media this morning was not conducted by the PBO.
So who did conduct it? Who made up this nonsense? Where did they get these figures and where do they get off making this stuff up? It's absurd. It's a farce. There is no leadership. We can see the Deputy Prime Minister's about to—well, who knows if he'll be here.
This government is failing on every front, slowing down the chance of economic reform and progress in this nation. Instead, they are focusing on feeding their own factional and ideological ambitions, and their jobs.
There seems to be a lack of conviction from those opposite on this topic today. We know that their record on economic management of this nation is truly appalling, so it's really not surprising that their hearts are not quite in this issue today. During Labor's six terrible years in office they, effectively, destroyed our economy. Under the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd governments, and I note there are a number of MPs in this parliament who served in senior positions in those governments, they left our nation and future generations with debt unlike anything we have seen before in Australia. There was something in the order of $277 billion, although John Howard and Peter Costello left them with $50 billion in the bank in 2007—that is responsible government.
It's impossible to list all of Labor's failed policies, but I will list a few to remind people of the waste of money that occurred under the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd governments. There were the pink batts; the cash for clunkers; the green loans scheme; unfunded policies like the NDIS; the National Broadband Network; and the mining tax, which destroyed jobs and industry confidence but, happily, was repealed by us when we got back into government. There was also the carbon tax, which did more to harm businesses and, again, jobs than many of their other policies, and it also pushed household power prices up. There were the school halls and having to build detention centres, because Labor lost control of our borders and drowned 1,200 people at sea—which is the most disgraceful thing that they did during their time in government. They had to build a number of detention centres. Billions upon billions of taxpayers' dollars were wasted trying to get back the control of our borders.
Opposition members interjecting—
Will the members on my left stop this constant chatter. This is a general warning. I will be evicting the next person.
If the Labor Party ever make it back into government again, we won't just see debt and incompetence from them; we will see a government controlled by union thugs. We will see a raft of policies that will cripple our economy and undo our good work. We know that Labor is planning to introduce $150 billion worth of taxes—that's what a Labor government would deliver to the Australian people. A Shorten Labor government would mean economic destruction for our nation, and this will hurt our businesses. It will hurt hardworking Australians. It will hurt families. Let's take a quick look: increasing taxes on small businesses and failing to implement the remainder of our enterprise tax plan—$65 million; scrapping negative gearing—$32 billion; increasing capital gains tax—$13 billion; family trusts tax—$15 billion; increasing income taxes—$22 billion; and secret superannuation taxes—$20 billion. This is what a Labor government would deliver, and we cannot do that to the Australian people—to hardworking Australians and to our businesses who keep this nation going and growing. It seems that Labor want to prevent Australian businesses from employing Australians. They want to stall economic growth and opportunity. They want to stop hardworking Australians from getting ahead—from providing for their families and from being able to afford to give back to their community, which is the very thing that keeps our nation and our social fabric strong.
In comparison, we are leading the way on economic management, and we have a very proud record. We have a great record on reducing Labor's unprecedented debt, delivering Liberal reforms to help small businesses, and producing good public policy designed to stimulate the economy and to create the jobs that hardworking Australians need. Let's look at how many jobs we've created—700,000 jobs since we came to government. Over 240,000 jobs were created in the 2016-17 financial year, and almost 75 per cent of these were full-time. So not only are we working hard on economic reform, but we are dealing with the underemployment crisis that the Labor Party left us with.
We're doing a number of things for small business tax reform, including cutting taxes for small and medium businesses, increasing the tax discount rate for unincorporated businesses, and increasing the small business annual turnover threshold for both incorporated and unincorporated businesses to $10 million, amongst many other things.
Today we debate the idea that the government has failed to provide leadership in the economy. I think we should turn first to the Prime Minister's own words on leadership. He tells us all he is a strong leader. Well, he has forgotten the first rule of the strong leadership club: you don't tell people you're a strong leader; it's a bit of a giveaway that you're not.
Then, of course, when it comes to leadership in the economy, who comes in to defend the government? Is it the Treasurer? No, it's the sooky minister assisting the Treasurer! No leadership—not even the attempt or risk of leadership being shown at the dispatch box there! Let's look at this government's leadership of the Australian economy. It's all about bringing back trickle-down economics. That's the only thing they've got going on their ledger—trickle-down economics. When one looks up trickle-down economics—when you Google it, for example—you find that most economists, and in fact nearly every leading economist in the world, will tell you that it is just complete bunkum. That is exactly what it is. The leadership of this government, when it comes to economics is, apparently, about not investing in education. They don't believe in inequality—despite the Governor of the Reserve Bank just this Friday telling me in a hearing that inequality is a legitimate issue, and people are right to be worried about it. Well, not if you're this government, apparently.
And they won't countenance changes to negative gearing and capital gains tax. Well, actually, the Treasurer does agree with his predecessor, Joe Hockey, on that topic. But he got rolled in cabinet, further evidencing his government's failure to provide economic leadership to this nation. It's a bit like their policy on superannuation—announced, rolled, and then they tried to copy Labor's policy. Such leadership—not! They won't look at the unfair advantage to some that is provided by using trusts for income-splitting purposes, which is not available to others, and they won't support a royal commission into the banks. Instead, the Treasurer, this government, has a cup of tea with the chair of the Commonwealth Bank and gives them a good telling off. It's about as scary as being flogged with a piece of wet lettuce.
If we need a clearer example of why we need a senior executive responsibility regime in Australia for our banks, the Commonwealth Bank case is delivering it in spades. The Reserve Bank Governor only on Friday spoke about the need for good corporate governance and culture in our banks. But the government here gives us nothing. They have said the words but they don't give us action. They are taking up an idea by mentioning those words that actually Labor recommended in the banking inquiry report from 2016. In fact, this Treasurer hasn't come up with an idea of his own on economic leadership at all. At best he is a follower, although he doesn't even follow through with the ideas. At worst, he's just a grumpy old man who, in an effort to fill the gap where a policy idea might go, shouts about how Labor is leading the economic debate in this country.
The most recent example of course is this. He comes out and has a crack at Labor, saying: 'Look at all those economic policies of Labor; they're going to cost taxpayers all this money. And look: the PBO said this is how much it's going to cost.' It turns out that the PBO didn't actually say that at all, Treasurer. You made it up. But you were right about one thing: Labor is the only party with any economic policies for this country. But also—just to show that the government is not all about the economy—they need to understand this. This government come in here—and we had perfect examples on the other side during just this debate—saying 'economy this', and that they're the economic leaders and that it's all about the economy. Well, I don't think they've actually realised that government is not about the economy. A nation is not an economy; the economy is a means to an end. The government doesn't get this, and it's evident in its priorities, because its priorities are rather wrong.
Seriously, who ever thinks it is a better idea to give big business and their foreign investors a massive tax cut when we have underfunded schools? The government sword is constantly hanging over Medicare. We have seen increases in taxes on ordinary Australian workers. They haven't committed any rail funding to Western Australia, let alone provide a modicum of infrastructure funding to Victoria. We have seen cuts to the Australian Public Service, no support for their pay and no support for domestic violence leave, and then the government starts outsourcing the prosecutors from the Commonwealth DPP. We have seen pay cuts for the ADF, we have seen the disaster of an NBN and the mismanagement of the NDIS by those opposite. And apparently this is their leadership in economic management—all while cutting the taxes for the highest-paid Australians and spending $122 million on a marriage equality survey that we wouldn't need if they would just let us get on with the job in this place. This is a Treasurer who goes into the National Press Club to talk about GST reform and delivers nothing especially for WA. (Time expired)
I'm absolutely delighted to be able to highlight to this House this afternoon the wonderful economic leadership of the Turnbull-Joyce government. It's leadership that can be contrasted against that of those opposite, who are weak on border protection, weak on national security and, most of all, weak on the economy, because they have no economic plan apart from playing the politics of division. They are anti workers, they are anti mining and they are anti regions, hand in glove with the Greens.
But the public need not fear, because, as the Treasurer foreshadowed in the most recent budget, better days are ahead. Better days are, in fact, here; I think they've arrived. On every indicator, across the key indicators, better days have indeed arrived. I want to have a look at some of those this afternoon, because I think the House is going to be very interested in this. Look at jobs: over 60,000 people went out to get a full-time job in June and got one. That's very good news—better days, better times, as the member for Boothby well knows. Over 240,000 jobs have been created over the past financial year, the strongest jobs growth since the GFC.
Ms Flint interjecting—
The member for Boothby loves this great economic news. Over 175,000 of those jobs, or almost 75 per cent, have been full-time jobs—better days and better futures, as the member for Boothby well knows.
Let's look at business confidence and conditions. Business conditions rose to their highest level in almost a decade in June. The NAB noted that business conditions hit another multiyear high, with most industries performing well. Business confidence also rose to well above its long-term average. The NAB chief economist, Alan Oster, has noted how pleasantly surprised he is by just how upbeat the business sector is. Alan, we appreciate the sentiment, but you shouldn't be surprised, because businesses know—
Ms Flint interjecting—
and the member for Boothby knows that better days have arrived and better days are ahead. That's why business confidence is so high.
Let's have a look at consumer confidence. The latest data from the ANZ-Roy Morgan ratings showed that more and more Australians are confident about the better days ahead for our economy. Consumer confidence recently jumped to be around five per cent above the long-run average, its highest level in five months. Better still, expectations for economic conditions next year are now at the highest level since September 2013. What a great testament to confidence in the leadership of the Turnbull-Joyce government!
Let's have a look at retail, another key indicator.
An opposition member interjecting—
Yes, let's have a look at it. You don't like this, do you? Those opposite can sit there and chirp away, but they can't handle the truth, Mr Deputy Speaker. It was a positive year for the retail sector in 2016-17, with annual sales volumes up around two per cent on the last financial year. Looking at the June quarter, sales volumes increased 1.5 per cent—the strongest quarterly outcome since early 2013. What fantastic economic news that is! Over the past year, volume growth across all retail categories has been positive, with particular strength seen in household goods retailing.
Let's have a look at housing. Dwelling approvals rose 11 per cent in the month of June, and this increase was spread across both apartments and houses. Apartments were up 20 per cent in the month and houses were up over three per cent in the month. That is another key indicator ticked off.
In manufacturing, manufacturers surveyed by Ai Group in July reported steadily rising demand, and this demand is coming from construction, mining and agriculture. Ai Group's performance of manufacturing index, or PMI as it's known to its many admirers, has been indicating growth in the sector for the past 10 consecutive months. That's confidence in the economic leadership of the Turnbull-Joyce government.
And let's have a look at some other key initiatives under the leadership from this government. Let's look at the First Home Super Saver Scheme. From 1 July this year the Turnbull-Joyce government has been helping first home buyers crack into the housing market by using the First Home Super Saver Scheme. It will give first home buyers access to a tax cut that will accelerate their savings by at least 30 per cent.
Better days have arrived, better days are ahead, and it's all because of the economic leadership of the Turnbull-Joyce government. I commend it to this House.
The time for the discussion has now concluded.
In accordance with standing order 133, I shall now proceed to put the question on the motion moved earlier today by the honourable member for Melbourne, on which a division was called for and deferred in accordance with the standing order. No further debate is allowed.
A division having been called and the bells having been rung
The original question was that this bill be now read a second time, to which the honourable member for Watson moved as an amendment that all words after 'that' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The honourable member for Melbourne has moved as an amendment to that amendment that all words after 'notes' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question is that the amendment moved by the member for Melbourne be agreed to. As there are fewer than five members on the side for the ayes in this division, I declare the question negatived in accordance with standing order 127. The names of those members who are in the minority will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.
Question negatived, Mr Bandt, Ms McGowan and Mr Wilkie voting aye.
The question is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Watson be agreed to.
(In division) The Leader of the House, on a point of order.
As the sides changed from no to yes and yes to no and, therefore, members moved, I think that that should be a four-minute bell, because a lot of people are confused about it. This was also a mickey division. Given that the sides changed, we'd usually ring the bells for four minutes, and I request that that be the case.
What I've been doing is ringing the bells for one minute when the sides change but doing a full count. But I'm very happy to have a four-minute division if people felt confused by it.
There's just some confusion, because a lot of people would've been looking at the channel and seen only three members on the other side for that division. Because it was so quick, I think a lot of people have not come.
Okay.I think that's quite reasonable. The Manager of Opposition Business, on a point of order.
The point that we're at right now is: when the ruling was made that it be one minute, no objection was taken. You've now locked the doors. Having locked the doors, we should now do a count on the number of members who are here. If the Leader of the House has an argument that people were caught through misadventure, then we will listen to that and respond responsibly. But, right now, the doors have been locked, the division has been called and no objection was taken at the time to your ruling. All points of order, under standing orders, must be taken at that time.
What I'll say to the Manager of Opposition Business is that the standing orders make very clear that, in the event of confusion, there can be, obviously, an opportunity to revisit that issue. I think it would be cleaner—this cuts both ways—if a one-minute division has immediately been called on what's called a 'mickey division', meaning that not everyone has to be here for that, to simply ring the bells for four minutes. I think that would be cleaner. But I'll hear from the Manager of Opposition Business.
Prior to you making that ruling, if the government wants to move an amendment to standing orders to the effect that you just suggested, I can indicate now that the opposition would look at that amendment favourably. But, right now, under current standing orders, the doors have been locked and the moment to litigate how many minutes the division should be has passed. I indicate, in a way that we will commit to regardless of the outcome of this division, that, if the government makes a claim of misadventure and they want to subsequently recommit the same question, we will assist the government in that.
I thank the Manager of Opposition Business for his comments. As Speaker, how the Manager of Opposition Business presents that in that event, obviously, is a matter for him. But my interest is in members being able to have their say in a division. I think there is a difference between a successive division where everyone's been in the House and has voted as distinct from a division that does not result in a count because there are fewer than five members. I don't want to detain the House for any great point of time. The doors are locked. I've said that what I'd prefer to do at a practical level is simply ring the bells for four minutes. That's what I'd prefer to do. But, if the Manager of Opposition Business insists on a count, I think he's right. On one point, I say to the Leader of the House that no objection was made until the doors were locked, and I think that that is a reasonable point. So let's proceed with the count, rather than delay things any longer, and, in the event that there's a need to revisit this from some members in the House, we can do that.
I do want to be practical on this. Specifically, I think the Manager of Opposition Business is referring to standing order 132, where there can be a new division in the case of confusion, error or misadventure. I imagine that is what he is inviting if members have been confused, and I think that would be reasonable, as I tried to outline, just given the nature of the fact that members did not all have to be in here once it was obvious there was not going to be a count. I think that is the difficulty some members would have. What I imagine the Manager of Opposition Business is suggesting is that he'd cooperate if leave was sought on such—
Yes.
That's very good—been watching Annabel Crabb!
Government members interjecting—
The members on my right can cease interjecting because, as I said, I want to address the House. It's not too late to be ejected under 94(a), I can assure members. I'm very capable, given the last two question times we've had, of doing a significant job lot. Now we've completed the division, let me just say very plainly to the House that I think the point that the Leader of the House made was valid. If anyone had raised with me the practicalities of that one-minute division following on from a division where a count didn't occur, I would have, during that division, absolutely changed to four minutes partway through, and there are many precedents for that. So I certainly take my share of responsibility for the confusion that has occurred.
Honourable members interjecting—
Whoever it is up there that's muttering can stop muttering, or they can do it outside the chamber. It's the member for Lilley, is it?
Mr Swan interjecting—
I thank the member for Lilley. As with the Leader of the House and the Manager of Opposition Business, it takes both to cooperate in this place, so I do take the overtures of the Manager of Opposition Business seriously and, as I said, the standing orders do make provision for this, where members are confused or the Speaker is sometimes a bit quick off the mark. So I thank the Manager of Opposition Business for making that point. I call the Leader of the House.
I move:
That the House divide again.
Mr Burke interjecting—
You can speak to it.
Mr Pyne interjecting—
You want to speak first?
The Leader of the House can speak.
Are you going to speak?
You can.
I want to get on with it. I'm not speaking.
Honourable members interjecting—
The Manager of Opposition Business has the call.
Mr Speaker, to explain to the House what the opposition will do—
Mr Pyne interjecting—
The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. The Leader of the House.
I move:
That the motion be put.
The question is the motion be put.
I now need to put the motion moved by the Leader of the House that the House divide again, and that is on the question that the amendment moved by the member for Watson be agreed to. I'll hear from the Leader of the House.
Mr Speaker, I will stand corrected but, as I understand the process, the motion that I moved was that the House divide again. I then moved that the motion be put, that being that the House divide again. I understood that to be a separate motion and then, once we had dealt with it, the House would divide again in case the House wanted to vote against that. If that's carried then the member for Watson's amendment gets put again, as I understand it, to which we would then obviously be voting no.
Certainly the understanding from members on this side is that right then we were voting on the motion moved by the Leader of the House, which, if carried, means that my second reading amendment will be voted on. I had made a commitment that we would vote in favour of it. When the Speaker put it, we all voted in favour of the motion of the Leader of the House. They didn't. So, if you vote yes to this, we're in favour of your motion, as we told you we would be.
As I've said, I'm not going to detain the House any longer than we need to. The Leader of the House moved that the motion be put. That has been passed. The question now is that the House divide again.
Question agreed to.
The question is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Watson be agreed to.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
I move:
That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as is necessary to allow the Manager of Opposition Business to move the following motion forthwith—
That the House:
(1) notes that the following amendment was carried by a majority of members 69 to 61:
(1) the Government is failing to protect Australia’s iconic Great Barrier Reef by:
(a) failing to act on climate change;
(b) supporting the Liberal National Party in Queensland in blocking reef protections aimed at halting the broad scale clearing of trees and remnant vegetation; and
(c) winding back ocean protection, put in place by Labor, around Australia and specifically in the Coral Sea; and
(2) this Government cannot be trusted to protect the Great Barrier Reef and fight for Australia’s unique environment.”—
(2) notes that the Manager of Opposition Business indicated to the House that the opposition would be cooperative under standing order 132;
(3) notes that, despite the cooperation of the opposition, the government gagged debate to hide its incompetence and the failure of its members to turn up for the vote; and
(4) calls on the government to end the chaos and govern for the benefit of Australians.
Do they really think this chaos is going to end while the Deputy Prime Minister is still here?
The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. The Leader of the House.
I move:
That the member be no longer heard.
The question is that the Manager of Opposition Business be no longer heard.
Is the motion seconded?
They struggle to govern with 75; no wonder they're petrified of dropping to 74.
The member for Grayndler will resume his seat. It is with regret that I do this. I have warned on a number of occasions that the motion needs to be seconded. I asked the member for Grayndler to second it. I have said this a number of times. The motion lapses for want of a seconder.
On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Disability Insurance Scheme, I present the committee's report entitled Provision of services under the NDIS for people with psychosocial disabilities related to a mental health condition.
Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).
by leave—It's estimated that some 64,000 people with psychosocial disabilities related to a mental health condition will become participants in the National Disability Insurance Scheme by 2019-20. For these people the scheme presents a significant opportunity to increase supports and improve outcomes. However, psychosocial disability differs from physical and sensory disabilities in important ways and presents the scheme with very significant challenges. Alongside the NDIS, the mental health sector is also undergoing significant parallel reform with the development of the Fifth National Mental Health Plan, which COAG has now adopted.
People with mental illness will continue to require services even if they are not participants. Furthermore, the committee recognises that the scheme will provide services in conjunction with those delivered through other Commonwealth, state and territory governments. The committee acknowledges the commitment made by all governments to provide continuity of support for people with psychosocial disabilities who are not eligible for the NDIS. However, the committee has found that there is a need to clarify and make public how they intend to provide these services and address the emerging gaps created by the transition of existing services into the NDIS.
I'd like to mention a number of the matters that have come before the committee and on which recommendations have been made. The first is eligibility. The NDIS eligibility criteria for people with mental illness is a central concern for all stakeholders. The committee found that, whilst the current eligibility criteria could be improved to provide greater clarity, the apparent reliance on diagnosis rather than functional needs is likely to result in inconsistent eligibility outcomes for applicants. This is of particular concern given the absence of a validated assessment tool for planners to assess the eligibility of people with psychosocial disabilities. Reported lack of skills and expertise of planners in the mental health field adds to inconsistencies of access to the scheme and planning outcomes.
The second is the planning process. The committee received evidence that the planning process to develop and review NDIS plans has not been operating well and has often resulted in unsatisfactory experiences and outcomes for people with psychosocial disabilities, their families and in some instances particularly their carers. Issues include: the development of plans over the phone rather than face to face; not involving carers in planning discussions; waiting times and delays; the poor level of planners' knowledge and understanding of psychosocial disability; and lack of flexibility and responsiveness to people's changing needs. Indeed, given the episodic nature of conditions and symptoms experienced by people with a mental health condition, the current approach to the development and review of plans does not readily build in supports that respond to fluctuating needs of participants.
The third is assertive outreach. The committee recognises the critical role that advocacy and outreach services can play in identifying and engaging people, their families and their carers with NDIS services. In many cases the most efficient way to engage these people in the NDIS process is to work with their families and carers, who have long-term personal and special knowledge of their needs and circumstances. The operational systems in place to provide information about the NDIS and to engage with hard-to-reach cohorts through assertive outreach could be greatly improved. With the transition of Commonwealth and state and territory programs, there is a risk of emerging service gaps in these areas.
The fourth is continuity of support. Given that the majority of people who experience mental ill health will not access the NDIS, for whatever reason, the continued provision of services for people outside the scheme is particularly important. The transition into the NDIS of Commonwealth programs such as Partners in Recovery, personal helpers and mentors, day-to-day living and mental health respite, and carers' support, amongst others, is concerning the committee, as evidence received indicates that a significant number of current clients of these services will not be accessing the scheme. The committee also heard of concerns across the sector that services previously delivered by states and territories were being withdrawn before participants in these services were properly transitioned into the NDIS. The committee has also made recommendations in relation to the information linkages and capacity-building aspect of the program and also in an area which I think is a particular concern, and that is forensic disability services. There are recommendations, as I said, in relation to both of those matters.
In conclusion, the committee received a wealth of information and evidence throughout the inquiry and thanks all of those who participated both by making submissions and by coming along and discussing these important matters with the committee. As a result, the committee has made 24 recommendations which aim to strengthen the effectiveness of the scheme to ensure that people with psychosocial disabilities can be appropriately supported. I thank all the members of the committee for the cooperative way in which this inquiry has taken place and the cooperative way in which we've come to a unanimous set of recommendations in relation to making this scheme a better one than it is at the present time.
I want to join with the member for Menzies in particularly thanking all of those who participated in this inquiry. I also want to say to the member for Menzies that we strongly agree with all of the remarks that he's just made about the committee's work and this inquiry. I think it has been a very successful inquiry, with a large number of submissions, particularly from the mental health sector, but the committee also conducted a number of public inquiries, and a large number of people came and made very clear their views about the issues that people with mental health conditions have with the National Disability Insurance Scheme.
I want to join with the member for Menzies in thanking all the members of the committee. I particularly want to thank the staff who did such a great job in preparing this report. The report makes clear that there are around 64,000 people with psychosocial disabilities related to a mental health condition who will come into the National Disability Insurance Scheme by 2019-20. We all hope that each and every one of them will see this as a significant opportunity to increase the support they get and to improve the outcomes for Australians with psychosocial disabilities. Each and every one of us in this House has a responsibility to make sure that the National Disability Insurance Scheme delivers on that promise. That, really, is the promise of the NDIS—that people with psychosocial disabilities will see their circumstances improve as a result of the NDIS. Unfortunately, there is a lot of evidence to suggest that this is not always occurring. It is for some people, but not always.
I am very pleased with the way in which the recommendations of this report have come together, as the member for Menzies outlined, unanimously agreed by everyone on the committee, setting out a clear way forward so that we might see the strengthening of support for some of Australia's most vulnerable people. There still remains uncertainty about what psychosocial services will be available as the National Disability Insurance Scheme transitions to full rollout. This is for people in the scheme, but many of the representative groups and many people with psychosocial disabilities are especially concerned about what is going to happen to those people who are not in the National Disability Insurance Scheme. We share those concerns.
As the member for Menzies outlined, there are 24 recommendations. I will touch on a couple of them. One of the most important is this question of permanency provisions. The way the National Disability Insurance Scheme, the act, is written, it does require that a person's condition be permanent. We had a lot of representations from the mental health sector that this runs counter to the principle of recovery oriented practice for people with psychosocial disabilities. So I'm very pleased that the committee is recommending that the act be reviewed to assess the permanency provisions and that we assess—we're asking the government to do this—the appropriateness and effectiveness of including the principle of recovery oriented practice for psychosocial disability. This is a very complex issue, but one that would benefit from a very carefully considered review.
There is a related issue that is very important, something that the mental health sector asked for, and that I'm pleased that the committee is recommending. We're saying the National Disability Insurance Scheme, in conjunction with the mental health sector, should develop and adopt a validated, fit-for-purpose assessment tool to assess the eligibility of people with psychosocial disability, focusing on people's functional capacity for social and economic participation. This is a very significant issue as well. It is not be a focus on diagnosis; it is a focus on what people can and can't do, and the supports they need to lead a good life. Once again, I very much hope that the National Disability Insurance Agency will pick up this recommendation and develop this tool in conjunction with the mental health sector so that services can be better delivered to people with psychosocial disability.
I want to touch on another issue, which the member for Menzies also highlighted, and that is just how important it is that those people who are currently getting terrific services through Partners in Recovery, including the Personal Helpers and Mentors, Day to Day Living and Mental Health Respite Carer Support programs—all of these excellent programs that both sides of this parliament have supported for a long time—continue to do so. It should not be the case that people who are outside the National Disability Insurance Scheme lose access to these sorts of supports that they have relied on. We do want to make sure that people who are in the scheme also have a guarantee of continuity of support and access to services.
I want to mention recommendation 7, which refers to the National Disability Insurance Agency developing and proactively marketing resources and training for primary healthcare professionals about the National Disability Insurance Scheme, particularly for people with a psychosocial disability. There just isn't enough information that those professionals have, so it would be very helpful if that was done.
Another issue that I know is very, very important, particularly for those who support and care for young people with psychosocial disabilities, is to make sure that people who are not participants of the National Disability Insurance Scheme, young people in particular, have access to early intervention services. We're all aware that a lot of people get mental health conditions in their late teens and early 20s. We certainly don't want to wait until it's seen to be permanent for those young people get adequate early intervention services. So that recommendation is extremely important.
Finally, I want to really reinforce the call of the committee for the Australian government and the state and territory governments to make sure the services that people with psychosocial disabilities need, either in the scheme or outside, are there when people need them. I think we all agree that mental health is a huge issue for this country, and that's why I'm so pleased that we've been able to work together cooperatively to produce this report, and I hope we see all the responsible governments, and the National Disability Insurance Agency, responding positively.
On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, I present the committee's report entitled Human rights scrutiny report: report 8 of 2017.
Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).
by leave—The committee's legislative mandate under section 7(a) of the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011 requires it to examine the compatibility of recent bills and legislative instruments with Australia's obligations under international human rights law.
The resulting scrutiny report seeks to provide parliament with a credible technical examination of the human rights implications of legislation. In undertaking this examination, the committee receives legal advice in relation to the human rights compatibility of legislation, in which it is supported by an external legal adviser and secretariat staff.
The report does not assess the broader merits or policy objectives of particular measures. Like all parliamentarians, scrutiny committee members may, and often do, have different views in relation to the policy merits of legislation. Committee members performing a scrutiny function are not, and have never been, bound by the contents or conclusions of scrutiny committee reports.
Nine bills in this report were assessed as promoting human rights, permissibly limiting human rights or not engaging human rights and are therefore listed as raising no human rights concerns.
As outlined in chapter one of the report, the committee is also seeking further information in relation to four bills. The committee requests additional information where a statement of compatibility has not adequately addressed human rights matters.
The committee has also concluded its examination of four pieces of legislation following correspondence with the relevant ministers. The committee's comments for concluding matters are outlined in chapter two of the committee's report.
I have noted previously that a key role of the committee is to inform the deliberations of parliament by providing a credible technical assessment of the human rights compatibility of legislation.
In this respect, I would like to highlight that there has been recent commentary about the work of the committee as a mechanism to protect and promote human rights from United Nations processes. The UN Committee on Economic Social and Cultural Rights, in its recent Concluding Observations on Australia, noted the role of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights in reporting on human rights scrutiny issues. Further, in relation to broader policy matters, the UN Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, in his recent report on his mission to Australia, referred to the committee's work on its inquiry into freedom of speech in Australia and part IIA of the Racial Discrimination Act. I encourage my fellow members and others to examine the report to enhance their understanding of the committee's work. With these comments, I commend the committee's report 8 of 2017 to the chamber.
I rise to speak on the Petroleum and Other Fuels Reporting Bill 2017. The statistics that this legislation will now make it mandatory to collect will also show that Australia now imports 91 per cents of its petroleum from foreign tankers. This is up from 60 per cent only back in the year 2000. In fact, Australia now relies on a single megarefinery in Singapore for over half of our unleaded petrol supply. Yet the government's recent energy white paper concludes that it is concerning that we are dependent on petroleum for virtually all of our transportation. Petrol, diesel and aviation fuel accounted for over 90 per cent of transport energy use in 2012-13.
I would like to note at this point a contribution made by the member for Canning from a neighbouring electorate on this very matter on 19 June, when he said:
… 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. … 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.
Our capacity to produce enough fuel for our own domestic market should be a concern for each and every Australian and each and every Australian business. In the last decade we have seen many petroleum and chemical refineries close around Australia. In Victoria, we have the Altona and Geelong refineries producing 200,000 barrels a day, but in Western Australia, just to the west of my electorate, down in the electorate of Brand, we have the Kwinana refinery, which produces 138,000 barrels a day on its own, the largest refinery in the country. With the closures of the Clyde and Kurnell refineries in 2012 and 2014 in New South Wales, the closure of the Lonsdale refinery in 2003, and the closure of the Bulwer Island refinery in Queensland in 2015, transitioning to a bulk-holding facility, 15 per cent of our crude oil is produced in Australia, and the other 85 per cent we receive through imports. In 2012 we were refining 75 per cent of that oil, but in 2014 it was down to only 57 per cent.
Both the NRMA and the RACV have said we have as little as three weeks fuel supply in Australia. We are dangerously reliant on one refinery for our fuel supplies. In essence, we have adopted a 'She'll be right' approach, which might work perfectly well for many things in Australia, but it's not the right approach for fuel security. Relying on the historical performance of global oil and fuel markets to provide for us in all cases merely puts us at the mercy of foreign supply lines. As the members for Canning and Lilley have highlighted, this is now an issue of national security; it is not just about energy security.
Anyone who has dealt with the Australian gas market in recent times knows that it is one of the most opaque and least transparent markets in the country. No-one knows exactly how much gas is produced, who holds it, how much it is sold for and where it goes. This bill will take us one small step towards improving that transparency, and as such Labor is supportive of this bill. Rather than relying on the voluntary disclosure of information, this bill will require the gas companies to disclose information regarding gas supplies to the nation. This bill further highlights the concerns that this side of the chamber holds around fuel security and will ensure that production of accurate statistics is particularly important, as the government implements a planned return to compliance with Australia's obligation, as a member of the IEA, to hold fuel stocks equivalent to 90 days of the previous year's average daily net oil imports.
But no-one should be fooled into thinking that, when this bill becomes law, we will have a solution to the gas crisis that this government has let develop. None of this will address the immediately pressing issue of Australia's energy security crisis, which has seen wholesale gas prices in the Australian industry rise from $4 a gigajoule a few short years ago to up to $20 a gigajoule today. Labor has been warning about this crisis for years. In the four years of this government, it has done nothing. Labor acknowledged this crisis back in 2015, when we adopted a gas export national interest test at our national conference, with great support from Western Australia, which had already adopted its own domestic gas reservation policy, which has secured natural gas supplies for WA. During the 2016 election campaign, almost a year after we adopted our national interest test for gas exports, we announced the details behind how we would test to ensure that, under Labor, LNG exports won't come at the expense of domestic gas users, which is exactly what is happening now under the watch of this government.
What have they been up to in this time? Their whole strategy seems to be one of deny, then ignore, then ridicule. When we are faced with a crisis, they inevitably blame Labor. Can you believe it? This is the short version of the government's approach to managing our gas supply, but the result is job losses, industry closure, low wages, uncertainty for industry, higher power prices and less energy security. The gas crisis facing Australian industry is here and now, but the government's proposed export controls won't be implemented until next year, if ever. That is clearly not good enough both for business, who can't secure gas today, and for the workers who are wondering just how long they're going to be able to keep their jobs. The government's proposed controls barely mention price, and that is one of the key issues for industry. It is also clear that, even if there is a projected gas shortfall, the government could decide to do nothing.
Labor support a strong LNG industry and we support a strong domestic gas market. It shouldn't be beyond our abilities to have both. The Turnbull government, after ignoring a looming gas crisis for years—they have been in government for four years and have done nothing—still fail to adequately address this crisis to ensure that there are affordable gas supplies, or just any supply, for Australians. If we don't see real national leadership on this issue to resolve this crisis, which is here and now, we will see devastating impacts. It will impact on industry and it will impact on businesses with closures that will result in thousands of jobs being lost. There will be ever-increasing electricity prices—not to mention being unable to guarantee that electricity supply in the first place.
We need short-, medium- and long-term solutions—things like pipeline investment and more transparency, which this bill does aim to try to deliver, as well as more development. These are all important, but it will take years before they can deliver more gas into the market. We are now in a situation where solutions to get more gas into the domestic market are needed, but they are needed today as well as in several years time.
Gas is absolutely crucial. It is a crucial input into the production process for many industries around Australia—for chemicals, manufacturing and plastics—as well as for energy generation, which we talk about so often. People often forget just how much gas is a primary input into those products. We cannot let gas supply contract. We cannot have a situation where we run out of gas to supply our industries, where our industries are not able to get the gas that they need under the contracts that they already have because it's being shipped offshore against our own national interests.
Australia's new LNG export industry has tripled the demand for gas but not the supply. So some LNG operators are now drawing on the domestic supply of gas to meet their export obligations, which is creating a lack of supply in the Australian domestic market, as well as pushing up, to record prices, the cost of gas for Australian domestic customers. Those customers are, of course, you and me. But they are also our industry, which so critically relies on this gas. If this is not resolved soon, we are going to have a critical crunch.
It is on the government's watch that this has happened. They have been in government for four years, and they have fronted up and done pretty much nothing about it. They have done nothing. Under the Turnbull government, they have completely surrendered the field. It's like they walked in and talked about all these jobs and growth but didn't realise they were going to need to guarantee some gas supply to make sure we could get jobs and growth. The best we can get out of this government is them giving energy company execs a stern talking-to. It's a bit like the way they talk to bank CEOs and chairpeople. All they do is bring them into a room, sit them all down, get them in front of some cameras and then flog them with a wet piece of lettuce. The way the government approach this makes so much change! The government feel great that they're doing something, the executives walk out and continue to do exactly what they were doing before, and who is left? The Australian public are left. The Australian public, consumers, industry and workers are left going: 'That was great, Government. Thanks so much for making such a great effort to protect our industries, to protect our jobs and to protect our nation.' That is the approach this government have taken. They take it to banks and they take it to an energy crisis. What does it produce? It produces no benefit whatsoever. Thanks very much, Government, for doing absolutely nothing to protect energy security in this nation—but at least you got around to making sure we got some great statistics!
That was a very good contribution by my colleague from Western Australia. He raises some very, very important points—not just about the Petroleum and Other Fuels Reporting Bill 2017, but about, in general, our fuel supplies, our refining capacity and our gas markets. The current gas debate is interesting. The Prime Minister would have you believe that he's just become aware of the gas crisis, and that it is the fault of the previous government, and maybe the previous government before that—he tends to blame his predecessors for so much.
But the reality is all of this could be seen, very clearly, coming down the pipe at us. I remember in 2012 and 2013, industry, particularly manufacturing, coming to members of this House. They were reliant on gas, not just the price of gas but the supply of gas. I know they came to me and to the then member for Throsby—now the member for Whitlam—and they talked to us about it. I would be surprised if they hadn't talked to the then opposition about it as well—it was the sort of thing industry would have been concerned enough about to talk to both sides of parliament. They would have wanted us to take a bipartisan approach to fixing the issue. The member for Throsby moved, and I seconded, a motion about these issues in the gas market in 2013 in this parliament. So these issues were entirely predictable. The price of gas and the supply of gas and the effect of Gladstone and the export market were all predictable. Whichever government survived—whether there had been a re-election of Labor in 2013 or whether it had been a coalition government—it was incumbent on that government, that Prime Minister and that energy minister to address those things there and then because you can't make fast moves in energy markets. Nearly everything takes time.
What we have here is a pretty timid bill that's been brought into the House that is mainly regarding statistics. Statistics and information collection are particularly important, but this is a timid bill in terms of the approach that it takes. It's a timid bill by a timid government—a government that's barely getting by at the moment on these gas markets. As the previous speaker, the member for Burt, said, along with this timid legislative response we have the Prime Minister playing year 9 drama lessons with the energy executives of this country. They must be so impressed that they are being brought to Parliament House under threat of a wagging finger, being brought into a committee room and being paraded around while the Prime Minister gives this finger-wagging speech about how industry should run. The PR for the day is done. They all dust off their hands, and off everybody goes, with no real action. That's not the way governments should approach energy issues.
If you read Gareth Evans' diaries—it was quite an interesting period of government—he talks about when the North West Shelf was almost going to fall over. For want of an $80 million contract from the Western Australian government, he spent all day in private meetings with industry. He had meetings with government bureaucrats, the minister and the industry all day to try and get resolution of those matters, and he did get resolution of those matters. That's what serious governments do. They don't do public relations exercises on the hop because they've been caught out on issues they should've dealt with some time ago. They engage with industry properly, with a view to the public interest. Companies are entitled to have their interests. We as a nation are entitled to our interests, and that's one of the reasons why in 2015 the Australian Labor Party National Conference had a national interest test. That's one of the things we put in place as our response.
During the 2016 election, nearly a year after that national conference, we were criticised by the now government as being reckless and interfering. All the things they say about us now and say about the Leader of the Opposition now are the same things they said then about this important issue. Later on, they tried to adopt a policy that was not quite our policy but trending in that direction. They've been playing catch-up footy on this issue of gas supply and of gas price. It is completely ridiculous that we should not protect our domestic market, our domestic manufacturers and our domestic consumers in the face of supply issues with the export market versus the domestic market. Frankly, this issue came up some time ago in Western Australia, and it was a matter of dispute between the court and the Howard government. That was resolved by the then Western Australian government, in defiance of the Howard government, and actually shielded the domestic market of Western Australia. So it's not like we didn't have knowledge of or a precedent for what was going to go on in the gas market, and it's not like this government has anything to stand on in terms of its attacks on the Labor Party and the like.
It's very concerning that we have a government of this nature, and it's a consequence of having revolving-door prime ministers. We have had two Prime Ministers, three ministers for defence—playing musical chairs on our National Security Committee—and maybe 14 or 15 or possibly more other ministerial changes, so it is little wonder that very important things get shuffled off to the to-do list. In many ways this is reminiscent of the 1930s, particularly the post-Lyons first Menzies government period when ministers were so consumed with their own internal dynamics that they did not see what was coming.
It's interesting to talk about statistics. I have a 2013 publication by the Australian Institute of Petroleum, Maintaining supply security and reliability for liquid fuels in Australia. I remember reading this document at the time, and it's interesting, when you look back at the collection of statistics which are obviously used by institutions like this and by academics and by government and politicians, to find out what our vulnerabilities are. It talks about the traffic, and if crude oil was coming from West Africa it would have taken 28 days; from the Middle East, 18 days to Western Australia but 24 days into the east coast; from New Zealand—if we were to get any crude oil from there—it was four days; Russia, 17 days; Papua New Guinea, seven days; and, from South-East Asia, somewhere between nine and 14 days, depending on whether it was going to the west or the east coast. On petroleum products, again from the Middle East, it is some 23 days for LPG; India, 13 to 21 days; South-East Asia, six to 12 to 14 days, depending on where it's going; and South Korea 13 days and the same for Japan.
The same page of this document, page 8, describes shipping security assessments, and there is a profoundly benign assessment about the security environments at that time in the Strait of Hormuz, in the Malacca Straits and through the Indonesian archipelago, around Singapore and the like. When we look at what's going on in the world—in the South China Sea, with Russia and China, and with what's going on in the Middle East—we have this upsurge of conflict or the potential for conflict. In the Middle East we have a war that has been raging now for years; very violent wars in Syria and very violent conflicts in Yemen. We have the potential for clashes across the Middle East. In the South China Sea, the situation is volatile to say the least, we have a volatile situation in North Korea and we have countries like Russia who are quite simply waging war in many ways in all but name. There's a lot of literature around the place from Chatham House and from other notable think tanks that outlines information warfare, the open warfare in Ukraine, the seizure of Crimea and the infiltration into and destabilisation of the electoral affairs of many democracies—the UK and the Brexit vote, the US presidential elections and the like. So, we now know that in a short period of time we have come to live in a less benign and very threatening environment, and, when you take into account Australia's collapse in refining ability combined with our geographical isolation and where we have to get fuel from, that is an issue that this parliament has to think about extremely clearly.
We need statistics to do that, so good on the government for bringing in this bill—but it's a timid bill in the face of a very unstable geopolitical environment. We should think about this very carefully as a nation in case we face fuel shortages—and other nations have. The UK faced a fuel shortage as a result of a refinery strike and it had very serious ramifications at the time. We are very dependent on fuels. We need to not just have statistics but think carefully about the supply of those fuels to make sure that we have enough domestic supplies, that we have enough domestic storage and that we have enough refining capacity. It is a critical thing for our economy, a critical thing for our defence and a critical thing for our sovereignty.
While we're looking at those things, we should also look at other areas where we will need to have sovereign supplies in a worst-case scenario. It's not good enough now simply to look at benign scenarios and assume the worst-case scenario won't happen. I think the drums are beating in so many ways, and I don't think wishful thinking in these circumstances will see this nation through. We need to accept that we live in a very dangerous, volatile world. While I commend the government for bringing into this bill a statistical information requirement so we know where we stand, that simply will not be enough of a response to our domestic concerns in terms of the gas or electricity market, or for the supply for our country in a time of desperate crisis. With those words, I'll conclude.
I want to compliment the member for Wakefield on his well-thought-out contribution. It was a tour de force, going from 1930s Australian politics to a quick survey of the global national security environment. It was very enlightening. It's my pleasure to rise and talk on the Petroleum and Other Fuels Reporting Bill. I'm pleased to join my colleagues, particularly the member for Port Adelaide, who moved a great second reading amendment that allows us to discuss what this bill really tries to go to, which is improving energy security and energy policy in this nation.
As my colleagues have pointed out, the Australian gas market is one of the least transparent markets in the country. There are very significant issues, in that nobody knows how much gas is produced, who holds it, how much the gas is sold for and where it goes. This bill establishes a mandatory reporting regime for fuel information. The government will be able to monitor energy security, facilitate compliance with international reporting and stockholding obligations, and enable the publication of fuel statistics for use by business investors, academics and government. So Labor are supporting this bill because its provisions will require gas companies, for example, to disclose gas supply information to the government, and we will no longer have to rely on voluntary disclosures. But the reporting provisions in this bill do not provide a solution to the wider gas and energy crisis that has occurred on the government's watch, and this is what I want to address in the time that I have left to speak.
We face a national energy crisis in this country, and there are two separate but related crises. The first one is around gas, and this government has been sleepwalking towards this gas crisis for the last four years. Despite all the posturing by the minister for energy and the Prime Minister in question time, it is not a sufficient excuse to blame it on the last Labor government. You might be able to cop that if the government had been in power for three weeks, but they've been in power for 4½ years. They don't act like it, as today's events show, but they've been in power for over four years and they've done nothing to solve this national gas crisis. What we have seen is four years of inaction, and suddenly they've woken up and they've got a problem, but all we have now is talk. All we have now is talk.
What we have got is talk by the Prime Minister, who has quite courageously—and I use that term in the Yes, Minister sense—promised that he will halve gas prices. Gas prices have skyrocketed to over $20 per gigajoule, and the Prime Minister has promised to halve them, to bring them back down to $10 per gigajoule. I wish him every success in that endeavour. My manufacturers and my households will be very pleased if he achieves this. Sadly, he doesn't have any real, concrete policies that will achieve this end. What we have seen is four years of failure and a promise to halve the price, but in the meantime we've got gas prices at record levels. And who's suffering because of this? It's my manufacturers. I met with the Australian Industry Group in the Hunter Valley a few weeks ago, and they were telling me some very shocking statistics about what their members are facing. Manufacturers were saying that they were used to writing gas contracts in the range of $4 to $5 a gigajoule. They'd had a conversation with a supplier this time last year who was saying, 'We can get you those contracts for $8 to $9 a gigajoule.' Those manufacturers chose to see whether the market would stabilise in the year post that conversation. Sadly, the market hasn't stabilised—in fact, it's gone in the wrong direction—and now those same contracts have been offered to them for prices of between $15 and $20 a gigajoule. This is quite outrageous.
Part of the problem, besides the cost impact on manufacturers, is that this is well above export parity pricing. It's fair to say that, with a massive growth in exports that'll come on with the LNG trains at Gladstone, you would expect the Australian price to equalise with the export parity price. But it's far exceeding that now. We've got scarcity pricing, and that's all down to this government's failure to act in the last four years. It's not as if it hasn't had alternatives being floated around. I'm proud to say that I signed a letter in support of a campaign by the Australian Workers' Union in late 2013 calling for a gas reservation policy—a policy that's worked quite well in Western Australia. It was a policy put in place by a conservative government and continued by successive Labor and conservative governments, and it's a policy that hasn't dented their exports of gas. Gas exports are going gangbusters in Western Australia, but they've also got an adequate supply of gas for their domestic manufacturing and household consumption.
I was proud to sign this letter, and I'm proud to be part of a campaign that led to Labor embracing out of the 2015 national conference a national interest test which we took to the last election—a policy that was mocked and derided by the Minister for the Environment and Energy, who now must be sorely tempted to embrace that policy. That policy very clearly states that any new development of gas fields for export must increase domestic supply at the same time. It's all fair to increase gas exports by exploiting new resources, but only if you can show how this exploitation of new gas will actually increase supply domestically. That's very important if we're to ensure adequate supply for the domestic industry and, secondly, suppress the prices that are currently facing the industry.
These price rises don't just flow to manufacturers using gas with a feedstock or onsite power production. They are one of the two key drivers for the very massive increase in electricity prices we're seeing around the country right now. In my home state of New South Wales, household consumers are facing 20 per cent price rises as of 1 July, and it's down to two reasons. The first is the massive increase in gas prices on this government's watch, and the second is the massive policy uncertainty in energy policy that this government has also perpetuated in its four years of mismanagement.
On gas, gas-fired power is the marginal price setter in the market. Gas-fired power through combined cycle gas turbines and open cycle gas turbines is the marginal producer in the Australian electricity market. It sets the price by being the last producer to enter the market. So, if gas prices go up, a direct result is that electricity prices will go up in the wholesale market. We've seen that over the last three or four years. We've also seen massive policy uncertainty, meaning that we've had a lot of retirement of very old power generation in this country. The coal-fired power fleets in New South Wales and Victoria are very old, Mr Deputy Speaker Buchholz. Your home state of Queensland is quite lucky: you've got comparatively young coal-fired power stations. But, in Victoria, the average age of the coal-powered fleet is 44 years old, and in New South Wales it's 35 years old. So it's quite natural that these power stations are reaching the end of their natural life. They are being retired because the companies that own them don't see a commercial justification to undertake the very significant capital investment required. In the case of Hazelwood, they were looking at a $400 million build just to bring it up to current occupational health and safety standards. These companies are not making these investments. That capacity is coming out of the market. Because of the policy uncertainty around energy policy in this country, there is not sufficient investment coming in.
We have very tight capacity in the National Electricity Market and that's leading to price rises. The energy sector itself is saying the policy uncertainty on energy policy, generated by this government, is driving prices up. The Australian Energy Council is the peak body for all generators in the country. This isn't a front for the Labor Party. These aren't mad greenies or a forum for renewable energy companies. This is made up of serious players, such as AGL, EnergyAustralia and Origin. They are saying that the policy uncertainty is equivalent to a $50 carbon tax. That is how much it is adding to the cost of wholesale electricity. That is now flowing through to households. The cost of inaction by this government is now flowing through to household bills.
For 15 years this country has seen hypocrisy and economic illiteracy by those on the other side. We had Prime Minister Howard sticking his head in the sand, when he was in power, on the need to drive new investment in renewable energy. Then we saw the overthrow of the member for Wentworth, when he was opposition leader, for daring to support a carbon pollution reduction scheme. That would have provided policy certainty to the energy industry, which would have allowed them to make investments for 40 years. Since then, we have seen the member for Warringah embrace Direct Action, a fig leaf for his opposition to taking action on climate change—fiscal recklessness on a grand scale is what the member for Wentworth called it. That was his sole energy policy—Direct Action. It was a policy that had very little relevance, if any, to new generation investment in this country.
Since then, we have seen an assault on the renewable energy target, an assault so incompetently implemented that the government's own Warburton review shows it actually reduces power prices in this country. We had to reach a compromise: around a 23½ per cent renewable energy target. We then saw the commissioning of the Finkel review, a well-considered review that had some good recommendations in it. Its draft preliminary findings recommended an emissions intensity scheme. What happened then? The energy minister merely mentioned he was open to an emissions intensity scheme and the world ended. Within 12 hours he was bullied and cowed back into his box by the member for Warringah, by the member for Hughes—who is really the minister for energy in this government—and by a coalition of conservative reactionaries who threatened to revolt and roll the Prime Minister. Within 12 hours this government had pulled an emissions intensity scheme off the table. Dr Finkel, having seen the writing on the wall, said, 'I've got to provide a report that will provide concrete recommendations that have a snowball's chance of getting through parliament.' So he moved to a slightly less effective policy around a clean energy target. He made an assumption that the coalition hadn't ruled it out yet, so there might be a vague chance of having a debate on it. He recommended a clean energy target as the centrepiece for his 50 recommendations.
The Labor Party have supported that. The Labor Party have said an emissions intensity scheme remains our preferred policy, a policy endorsed by almost every stakeholder in the energy industry. But in the interests of solving this energy crisis, a crisis that can only be solved by a bipartisan settlement on energy policy, we're prepared to negotiate on a clean energy target. That's our current position. We're waiting to see what the government does. We're waiting for the Minister for the Environment and Energy and the Prime Minister to get their writing instructions from the members for Hughes and Warringah on what they can agree to. This is incredibly important, because if we don't reach a bipartisan settlement we will not get the billions of dollars of investment we need into the energy industry to solve this crisis. The Finkel report's modelling found that, if a clean energy target is adopted, we will see electricity prices at $175 per annum lower than they would otherwise be. So the inaction on the government's side is a recipe for higher electricity prices.
Returning to the intent of this bill, I think the measuring of petroleum and other fuels is really important, particularly in the gas industry, if we're to solve the gas crisis. We must solve the gas crisis and we must solve the investment strike in the energy sector if we're to get new investment flowing, if we're to suppress electricity prices so that my manufacturers have a chance of succeeding in the next century, exporting and providing the jobs that this country needs and, as importantly, so that consumers and households don't pay as much as they are currently paying for electricity. I represent the suburb of Windale in the Lake Macquarie region. This suburb is the poorest region, the poorest suburb, in the entire state of New South Wales. They're the ones who are copping it in the neck because of this government's failure on energy policy. They're the ones who are suffering. They're the ones who are making hard decisions about whether they pay the electricity bill or feed their kids. I don't say words like that lightly. They're the hard decisions that these households are making right now, because this government is incompetent, this government is divided and this government is putting its own narrow, day-to-day survival ahead of the interests of the Australian people. That's why history will condemn them and that's why history will say that they should have bitten the bullet and come up with a decent energy policy.
I'm very grateful for this opportunity to speak on the Petroleum and Other Fuels Reporting Bill 2017 because it brings together a lot of issues that I have been concerned about for many years, going back to my time in Defence. It touches on a nexus of not only energy security but energy security as it relates to national security, as well as, obviously, the challenges of renewable energy and the health dimensions of that. I am grateful for the scene that has been set for me by the comments of the member of Wakefield on the details of the trade issues and the trade lane and sea lane issues that are associated with national security and, of course, the reference to the policy framework aspect of this, which is related.
This bill talks about the issue of meeting our obligations under article 2 of the Agreement on an International Energy Program. The requirement there is that, as a member of the International Energy Agency, Australia is obliged to have its holding of oil stocks equivalent to 90 days of the previous year's average daily net oil imports. We haven't been in compliance with that requirement for a long time, and it is deeply concerning in relation to our national security issues. We have seen the instability that can occur in our region in relation to those sea lanes. We have seen the instability, as referred to in the Middle East, and what impact restraint, constraint or interruption of supplies can have on the international market, as well as the exposure that that creates for us in our economy. Also, we have the situation, as has been mentioned, of the collapse of our refining capability and our dependence on almost all of our oil coming through those sea lanes these days, and this includes some of the special oils and lubricants that are related to our Australian Defence Force's capabilities, particularly things like the F-44 special fuel required by the Australian Navy, which has come under threat in recent years as well. What this points to is the need for us to seriously examine where we sit in the generation capacity of our own fuel needs domestically.
I have also in my previous life been a member of a strategy group with the carriage of, and responsibility for, the Middle East desk, where I did study, for example, the passage of the oil wealth from particularly wealthy individuals in the Middle East into our region to fund things like radical madrasahs and terrorist groups. One of the great objectives of getting ourselves off oil, getting the world off oil, is to eliminate that source of threat to world security. This has been highlighted in the great work done by the NRMA and, in particular, Air Force Air Vice Marshal John Blackburn. They have probably been in briefings with members of the government, as they have been with the opposition over the last few years. They have highlighted all the threats and all the vulnerabilities that we have in relation to this problem of our own fuel generation. We have seen the bit being taken between the teeth by the US, for example. The Pentagon have made great strides in moving towards biofuel. They have talked in terms of the great green fleet and their biofuel concept there.
When I was the Minister for Defence Materiel I was very concerned to ensure that we weren't being left behind in that space. There were great opportunities for Australian companies in helping us fill that hole. Of course, going back to Labor's Clean Energy Future Package policy framework, that was also enabling the possibility of some technologies and companies to work in this space. As Minister for Defence Materiel I was particularly interested in one company called Algae.Tec, which was operating a facility down in Nowra. I took a number of logistics personnel down to meet them and look at this technology. I had first seen this in action in Israel, based on a pond technology taking algae and turning it into a biodiesel fuel. Algae.Tec had made this into a much more efficient process using shipping containers. The way it works is that these containers harvest carbon emissions. They work best when you strap them to coal-fired power stations. You can suck effectively 100 per cent of the carbon dioxide emissions from the coal-fired power station, including the large-scale types of power stations that we have operating, for example, in New South Wales. It greatly accelerates the growth of the algae. This product then created a biodiesel fuel that was a straight drop-in fuel that could have been put into diesel engines without any blending or conversion required. This offered great potential. At the time Algae.Tec, with Labor's Clean Energy Future Package policy framework in place, were able to do a deal with Mac Gen for beginning a pilot project with the Bayswater power station to prove this technology.
Unfortunately, of course, all of that has come to naught because of the dismantling of the Clean Energy Future Package, and also in the context of low fuel prices. But that is the sort of technology that we need to be exploring. We should be looking at the example of our like nations around the world, who are really taking this bit between the teeth on moving on from these outmoded fossil fuels, in the context also of our climate change challenge. In Australia the burning of petroleum products for transport is responsible for about 14 to 17 per cent of our total greenhouse gas emissions. More than that, it also creates a massive health liability. I have seen reports in Australia that fossil fuels possibly add about $6 billion worth of cost to our health bills, and also potentially 3,000 deaths a year are consequent of fossil fuel pollution.
Obviously we need to move off this. In recent times we've seen that the Swedish government established a commission on oil independence back in 2005 to achieve the goal of an oil-free society and substantially achieve that goal by 2020. They're well on the way to achieving that. Since then, of course, we've also had the even more conclusive objective set by France that will outlaw the sale of all petrol and diesel vehicles by 2040 in an announcement that was made by their environment minister, Nicolas Hulot, just recently. They will also ban any new project that uses petrol, gas or coal, as well as shale oil, by that date.
The issue there, of course, was that in Sweden they had concerns about dependence on oil from Russia, so they had similar security issues, but this health issue was also extremely significant. The French, in the meantime, are offering financial incentives to scrap their polluting vehicles for clean alternatives, and the government will offer each French person a bonus to replace their diesel car dating before 1997, or petrol car from before 2001, and buy a new or second-hand vehicle. We also saw at the same time the announcement by Volvo that they planned to build only electric and hybrid vehicles starting in 2019. This is something that Labor have obviously been pointing to in the brilliant climate change action plan that the shadow minister at the table here had the main carriage of, and in relation to its full court press on our emissions battle by factoring emissions from vehicles into that.
It's not only France that's taken this bit in their mouths; it's also Germany, who want to do away with 100 per cent of their combustion powered vehicles by 2030, and India has committed to do the same by that same date. The Netherlands and Norway also intend to achieve the same result by 2025. Adding to that move towards this situation, we've also seen the UK commit to banning all new petrol and diesel cars and vans from 2040 onwards, amid fears that rising levels of nitrogen oxide pose a major risk to public health. Of course, in all of these countries, in their major cities, this is becoming almost intolerable. I was in New Delhi in January this year, and if you have experienced the pollution in New Delhi, you can appreciate what an emergency situation many of these major cities are in, just from a public health point of view. The UK felt this was extremely necessary to avoid the impact of poor air quality on people's health. The ministers believed it posed the largest environmental risk to public health in the UK, costing up to 2.7 billion pounds in lost productivity in one recent year. They also stated that poor air quality was the biggest environmental risk in terms of casualties, and their estimate in that respect was that the high level of air pollution could be responsible for 40,000 premature deaths a year in the UK. In fact, the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, was obviously in the middle of this problem and called for tougher measures to tackle air pollution, which kills 9,000 people a year in the capital, they believe.
What we're seeing here is a perfect storm. It brings together our national security issues, our health issues and our climate change and renewable energy issues. What we need to do is look at putting back in place the sort of policy framework that existed under the Clean Energy Future package and that is detailed in the Climate Change Action Plan that we currently have on the table, and work with the government to really tackle this issue as a matter of urgency.
It really frustrates me to hear members on the other side say that renewable energy is a threat to health and that renewable energy will kill people when we see statistics like this—statistics that have been assessed in our own environment—and we understand what the public-health risk is. As a result of that, an extra incentive exists to move to clean and renewable energy. If we're particularly worried about the effect on people of the cost of electricity, all of those matters were detailed very clearly in the Finkel review, of which I read all 212 pages. It's very clear that some members of the government haven't read any of it, because it really bells the cat on the policy uncertainty that's been created by not determining the actual framework relating to emissions, and it urgently suggests that the government move on and make a decision on that quickly.
I've referred to the fact that the Finkel review contains a time line for its recommendations. Some recommendations are meant to be fulfilled within 12 months or 18 months et cetera, but at the zero-month mark—which, in effect, are decisions that need to be made immediately—first and foremost, is the Clean Energy Target decision. It's not a question of when that's phased in; it's a question of making a policy decision so the renewable energy investment flows. Without that framework, we won't see companies like Algae.Tec being able to push forward with those sorts of operations. That operation will help build our own domestic capacity in a biofuel that will emit only about 26 per cent of the emissions of normal fuel. And we need those sorts of biofuels, because electric vehicles can't be the answer to, say, fishing fleets, necessarily, or large plant and long haulers and the like, at least at this stage. There will be a niche that biofuels will need to fill in that space, and we won't get that without creating a policy framework that stimulates it. When a local company like Algae.Tec comes up with solutions, that should also provide a gentler glide path for the coal industry, because, if it can completely absorb all the emissions of a coal-fired power plant, it gives us a longer period of time to glide out of those plants. And, at the same time, they are able to have a by-product for the benefit of their own business.
We know that Finkel has also locked in the issue of requiring warning periods for the closure of those facilities, to give us time to plan. That could be achieved more effectively if the emissions from those coal-fired power plants could be offset or eliminated entirely. From the point of view of dealing with not only a significant contribution to our carbon emissions—as I mentioned, 14 to 17 per cent—but the massive health issues that are posed by the fossil fuel industry, the issues and needs of our own Defence Force, the vulnerabilities of trade routes in the region and the instability of the politics and the confrontations across the Middle East and in our own region, it is in our national interest to get on and do this, to sort it out quickly. I urge the government to sit down with us and come to a bipartisan agreement that will enable that to happen.
I thank all members for their contribution to the debate on the Petroleum and Other Fuels Reporting Bill 2017 and the Petroleum and Other Fuels Reporting (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2017.
This legislative package will improve the accuracy, reliability and timeliness of Australia's fuel statistics. This will help safeguard our energy security, improve the operation of the fuel market and help ensure Australia meets its international obligations. The Australian fuel market is increasingly competitive and diverse, with new technologies and suppliers entering the market. Providing accurate, reliable and timely statistics ensures businesses can direct investment efficiently to meet the changing needs of consumers. Quality statistics ensure that the government can monitor energy security effectively and develop policies accordingly. Accurate statistics are also important as the government implements its plan to return to compliance with Australia's oil stockholding obligation under the International Energy Program Treaty. By capturing all International Energy Agency accountable stock, the current compliance gap and any potential cost associated with returning to full compliance can be minimised. This legislative package provides for data sharing between government agencies to minimise the reporting burden on industry. The legislative package also provides flexibility in the reporting requirements to enable reduced and simplified requirements to be set where they are appropriate.
The Turnbull government is committed to safeguarding our energy security, meeting our international obligations and ensuring the effective operation of the market to deliver reliable and low-cost fuel to consumers. This bill will support the continuing achievement of all three objectives. As recommended by the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, following tabling of the bills in March, the government has developed a short addendum to the principal bill's explanatory memorandum. The addendum provides additional information regarding the intent behind the breadth of delegation available to the departmental secretary in terms of persons who may be authorised to undertake compliance-monitoring functions. I table this addendum for the information of members. I commend these bills to the House.
Order! The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this, the honourable member for Port Adelaide has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate 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 standing orders be suspended as would prevent the motion for the third reading being moved without delay.
The question is that the motion moved by the minister be agreed to.
I move:
That this bill be now 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.
I move:
That the amendment be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
I rise to speak on the Regional Investment Corporation Bill of 2017, and I move the second reading amendment as now, I hope, circulated in my name:
(1) Clause 4, page 5 (after line 3), after the definition of start day, insert:
vacancy, in relation to the office of a Board member, has a meaning affected by subsection 20(3).
(2) Clause 16, page 14 (lines 2 and 3), omit the clause, substitute:
16 Membership
The Board consists of:
(a) the Chair; and
(b) at least 2, and no more than 4, other members.
(3) Clause 20, page 15 (after line 23), at the end of the clause, add:
(3) For the purposes of a reference in:
(a) this Act to a vacancy in the office of a Board member; or
(b) the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 to a vacancy in the membership of a body;
there are taken to be 4 Board member offices in addition to the Chair.
(4) Clause 29, page 18 (lines 15 to 17), omit the clause, substitute:
29 Quorum
At a meeting of the Board, a quorum is constituted by:
(a) at any time when the Board consists of 3 Board members—2 Board members; or
(b) in any other case—3 Board members.
This amendment will be seconded by the member for Whitlam, and I understand he'll reserve his right to speak. There's a golden rule when representing Her Majesty's opposition, and that is that, when considering government legislative proposals, we should always stick to good policy, look at the quality of the bill being presented to the parliament to measure the extent to which it reflects the policy which is trying to be achieved by the government and, of course, look at the extent to which it upholds the standards and traditions of the Westminster system. The proposal in this bill is bad policy, and the bill being presented to the House, while it might reflect the government's intentions, does little to uphold the standards we expect in this place, particularly as they relate to ministerial and executive accountability.
The Regional Investment Corporation is another of the current agriculture minister's boondoggles. It's a big pork barrel. It's designed to do one thing only, and that is to recover Nationals party votes in just one part of the world in this instance. That part of the world happens to be Orange.
They lost a seat there, didn't they?
I am reminded by the member for Whitlam that Orange was in the news quite a bit throughout 2016. That's where the New South Wales Nationals party had a massive swing against it and in fact lost to the shooters and fishers party a seat which I think they had held at state level for its whole existence. So none of us were surprised that the current Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources, the current Deputy Prime Minister, chose to place his boondoggle in the city of Orange.
By the way, I love the city of Orange. It's a great city with great people. The other thing to note about Orange is it's in relatively good shape. It has a very strong economy. It's one of our leading regional economies, with a good critical mass, a strong population and a vibrant economy in a vibrant community. The Deputy Prime Minister presents this as part of a number of boondoggles and pork-barrelling exercises, as a sort of injection into the Orange economy—a much-needed injection, he would argue. I would argue that you can never do too much for a regional economy, but Orange wouldn't be the first port of call if you were genuine about trying to stimulate a regional economy by placing a government agency or authority there.
The Regional Investment Corporation, or the RIC as it's come to be known, will do two things. It will administer failed concessional loans for farmers. I say 'failed' because this government has now been in office for four years and has presented the parliament with various iterations and versions of its concessional loans program, and each and every one of them has been a failure. They have been implemented hopelessly. As a result, farmers have decided it's all too hard or, alternatively, decided that in this very low interest rate environment, where money is pretty cheap, it's not their major challenge at the moment so they see no value or efficacy in going through all the drama, including challenging or damaging the relationship with their local bank. They don't see the point in taking up these loans.
Of course, the current Deputy Prime Minister chooses to blame the states for this. None of us will be surprised by that. To the current Deputy Prime Minister, it's always someone else's fault. The reality is that the fault lies with the current Deputy Prime Minister, both for his design of these loans and for his incapacity to implement them in a way that makes them attractive and accessible for farmers who really need the help.
The second thing that this RIC will do is administer the Deputy Prime Minister's water infrastructure loans. This is an extraordinary thing in itself, because these water infrastructure loans look like they will be made to just about no-one. They're heavily conditional on matching funds, for example, and I have seen no evidence that these loans will be taken up. The local member for the area suggested he was going to have 200 employees as a result of this boondoggle, as I saw in his local media in Orange. If we have 200 employees in the RIC, something has gone terribly, terribly wrong. The existing concessional loans are administered by the various rural adjustment authorities in each state. While it's impossible to put an exact figure on the number of people in the states working on the loans, because people move from project to project, I think it would be safe to suggest that at the very most 10 or 12 people would be dealing with these things in the states. I know the water infrastructure loans are involved here too, but the idea of there being 200 employees, or even 100 employees, which I think has been the current Deputy Prime Minister's assessment or prediction, is just ridiculous. It's absolutely ridiculous.
It is very clear that this whole Regional Investment Corporation is all about the Nationals trying to win back their base. And, of course, it's part of a broader push which the Deputy Prime Minister describes as decentralisation, but which I would describe as a broader boondoggle on a pork-barrelling exercise. We have seen the relocation of the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority from Canberra. Where to?
Mr Stephen Jones interjecting—
The member for Whitlam helps me again: to Armidale, the current Deputy Prime Minister's electorate. It is costing the taxpayer $28 million—I think that's the latest figure—but also causing enormous disruption for the authority and completely undermining its capacity to deliver what it's asked to do, and that is ensuring our farmers have access to pesticides and other sprays and veterinary medicines in a timely way. I say 'timely way' very deliberately because that is critical, particularly when we think about the seasons our producers and growers face. That's one point.
Now, of course, he boasts that he's been forcing rural research and development corporations to move to regional areas as well, where we see, again, tidy placements in National party heartland; the high cost of the RRDCs, including the transactional cost; and the loss of highly qualified staff with a strong corporate memory. There's a real theme developing here, and it continues with the proposal for this Regional Investment Corporation.
Now I'm going to deliberately read into the Hansard the key points—there are many more; this is not an exhaustive list, but these are the key points—which take priority in Labor's concerns about the bill. First of all, in presenting the policy and the bill, the government has failed to provide any coherent policy rationale for the establishment of the Regional Investment Corporation. It's offered mixed messages when enunciating the policy objectives for the establishment of the Regional Investment Corporation. It's failed to undertake a cost-benefit analysis. Now, that's familiar! We saw the very same thing with the relocation of both the APVMA and the rural research and development corporations. It's given no confidence that the $28 million of taxpayers' money being spent to establish and operate the RIC delivers good value for the Australian taxpayer—no effort whatsoever on the part of the current Deputy Prime Minister to do so.
The RIC has been deliberately structured to enable legislation that minimises parliamentary scrutiny or any veto of ministerial directions. This has been noted, very importantly, by the Senate Scrutiny of Bills Committee. The government has failed to provide sufficient oversight of the activities of the corporation. It's failed to properly consider the effectiveness of the size of the board with regard to the range of expertise requirements and safeguards against political interference. It's extended the scope of the board and/or the CEO's capacity to delegate powers and functions beyond what is prudent governance. It's gone to great lengths to establish a constitutional underpinning, including the invocation of the external affairs power—the external affairs power!—but it's failed to address well-founded doubts about various matters, including concerns expressed by, again, the Senate Scrutiny of Bills Committee.
The government plans to have new future loans administered by the Commonwealth—these are the farm concessional loans—but existing loans, some of which will now extend for another 10-year period, will still be administered by the states. So we're going to have a two-track loan system, with some loans still administered by the states and other loans now administered by the Regional Investment Corporation. And, of course, the government intends to keep the ministerial review of the operations of the act a secret. That is extraordinary. That is not normal practice for any government.
I refer to the Senate's Scrutiny of Bills Committee. I won't be reading all their concerns into Hansard, because I simply don't have sufficient time, but I will quote the following:
1.122 The committee requests the Minister's advice as to why it is appropriate for all of the ministerial directions under clauses 11 and 12 not to be subject to disallowance and sunsetting, and why it is appropriate that there is no requirement to table 'other directions' made under clause 12 in the Parliament.
1.123 The committee also requests the Minister's advice as to why there is no requirement to seek the Board's advice prior to the making of a direction about where the Corporation is to be located under subclause 12(5).
They go on and on. At 1.132 they say:
In order to facilitate appropriate parliamentary scrutiny of the operation of this Act (and the new Corporation), the committee suggests it may be appropriate for clause 53 of the bill to be amended to include a legislative requirement that any report of the review be:
• tabled in the Parliament within 15 sitting days after it is received by the Agriculture Minister, and
• published on the internet within 30 days after it is received by the Agriculture Minister.
This is just extraordinary stuff. We saw with the APVMA a very, very considered approach to avoiding parliamentary scrutiny. The now Deputy Prime Minister knew that the forced relocation of the APVMA was highly unlikely to run the gauntlet of both houses of this parliament—highly unlikely. How did the government know that? They know there is no policy imperative. They know it's a bad idea. They know it's a shocking waste of taxpayer money and they know it's going to destroy the capacity of the APVMA to service our farmers, our vets, our thoroughbred breeders and every person who owns a companion animal in this country. They know that.
So what do they do? They go digging and digging to find a general policy order under the purvey of the Minister for Finance and use that instrument so they can avoid completely the scrutiny and veto powers of this parliament. That's not democracy. That's not the Westminster system. That's not how we do things in this country, but it's how we have been doing things since the Deputy Prime Minister signed his coalition agreement—the coalition agreement that's secret, the one I'm currently fighting the Prime Minister on in the Federal Court, where he's using taxpayers' money to keep it a secret. If he wants to argue that it's not a document of government or a document of a minister, why is he using taxpayers' money to fight me in the courts? If it's a political document between him and the now Deputy Prime Minister, let them use their own party funds or their own money to defend my court action. It's a basic foundation of the Westminster system that, when a deal is done to allow people—in this case the Prime Minister, the member for Wentworth and the Deputy Prime Minister—to hold those positions and to take government of this country, the Australian people are entitled to know what's in that document.
We see it happening here again this evening. The draftsmen, at the direction of the now Deputy Prime Minister, have gone to extraordinary lengths to avoid parliamentary scrutiny of the operations of this Regional Investment Corporation. The now Deputy Prime Minister wants to run this like his own fiefdom. He wants to use this as a pork-barrelling machine to do whatever he wants and to curry votes in any area he sees fit—in this case, in the area of Orange, where they had that disastrous by-election.
Even the National Farmers' Federation, in their submission to the Senate inquiry, recommended amendments be made to address the flaws in this bill. Were they embraced? Were the National Farmers' Federation listened to? No. Now we learn that the government itself is going to put forward an amendment. That's a funny thing, because the government majority on the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee recommended the bill be passed without any amendment. They seemed to think it was perfect in both its construction and policy intentions. Yet, after they issued their report, the government and the minister himself decided that some amendment might be necessary. The problem is he's putting forward one amendment, I think, to the size of the board. I think he had it as three—always a good number if you're seeking to exert maximum influence on a board—and now his amendment allows it to go to a maximum of five or something. So he's picked up one recommendation of the NFF. What a major change that is! What a departure from the government majority recommendations of the Senate committee—extraordinary stuff! What about all those matters identified by the Senate Scrutiny of Bills Committee? They are numerous: constitutional underpinnings, lack of parliamentary overview, extraordinary and excessive delegation powers. All these things have been completely ignored by the minister. Why did he embrace one amendment?
I think we have at least some of the answer. I still find it extraordinary that he only found it within himself to make one change, but you can be pretty sure that we have some movement on the blue carpet, because the now Deputy Prime Minister knows this bill is not going to secure passage in the Australian Senate. When you think about it, that is pretty extraordinary, because those with only passing interest in this, I admit, will see this as a reasonable sort of thing to be doing. They're scratching the heads: 'The states are administering the loans. The Deputy Prime Minister said they're not doing a very good job of it, so he's going to establish this new place.' It says a lot for the Deputy Prime Minister to be facing defeat in the Senate on what seems, on the face of it, to be a simple proposition. It says that they're starting to wake up to his modus operandi. They're starting to work out that on every occasion he will put his political interests ahead of the interest of others, including Australian farmers, and we see that in the parliament today. I've been here 21 years, and this is one of the worst bills I've ever seen. I've seen a few ministers fall in my time; in fact I took a departure myself, one time.
You recovered well, though.
Thank you, Member for Whitlam. I've never seen a minister dig in like this minister. I've never seen a bloke dig in like this bloke, at the expense of his government. At some point, the friends come up and say: 'We love you, mate, but, you're just too of much a drain on this government. This is too big of a distraction. It's time to go. We're sorry, but it's time to go. You can't keep doing this to your government.' But not this bloke: he's going to dig in, and he doesn't care how much he destroys the joint. The Deputy Prime Minister's interests will come first—the ego writ large, unfailing in his confidence in his capacity to do the job for the Australian people. I've seen no sign of that.
In the four years he's been agriculture minister, I can't name more than one thing he's done for the sector. We hear lots of talk, 'Money on the table, beef prices are up'—as if he somehow had anything to do with that. He's going to build a dam here, a dam here and a dam everywhere. He'll never build a dam; I'll bet my house on it. Labor in government built water infrastructure projects, the Tasmanian Midlands project being the finest example, but in four years, the now agriculture minister has built no dam. He doesn't even have a dam plan; he doesn't have anything. He has money on the table he knows will never be picked up, because he knows the other parties, including the states, don't have the capacity to match the funds, but he rolls on with the rhetoric: 'Beef prices are up and we're going to build a dam, and we'd have it built by now if the Queensland government had come into line.' Rubbish, rubbish, rubbish!
The fact that the Senate is poised to reject this is a sign that people are waking up to that fact. As I said in the House the other day, this bloke is all hat and no cowboy. He doesn't have any vision for agriculture. He doesn't have any strategic plan. He has no view about sustainable profitability, no view about the efficient allocation of our natural resources, no plan to build up the value curve in the previous markets—nothing at all. It's all spin to his base. He's spending all of his time worried about what One Nation's going to say next.
I say to all those out there working so hard in Australia's agriculture sector and in agribusiness: you are right to start waking up. This guy doesn't have your interests at heart. He thinks about one thing and one thing only, and that's himself, his political interests and the prospects of what I now call his 'dual National Party'. The sooner he pulls the pin and does the right thing, the better for all concerned, including those in the agriculture sector.
Debate interrupted.
I rise tonight to talk about the concerns that my constituents in Darwin—the capital of the north—have about the current Northern Territory economy and the strong perception that this federal coalition government is not doing enough to meet their 'developing the north' mandate. I also rise tonight to talk about the sheer hypocrisy of those opposite when it comes to developing the north and to point out the policy decisions of those opposite that in fact go completely against their own developing the north rhetoric.
The coalition government likes talking the talk about developing the north, but it looks like it's doing everything within its power to withdraw federal government support from the Northern Territory. Firstly, there are the direct job cuts to Commonwealth agencies. From the time the member for Warringah came to power in 2013 through to the Turnbull era, about 450 Australian Public Service jobs have been lost in Darwin. I've talked in this place about the cuts to the Australian Electoral Commission. The AEC office has been completely gutted, from 15 employees down to three. This includes the unit that specifically goes out and educates and enrols Indigenous Territorians; it has been cut: 15 down to three—decimated. Twenty-five thousand Territorians are eligible to be enrolled but are not enrolled. What do we do? Cut nearly the complete AEC office in Darwin. It's ludicrous.
Apart from the serious concerns that we have about those job cuts, how is this decentralisation? The Deputy Prime Minister—and I must withdraw the comments I made in an earlier speech when I thought he was going to be the 'former Deputy Prime Minister'; it was incorrect; he is still the current Deputy Prime Minister—is moving a whole Commonwealth agency to his electorate. Now we hear from the member for Hunter that the government has more plans to move another agency, or another corporation, to another coalition-held electorate. We are trying to keep the economy going in the north by holding onto the public servants that we've got there and that are there to enrol people.
There is also the Australian Bureau of Statistics. We've got the same-sex marriage postal survey that will be run by the ABS. This government has just decimated the ABS office, from 34 jobs down to 15. This directly affects our economy, because if we can't count Territorians—they live in remote and regional places—we're going to have a smaller estimated resident number and so we're going to get less GST. This will really hurt our community; it will hurt the Territory. So it's hard to see how losing Public Service jobs from a big regional capital—in fact, the capital of the Northern Territory—is anything like decentralisation. In fact, this government has moved some of those jobs to Brisbane. That's the opposite of decentralisation.
The cuts in the budget to Charles Darwin University by those opposite mean 65 to 75 more jobs being lost. We don't need that. It's not helpful. If those opposite honestly want to develop the north—and I've talked to the current Deputy Prime Minister about this—then I hope the second minister for developing the north or the third minister for developing the north takes this nationally important project seriously. There are a couple of things that the federal government could do. As I mentioned to the current Deputy Prime Minister just the other day, we need to get the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility operating. The NAIF was announced two years ago. It has been legislated for over a year. It is yet to spend a dollar in the Territory. This is a $5 billion fund. The rhetoric sounded good. Now we hear there's another corporation that sounds like it's doing a lot but is perhaps not doing much on the ground. We need the NAIF to start working.
There is one thing, in the time remaining, that the Prime Minister and current Deputy Prime Minister can do: bring forward the funds for the city deal with Darwin. It's really important that we get some funds into our northern capital. The city deal MOU has been established, so bring forward that funding, please.
It is wonderful to be here to report back to the House on some of the great work the Turnbull government is doing in the City of Gold Coast, the nation's sixth-largest city. It is a city that in 1954 had 19,018 people in the census and now has 600,000—the fastest-growing city of its type anywhere in the country. Some of the northern suburbs that I represent, Ormeau and Pimpama, have growth rates of 15 and 16 per cent per annum. They are the fastest-growing suburbs in the country. You would expect that in such a vibrant growing city and electorate the Turnbull government would be stumping up with a range of dollars and cents to assist. I am extremely pleased to report to the House that this is, indeed, the case.
Through a fair bit of advocacy work, I am very pleased to report to the House that over the coming 12 to 36 and 48 months $10,658,819 will be spent in Black Spot Program road funding or Roads to Recovery funding. Of that, a staggering $8,013,000 is from the federal government. Eighty per cent of the total Roads to Recovery expenditure on roads in my electorate, over the next four years, will be coming from the federal government. The message is quite clear: the federal government is not taking the Gold Coast for granted. It is delivering, in spades, to the fastest-growing city and the fastest-growing electorate in the country.
Let's have a look at some of these expenditures the federal government is stumping up. There is $484,000 for the Beattie Road, Coomera, between Foxwell Road and Waterway Drive, for a whole bunch of bicycle paths and footpaths that are needed. This is all coming out of the cycleway report section 5 that's been submitted by the local council and other authorities. Likewise, there is the upgrading and reconstructing of the existing road to the industrial collector from the Pacific Highway, the service road to Christensen Road. This is $2.95 million worth of expenditure for that worthwhile project. Likewise, for the upgrade of the road to four lanes and to convert the existing roundabout at Scarborough Street to traffic signals—this is between North Street and Stevens Street—there is a staggering $2.679 million to complete that piece of work. There is a third of a million dollars for construction of a 2.5-metre-wide shared path on the southern side of Musgrave Avenue between Stevens Street and Kumbari Avenue—again, building on the cycleway report.
We'll put a staggering $2.58 million into upgrading the existing roundabout to signal control, to improve the capacity, safety and improved services for pedestrians and cyclists on Napper Road, especially the intersection between Napper Road and Arundel Drive. There is $1.2 million to go into Peachey Road, Ormeau, between Doherty Court and Vaughan Drive, to construct and install signals on Peachey Road access to the Ormeau marketplace shopping centre. And $430,000 will go into the construction of a 2.5-metre-wide shared path on the southern side of Stevens Street, between Musgrave Avenue and the Gold Coast Highway, again building into that crucial area of Labrador.
This is an unprecedented amount of money, in my electorate, under the Roads for Recovery program. Of $10.658 million, over $8 million is coming from the federal government. This builds on an enormous amount of infrastructure work that's going ahead in my electorate for the Gold Coast. There is $95 million to build on stage 2 of the light rail. There is $270 million from the state and up to $55 million from the council, but it was the federal government's $95 million that got this project up and running. It's ahead of schedule. It looks like it will be completed by the end of the year but, certainly, will be opened in the early part of next year—well and truly in time for the Commonwealth Games. It builds on over $20 million in extra funding that the Commonwealth government gave, through a location offset, to get the $300 million Aquaman DC film made on the Gold Coast. That is a $300 million spend—the vast majority of which comes through the Gold Coast and my electorate—and, in terms of investment, an extra $20-plus million in location offset.
To get that sort of expenditure in a single electorate and, indeed, a single city is a great investment and an inspired approach to getting things moving. I commend what the government is doing. It is tangible. It is real. It's happening on the ground, and I'm incredibly proud to serve in a government that is that focused on local communities.
Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes. Yes to freedom, yes to equality and yes to love. It is time for us to say yes to marriage equality. More than six years ago, in one of my first acts as a parliamentarian, I successfully moved a motion calling on all members of this place to consult their constituents about marriage equality and report back to the House. Six years ago, members of this place did what the government is urging us to do now, which is to go and talk to constituents about how they feel about marriage equality. Many surveyed their constituents with mail-outs and online surveys, others had direct conversations with people in their electorates and many MPs gave speeches to parliament reporting on what they'd learnt. Not long after that, I introduced the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill in 2012. At the time I said:
Love knows no boundaries. It knows no limits. And love knows when it has found its partner. There have been many attempts throughout history to limit love, and all have failed. As we move further into the 21st century, I am confident that attempts to limit love will fail yet again and that full marriage quality will become a reality.
Those words were true then, and they are true now. The inquiry into that bill had more responses than any other inquiry in the history of this parliament, and overwhelmingly they supported marriage equality.
We are now on the cusp of making marriage equality a reality. We know that a majority of Australians support marriage equality, as survey after survey and opinion poll after opinion poll has shown, and we now know there's a majority of parliamentarians in both chambers of parliament ready to vote yes. We now know that over 22 other countries already have marriage equality, including the UK, New Zealand, Ireland, Germany and the US. We now know that the only thing stopping a free vote of this parliament and making marriage equality a reality is a Prime Minister who is clinging to what may well be a fictional majority and as a result is beholden to the bigots and the homophobes on the backbench and their cheerleader-in-chief, the member for Warringah.
Now it seems we've come full circle with a non-binding survey, conducted by the ABS, being used as simply a delaying tactic by the hard Right in this parliament. I hope that the High Court strikes down this survey, because this survey will be an opportunity for hate speech to thrive in this country and for people to be made to feel less than equal. But, if it doesn't, then all of us of goodwill must rise to take this chance to strike a blow for equality, because there have been many times in history when a wrong turn by those with power has led to freedom, and this is one such opportunity.
We must put our heart and soul into the campaign over the coming weeks to ensure that on 15 November there's a resounding yes. We must hit the streets and the phones. We must paint the cities and towns in rainbows and the word 'yes', and we must get out the vote in whatever way we can. That's what I will be doing, and I know that millions of Australians will join me. On the weekend my wife and I, and our kids, decorated the picket fence of our front yard with a simple sign that said, 'Yes'. It said, 'Vote yes,' with the fine print saying, 'to the stupid plebiscite.' It's always important to read the fine print! I think that summarises the way many people feel at the moment. We don't need this plebiscite, but, if we're going to have it, let's make sure it's a yes vote. I did that, and my wife and our kids did that, because we want our children to grow up in a world where everyone can marry the person they love regardless of who they are or where they come from.
Marriage equality is about people, not politics. It's about the grandma who wants to see her grandson married, the father who wants to walk his daughter down the aisle and every couple who wants to celebrate their lifelong commitment to each other. It's about the commitment shared between two people who love each other and want to build a secure future together. It's about everyone being able to marry the person they love. It's about the boy in the country town who's working out who he's attracted to, or the girl who wants to take her girlfriend to the school formal—because they will hear the message from this parliament that all love is equal. So, I say again: yes, yes, yes, yes, yes. Yes to freedom. Yes to equality. Yes to love. It is time for us to say yes to marriage equality.
It's my pleasure to rise today to again commend, thank and acknowledge the fantastic people who reside in my electorate of Forde. I said last week and I reiterate again how valuable it is when we get to spend time back among our communities when parliament is in recess. It is there that we can do our greatest work in listening to and learning more about the needs of those who have elected us to this parliament. I have been reminded yet again about the strong sense of family that permeates my community. This is evident throughout the electorate of Forde in our homes, in our schools and on our sporting fields. It motivates everything we do, not just for our own loved ones but for others in need.
For me, this was particularly evident recently at the opening of our Jimbelunga Nursing Home. The Minister for Aged Care and Minister for Indigenous Health, the Hon. Ken Wyatt, joined me at the centre, which has undergone recent upgrades to significantly improve the care it can offer our elderly residents, particularly those with an Indigenous heritage. Of course, a building alone can't do much. It is the Jimbelunga staff, who are truly dedicated to the work they do, who work hard to enact the centre's vision of providing best practice and culturally appropriate, quality care. I commend them today for their continued hard work in our community and the valuable support they provide to our families. Words really can't express how valued these efforts are to me and many others.
I have also been reminded about the resilience of my community. Many homes in my region are still feeling the effects of the intense and sudden flooding caused by ex-Tropical Cyclone Debbie at the end of March and early April this year. I've had the opportunity over the past few weeks to revisit some of the families affected. Some lost everything. Others sustained significant damage. One such family live in Halls Road in Buccan. The first floor of their house was completely washed away, but much of their property survived because they'd planted a lot of trees across their front yard, which broke the impact of the raging torrent. But it was their attitude that struck me most, and it's echoed throughout the electorate. It continues to amaze me that this family and so many others like them continue to diligently rebuild their lives while persistently jumping through each and every hoop that their insurance companies place in front of them. I want to express my ongoing support for each of these families, who are out there still looking to rebuild their lives, not only physically but mentally as well. You are not forgotten by me or by this government.
It remains clear that, when disaster strikes, Queenslanders will continue to rise above it. But I want to make a point here, Mr Deputy Speaker—and I met with the family again over the weekend—about the insurance companies. A word of caution to the insurance companies: if you do not work with these families and solve these problems, I am more than happy to name and shame you in this House.
I also wish to highlight the continued and tireless work of the community groups and organisations in my electorate: our Rotary and Quota service clubs, our Lions clubs and RSLs, the various branches of the Queensland Country Women's Association, each of our dedicated sporting clubs—there are so many, many more. It was a pleasure to catch up with so many of you in recent weeks and see the incredible progress you continue to make each and every week in your common goal to make our community the best place to live. I thank all of you for your ongoing commitment to our communities and our families, and I thank you for continuing to be such a valuable part of the community we all live in. The role that you play makes it so much easier for me to do the job that I do and to seek to partner with you to make our community a better place. It remains my privilege to represent the incredible community of Forde here in this House.
I've spoken on the issue of infrastructure in south-west Sydney many times before. It's a crucial issue for the people of my electorate of Macarthur, as over 70 per cent of workers travel outside the electorate every day for work. It's also important for the growth of Sydney as an international city. Housing development in south-west Sydney has provided many jobs for the people I've cared for in the last 34 years. I believe that we can develop Sydney further and help it become a truly global city, but we must provide a quality lifestyle for all of our citizens. This should be a priority for government, not a secondary consideration.
I'm speaking today of my extreme disappointment at the poor record and poor planning for public transport infrastructure in the greater Macarthur region. There's nothing fair about the distribution of infrastructure around New South Wales. The greater Macarthur area is expected to double its population over the next 20 years to over 600,000 people. Bordering on the Macarthur area is Western Sydney Airport, which, if successful, will be a huge boost to jobs and development in the area. However, the new chair of the government owned company building the airport, Paul O'Sullivan, has been warned not to build a 'Wright Brothers, NBN-type' airport.
Everywhere I go in my electorate, there are new suburbs with hundreds of new constituents every month. In spite of this, there is no public transport being developed. To be fair, both sides of politics have been guilty of poor transport decisions over at least 60 years. For example, there was a rail line from Campbelltown to Camden, which I remember well, which would have been ideal for the many new suburbs on the way. However, this was scrapped by the state Labor government in 1963—an absolute tragedy for the area. However, now, in 2017, we've had rapacious development for a number of years without any meaningful action on public transport. We should question why this has happened.
Despite all these new developments and new residents, we see no action from the state and federal Liberal governments. They have no foresight at all. What we get are roads all drawing into Narellan Road, already at gridlock, and much, much talking about how smart the Turnbull and Berejiklian governments are and what fantastic infrastructure they are providing, when we know that they're not providing anything of the sort. One has to ask: who are they working for?
All concerned with the new Sydney Airport agree that we need to have a rail connection when it opens. Yet the government will not commit to this. In spite of the strenuous efforts of all concerned to make the government commit to a rail line to Western Sydney Airport, it is not forthcoming. Governments have wasted billions of dollars gained during the recent housing boom. Much of the money has come from south-west Sydney but very little returned. The overbudget light rail that the Liberal government is building down George Street will do nothing for south-west Sydney or the new airport. The WestConnex motorway is a huge drain on state coffers that offers very little for Macarthur. Unfortunately, a light rail to Parramatta, again, does nothing for Macarthur or for Western Sydney Airport.
We have a once-in-a-lifetime chance to do the correct thing by Macarthur residents and provide public transport services so desperately needed. If we are to be connected to our neighbours, we need: (1) a rail link to Western Sydney Airport open when it opens; (2) a north-south Western Sydney rail link from Campbelltown, through Narellan and on to St Marys in Penrith; and (3) completion of the Maldon-Dombarton rail line connecting us to Wollongong—which is almost completed now, so it should happen. It's no longer time for talking or complaining about there not being enough money. There is money for other services, but there doesn't appear to be any for south-west Sydney.
Many people from my electorate have to spend more than three hours a day travelling to and from work. The roadworks to the Northern Road are completely inadequate and cannot cope with traffic flows, even now. I have been to so many presentations by planners, councils, the Greater Sydney Commission, UrbanGrowth, MACROC, state planning, private consultants, mayors, ministers and malcontents. The language is marginally different but the message is the same—public transport is what will bring all of this together, but no-one is prepared to have the vision to commit to it. We need another JJ Bradfield, the builder of the Harbour Bridge and the underground railway, to show the vision needed. It is very questionable whether this government has any of the foresight required.
DonateLife Week was held from 31 July to 6 August this year. On Saturday, 5 August I held a motorcycle ride from Coffs Harbour to Port Macquarie to raise awareness of the need for more people to register as organ donors. Currently there are 1,400 people waiting for an organ transplant—a procedure which could change their life, or in many cases save their life. Around 34 per cent of Australians are registered donors but regrettably only nine per cent of people aged 18 to 24 are registered. If we can increase the number of registered organ donors we can save more lives and improve the quality of life for more people. It's so easy to go online to donatelife.gov.au and register, and it only takes a minute to do.
The ride was a huge success, with 40 bikes and trikes participating. Craig Lee, a double lung transplant recipient, rode his delightful MV Agusta over from Tamworth to participate. Riders also included Michael and Una Carpenter, whose son Jason passed away suddenly—Una said that the fact that Jason was able to become an organ donor and give the gift of life to others meant that something good had come out of a tragic situation.
I received fantastic support from the community, including BCU credit union, Telstra, the Westport Club and local Lions clubs. I would particularly like to thank Bonville Sawtell Lions, who provided breakfast before the ride and manned a stand in the local shopping centre. I would like to thank to thank Rob and Maxine Davies, Jen Campbell and Julie Muldoon. I also thank Coffs Harbour Pacific City Lions Club, including president Grahame McEwan and volunteers Alan Graham, Gary Lenard and Joe Grewal. We were met in Port Macquarie by newly elected mayor Peta Pinson, who welcomed the riders to Port Macquarie as her first official function. I would like to thank president Rob Bruce, who enthusiastically brought Tacking Point Lions Club on board. They cooked up a storm for lunch. Helping out with the barbecue were Jill Adams, Viv and Kevin Howell, Bob Forster, Jan Grimmond, Walter Gunther, Sandra Bell and Mal Merrick. In addition to doing a great lunch, the Tacking Point Lions manned a stand in Port Central to spread the important message of organ donation. I would particularly like to thank Mal Merrick and Fred Hynes, Scott Barnes and Simon Abell.
Lions were on the loose between Coffs Harbour and Port Macquarie, spreading the message of organ donation. I would like to thank Bellingen Lions president John Molloy and volunteers Wally Tyson and Eddie Saladi; Urunga Lions president Jo Brotherton and volunteers, Ann Marie Hall and Nora and Ken Brooks; Kempsey Lions president Geoff Bannermann and Richard Cashian; Nambucca Lions secretary Peter Mitchell and volunteers Harry Mills, Don Parveez and Jeff Shoemark; South West Rocks president David Dickinson, secretary Paul Dickinson and volunteers Roy Cousins, Dick McLoughlin, Kay Cousins, Iris McKelligott and Rhonda Smith. The ride really highlighted the power of the Lions movement to mobilise people right along the coast to achieve a community outcome.
BCU is a great local financial institution and they had in-branch displays to encourage people to sign up. I would particularly like to thank Culture and Recognition Officer Kerrie Byles and CEO Lyndon Kingston. We were greatly supported by Telstra, and thank you to Mike Marom and Chris Simon. At the Westport Club, I thank Jenny Edmunds, the Community and Sports Manager, Anthony Westman, the General Manager and Lauren Alexander for their support. There was also Reverend Zoe Everingham, the rector of the Anglican Parish of Bellingen, who herself is a kidney donor, Anne Judd from DonateLife and David 'Laarz' Laarhoven of Coffs Harley Tours. Also supporting the ride was Lee Fatouros of Coffs Coast Trikes, who took Cheryl and Colin Simpson for a great ride. Colin, a former motorcyclist, was delighted to be able to go on the trike and experience the joys of motorcycling once again.
Thanks also to the Coffs Coast branch of Ulysses for their great support, including Shirley Rose, Paul Cooling and Bernie Higoe. I would also like to thank John Sercombe of Coffs Property and Ian and Helen Bamford of Laser Plumbing. It was a great event and it was fantastic to see such fantastic community support. I am delighted to be able to say that the event will be back next year, bigger and better.
House adjourned at 20:00
The statistics on violence against women in Australia are shocking. On average at least one woman a week is killed by a partner or former partner. One in four Australian women has experienced physical or sexual violence by an intimate partner. Women are five times more likely than men to require medical attention or hospitalisation as a result of intimate partner violence and five times more likely to report fearing for their lives. Half of its victims have children in their care. There is evidence that women with disabilities experience high levels of violence and that Indigenous women experience higher rates of more severe forms of violence than the rest of the population. Domestic violence is the leading cause of death, disability and illness among women aged 15 to 44 years. It is higher than motor vehicle accidents, blood pressure or smoking. It destroys individuals, families and communities. It costs the Australian economy around one per cent of GDP in lost productivity.
The ABS estimates that around two-thirds of women who experience domestic violence are in the workforce. That means that more than 800,000 women, or around one in six women workers, are experiencing some form of violence in their home. Apart from the personal impact of violence, there are costs to employers. These include increased absenteeism and staff turnover, decreased performance and productivity, conflict among workers and safety issues for everyone if the perpetrator of violence goes to the workplace, which we know occurs at alarming rates.
In a report for the Australia Institute Dr Jim Stanford confirmed what domestic violence counsellors have been saying for decades. Economic insecurity is one of the most significant obstacles confronting women in their decision to leave a violent relationship. Introducing paid domestic violence leave into the National Employment Standards offers an important opportunity to reach people living with violence and to provide them with support. The current federal government does not support paid domestic violence leave and this government is actively removing access to this vital lifesaving workplace right from the agreements covering its own employees.
Ill-informed claims and actions by the government are dangerous and negligent. It's time that they had a rethink on this issue, which should be above politics. Stanford's report calculates that the cost of providing every worker access to 10 days paid domestic violence leave to be less than 100th of a per cent of last year's increase in average weekly wages. The idea that this would even be noticed internationally, let alone undermine our competitiveness, is extraordinary. Some of Australia's leading companies—Qantas, IKEA, NAB, Westpac, Woolworths and Telstra—have all done this. Make no mistake: not paying domestic violence leave is not free. The reality is that the cost of inaction is too high. Paid domestic violence leave will make it easier for women to leave violence. It will make it easier to keep children safe. It will make our workforce healthier and safer. It will save lives. In 2017 there are no more excuses. (Time expired)
I am pleased to advise the House that on 29 July a by-election was held for the position of mayor in Port Macquarie-Hastings Council. It was great to see a strong field of five candidates putting their name forward for what is an important role in the future of the City of Port Macquarie and an important role in the shire. The Port Macquarie-Hastings shire is a strong, growing area that is seeing new businesses thriving and strong business growth. Port Macquarie is a vibrant coastal city. I'm delighted to congratulate Peta Pinson as the new mayor. She put her name forward and took the big step from being a business owner directly to the position of mayor. I'm sure it's a very challenging position. I know that she will do a great job as the incoming mayor.
I would like to congratulate outgoing mayor Peter Besseling, who served since 2012 until May this year. I wish him well in his future endeavours. I have certainly had a constructive relationship with Peter since the City of Port Macquarie came within the boundaries of Cowper at the last election.
Peta Pinson brings a wealth of business experience to the role, and I think that that business perspective will be welcome. It will ensure that local government in the City of Port Macquarie has a strong business focus. It is absolutely vital that we have a local government sector that is proactive in creating jobs and opportunities, and I think there is a great opportunity for all levels of government to work together. I'm certainly pleased that, with the member for Oxley, Melinda Pavey, I met with Mayor Pinson so early in her term to discuss ways in which the federal and state governments can work together with the new mayor. I also know she has a very good relationship with the member for Port Macquarie, Leslie Williams, and I certainly look forward to our working together constructively.
Mayor Pinson has a strong focus on road safety, which gels well with the federal government's commitment of $5.64 billion for upgrading the Pacific Highway, our Roads to Recovery program and our Bridges Renewal program. Mayor Pinson is also very keen to ensure that council's tendering processes provide for the allocation of tenders to local suppliers, which is so important in creating jobs. The federal government is focused on creating jobs along the North Coast through our $25 million regional jobs and investment package. I congratulate Mayor Pinson. I'm sure she will do a great job, and I look forward to our working together for the betterment of the shire.
I rise today in frustration that many people in my electorate still have not been connected to the government's second-rate NBN. And, for those who have been connected, they're probably even worse off. The only thing slower than the government's abysmal rollout of the NBN is the speed of the internet in my home. The people of Longman have been left behind, denied a reliable internet connection because of this government's refusal to acknowledge that their rollout has been nothing short of disastrous. The people of Longman deserve better. I am fighting for them so that they get better, but it shouldn't have come to this.
My predecessor, the previous member for Longman, should have fought for them too. He should have advocated for his constituents and stood up for what is right. One such constituent who has been failed by my predecessor is Paul, a resident of Caboolture. During the 44th Parliament, Paul reached out to the previous member for Longman, requesting his assistance with getting connected to the NBN. Despite Prime Minister Turnbull's historic declaration that everyone would be connected by 2016, Paul was listed on the rollout map for 2020. Paul made inquiries with the previous member for Longman, but nothing eventuated. His pleas were all but ignored. I have been fighting for Paul and every other constituent like him. It's because of Labor's pressure on the government that he is finally to be connected to the NBN later this month. Paul knows firsthand how terrible this rollout has been. He attributed it thus: 'I think the main issue is that the NBN Co doesn't have a plan or is unclear about what the plan is. If they do have a plan, they're not sticking to it.' I think Paul's pretty spot-on. He's described NBN Co's approach and he's described this government's approach.
My predecessor was the Assistant Minister for Innovation in the Turnbull government. Can you believe that? He was responsible for innovation. What was the most innovative technology he could deliver to his constituents? It was corroded copper—a relic of the 19th century. Maybe his vision for the electorate was inspired by the Caboolture Historical Village; who knows? But, as my constituent noted—and I will quote Paul again—'It just seems that NBN Co have been providing our community with excuses rather than responses.' I think the time has now passed for excuses. I know the people of Longman want action. The people of Australia want action. They need more than the weak leadership offered by this government.
On 19 July, I hosted a banking forum in Mackay. It was an opportunity to put bank representatives in front of businesses, industry bodies and locals affected by the decisions made by those banks. The forum was very well attended. I thank the big four banks for sending senior representatives to listen to the concerns of locals. Locals took the opportunity to outline the strength of our regional economy and the upswing that we're experiencing. We hope that area managers that attended my forum—
Ms Lamb interjecting—
The previous member was heard in silence. She should afford that to other members.
take the message of economic strength and opportunity back to their state and central managers and feed it up the line to the national management. Leaders of the big four banks need to understand the appetite for growth amongst businesses in regional Australia.
The economic strength of Central and North Queensland belies the high level of risk that the major banks have assigned to the region around the Bowen Basin. If the banks were going to assign high-risk assessments and more lending controls, the time to do it was four years ago, not now when it only stifles recovery and economic growth. The bankers at the forum were quizzed on the policy of putting pressure on riskier loan clients to get them off the books, enabling the banks to divert credit capacity elsewhere. This seemed to be a policy that particularly attacked rural and regional borrowers, which were perceived as higher risk than city based home mortgagees. The banks were asked to make sure valuations are not artificially inflated by valuers who didn't know the area that they were valuing and didn't even bother looking at the places that they were valuing. That is the case in many instances.
The banks were also asked to stop knocking one of our region's economic linchpins—that is, the coalmining sector and, in particular, the Adani Carmichael coal project, which promises so much potential for our region. North Queenslanders were gobsmacked when Westpac was, on the one hand, publicly condemning the coal industry in North Queensland while, on the other hand, profiting from its own investment in the coal industry in New South Wales. These banks have been very easily bullied by the eco-terrorist brigade into taking a position against Adani, publicly stating they have refused to fund the Carmichael project. But they are far less willing to put that statement in context by admitting that they were never asked to fund the project.
While North Queenslanders work hard to make a living to support their families and pay their bills, they see massive profits being made by these banks and obscene salaries being paid to top executives, even when the banks are doing the wrong thing, like with the CBA. It was good to see the Reserve Bank Governor, Philip Lowe, criticising the arrogance and poor service of the major banks, saying: 'It's fair to say that trust in banking has been strained.' His comment on the CBA breaching money laundering and terrorism financing laws adds further fuel to the public's fire. By their continued actions, the banks are spoonfeeding the push for a royal commission. (Time expired)
I value the ABC. In my youth I valued Triple J, and I acknowledge its important role as our national broadcaster for youth. I understand the desire for balance and diversity of opinions and the need to be devil's advocate in interviews. But—and I really am amazed I have to say this—these principles do not apply to Nazis. Triple J Hack, on Monday, aired an interview that is both beyond the pale and unacceptable. It has been exposed by James Hennessy of Pedestrian TV, Junkee and many other decent Australians on Twitter.
The interview involved Mr Tom Tilley. He interviewed Eli Mosley, who is a Nazi, a white supremacist and American who has appeared many times on an anti-Semitic podcast called The Daily Holocaust. He allowed Mr Mosley, in the course of the interview, to insist that the weaponry held by the neo-Nazis, which included, I might add, assault rifles, was defensive. He did so without challenge. Mr Tilley allowed Mr Mosley to advance a self-defence theory for the driver who was involved in the death of Heather Heyer. He allowed Mr Mosley to deny links to the KKK and Nazis, and he allowed Mr Mosley to end the call with a reference to his 'Confederate brothers'.
Mr Tilley was later punked or fooled into taking a call from a 'Herschel', who was, as Pedestrian TV points out, in all likelihood an alt-Right troll masquerading as a Jewish man. Tilley then proceeded to play devil's advocate in response to this fake caller, saying that white supremacists had 'a right to stand up for their culture'. Afterwards, in conversation with another ABC commentator, he said that such views were complex and that 'there were so many narratives at play'. This is a dangerous moral equivalence, and it's an insult to the editorial standards, and an abuse of the charter, of the ABC.
I find it hard that we have to stand in this parliament and say this: Nazis should not be interviewed by the national broadcaster or, indeed, any of our Australian media outlets. It is an insult to all those who fought against fascism, who were at Tobruk, El Alamein, bomber command—anybody who fought under the flag of the then United Nations, the free French, the Polish, and those from the UK and its dominions. So many lost their lives or were wounded in the fight against Nazism. We did not fight for democratic values to see this horror and hate being broadcast on our national broadcaster. The ABC needs to have a close look at this issue.
Recently I had the great pleasure of being part of the Australian Defence Force Parliamentary Program, when the shadow minister for defence, Richard Marles, and I attended Exercise Talisman Sabre on Shoalwater Bay—and I want to acknowledge today the servicemen who are on the reciprocal part of that program. James Hagan, who is here in the chamber, is one of the officers who has come to spend a week in the parliament.
Over 30,000 personnel trained and tested amphibious landing aircraft, parachutes, operations and landing force manoeuvres during the exercise. As four C-17s arrived over an airfield to drop parachuters out of the back of the aircraft, I said to the commanding officer, 'Will they need any enthusiasm to jump out of the back of the aircraft?' He said: 'No, those parachuters will need no enthusiasm, whatsoever, to jump out of that aircraft. They have been on it for 45 hours. It was a direct flight from Alaska, where they had been practising their midair refuelling. They will be on the ground for about 48 or 72 hours, and then they'll be packed up and sent back to Alaska as part of the marine contingent.' The logistics and planning that went on in that exercise were just remarkable.
It was a great experience to be able to be part of that, and I would encourage any of the members in this place who have not participated in the Australian Defence Force Parliamentary Program to do so. While staying there as part of the Army contingent, I experienced the salubrious accommodation they refer to as a hutchie. It is a small piece of tarp that serves as your shelter for the evening, and you lay out your bedding that looks more like a yoga mat. I was extremely boisterous in my opposition to the sleeping accommodation. But, whilst it gave me the greatest discomfort, it will also be the greatest memory I had while I was up there, exercising with the men in the field. It was great.
Over 200 personnel from my electorate were up there serving as reservists, ranging from radiologists, nurses, doctors and servicemen. What they do in their spare time is nothing short of admirable—and not only for their own causes. As politicians, we should know they offer a blanket of security for us as a nation so that we can sleep well each night.
Labor is proud of our long history of support for the union movement, and we will continue to support workers like those at Dorevitch Pathology. Last week, 500 HWU workers at Dorevitch Pathology went on strike. Those workers haven't had an enterprise agreement for 10 years. It expired a decade ago. There has been delay after delay with enterprise agreement negotiations. In fact, Dorevitch Pathology CEO, Neville Moller, lasted a grand total of seven minutes in enterprise agreement negotiations. Bargaining over the last 12 months has led nowhere, finishing with a zero per cent wage increase offer. Some of the Dorevitch Pathology workers are currently only earning the minimum modern award rate. In order to match minimum wage award increases over the last decade these workers would need to have a 28 per cent pay increase.
The wage increase offer proposed by Dorevitch is zero per cent. To add insult to injury, a full-time worker at Dorevitch Pathology can earn around $7,000 less a year than the pathology industry average. Dorevitch has proposed reducing sick leave from 21 days to 10 days—keep in mind that these are healthcare professionals. In all parts the health industry has provided higher than average sick leave, as workers are more susceptible to illness due to transmissible workplace illnesses. Dorevitch has turned a blind eye to its workers' needs, all the while raking in profits of $1.2 billion since the last agreement.
On Monday last week, 89 HWU members were locked out by Dorevitch as a result of the 500-member, 24-hour protected stop-work action. Those members were not allowed to return to work and were not paid. Those union members have been deliberately targeted. This is yet another awful example of this government failing to protect workers. We wonder why we live in a world where wage growth in Australia is at its lowest on record and where inequality in Australia is at a 75-year high. It is instances like this and workplaces like this that have created that national situation.
Pathology workers, like so many others, just want to be able to meet the cost of living—to pay their bills, to provide for their family. All they want is a fair day's wage for a fair day's work. When we look at what's going wrong in this country, it is the disconnect between effort and reward and it is people's frustration at this disconnect that is the cause of so many of our problems. When will this government stop protecting big business and stand up for workers? Why are they so intent on gifting billions in tax cuts to big business and banks and, when we look the other way, workers are being taken for a ride? To the workers of Dorevitch on strike this week, I want you to know that the Labor Party won't ignore you and we won't turn a blind eye; we will fight for you. We will always stand for you in this place and in the Australian community.
I rise to acknowledge that today is Indian Independence Day. As co-chair of the Parliamentary Friends of India and as a parliamentarian with 6,300 constituents with an Indian background, or roughly 4½ per cent of my electorate, I'm pleased to acknowledge this important day for India and for the broader Indian diaspora.
Independence Day commemorates the passage of the Indian Independence Act through the British parliament on 15 August 1947. This action transferred legislative control over the Indian subcontinent from the British parliament to the Indian people. The following day, commencing a tradition that carries through to this day, Jawaharlal Nehru, India's first Prime Minister, raised the Indian national flag over the Lahori Gate at the Red Fort in Delhi, and gave an address to the nation. India's Prime Minister, Narendra Modi, has recently finished participating in the same ceremony. The Prime Minister called for India to be 'bharat jodo', a united India. He said, 'We should celebrate 15 August 2017 as Sankalp Parva or the Day of Resolve. We have to take a pledge to quit uncleanliness, poverty, terrorism, casteism and communalism from India.'
Independence Day is observed all over India as a national holiday with flag-raising ceremonies, parades and cultural events. Schools and government agencies give out sweets to commemorate the sweetness of freedom. On Saturday night, I attended the Council of Indian Australians' annual Independence Day celebrations at Blacktown, organised by Mohit Kumar and Sanjay Deshwal. As part of the celebrations, the council produced a Bollywood-style video with local Indian members of the community retelling important moments from India's history, from the Indian Mutiny through to Mahatma Gandhi's philosophy of non-violence to the proclamation of Indian independence.
India is of growing importance to Australia today. Two and a half per cent of Australians, or roughly 600,000 people, have an Indian ancestry. India is the world's largest democracy; it's a major regional and strategic power. India is Australia's fifth-largest export market and our 10th-largest trading partner overall. Investment has grown significantly over the past decade, as have tourist flows between the two countries. Over 200,000 Indians came to Australia as tourists last year. India is the largest source of skilled migration to Australia and the second-largest source of international students, with over 60,000 Indians enrolled to study in Australia. India is the world's fastest-growing major economy with forecast growth of seven per cent in 2017 and between 7.5 and 7.8 per cent growth to 2020. By 2030, India is projected to be the world's third-largest economy. I want to take the opportunity on this Indian Independence Day to wish my Indian constituents and friends Bharat Ki aazardi ki varsh-ghant ki Badhai—happy Indian Independence Day.
I would like to speak today about some of the wonderful work being done by locals in my electorate of Richmond. It was with great pride and pleasure that I visited a local business in my electorate that was recently selected as one of the few national winners in the Australian government's Humanitarian Supplies Challenge. DFAT put out the challenge last year under three categories—one of them being 'water'. The challenge drew substantial interest, with 77 applications received from 12 countries. Only 13 successful products were selected by the expert panel, including six from Australian companies.
I would like to speak about one of those winners, Aqua Solutions, and the great work that they are undertaking overseas. Aqua Solutions took out the prize in the 'water' category for their product called Squirt. Squirt is a simple, portable water filtration device that provides safe, clean drinking water, and it can easily be deployed following a humanitarian crisis. DFAT has recently added this product to its humanitarian supplies warehouses in Brisbane and Sydney, where it can be rapidly deployed following a humanitarian crisis.
Aqua Solution's general manager, Larry James, and his colleague Wendy Alt kindly took time out to show me around their manufacturing base in Tweed Heads South and to demonstrate the filtration system that won the humanitarian award. They also showed me many of the company's other filtration products. Larry, who was a founding member of the charitable organisation SkyJuice and has been an active director of the foundation for 14 years, saw the need to continue to deliver clean drinking water to developing countries. Developing their products on the back of their aid organisation, they have directly managed many of our emergency response installations. This has included in Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Indonesia and Fiji. Larry advised me that they had a lot of requests for water filtration systems that could be used for farms and villages in developing countries and also potentially in remote areas of Australia.
This company determined to carefully design safe, reliable ultra-filtration drinking water systems which are suitable for farmhouses, remote communities, schools, health clinics and many other applications. And that in fact is what they have done in designing all those wonderful products. Their unique, world-patented, compact systems are designed for easy transportation and quick set-up. Lightweight, portable and efficient, they can be operated by non-technical people and provide safe, low-cost, potable water with minimal operator attendance, with a stand-alone capability that requires no or very little power consumption. Most importantly, the filtration systems will remove disease-carrying elements from water such as giardia and will also remove all traces of dirt; therefore, providing very clear, clean drinking water. I commend the great contribution that companies like Aqua Solutions are making to many communities in Australia and overseas. It's wonderful to have such an outstanding local business in my electorate.
Over the past few months, I, along with the state shadow minister for small business, Neale Burgess, the deputy mayor of Frankston City Council, Steve Toms, and other councillors and elected representatives have met many times with the hardworking traders of Frankston, who base their businesses out of premises in Young Street or nearby. They are suffering. The works to redevelop the station precinct and Young Street began in December last year. Traders were told that the works would be completed in May 2017, this year, and planned and budgeted as such. We are now told that the works will be completed by the end of October, only two and a half months away. The street is a mess, and you rarely see the entire cohort of tradesmen all working at the same time. There have been many delays, over and over, and the slow progress of the project has led to many of the traders falling into financial hardship and severe emotional strain, employees being put off and even reported attempts of suicide.
Don's Custom Leatherworks has already closed, and there are at least three other empty shopfronts between Frankston Station and Bayside Shopping Centre. Five further businesses were closed when I last visited, unable or unwilling to open due to the loss of customers. One business owner had a stroke, from which he never recovered, and, tragically, he passed away last month. Businesses have reported losses of up to 90 per cent of their income, and many close the month $3,000 to $4,000 down on regular trade. The works have made many businesses near inaccessible, and minimal foot traffic along the previously busy Young Street has turned once prosperous businesses into empty shops. The traders' plight fell on deaf ears when they sought help from the state Labor member for Frankston, Mr Paul Edbrooke.
Yesterday a letter was delivered to the Hon. Jacinta Allan, the Minister for Public Transport in the Victorian government, co-signed by the Victorian shadow minister for small business, Mr Neale Burgess, Deputy Mayor of Frankston City Council, Councillor Steve Toms, and other councillors, as well as Karin Hann from the Frankston Business Network and the affected traders. They are requesting action not only to finish the works early but also to complete and give fair compensation to them and their businesses for all the suffering and losses they have received as a result of this bungled project.
I call on Mr Edbrook, Ms Allan and the state Labor government to open their eyes and ears to the troubles of our community and engage with our local businesses, whom thus far have been ignored and dismissed, to devastating ends. The ball is now in their court. We look forward to hearing from them by next Friday, 25 August and to hearing from at least one of them at our next meeting of traders at 5.30 pm on 28 August. (Time expired)
Before I call the member for Calwell, if no member present objects, three-minute constituency statements may continue for a total of 60 minutes. I also advise the chamber that we are expecting a division shortly.
A very special event is occurring in my electorate at this very moment. It's the first ever Broady Poetry Slam workshop and it is being held at the Hume Global Learning Centre. This series of workshops, which will run every Tuesday for the next six weeks, is being hosted by the Hume Interfaith Network Youth Group—HIN Youth, as it's otherwise known. The Broady Poetry Slam aims to give the young people of Calwell a chance to express themselves through the written form. They can either rap, sing or use spoken poetry to essentially find expression on issues of identity and sense of belonging in a safe and respectful environment. The workshop is hoping to foster pride in our community and create positive reinforcement in our young people's faith and culture.
Our youth are the future leaders of this country. I want to congratulate our two recently selected ambassadors from HIN Youth, Salat Youhana and Mohamad Yusess. Both have been invited to present to a subcommittee of the Victorian Premier's Jobs and Investment Panel on how to address youth unemployment issues in our area. These young people are being mentored through the Hume Interfaith Network, and it's the work of this very important initiative that I also want to refer to here today.
Established in 2001, the Hume Interfaith Network identified an urgent need for all of Hume's faith leaders to come together to help foster understanding across the many faiths and cultures represented in my electorate. For the last 16 years, the Hume Interfaith Network has been instrumental in strengthening social justice and social cohesion by deepening mutual respect and promoting community participation and wellbeing through their various activities, forums and conferences. Some of these events include open days for our mosques and churches, reciting multifaith prayers at the commencement of Hume council meetings and, more recently, our multifaith ceremony service held during Harmony Day each year, with the first multifaith ceremony held in March 2015 at the Broadmeadows Town Hall seeing some 300 members of the Calwell community gather together in celebration of faith.
Archdeacon Judi Pollard, who was chair of the Hume Interfaith Network between 2015 and 2017, was largely responsible for enacting this ceremony. I want to make special mention of Judi for the leadership and guidance she has given to the Calwell community. I want to congratulate the recently elected new chair of the Hume Interfaith Network, Miss Aynur Simsirel, from the Islamic community and the new deputy chair, Deacon Saleem Goga, from Our Lady Guardian of the Plants Chaldean Catholic Church. The Hume Interfaith Network's executive covers all the major faiths in Calwell . Due to the hard work in the past by previous members and the dedication of the new executive moving forward, I know this network has the ability to do great things.
A division having been called in the House of Representatives—
Sitting suspended from 16:34 to 17:31
Gilmore has a youth unemployment figure that is not the envy of any other electorate in Australia, so my primary focus is to challenge our employers, trainers and amazing young people to get on board and change the statistics. The coalition's allocation to the South Coast Regional Jobs and Investment Package of $20 million will bring new business to our region and help to grow some of our existing businesses, with a combined outcome of creating more job opportunities. Fiona Hatcher, from Regional Development Australia, who is experienced in effective business growth initiatives, chaired the South Coast regional jobs investment package committee. We've established our regional strategic directions and I'm excited to see which projects are selected. In addition, our Gilmore Apprenticeship Challenge, which began in January, has been incredibly successful, with many apprentices and trainees now registered. We aimed for 52 apprenticeships or traineeships, and we gained 398 registrations by the end of March.
The federal government is also investing $3.2 billion over four years, starting from 2016-17, to support Australian apprenticeship arrangements through incentives, support programs, loans and pilot programs, all of which are targeting school leavers, employers and representatives from the apprenticeship support networks. It aims to get them together and promote jobs and work opportunities. These have been three significant projects delivering jobs to our region, and now the most recent project is centred on giving young Australians the right assistance and encouragement to learn new skills, become job-ready, get a job and stay in a job.
I have introduced the Youth Employment Package to Gilmore. At the core of this package is Youth Jobs PaTH: Prepare, Trial and Hire. It will help jobseekers under 25 years to move off welfare and into employment. The program provides pre-employment training, work experience and wage subsidies, which will help young people get a job and keep it. Recently, the Australian Hotels Association and the Australian Retailers Association committed to provide 20 PaTH positions. The PaTH package addresses the consistent feedback from employers that young jobseekers can improve their job prospects by showing a positive attitude, being reliable, presenting well, having realistic expectations, improving their job search skills and increasing their level of work experience.
We have seven local champions, who have recently worked with Tania Morandini in stage 1 of PaTH, and they now feel more confident and prepared for work. I personally would like to congratulate these young adults and wish them well: Jai Dixon, Jamier Sider, Nathan Roulston, Kieran Berkovic, Cameron Har, Brooke Robinson and Ky-Ree Griffin. In addition, we have 57 young people now in paid employment.
I'm committed to getting young Australians into work, and the best way to do this is to build a strong economy that enables employers to be more productive, more competitive, more innovative and to create more job opportunities. There is nothing but good news here to help young people into work, build confidence and build skills capacity as well as provide the business platform that will expand workplaces.
I want to acknowledge a remarkable constituent of mine, Ken Simons, who I hope is still watching this evening. If he is, I want to say to him that we are all thinking of him and praying for him as he deals with a very significant illness. Ken was born in Newtown in Geelong in 1939. At the age of 16 he left school to become a butcher. In 1961 Ken enlisted in the Citizen Military Forces and, after a year, decided to enlist in the regular Australian Army. Ken was posted to the 1st Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment after recruit and core training in November 1961. He served around Australia and in West Papua during the Dutch handover to Indonesia. In 1965 Ken was deployed to Vietnam as a corporal section commander.
Ken's regiment was attached to the US Army's 173rd Airborne Brigade, which would go on to receive the US armed forces Meritorious Unit Commendation as well the Republic of Vietnam Cross of Gallantry with Palm Unit Citation. Upon his return to Australia, Ken was posted to the 3rd Training Battalion at Singleton as a sergeant instructor. He was posted back into 1RAR as an anti-tank platoon sergeant and was discharged from the regular Army in 1967 with the rank of sergeant. Ken married his wife, Dawn, that year, and had two children, Lloyd and Samantha. He returned to the Army and served with the 10th Medium Regiment, Royal Australian Artillery, where he taught until 1978 as a warrant officer class two.
After that, Ken would go on to become a welder and pipeline inspector and was elected president of the Victorian branch of the Federated Gas Employees Industrial Union. Despite his remarkable career of loyal service to our country in our defence forces, he selflessly continued to serve the community outside of it. He was a founding member of the Geelong Vietnam Veterans Association, which later became the Vietnam Veterans Association of Australia. He was a stalwart of the Lara RSL. Aivar Mikelsons said: 'Ken has done a lot for the members of the Lara RSL sub branch. He's done a heck of a lot. He's one of the hardest working people I know.'
Sam, Ken's daughter is vision-impaired, which drove Ken to become involved in the Riding for the Disabled, helping kids ride horses. He was active in the Scouts. Ken was also the past president of the Geelong TPI Welfare and Social Club. He was the Lara Citizen of the Year in 2012. Most importantly, he's a life member of the Geelong Ballroom Dance Club. A fellow member, Andy Teffry, said, 'He's a very good ballroom dancer, especially with his wife, Dawn.' John Pepperdine, a stalwart of the Lara community, said, 'Ken is a great Australian who has worked hard for veterans in his community.' Ken, during his life, has made his mark. He has made a difference, and his work and his fight against his illness has been an inspiration to us all. We are praying for you, Ken.
Today I would like to bring to the attention of the Chamber a concern that has been raised with me by a constituent, Mr John Lyons, who owns an important online retail business called GolfZone. He has raised a number of times with me, as well as with my predecessor, some of the problems that small businesses and online retailers have in situations where people use fraudulent cards. For example, they might steal credit cards, go online and purchase high-value goods. Then, once they have stolen those high-value goods, which were purchased using fraudulent credit cards, the money is deducted from the business's account. The customer ultimately then gets reimbursed and the goods are shipped. However, the banks don't reimburse the individual, and they've both lost the goods, so it's a significant impost on his business. John assures me there are many other businesses in similar circumstances, who are directly experiencing the problems of fraudulent online purchasing and the impact it has on their businesses. I think, as every member in this Chamber would agree, people are putting their energies—
Opposition members interjecting—
I know the members on the other side may scoff, but this is a man who has put time and energy in developing a successful online business, and he's losing money because of the criminal behaviour of others, as well as shipping goods that he can no longer recoup. That is a big problem in terms of managing his stock. More importantly, he is essentially being whacked twice, while at the same time dealing with the problem of not being able to recoup the income for those goods. I hope the minister and the government will give this serious consideration. I will be writing to the Minister for Revenue and Financial Services about this shortly.
The other matter I want to bring to the Chamber's attention is the enduring problem of possum populations across parts of Goldstein as well as the great city of Melbourne. There have been numerous instances—
An honourable member interjecting—
I know you like to be referred to as a possum, but on this occasion it is a very serious matter. There have been a number of instances of collapsed ceilings, broken cornices and plaster damage to people's private homes due to possums nesting in roofs. I know when I grew up on the Mornington Peninsula on Port Phillip Bay, I had a similar situation. The noise and damage they are causing is distressing for many people. It has led to a lot of property damage, problems for people who are dealing with sleep difficulties, and the night sounds are disturbing and make some people scared, particularly elderly people, who often find it difficult to clean the mess, particularly when it occurs on their rooftop. I know the members opposite may not take this seriously, but a number of my constituents have this problem, causing them to repair their roofs and homes, and it is related to an overpopulation of possums.
A petition has recently been collected with more than 500 signatures calling on the state Labor government—the Andrews government—to investigate this problem and take appropriate action. I would like to thank my constituent Sandra Elmore for bringing this specifically to my attention. I also thank the member for Sandringham, Murray Thompson, who has taken this issue on board and has been raising it in the state parliament. Thank you both.
I rise today to acknowledge Kyeemagh Infants School, which turns 75 this weekend. On Saturday I attended and spoke at their 75th birthday festivities. There was a diverse range of food and fun activities for students past and present and, of course, for parents, teachers and teachers from years gone by. Kyeemagh Infants School is a very multicultural school and is located in one of the most multicultural electorates in the country. Kyeemagh Infants School is Barton today and Barton's future. More than that, in Kyeemagh Infants School we see Australia's future. As part of the 75th birthday celebrations, the students, teachers and parents put together a 75th birthday Kyeemagh cookbook, which they say captures and showcases the diverse multicultural area we live in.
In our debates about dual citizenship and citizenship changes, about who is more Australian than the other, it's important to remember that we are a nation of immigrants. We've come here from all over the world, based on the incredible foundations of First Australians, and that is what makes Australia so great. We in this parliament could learn a thing or two from Kyeemagh's school song:
Learning to love and care for each other
Truthful and kind we respect one another
Congratulations, Kyeemagh Infants School, on your 75th birthday. K to 6 is on the way. May we never stop learning.
Also, on Saturday night I attended a great event by the Nepalese community. It's also part of the cultural diversity of Barton. I'd like to take this opportunity to speak about my attendance over the weekend at the Nepalese Indigenous Nationalities Forum's 10th annual dinner, celebrating the anniversary of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. That evening, I had the privilege of viewing a Nepalese indigenous costume parade and cultural dances. The ambassador of the Consulate General and many community leaders were present.
The Nepalese community is one of the fastest growing ethnic communities in the electorate of Barton. In 2011, there were 3,206 Nepalese and in 2016 the number had grown to 6,156. Earlier this month, I also had the privilege of meeting the former Prime Minister of Nepal Madhav Kumar Nepal when he visited Sydney. The immigration of Nepalese to Australia accelerated, of course, after the earthquake in 2015. The earthquake killed over 9,000 people and injured 22,000—a truly tragic event in Nepalese history. But, as is the story for so many Australians, they have come here for a better life, and they have come to Barton for the future of their children. I'm very honoured to represent the Nepalese community and hope to visit Nepal in November this year.
The WA College of Agriculture at Harvey is one of the most impressive educational institutions in the south-west. The original campus was actually the site of a Second World War internment camp for Italian people who were in the Harvey community. The ag school has been administered for 45 years by the Harvey Agricultural Senior High School. Students were ferried out to local farms for hands-on learnings of their courses in the early days as the school had no land of its own. Over time, small parcels of land surrounding the boarding facilities were acquired and developed. Originally, solely male students were boarding. However, in 1988, two female students attended for the first time, boarding in town. Four years later, a transportable dormitory for girls was opened and the girls attended.
In 1998, the Harvey Agricultural College was formed, splitting from the Harvey Senior High School, and 62 students enrolled in the fully independent school. In 2000, four other colleges from around the state joined together, becoming an RTO and giving the school a new name: the Western Australian College of Agriculture, Harvey. In April 2001, a state-of-the-art dairy site was commissioned in Wokalup, providing milk to the WA market. Then, in 2011, with great work by Murray Cowper and the local Liberal government, $26.4 million was spent on relocating the college to a 905 hectare site at Wokalup. In October 2012, new facilities were built and opened on the farm to accommodate 128 boarding students and day students. It was the first time ever the entire college, staff and students were able to operate on one site—an incredibly memorable day in the school's history. Of course, they had teaching blocks, student accommodation units and staff accommodation—a rural village atmosphere. There was a new admin block, a library, a gym, a dining hall and a multipurpose trades training centre for metalwork, automotive, building and construction, and furniture, and, on the ag side: dairy, equine, beef, sheep, wool and horticulture.
Over 60 years since the ag school first started, enrolments have skyrocketed and the school has more applications and expressions of interest than they can accept. It is a great school and staff, led by Principal Neale Armstrong, who is in his 19th year at the school. It has an ag advisory council, with Ian Eckersley there for decades, and ATAR and VET pathways provided for their students. Megan McSeveney won the WACE Beazley Medal in 2017. It is a very important asset and opportunity for young people. Before I finish, I acknowledge the members of the Defence Force, who are here today as part of the Defence Force Parliamentary Program. You are indeed welcome in this place.
Everywhere I go throughout the Oxley electorate, the No. 1 issued raised with me is the failed NBN rollout. At mobile offices, school events and community meetings, I hear stories from residents reporting connection dropouts, slow speeds or simply no access at all. Everyday people tell me how fed-up and frustrated they are with this Prime Minister's second-rate NBN. Let's be clear: the rollout of the NBN has now reached crisis point for many local homes and businesses. This culminated last month in community demand leading to the first NBN crisis meeting in Springfield, where we were joined by the member for Greenway and shadow minister for communications.
Over 100 residents attended the meeting to voice their concerns and frustrations with the failed NBN rollout. We heard stories like that of Alastair, who, after being promised an NBN connection on 3 June this year, is now told he has to wait six months, until January next year, for a connection. In his letter to me, Alastair says, 'I need the internet for my work as I mostly work from home for an IT company, and being down six months is just unacceptable. This is impacting my finances and could potentially lead to issues with my employer.'
This is simply unacceptable, but these are the real stories of people who are being devastated by the failed NBN rollout. It's stories like these that led me to write to the Prime Minister and the Minister for Communications, seeking an urgent meeting to find a resolution to this mess. But rather than facing the problem, this Prime Minister didn't want to hear Alastair's story; he instead declined the meeting and passed the buck to an NBN community relations adviser. Typical of this government—bury your head in the sand and hope it goes away. Local residents have been loud and clear in their frustrations dealing with the NBN.
I've also been contacted by local businesses who are desperately hurting because of this Prime Minister and his incompetence, businesses like Tradecorp in Sumner Park. After being promised the NBN would be ready for their new building back in April, they still have no access to broadband. As a result, they've had to lay off two staff because they simply couldn't do the same level of business without the internet. They've had to resort to using a wireless modem, and they say they may be forced to close down if a resolution cannot be found.
Since the first NBN crisis meeting in Springfield, my office has received an influx of calls and contacts from residents in the centenary suburbs, asking to have their voices heard as well. I've called a second NBN crisis meeting for later this month, where I will be joined by the member for Throsby and shadow minister for regional services, to hear firsthand about their problems. I can inform the House that, as of this morning, over 100 local residents have already registered for this important event. If they can't make it, I'm asking residents to send me their speeds. Having a quality and reliable broadband connection is not just about watching Netflix; it's about businesses being able to operate and serve their customers. I call on the Prime Minister and the Minister for Communications to address these issues as quickly as possible.
Harwood Cricket Club will celebrate a major milestone on 26 August, with the club celebrating its 150th birthday. Special guests at the event will include former Australian umpire Peter Parker and former Aussie captain Mark Taylor. Congratulations to club president, Tim McMahon, and the rest of his executive: Ben McMahon, the vice-president; Doug Moss, the secretary; and Nigel Hicks, the treasurer. I also want to give a special mention to the planning committee of Nathan Ensbey, Hayden McMahon, Paula Moss, Matt Young and Deb Novak. The Harwood club is one of the oldest clubs in New South Wales, and the home ground, Harwood Oval, has a heritage-listed grandstand and traditional picket fence. It is the only ground in the Clarence Valley that is designated for cricket only and available all year around. The Harwood club fields 10 teams across all age groups, including adults. There is a very strong commitment to juniors, with veteran player and former New South Wales zone cricket academy coach Mick Morris in charge of all coaching. The senior premier league, now captained by Nathan Ensbey, has been part of the Clarence River Cricket Association's premier league competition since the mid-nineties, winning eight premierships since 2001, with five of those in the last eight seasons. The event will be held at the Maclean Bowling Club on 26 August at 6 pm, and I can't wait.
This month the Lismore Base Hospital Auxiliary and the Nimbin Hospital Auxiliary are both celebrating major milestones. Lismore is celebrating 100 years of fundraising for its local hospital and Nimbin 70 years for its hospital. The national united hospital auxiliary movement began 80 years ago. The fact that the Lismore auxiliary is celebrating its 100th year not only shows the ongoing strength and dedication of the branch; it also reveals the foresight and dedication of its founding members—a spirit that continues to live 100 years on, and one, I'm sure, that will continue for many years to come. Their first fundraiser was a tea tent at the local agriculture show. Morning tea was one shilling and the lunch two shillings. Last year, the Lismore auxiliary donated almost $80,000 to purchase a Mindray machine for anaesthetic services and three external pacing boxes. The Nimbin Hospital Auxiliary donated more than $33,000 last financial year to the Nimbin Multi Purpose Centre. Items purchased included lounges, a bladder scanner, lift chairs, a spirometer, a mobile lifter and various other items. I'd like to thank and congratulate the members and the executive of both auxiliaries for the effort they put into making a wonderful community that much better: Lismore executive president, Diane Miller; treasurer, Lynette Duncan; and assistant treasure Clyde Havilah; and the Nimbin branch president, Maureen Lombard; secretary, Margaret McQuilty; treasurer, Robin Roos; vice-presidents, Margret Linton and Laura Moffit; assistant treasurer, Louise Donadel; and Bev Gardner. Well done. Thank you.
I rise today on behalf of Kerry Collison of Glen Waverley in complete exasperation regarding his ongoing disasters with the NBN. His business is now at risk of going broke as NBN Co and Telstra will not fix his phone and internet connections. Kerry is a 73-year-old veteran who runs Sid Harta Publishers, a publishing business. He employs over 25 editors located around Australia. He has edited books for over 550 Australian authors. It's a niche business that publishes almost exclusively Australian authors and titles. As you would imagine, a reliable telephone and internet connection is absolutely critical for his business. It would be impossible to overstate the importance of having a working phone when you're trying to connect to 25 staff around the country and to customers. Six months on since connecting to the NBN in February 2017 he continues to experience appalling problems. He has constant landline drop-outs. If he's lucky enough to got a connection, it will almost certainly cut out eventually. Clients think he has just hung on them, so they give up and go elsewhere. His business is losing opportunities, and these jobs are now under threat. The statistics are shocking; he has given us the data. Prior to the NBN he received at least four projects every month. He has now had four in six months. He is clear that it's his phone line that's wrecking his business. He has escalated these problems with NBN Co and Telstra. Guess what? He gets the same old refrain: they blame each other. It has gone on for months.
Kerry contacted me last week and said he has had enough. He's stuck in groundhog day. I spoke to him this morning and I was stunned with his update. He was on the phone to NBN Co at lunchtime. He said it was like the first conversation—he was back in the loop, back in the black hole. And then came the killer. He'd gone to the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, they'd recommended compensation, he'd applied for that and, effectively, NBN Co said, 'We're not going to process compensation until we fix the problem.' As he said, 'They're willing to let my business go broke and lose 25 jobs,' upsetting 300 to 400 authors who are dependent on him, 'and they can't fix the problem.' This is a terrible new twist in the saga of the Liberal's NBN. You wouldn't have thought it could get worse than the rollout, but, as it turns out, it could—actually getting connected to the NBN and it doesn't work. What's the point of compensation if a business can't access it until it goes broke?
It is known internationally that copper produces two to three times the faults as fibre. It's time to admit that this is a stuff-up, stop the copper and, in the meantime, fix Kerry's connection. I had planned to ask the Prime Minister a question in question time this week. Given the circus of the government falling to bits in front of it, I will ask it now. My question to the Prime Minister and the minister is: what does the government say to Kerry, his 25 employees and all the other businesses around Australia that are suffering because of the government's incompetence? When will his phone line be fixed?
I want to raise the issue of household bills in my electorate of Brisbane. Electricity bills, gas bills and water bills are often the biggest bills that households and small businesses face. Rising energy prices is one of Australia's biggest challenges. It is an issue that's receiving significant media attention and it's raised regularly with me in Brisbane. Considering how blessed we are in Australia when it comes to abundant energy sources, it's worth thinking about how we got to this point. I was asked last week on Brisbane radio why the state Labor government was having difficulty managing the price of water bills for Brisbane residents. I used to work as an economist in that sector, so I outlined my experiences. In short, water costs twice what it should in South-East Queensland because a former state Labor government, the Beattie government, was really good at short-term politics and really bad at competent governance.
In those years South-East Queensland's population was growing rapidly, but the Labor government did not build any new dams, didn't raise any dam walls and didn't find any new sources of water. We've got to remember that this was a time when the Brisbane City Council was doing all the heavy lifting in Brisbane—digging tunnels and building roads—whilst the state Labor government built a footbridge over the Brisbane River. Don't get me wrong, it is a great footbridge. But the point is these were years when the state government was being outperformed by the local council in the delivery of infrastructure.
When the inevitable happened and the water almost ran out, they got caught in a crisis of their own making, so they paid far too much to build a desal plant and recycled water scheme. The cost of those little-used assets and the bad deals Labor entered into to maintain them effectively doubled the price of water in South-East Queensland. While it's not quite that straightforward—there's a price path and government subsidies—it is true to say that Labor's incompetence when it comes to planning and delivery is why water prices have been going up like they have been for Brisbane households.
It's a similar story when it comes to electricity. Labor have failed to have a plan, although sometimes they have been quite good at the short-term politics. They set short-term energy targets with a focus on ideology not planning. They set their targets without any detailed plans about how to meet them. They have not planned for storage, dispatchability and how the transition would actually take place. As targets have obviously forced some existing generators to shut down, we now rely more on gas generators and so the gas price really starts to matter. That should be a good thing because Australia has abundant sources of gas and it should be cheap here, but some former Labor government signed some gas export contracts that were flawed, which meant all of our abundant local gas could be exported without leaving enough for our needs here in Australia. Don't even get me started on how Queensland Labor have put so much market power into the hands of the two generators that they owned, who are now potentially working together to bid up the price of electricity for Queensland residents.
The time for constituency statements has concluded.
It's an honour for me this evening to be able to speak on the Regional Assistance Mission to Solomon Islands, which concluded this year after a period of 14 years. Over that period of time, we have seen played out one of the most successful interventions globally and, I think, one of the most successful responses and, ultimately, acts of leadership by Australian governments, beginning with the Howard government but also through the Rudd and Gillard governments and the Abbott and Turnbull governments. It is a great Australian success story. It is a great Pacific success story. Most of all, it is a great success story for Solomon Islands itself. It speaks to me about the kind of role that we as a country can play in our region which can be so beneficial to our region but also demonstrates to the world the way in which we can assist as a regional leader in times of difficulty.
From 1998 through to 2003, there was a period in Solomon Islands known as 'the tensions', essentially driven by urban growth and urban attraction to the Honiara area on Guadalcanal. Lots of people were coming into that region and creating a range of difficult issues in the context of a culture that exists on a land system of customary land title. I'm aware that I've horribly simplified the issues in describing them like that, but that was at the heart of the tensions that we saw. It led to a point in 2003 where functioning government within Solomon Islands effectively ceased.
Solomon Islands is a country of 500,000 to 600,000 people. It is very close to Australia. It is a country which, in our history, going back to the Second World War, has played a very significant role. The Battle of Guadalcanal was a very significant moment in the Pacific theatre of the Second World War. Whilst that was largely carried out by the United States Marines, there were Australian Navy assets present in the Guadalcanal sound during that period of time. The fact that such a significant battle within the Pacific theatre occurred there speaks to the strategic significance of Solomon Islands to Australia, but it also speaks to the closeness of Solomon Islands to our country. It is in the heart of Melanesia.
It was at that time that the then Prime Minister of Solomon Islands, Kemakeza, approached the Australian government—John Howard was the Prime Minister at the time—to intervene and try to restore law and order to that country. What then played out was an act of great regionalism for the Pacific. It was led by Australia, very much in partnership with New Zealand and, indeed, all the countries of the Pacific. An element was put together comprising ultimately of 15 nations, all contributing to the intervention within Solomon Islands to restore law and order to that country.
It needs to be understood that, within the Pacific, there are not many countries which maintain a defence force. PNG does, as do Fiji and Tonga. So a lot of the contributions being provided by a number of the Pacific Island nations were with respect to police and other advisers helping the RAMSI mission. That highlights the fact that this was not simply a military intervention, although it definitely had a military component to it. This was an intervention that also involved policing and, in effect, development assistance focused on the rebuilding of governance within that country, and that allowed countries from around the region to participate—essentially, all the countries of the Pacific Island Forum.
Having attended the Pacific Island Forum on a number of occasions and having spent some time in the Pacific in my former role as the Parliamentary Secretary for Pacific Island Affairs, I can tell you that it was an enormous matter of honour for the countries of the Pacific that they were making this contribution to the effort with RAMSI, and, indeed, it was of enormous comfort to Solomon Islands itself that this was not simply Australia and New Zealand but all the countries of the Pacific coming to their aid. This was genuinely a regional effort. I have no doubt that a huge part of the success associated with RAMSI was the degree of regionalism which was associated with it.
As it turned out, I first happened to cross RAMSI at the end of 2003, well before I entered this place, when I was in transit on a holiday to Kiribati with my now wife. We transited through Henderson airfield in Honiara. I can remember that this was just a few months after the commencement of RAMSI. At that point, the airfield was a sea of khaki tents. You got a sense of the significant commitment that had been made by all countries involved in assisting the Solomon Islands through that particular moment of crisis. But it was as the Parliamentary Secretary for Pacific Island Affairs in 2010 that I came back to the Solomon Islands. During the period of 2010-13, I visited Solomon Islands on numerous occasions. Every time, I would go to the Guadalcanal Beach Resort—GBR, as it was, effectively, known—which became the headquarters of RAMSI and learnt of the work of RAMSI myself and, also, in a sense, became personally inspired by exactly what was occurring there and the regional nature of it and degree of cooperation across the Pacific family in helping a friend in need. 'Helping friend' was, of course, the motto of RAMSI.
After that, I had the great honour of being able to show off, if you like, the work of RAMSI to eminent Australians and, beyond that, to eminent global figures. I can remember travelling with then Governor-General Quentin Bryce and seeing her reaction to the work that was being done through RAMSI. In 2012, I had a unique opportunity of showing the then Secretary General of the United Nations, Ban Ki-moon, through the Pacific. The first place that we wanted to go to was Solomon Islands so that he could see exactly what we were doing within our part of the globe in engaging in a cooperative, regional way to deal with what began with a military intervention but was ultimately the rebuilding of a country which had been the subject of so much strife. I can tell you that the impression it left upon him was deeply profound.
What became clear to me at that point was that what was going on with RAMSI, given all the interventions that we see around the world, was something truly special. This had become a global model for an international intervention which sought to rebuild a country in a post-conflict environment to the position that it's in today. I acknowledge very much the presence earlier in the week of Prime Minister Manasseh Sogavare, who was Prime Minister of the Solomon Islands previously during parts of the period of RAMSI and has been the Prime Minister, fittingly, to conclude RAMSI, which ended this year.
Finally, I want to acknowledge four Australians who lost their lives during the RAMSI: Private Jamie Clark, from the 3rd Battalion of the Royal Australian Regiment; AFP protective service officers Adam Dunning and Ronald Lewis; and civilian adviser Tony Scriva. I also want to pay my tribute to the RAMSI special coordinators, many of whom I met during my time there—and, indeed, have since met. Starting from the beginning: Nick Warner, James Batley, Tim George, Graeme Wilson, Nicholas Coppel, Justine Braithwaite and Quinton Devlin, who has the honour of being the last RAMSI special coordinator. They have all, in their own way, played a remarkable role. I do pay tribute to all those who have served in RAMSI. It is a great Australian story. It is a great Pacific story. It is a great story for Solomon Islands.
It is a pleasure to rise and speak on the closure of the Regional Assistance Mission to Solomon Islands, RAMSI. We here in Australia are part of a rich and successful nation with abundant wealth to share, but we do not live and do not exist in isolation. It is our strong and enduring partnerships, particularly with our closest neighbours, that have allowed our nation to thrive. How right and proper it was, that, in their hour of greatest need, the Solomon Islands were able to count on Australian support. The Australian-led Regional Assistance Mission to Solomon Islands will long be remembered for its success, despite uncertain odds at the outset, and for paving the way for cooperation between nations in the south-west Pacific.
Five years of ethnic tensions and a coup in 2000 had left the Solomon Islands facing many and serious problems. Law and order had broken down, officials and private citizens were subject to intimidation and violence, and corruption was unfettered. The government and institutions had ceased to function effectively and corruption was widespread. The public finances were in ruin and many of the most basic services such as health and education were not being delivered to the people. It was in this atmosphere that RAMSI arrived in Solomon Islands in 2003, at the request of the Solomon Islands government. Shortly after the first rays of dawn struck the tarmac of the Solomon Islands Henderson International Airport on Thursday, 24 July 2003, soldiers, police and civilians from Australia, the Cook Islands, Fiji, Kiribati, Nauru, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Tonga and Vanuatu began to arrive in their hundreds. Eventually amassing over 2,000 personnel, these security forces came not in anger but, rather, as friends determined to assist a neighbour in need. In what was to become one of the most successful experiments in regional cooperation, RAMSI was born.
RAMSI's mission was to help lay the foundations for long-term stability and prosperity in the Solomon Islands, with a mandate to restore civil order in Honiara and throughout the rest of the country, rebuild and reform the machinery of government, improve government accountability and improve the delivery of services in urban and provincial areas, stabilise government finances, balance the budget, fight corruption, help rebuild the economy and encourage sustainable, broad based growth. From the outset, RAMSI was not tasked to address national reconciliation or nation-building. This would later be undertaken through the establishment of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in 2009. In RAMSI's first week, more than 3,700 guns were collected and destroyed. In its third week, the surrender of renegade militants was negotiated. By the end of its third year, RAMSI had made 3,600 arrests for militant and criminal activity. RAMSI was also critical in enabling the Solomon Islands government to resurrect state institutions so life could return to normal for Solomon Islanders. RAMSI enjoyed an extraordinary degree of popular support over its duration.
In 2017, the Solomon Islands presents a very different picture from that which first confronted RAMSI personnel when they hit the ground in 2003. The Solomon Islands are reaping the benefits of stability, with the economy having grown more than 80 per cent in the first 10 years of RAMSI's presence. RAMSI's success depended on Australian men and women and their Pacific colleagues making sacrifices for a higher cause, to ensure that Solomon Islands could enjoy the kind of peace that we here in Australia sometimes take for granted. Preserving and building on the achievements of the last 14 years presents the Solomon Islands with a daunting challenge. In June this year, an aid partnership was signed between our two countries and the partnership enables a shared vision for cooperation to foster inclusive economic growth and the reduction of poverty in the Solomon Islands.
I had the pleasure of visiting the Solomon Islands in 2014 as part of an Australian government election observation team. During this trip, we also had the opportunity to meet with the RAMSI leadership and to discuss the progress of the mission. At this time, the transition period was commencing. I distinctly remember the positive way in which the RAMSI leadership spoke about the transformation of the Solomon Islands over the period since 2003. The highlight of the trip was being able to observe the colourful, noisy and joyous campaign parade through Honiara by the various candidates and their campaign teams. It was a tremendous demonstration of the progress the Solomon Islander people made in rebuilding their nation and the freedoms that this had achieved. This joy spread to polling day, with long queues forming well before polls opened. The atmosphere was positive and expectant at the opportunity to have a say in the future government of their country. Since then, Prime Minister Sogavare and his government have continued to work extremely hard to build on these foundations.
The Solomon Islands government and RAMSI have undertaken extensive community engagement across the nation to assuage community apprehension about RAMSI's exit and discourage would-be troublemakers from seeing RAMSI's departure as an opportunity. The focus has been building trust in the police and explaining that RAMSI-contributing nations such as Australia will continue to support the police and national security more broadly. Post-RAMSI assistance includes a policing program, with 44 Australian Federal Police advisers in Honiara. The policing program will be complemented by new bilateral programs of support for justice and governance. The post-RAMSI package of assistance will amount to some $141 million over four years, from 2017 to 2021. On Monday, 14 August 2017, the two governments signed a bilateral security treaty. The treaty will enable Australian Defence Force police and civilian personnel to deploy operationally in emergency situations.
In closing, I wish to acknowledge and thank those who have contributed to the success of the RAMSI mission. Without the support and commitment of the Australian government officials, police, Defence personnel, our Pacific island partners and, most importantly, the government and the people of the Solomon Islands, the bringing of peace and stability to their country would not have been the success it has been.
Finally, I want to acknowledge the six RAMSI officers who paid the ultimate sacrifice in their service to bring peace and security to the Solomon Islands. May the finalisation of the RAMSI mission be a fitting epitaph to your sacrifice.
To Prime Minister Sogavare and the people of the Solomon Islands: the future is bright, and the country you are looking to build and the opportunities for the future are only limited by your industry and imagination. In that, you honour the contribution of the RAMSI mission to your country by building on the foundation of peace and security it has created.
I commend the member for Forde on his tribute to the Solomon Islands, and I do envy his opportunity to have gone to watch those elections. It's something I have always wanted to do, having worked in foreign affairs when the Cambodian elections were taking place and having heard stories about other DFAT colleagues who had been observers at elections throughout the world. It really does remind us what precious, precious gifts democracy and the right to vote in a free and safe environment are. I envy you and commend you on the speech you've just made, because I would have loved to have been part of that delegation.
The reason I rise tonight is that I want to pay tribute to the public servants, police, military and all the Australian personnel, many of them from Canberra, who made such a significant contribution to the Regional Assistance Mission to Solomon Islands. It was known then as, Operation Anode or—I love this—Operation Helpem Fren. It was an extraordinary contribution that we made over a very long time, and the contribution changed depending on the nature of what was actually happening on the island at the time. I do know many public servants who I worked with in foreign affairs, in Defence and in AusAID made a significant contribution, which is why I was keen to talk on this motion tonight. What Australia did with RAMSI was a bit of an experiment. It was trialling a new kind of security architecture. There was the role of the military, but the police also had a very significant role in this process, as did many public servants from Finance, Treasury, AusAID and Foreign Affairs—a range of government departments. There was also a large Army Reserve force as part of the contribution, which again was quite unique. The Reserves play a significant role in securing our nation in a range of engagements here in Australia as well as overseas. In the Solomon Islands, they really did play a significant role. As I said, we also had AusAID playing its part, as did DFAT and others across the public service.
What was also interesting about this is that it was an experiment for Australia in looking at exploring a new kind of security architecture where we had a number of different agencies involved in shaping that architecture and playing a role in securing and improving the governance, justice, education and social systems and political environments in the Solomon Islands. But it was also an unusual experiment for the Pacific because, as we've heard from the member for Burt, there was a great deal of cooperation between Pacific nations in this effort, in Helpem Fren.
We had countries from all over the Pacific. Australia and New Zealand, of course, but we also had Papua New Guinea, Fiji, Marshall Islands, Palau, Micronesia, Niue, Tonga, Samoa, the Cook Islands, Vanuatu, Nauru, Kiribati and Tuvalu involved. So there was a significant effort from the Pacific community in ensuring that one of their fellow Pacific nations was secure and had the social, economic and political infrastructure in place to succeed in the future—and legal infrastructure as well, because that was vitally important in terms of where the Solomon Islands was at the time.
It was an experiment in the way that Australia approached the mission, Operation Anode, Helpem Fren, in the Solomon Islands, and it was also an experiment because we had this significant contribution and cooperation right across the Pacific, which I don't think we've seen repeated. I'm not aware of a deployment or a mission where we have actually seen that range of countries from the Pacific all taking part in the one mission to achieve these extraordinary results for the Solomon Islands. But it wasn't without its challenges. I'm sure you've heard from others that, when the social and the economic infrastructure was getting put in place, things got a bit tense for a while on the political front. But, as we've heard, the outcomes were positive in terms of the prosperity, the economic growth, the justice systems that are in place now, the education systems, the economic systems and the governance systems—which are so vitally important. For any society to succeed, you need those governance and justice systems in place. Without that fundamental framework, you have a very, very fragile foundation of a nation, economy and society.
So in the Solomon Islands we had this experiment for Australia in terms of the way that government agencies could work together and work with the ADF and the police—and the police played a significant role—and also in terms of the way that the Pacific nations cooperated and worked together. What we did in the Solomon Islands highlighted the fact that we need to look at the security architecture in the Pacific. We trialled a particular security architecture in the Pacific and we trialled a security reform, which started Australia having a conversation again about what a security architecture should look like in the Pacific and what sort of civil security architecture and military security architecture we needed to have in place.
It started Australia thinking about security in the Pacific and what we and the rest of the Pacific needed to do to create a secure, stable, thriving and prosperous environment in our immediate region. Questions were asked. What would security reform look like? What involvement would the Defence Force need to have? What involvement would the Police Force need to have? Do we need a national security versus a public security presence?
It really did help us to refocus on the Pacific. We still need to do a great deal more work in the Pacific in terms of engaging on the Pacific. In particular, we need to play a greater role in the Pacific on cybersecurity, but also on building capacity and capability.
One of the reasons that the whole Solomon Islands model was so successful in so many ways—as I said, it did have a few glitches, but the results have generally been positive—was that there was the civil-military process. There was cooperation with the civil and military working together. I want to commend my colleague the member for Eden-Monaro for establishing the Australian Civil-Military Centre at Queanbeyan when we were last in government. That centre provides an invaluable resource for looking at how we can have those military and civilian solutions for the Pacific, the Asia-Pacific, the Indo Pacific and our world. I'm particularly impressed with the work that they do for women, peace and security, and also in ensuring that women have a role in a post-conflict environment, in a transitioning environment. Having a seat at the table when we are negotiating is vitally important. I was a very strong advocate of that in Afghanistan.
Finally, I want to pay tribute to a number of former friends and bosses, and people I used to work with in DFAT. I pay tribute to Nick Warner, who assumed the role of special coordinator as leader of RAMSI. Also, I pay tribute to James Batley, who took over as special coordinator, and Tim George. There were New Zealanders who played a very active role. Paul Ash became a special coordinator. We also had the Fijian assistant special coordinator, Sekove Naqiolevu, as well as Peter Nobel.
In addition, because of that significant police presence, we had Ben McDevitt from the Australian Federal Police playing a really important role, working with Nick Warner, the New Zealanders, the Solomon Islanders, the Pacific community, the Australian Defence Force and the other public servants and civilian agencies from Australia and from around the Pacific, and working to ensure that the aims and objectives of achieving the request that we got from the Governor-General of Solomon Islands was actually achieved. What this mission showed was that agencies can cooperate and that, most importantly, we in the Pacific can cooperate to achieve a great outcome.
Debate adjourned.
by leave—I move:
That order of the day No. 2 be postponed.
Question agreed to.
People in my electorate of Wills and all throughout Australia are hurting as power prices skyrocket under this coalition government's mismanagement of energy policy. The pressure that these exorbitant power bills are causing is made even more difficult for a whole range of people who are vulnerable, especially working people, as they contend with flatlining wage growth and unaffordable housing. If the Prime Minister gets his way, single pensioners will be $365 worse off per year and couple pensioners will be $550 worse off per year when they lose their energy supplement payment, which was designed to help them address some of the skyrocketing prices of electricity and gas.
The price of energy is absolutely ridiculous. This is my latest gas bill. It is $736 just for two months. I wasn't there half the time. My family was away for half the time. How is that possible?
We're doing well enough; we get paid well in this place. But in my state of Victoria the evidence shows that wholesale power prices have doubled under the term of this government. Who bears the brunt of that? It's families, pensioners, the vulnerable, students and small businesses. How households are keeping up with their bills under these dire circumstances escapes me. These costs are outrageous. They might not sound like much to this out-of-touch Prime Minister, but for the people in my electorate this is a very big deal.
I deliberately sought to join the House Standing Committee on the Environment and Energy because I am passionate about real action on climate change, and I want to get involved in the policy areas around the electricity market and energy. What I have discovered in the course of our inquiry is that there are some grave issues around the national electricity grid and its management, to the extent that power companies are gaming the national energy markets to inflate prices that are charged to consumers. They do this by manipulating the spot price and the current asking price for power, which is set over a 30-minute period, by withholding power and then releasing it once the price is inflated. It's a bit confusing. It's a bit like arbitrage and some of the stuff that went on in Wall Street. I don't want to bore the chamber, but people should understand that the system is being gamed. It's being gamed to the extent that power prices are skyrocketing and the consumers are facing the brunt of this.
The coalition have persisted in trying to cast this as an issue relating to supply rather than an active manipulation of the market. Time and time again, they've inaccurately cited a blackout in South Australia caused by extreme weather events that took down powerlines and tried to peddle the notion that renewable energy was somehow to blame. It wasn't long after they started this campaign of misinformation that the Treasurer actually walked into the House carrying a lump of coal with him, and he talked about new coal-fired plants. Only yesterday, suddenly he has had his road to Damascus reversal, where he is now saying no new, cheap coal is possible. I think this speaks volumes about the priorities of this government. They're all over the shop, first of all. But the reality is that there are times when there is an overall surplus of energy available, and prices are elevated through some of these gaming methods and they're used to generate maximum profits. This dysfunctional nature of the national energy market is being looked at by the Standing Committee on the Environment and Energy. I hope that our committee will provide some strong recommendations to the government to fix the dysfunctional national energy market and reduce the pressure that is ultimately being placed on consumers.
Last week, we saw the Turnbull government and the Prime Minister hold a meeting with power companies. The outcome of this meeting was that companies agreed to make bills easier to read, to make switching power providers and power plans easier and to make sure people don't lose discounts if they're late paying their bills. Making changes to how power bills look is not going to solve the fundamental problem. They need to change what drives the prices that are on the bills. The real point is that this government has failed. It's an absolute failure on energy policy. It's failed miserably to set a clean energy target. It's failed miserably to have any coherent national policy on climate change, a policy that should address the need for certainty for investors at a time when all of the old coal-fired power plants are coming to the end of their working life. The capital and the markets need to be allocated to developing new renewable energy infrastructure. They want that certainty.
We are facing a full-blown energy crisis. The government knows what to do to end it; it's just not doing anything about it. The government's own Finkel review, the one that it commissioned, made the same recommendations the government has been hearing for years from energy experts. The only policy the government hasn't ruled out is a clean energy target, which was also recommended by the Finkel review, but it hasn't supported it either. In fact, some members of the government have openly mocked the idea. The former Prime Minister, the member for Warringah, described the clean energy target as a 'magic pudding' and a 'tax on coal'. This government is absolutely paralysed and can't even back its own policy that was put to it by its own tailor-made review.
People in my community are sick and tired of the squabbling in Canberra. I think we hear that right across the aisles here in this place. We know from the members here that people are sick and tired of all this squabbling; they just want certainty. They want real action that will deliver affordable, reliable and clean power. This means a clean energy target. A future Labor government will set a target of 50 per cent renewable energy by 2030. This is something that's about the future for our children and for our children's children. We need to get on with it because it's so important.
I rise today to talk about the importance of infrastructure and building a secure economy for my electorate of Capricornia. Building bridges, improving roads, upgrading airports, building dams—they may not be glamorous and they may not spark much excitement, but they certainly lay the groundwork for a strong and diverse economy. I've fought hard to deliver these projects for my electorate of Capricornia and I want to thank the many ministers who have delivered the funding programs to make them possible. The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources, the Minister for Regional Development, and the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, in particular, have thrown their weight behind the bricks-and-mortar programs that are making a real difference. I'd like to touch on a few of these major projects to explain how they are laying the foundations for a strong economic future.
The first big project was the delivery of the Yeppen South flood-plain bridge in 2015. The bridge meant that, for the first time in Rockhampton's recent history, the city wasn't isolated by major flooding of the Fitzroy River. Central Queensland has remained open for business, and it has already proven to be a game-changer for our region. In the flood earlier this year we didn't run out of fuel and we didn't run short of fresh food. Shops were fully supplied, and travellers could still fly into Rockhampton via Gladstone. Back in 2013 the highway was cut at the Yeppen flood plain for nearly two weeks, causing millions of dollars of economic loss to our economy.
Even our local economic development and tourism organisation understands the bridge's importance. Mary Carroll from Central Queensland's economic development group, Capricorn Enterprise, said that this bridge marks a turning point for Central Queensland: 'We are avoiding losses of nearly $5.5 million per day in Rockhampton and the Capricorn Coast alone. The 2011 flood basically cut Queensland in half, so the economic impact was devastating. But this time traffic continued to flow through the city. Whilst 215 businesses were directly affected by this flood, over 6,000 businesses in the region were not.'
Earlier this month my electorate also received notification that the Rockhampton airport will receive a vital upgrade through the coalition government's Building Better Regions Fund. The airport pavement upgrade will receive $5 million, making future military and public-use expansion a reality. The Rockhampton Airport Pavement Upgrade Project will deliver asphalt resurfacing to the main runway, as well as surface enrichment to the taxiways, runway shoulders and both the military and regular public transport aprons. It is not glamorous, but it will reduce the impact of flood enclosures and reduce the clean-up costs, protecting jobs and economic growth during and after flooding disasters.
The Rockhampton airport is a major gateway for the wider region, providing key labour and goods supply-chain linkages and other services for sectors, including transport and logistics, tourism, health and emergency services, defence and agriculture. This project will address significant constraints to job creation, commercial investment and economic growth in Capricornia immediately and for the long term. The upgrade will reduce closure times during flood events, reducing investment risk and allowing for growth and diversification of the economy. The airport upgrade will significantly reduce closure from flood events by 8.5 days, saving the economy around $6.29 million, based on the 2016 figures, creating 27 jobs and delivering incremental benefits of $22.9 million to the economy over 15 years. The efficiency of emergency air services like the Royal Flying Doctor Service, Angel Flight and CQ helicopter services based at the airport are vital during natural disaster events, and these services are disrupted during post-disaster closures.
We will also see increases in efficiency of airport operations for both service delivery and operating efficiency, negating the need for ongoing surface enrichment treatments that are disruptive to airport operations. Councillor Neil Fisher from Rockhampton Regional Council fought long and hard for this project, so it's great to see that it's being delivered. A long-time advocate of improving airport infrastructure, Councillor Fisher said, 'This project is a game changer.' It will enable the airport to reopen faster after future inundation events as well as improve surface resilience to accommodate forecast increases in military activity. Finally, it will support future heavy air freight traffic growth associated with the Galilee Basin, the Bowen Basin and agriculture exports. I wholeheartedly commend the federal government for working with council on this project and delivering this fund.
Our local councils understand the benefits of bricks and mortar infrastructure and the potential this creates for the economy. Rookwood Weir has been described as another game changer for Central Queensland. It has the potential to create 2,100 new local jobs in the region as well as doubling farming output along the Fitzroy River. The Fitzroy catchment is the largest river system draining to Australia's east coast. The future potential from this weir cannot be underestimated. Rookwood has the potential to double agricultural production in the Fitzroy corridor from $1 billion to $2 billion, increasing additional services and secondary industries in the area by three times the current size. That's thousands of potential jobs and investment flowing straight past Rockhampton's door. Rockhampton, Gladstone and Livingston shires all need the weirs to secure a stable water supply as urban and industrial development continues to grow.
According to Growing Central Queensland, the group charged with investigating the projects, Rookwood represents a once-in-a-generation opportunity to build water infrastructure in Central Queensland. In terms of economic potential, northern Australia is really our nation's next pioneer frontier and, in terms of location, northern Australia starts from the Tropic of Capricorn. This makes Rockhampton a new gateway to northern Australia—a fact that we should be highly promoting. The federal government's white paper on agricultural competitiveness endorses the need for water infrastructure in northern Australia through a $500 million National Water Infrastructure Development Fund.
In a further sign of the growth potential for regional Australia, farm production is forecast to leap 8.3 per cent during this financial year. The Turnbull-Joyce government has committed $2 million to the business case. It has completed EPBC approvals and has committed $130 million towards construction. All that remains for this game-changing project is commitment from the Queensland state government, who have been sitting on the business case for nearly 18 months. Central Queensland will be ripe for investment in agriculture, so now is the ideal time to investigate opportunities.
I'm also looking forward to seeing council's plans to create an international export hub at Rockhampton airport. It's great to see that council is recognising the huge potential of agriculture exports, and this is a testament to the growth that can be expected with the construction of Rookwood Weir. With a robust business case and sound economic management, Rockhampton airport could be well positioned to transition into international operations, particularly given that it already acts as a temporary international airport when troops fly in for exercises. My electorate of Capricornia is also welcoming the growth opportunities that will arise from the expansion of Shoalwater Bay, a project made possible by the Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement. Local businesses are working together to maximise the benefits and are developing clusters so that they can compete for contracts. All these projects lay the groundwork for a thriving economy secured by its diversity. With the right infrastructure, Central Queensland is poised for significant growth in agriculture, mining, tourism, aged care and logistics. By building the right infrastructure, securing the right agreements and making business easier, we are creating an environment where the free market can thrive.
I thank my colleagues for supporting business development through infrastructure and trade, and I thank the business community of Capricornia for driving these opportunities forward.
A division having been called in the House of Representatives—
Sitting suspended from 18:44 to 19:08
I rise in this debate to raise my concerns about a lack of ongoing investment by the Turnbull government into the outer suburbs of Australia's major cities—in particular, the rapidly growing south-eastern suburbs of Melbourne in my electorate of Holt. In the Casey region of my electorate, we are home to one of the fastest-growing areas in Australia. In fact, we've been nominated as having one of the fastest-growing suburbs, which is Cranbourne East. There is enormous population growth occurring in these outer suburbs. One of the key issues that we have identified is that social infrastructure—I use the term 'social infrastructure' in terms of essential services and services for the wellbeing of people—like the NBN and the building of new roads is not keeping up with this population growth.
The City of Casey has a population of 311,000 people, as we speak, as I understand it, and, in the next 20 to 30 years, will have a population that's the same size as Canberra. This is a rapidly-growing area. It's continued to grow and it does have major issues with connectivity in terms of roads and in terms of the internet.
We have just distributed a survey to our residents and one of the issues was the NBN in my area. One of the key things from the feedback was people asking: 'When are we going to get access to this particular service?' Each week my office gets many queries about the lack of, for example, ADSL broadband services to homes in Cranbourne, Clyde, Narre Warren South and Lynbrook. People only have access to the wireless internet and so not only are they not getting NBN but they are getting a substandard service they have to pay a lot for to access the internet. Given it's the 21st century and the number of businesses in my constituency, particularly in areas like Hallam—where we have world-leading companies working on LED lighting, for example, that sell to the rest of the world—they need access to the internet speeds that NBN would bring them.
In Holt, according to the latest figures provided by NBN Co, we have just over 12,000 homes and businesses connected to the NBN. Whilst the rollout will increase later this year, it's still the case that the Turnbull government can't ensure that over 55,000 homes and businesses will be connected by 2019. As a classic example of this, I've recently been working with residents in the Belmond on Clyde estate who didn't have access to a phone or the internet or mobile phone services, in some cases for five months. The estate is right next to the fastest-growing area in Australia. It's somewhere in the order of 43 or 44 kilometres away from the Melbourne city centre. We're not talking about outer rural areas; we are talking about outer suburban areas. I am pleased the residents in the Belmond on Clyde estate now have access to the NBN. We had to campaign heavily. It's a tribute to the residents there that they campaigned, appeared in an article in The Age and brought forward the installation date of the NBN. However, notwithstanding that, they still don't have access to a reliable mobile phone service. A new mobile phone tower still needs to be built to keep up with the population growth, but it hasn't been installed as yet. When you go into that estate, you're struggling with mobile phone services. Given we're right in the centre of one of the fastest-growing areas in Australia and the fastest-growing suburb is Cranbourne East, it is very concerning they can't get access to what I call essential services. They are essential services.
In the end it is not an unreasonable ask that the NBN rollout needs to be sped up, particularly in the suburbs my constituency covers, in order to provide a fast and reliable broadband service that residents and students and businesses need. Because it's going to be the crucible of a lot of social and economic growth in Melbourne over the next 20 to 30 years, the fact that it doesn't have these essential services—even things like access to mobile phone services—is not acceptable.
Another grievance for many families in Holt, particularly from our survey, is the issue of ongoing congestion on roads in the Casey region. Residents spend way too much time in traffic on the Monash Freeway, South Gippsland Highway, Clyde Road and Thompsons Road, to name a few. Driving on these roads and speaking to people who drive on these roads, I remain absolutely committed to campaigning for extra funding to ease the congestion. The trouble is that all these housing estates are being constructed and there are a lot of great young people and families shifting into this area to create a home and a future for themselves and their kids—they have access to a local school—but, when they hop on the road to get out of the estate to transit to their employment or elsewhere, the roads are insufficient to cope with the growth. One major road to be completed in my constituency is Thompsons Road in Cranbourne. During the 2016 federal election, I was absolutely delighted that Labor committed to investing $85 million in funding Thompsons Road, which would have duplicated high-volume sections of Thompsons Road to six lanes and upgraded the intersections to the Frankston-Dandenong Road and the Narre Warren-Cranbourne Road.
At present, it is only the Victorian Labor government that is showing any commitment to easing the traffic congestion on Thompsons Road. The Andrews Labor government has started stage 1 construction of Thompsons Road through investing $175 million on removing a level crossing and building a six-lane carriage over the Cranbourne railway line. According to the Victorian government, stage 2 upgrade works will widen Thompsons Road from Frankston-Dandenong Road to Marriott Boulevard, and from Narre Warren-Cranbourne Road to Berwick Cranbourne Road. A key part of the Thompsons Road project is, in fact, an overpass that should be built over the Western Port Highway. There is no funding for that. That's where part of that $85 million was going to go. That hasn't been invested. Again, I call upon the federal Turnbull government to actually provide that funding to ensure that that essential piece of the puzzle for Thompsons Road is completed.
Another area that I am closely associated with, particularly through my work with young veterans, is the way in which we continue to treat our veterans after their years of service in this country. As pointed out in Ruth Lambert's article The war within last year, more than 40 military personnel and veterans were found to have taken their life last year—roughly the same figure as the number of Australians killed in Afghanistan during 13 years of war. It's very clear in talking to and working with the veteran community in my area that a number are battling very serious mental health issues. I believe that it's vital that we do all we can to listen to their concerns and provide more support in times of need.
I wish to commend the National Mental Health Commission for releasing in March 2017 a review of suicide and self-harm by veterans and members of the Australian Defence Force. The National Mental Health Commission report heard from more than 3,200 people. It found that when our service personnel are serving they are 50 per cent less likely to commit suicide, according to the information provided, than those of the same age who weren't in the Australian Defence Force but that, after they come out of the ADF, their risk of suicide dramatically increases. The report recommended the government improve support for young veterans who have left the service in the past five years and could be it risk of suicide and self-harm. I certainly commend the Minister for Veterans' Affairs' plan to invest $350 million as a result of this report. In a bipartisan way, having worked with Minister Tehan when he was chair of the intelligence and security committee, I know that he is fully committed to ensuring that the government will do the best that it can do in assisting with veterans' mental health needs.
In the time remaining, I would like to talk about the young veterans, particularly in my area—without naming them—who do a lot of work to look after their fellow service men and women, particularly those who been in theatres of conflict. It's amazing when you are dealing with someone sitting in your office, who could be someone out of a movie, I guess you could say, in terms of his looks, his physique, his manner and his wellbeing, and know that that same person is at very high risk of suicide, even sitting in your office, and that that person can't drive a car and can't leave his home because of the severity of his PTSD symptoms. I commend the work that the young veterans are doing in my area to assist with these troubling cases. There will be many more that we will have to deal with. They went overseas to provide a way of life and freedom for us, and we owe it to them to do our utmost to look after them when they come back to this country.
One of the great privileges of being in here in the nation's capital and the nation's parliament is that we can often cast our eye over the performance of the relative states and territories. While Queensland, my home state, is a proud, parochial, large and disperse state population wise, things haven't been going so well in the last couple of years. The state of Queensland has slipped to No. 5 in the State of the states report by the Commonwealth Bank. While I congratulate Tasmania—if for no other reason than having a Liberal government—moving in front of Queensland, it's quite foreign for Queensland to regard itself as a state that isn't leading the nation. We regularly touch up your state in State of Origin, you would recall, Deputy Speaker Coulton. We proudly have more crocodiles than the Northern Territory. We have a more profitable commodity sector than WA. So coming fifth out of eighth isn't a pretty picture. It is incumbent on the government of the day to be sorting that out. My great frustration is that that's just not the case.
The Queensland Labor government is focused on employing more and more public servants and it has become an increasing part of the state budget, which is a great concern. In my city, one very close to Brisbane City Council, unemployment in the last two years has gone from five per cent to seven per cent. That's a massive concern when you have a state Labor government obviously soaking up some of that unemployment in public service positions, but ultimately you can't keep funding a growing public service. It's worth comparing that with New South Wales, which actually reports each quarter its decline in the size of its public service. Queensland now has an even larger per capita public service than New South Wales—and New South Wales reports that proudly with a great big bar graph. Queensland of course doesn't report it because it's all bad news. You can keep employing public servants but that's never a solution to unemployment. What you need to do is activate the private sector and activate the economy, not just watch on as a stunned, paralysed observer who's frozen at the wheel.
We saw last week's decision, which the Queensland Labor government celebrated proudly, to hand a 30 per cent advantage to Queensland firms when they were tendering for government work. That sounds like protecting jobs for Queenslanders—according to a Labor government of whom almost none have studied economics—but, self-evidently, if you start providing your own domestic providers a 30 per cent advantage, you are by definition disadvantaging by the same percentage of providers from other states and territories and even those from overseas who are going to tender for government work. If we start seeing this as a reverse 30 per cent tax on Queensland, ultimately if your state were to do this to Queensland, it would be a diabolical situation. It wouldn't save any jobs at all. It would have the reverse effect. So Queensland's very short-sighted decision in thinking that they're giving a leg up to their own domestic firms is actually hurting them with the risk of reciprocation and other states doing precisely what we are doing to them. It brings us back to that golden rule: don't do unto others that which you wouldn't want to see done to yourself.
So in Queensland we have seen, first of all, a real lack of focus on inspiring the private sector. Secondly, we are not seeing a lot of investment in roads infrastructure, at the expense of public transport. In my city we now have three new bus stops but there has been almost no road work in the last three years. You have to almost be in denial not to understand just how irrationally connected all of us are to driving our motor vehicles. Let me just say one very, very simple thing: bus stops will not decongest our roads. You're simply building a bigger, fancier one for more millions of dollars, but it is not changing the public transport experience, unless in public transport you have a dedicated lane, expressways or something that reduces the transit time. Quite simply, bus stops alone are not going to do it. I'm deeply concerned about where Queensland Labor is heading in that respect.
Lastly, I'd note that, in my city, they've just succeeded in reviewing the SEQ regional plan. They have removed from the footprint a large 80-hectare area of Commonwealth space which has been transferred to council. When that's transferred, we can initiate a conversation about how to use that land. Labor has removed it from the footprint—effectively closing off every use of 80 hectares, of which nearly half is already cleared fields, with the remaining half utterly koala and bushland protected. But we can't have a discussion about a university, a convention centre or a major piece of infrastructure because of this very short-sighted removal from the urban footprint.
This land, close to a large city, is incredibly valuable. We had a consultation period where all of the Labor MPs said nothing. The consultation period closed. There were four months and the report was written and was about to be sent to the printers, and the Labor MP, I believe, was tipped off by the minister to start a petition to save the bushland. And 44 days later, with no further conversation about this topic, it vanished from the plan. That may well be a political game that might suit the interests of a Labor member chasing Green preferences but it does long-term harm to the ability of a great city like Redland to secure a major piece of regional infrastructure that can attract economic activity to my city.
I rise tonight to talk about equity in this country and to share with the Chamber a situation that is occurring in Melbourne at the moment that absolutely exemplifies the proposition from Labor around equity. We know that wages growth has slowed to nearly nothing while profits have risen. We know that this is a concern. Labor continues to raise this concern. I received an email today from Donna Fredis who lives in the electorate of Lalor. She is a resident and a community member of my electorate. In her email she said: 'Thank you for taking the time to read my email. I'm not sure if you're aware the Dorevitch Pathology staff are on strike at the moment.' This is a resident in my electorate living the reality where an EBA has been allowed to be out of sync for years. The last EBA was signed 10 years ago. We've all been to pathology to have our blood taken, but people who take your blood at Dorevitch are now on strike because they cannot get a negotiated outcome on the ground. The Health Workers Union represent these workers and they're doing a terrific job. For the record, people should understand that 89 union members were locked out by Dorevitch Pathology on Monday, 7 August, in retaliation to a 500-member, 24-hour, protected stop-work action. Locked out members are not able to return to work and are currently not being paid.
This goes to the heart of what Labor is continually saying in this place. We have an equity issue. We have a system whereby unions, through collective bargaining, represent workers to negotiate a positive outcome. We know wages growth is low. We've had people in the establishment calling for wage growth. Here we have the classic case on the ground, with a union ready to negotiate in good faith, and what do they hear in terms of that negotiation? They hear from the CEO of Dorevitch, in a negotiation, that he doesn't have time for this and then he walked out. There was an offer put on the table of a zero per cent pay increase. They have an EBA that's 10 years old and zero per cent was put on the table. This is outrageous. These people are working for $21 an hour. Let's look at who else works for $21 an hour. These are the people who are taking our blood at pathology centres. Those who work for Dorevitch are the lowest paid people in the country doing this work. An IGA cashier earns $22.17 an hour. A grocery store stock clerk earns $23 an hour. The average salary for a cleaner is about $20 an hour. They receive a lower amount. Dorevitch staff have been offered zero. This is an outrage. On top of that, the workers have been locked out. These people need to be at work.
I call on Dorevitch to get to the table, get these negotiations done and find a fair settlement. I want to commend the HWU on their actions to protect workers and do these negotiations. I want to see companies in this country acknowledge that we have an equity issue, do their share and pull their weight to ensure that negotiations occur. They should not wait until something has been out of date for six years before they get to the table. We need unions in this country. The pendulum has swung too far. If we need wage growth, we need our unions on the ground, acting in a collective way and acting for our workers.
F ederation Chamber adjourned at 19 : 28